Help needed in getting a second body.

[smallfooties]

Hi all,
Just a quick question.
If you had the opportunity to get a second body, would you get the same brand as your first or get a different brand?
Thanks kindly.

[Tannin]

Same brand.

Can you imagine how frustrating it would be if (e.g) you bought a 7D and a 100-400 and then your D200 failed? You couldn't use any of your lenses until your other camera came back! I have often thought of getting a 200-400/4 VR and a D300, but it would be a really silly move, unless I wanted to start transitioning to an all-Nikon setup, which I don't.

I have frequently had gear fail on me while in the field- always camera bodies, almost never a lens - and always had a backup body. I had a Nikon fail in the Top End in 2003, finished the trip with the other one. I had another Nikon fail on outback WA in 2004, in that case, due to the nature of the fault, I was able to swap the two cameras over and continue the trip. In 2005 the same camera failed again, in Tasmania this time, but my other camera by then was a Canon and I didn't have a long lens to suit it, so the birding was off and I had to go home early. The next time something went wrong was 2006 in NSW when I dropped my 500mm lens. (sad!) It needed repair, but I was able to continue the trip with my two 20Ds and the 100-400, got the lens fixed in Sydney a month or so later. 2007 in Victoria my favourite 20D blew a shutter (not a failure as such, just worn out) but I had the other one and could continue. 2008 it was a 40D in South Australia. No problem, I had two other Canons to fall back on. 2010 it was the 7D which, it turns out, is only weatherproof up to a point. I switched to the 1D III and carried on. After the 7D dried out (not easy in that climate!) it was fine again.

OK, I do outback trips and work in extremes of heat, cold, wet, so my gear can fail more often than usual and I'm days away from shops, but the point remains: a backup camera isn't really a backup unless it uses the same lenses. (Or unless you want to cart two of absolutely everything around with you.) Same batteries is a bonus if you can manage that.

[smallfooties]

Thanks Tony,
It's only cos people i know have bought different brands... so i was wondering what the rationale is behind it...
I am thinking of a second body and with tax returns coming soon... i was just wondering which way to go...
i've seen what the pentax can do which my D200 can't... but i suppose i can get the same effects with PP... so really... there isn't a dilemma...
What i'm thinking is then... should i go with a D300 or a D300s? I don't care much for the video function... unless if i did cinemagraph...which i am tempted to try... but i could easily get a cheap camcorder for that purpose...
hmm... decisions decisions... is there another model besides the D300 i should look at?
This is not the case of what the new camera can do that the D200 can't... because the D200 i find suits my needs really well... i hardly shoot at high iso settings... so the D200's noise with high iso doesn't really bother me... but it's more so... i would just like to get a more technologically updated body... that's all...

[Tannin]

Now I am out of my depth! I haven't kept up with the Nikon bodies at all these last few years. No idea what to suggest, I'm afraid. :( And everyone else in in bed. I'm still up because it's too damn cold to go to bed!

[smallfooties]

hahahaha it is too cold!!!! well... i've got my gloves, socks, trackies and a beanie on! kekeke

[fillum]

I'd certainly get the same brand as a second body. For example I'm thinking about shooting film again and considering getting a Nikon film body because my old film stuff is Oly, so can't use my Nikkors. Another issue for me would be raw processing - I like to use CaptureNX2 (Nikon) so a different (digital) brand would require a change to workflow. If you use Lightroom/ACR it's probably (?) not an issue.

The latest Nikon that would probably fit your requirements would be the D7000. I haven't taken much interest in it so can't give you specifics, but it seems to get rave reviews. It's a replacement for the D90 so the body is probably a bit smaller than your D200. I don't think it has the same dedicated buttons (WB, ISO, etc) as your D200 so might be quite different to operate, which might be an issue for you if trying to alternate between the two bodies. I think the D7000 is a few hundred $ cheaper than the D300s. Do some googling if interested - I'd think there would be plenty of D7000 vs D300s comparisons.

