Nikon bodies with autofocus motors - best value second-hand?

abdoujaparov

abdoujaparov

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,717
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
Yes
A friend had loaned me his Nikon F601, along with an AF 50mm 1.4D, an AF 24mm 2.8D, and a Tokina zoom, with the idea that I buy them from him at some point. I told him the lenses were way too good for me and my new film obsession, and that he should put them on eBay, but he was quite insistent on doing me a "nice deal" on them, and who am I to argue?

So, I've been putting a roll of film through it (not processed it yet) but it occurs to me that I should buy a second-hand Nikon digital body too, to replace my GF1 (I've never been happy with the lack of viewfinder on that). I have an x100 for my travelling-light needs, and I'd like to at least own a DSLR before getting fed up with carrying one around :P

So, could you recommend the best value second-hand Nikon body that has an auto-focus motor, please? I'm not bothered about video, FPS, pro features. I would like decent highish ISO performance - not impressed with my GF1 at 800, let alone 1600. I'm not a megapixel fetishist, but I have printed a couple of shots from my GF1 at 40x30, so whatever's recommended for that is the minimum.

So, can it be done for less than £300?

Cheers!
 
Simple. D90 or D300.

Had both, d90 is a great camera, 800 iso fine, 1600 is ok, less than £300. Personally the d300 is the best value camera. Around £300, maybe a up to £350 but better AF, great build quality and simply brilliant.
 
I'd put a bit more for the D7000, absolute bargain and a camera you will be happy with the high ISO performance, plus it's a camera you will not need to upgrade from unless you want something specific in the future that it doesn't do.
 
Try a D80. My daughter loves here's. And only cost me about £100 for a low use example. Nice and light, and has the AF drive motor in the body.
 
A D90 hands down. You'll get one on eBay for 250. The same sensor as the D300, great build quality and feels like a proper camera rather than a toy.
 
Yes, another vote for the D90. D80 is also good but the iso performance is not as good as the D90.
 
D300, unbeatable value now, excellent build quality, features, image quality and a joy to use.
 
Cheap as chips, D50 or D70(s). Limited pixel count (6.1MP) and not ideal over 800 ISO but very inexpensive. Personally, I would skip the D200, poor high ISO performance. D300 would be my choice of crop bodies, although I would rather have an FF body, with a D700 probably being the pick of the bunch in terms of VFM.
 
Another vote for the D90 over the D300, given what you've said.

HOWEVER, there is a D7000 for sale on here for £325 or something close to that I think.
 
Fuji S3, cheaper than all the Nikons, better ISO performance than your m4/3 gear by miles but won't match the resolution.
 
The only camera I'd truly consider for decent high ISO performance, out of all the ones mentioned so far, is the D7000. The D90 is good, but the D7000 offers a real improvement in high ISO performance over it.

Also bear in mind, that because all these cameras are APS-C size rather than full frame, the equivalent field of view for those lenses becomes different to how they were on your F-601. So your 24mm becomes a ~36mm (basically it becomes identical to the focal length of the X100) etc. - it's called crop factor.
 
freecom2 said:
The only camera I'd truly consider for decent high ISO performance, out of all the ones mentioned so far, is the D7000. The D90 is good, but the D7000 offers a real improvement in high ISO performance over it.

Also bear in mind, that because all these cameras are APS-C size rather than full frame, the equivalent field of view for those lenses becomes different to how they were on your F-601. So your 24mm becomes a ~36mm (basically it becomes identical to the focal length of the X100) etc. - it's called crop factor.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is marginally better at high ISO, but the buffer shooting RAW is appalling. If you shoot bursts or any kind of action you will hate the D7000 - I did. The other thing about it is that the AE-L/AF-L button is really close to the viewfinder which makes it horrible to back button focus with if you're left eye dominant.
 
Nod said:
Cheap as chips, D50 or D70(s). Limited pixel count (6.1MP) and not ideal over 800 ISO but very inexpensive. Personally, I would skip the D200, poor high ISO performance. D300 would be my choice of crop bodies, although I would rather have an FF body, with a D700 probably being the pick of the bunch in terms of VFM.
Click to expand...

If you can find me a D700 under 300 notes I'm in!
 
The23rdman said:
Yes, it is marginally better at high ISO, but the buffer shooting RAW is appalling. If you shoot bursts or any kind of action you will hate the D7000 - I did. The other thing about it is that the AE-L/AF-L button is really close to the viewfinder which makes it horrible to back button focus with if you're left eye dominant.
Click to expand...

Absolutely - although OP said he doesn't care for those sorts of things anyway.
 
freecom2 said:
Absolutely - although OP said he doesn't care for those sorts of things anyway.
Click to expand...

All good then... except the budget was £300 and people always forget that and say, "well, if you could just spend a leeeeetle more, this camera is awesome and only £32300!"
 
The23rdman said:
All good then... except the budget was £300 and people always forget that and say, "well, if you could just spend a leeeeetle more, this camera is awesome and only £32300!"
Click to expand...

True - I think the realistic options are D90 (in budget, high ISO performance is so-so), or D7000 (over budget, satisfactory high ISO performance). I don't think we are quite at the stage where £300 buys you truly clean ISO 1600 files yet (for a second-hand Nikon DSLR with an AF motor, before anyone starts chucking suggestions).
 
I've long realised that in most situations the quality of file from a D90 ish sensor is plenty good enough at ISO 1600. For me, if I'm at that level I'll almost always be augmenting with flash anyway.
 
The23rdman said:
If you can find me a D700 under 300 notes I'm in!
Click to expand...

If I'd seen one for that, I would have bought it! My suggestion was what my choice would be given my budget.
 
Nod said:
If I'd seen one for that, I would have bought it! My suggestion was what my choice would be given my budget.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Best camera I've ever used.
 
Wow, lots of replies - thank you, everybody!

No, sports isn't at all an issue for me. I'd quite like to take a few photos of cricket or rugby some day, but I can't see myself doing it more than once or twice.

Looks like opinions are split on the D90 and D7000, with the D300 a winner on the AF I'm not so bothered about. I need to sell my GF1 first anyway, so I have time to think about it, but I might just keep an eye out on the forums/eBay for the best bargain I can find on a D90 or a D7000.

Thanks again, I really appreciate it.
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
0.3 stop better isn't "Much" better though, that's my point...
Click to expand...
+1. D90 is always knocked v D7000 and almost no 'real-world' difference actually exists. With regard to original post, D90.
 
I bought my D7000 for £320 delivered on ebay approx 6 months ago. It's in great condition and ok on the shutter count too. You just need to find the ones you like and bid your max and hope. I bid on about 20 before I finally got one.
 
Thanks again to everybody who replied. After a couple of weeks of analysing, dithering, mind-changing and scouring of eBay, I ordered a D90 from Gray's of Westminster this morning. £219, which was a pretty keen price I think. 13k actuations, so not too bad, and a 12 month guarantee.

Cheers!
 
abdoujaparov said:
Thanks again to everybody who replied. After a couple of weeks of analysing, dithering, mind-changing and scouring of eBay, I ordered a D90 from Gray's of Westminster this morning. £219, which was a pretty keen price I think. 13k actuations, so not too bad, and a 12 month guarantee.

Cheers!
Click to expand...

Well done that sounds like a good deal. I'm sure you will be happy with it. I look forward to seeing your pictures on here :)
 
Personally as an owner I have been constantly dissapointed with the D300 was so dissapointing for me coming from an S3, I wouldn't suggest it to anyone - (mine has shot 150,000 frames and thankfully now, 4.5 years, on I can retire it) ... Yeah it's fast and the AF is impressive, but it was is noisey as hell, for me anything above 400iso was not pretty ... It's built very well , and some will see this as attractive - but overall it's been the least rewarding of my 3 DSLRs ...

glad it stopped being considered!!
 
You were constantly disappointed with it yet you kept it for 4 1/2 years and took over 100,00 shots ? :thinking:
 
150000 to be exact.

click-crap-click-crap-click-crap- - - 149997 times :p
 
Hated the D90 I used (borrowed), Hated the D7000 less... for best/cheap/used I'd say the D7000. I owned the D200 and D300 and the 300 was good for it's time, but the D7000 is better.
Be advised that the D7000 is a demanding camera (on lenses/technique/etc).
The D90 is missing a lot of features I use like AF delay setting and it's overall performance is just dated...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top