The D300s replacement (D400 ?) is rumoured to be announced in August but probably won't be available till several months later. Expect at least $3K. This should be state-of-the-art for crop sensor bodies so would be a great upgrade if you are willing to spend the $ (and can manage to get hold of one!). The other impact of this announcement is that the D300s should (?) come down in price and there should also be plenty of D300/D300s on the second-hand market.


Cheers.

[ricktas]

The D200 is getting to be 'old' tech now. It is quite a few years old and some of the newer models have improved dramatically over the D200. Have a look at a D300s, if you want to stick with crop sensor, or a D3 if you want to spend more and get a full frame. The D3 is probably about to be superseded, so there should be some good prices soon as they try and clear stock, or even look at a D3s if money permits.

[kiwi]

in order of cost - d7000, d300s or d90 and relegate d200 to 2nd body

[Wayne]

There really is no logical explanation for getting a 2nd body of another brand unless all of your current gear is compatible with it. Nikon lenses will mount to most Fuji pro bodies so that is one option. Nobody noted the D700 yet, so if FX, I would suggest D700 as it is cheaper, smaller, lighter than the D3 Rick noted, but it is all but a D3 apart from FPS without the optional grip. It too will soon be superseded, and they are a very popular, capable Nikon body. If DX is your thing, then D300s or D7000 would be ideal.

I have had the D700 & D3 at the same time, and I found myself almost always reaching for the D700, so last week, I sold my D3 (should have sold it 12 months back).

[James T]

If you aren't interested in high ISO, what do you feel is lacking in your D200? It's a very capable camera still used by many professionals in various fields.

The D300 is a very nice camera, if you're not interested in (the very limited) video of the D300s, then the D300 has to be a better buy than the "s".

I think you get 2 extra buttons and 1 more frame per second with the "s", oh and dual cards, but has 1 card proved a problem for you in the past?

Cinema-graphs are made from still images, so you don't need video for that.

As already mentioned, there should be a few new bodies coming out of Nikon soon, but you can wait for ever if you're always looking at the next thing..

If you want to see a difference then I think the D700 is the only sensible choice. Awesome camera, and the sensor will actually make a visible difference to you images, the next crop body in line to your D200 probably won't.

[Scotty72]

If pretty much doubling your costs is no object then, why not. However, it seems a much cheaper option to have two bodies of the same brand so you can easily chop and change whenever necessary :)

Scotty

[junqbox]

Same brand definitely. The D300s is about to be replaced, so you'll start getting some fairly hot pricing going around on them soon. Personally, as a D300 owner, I'd strongly consider going full-frame (D700), I only have one DX lens (10-24), and it will still work albeit from midway (15mmish) through the focal length, still wider than my widest lens. The grip from the D300 fits, unlike the D200 grip.

[smallfooties]

Thanks guys,
I've decided to stick with Nikon... and possibly go with the D700...
I was looking at the D2Xs too... but i think i'm more inclined to go with the D700.
Now to win that tax return lotto! hehehehe... :p

[kiwi]

Why ?

Simply if you are comparing a d2x to a d700 they are chalk and cheese so I'm wondering if you really know why you want a 2nd body ? What's driving you to consider it when you could get another lens, say a 50 1.4, even a 3rd party 24-70 etc ?

[smallfooties]

No i wasn't comparing the two of them... i just happened to look at the D2x that's all...

[swifty]

As others have said, I'd stick to the same brand if possible. Unless your same brand doesn't offer anything you want.
Just a quick example, I've been toying with the idea of a second kit for travel and I follow the mirrorless development of m43, Sony, Samsung etc. I know I'd be buying a completely new system and have to duplicate everything but Nikon just doesn't offer anything like it. Eg. an EP3, 12/25/45mm 3 prime combo pretty much duplicates my shooting style with my Nikon in a much much smaller package but of course with some trade-offs that I'd be willing to live with for the portability and weight saving.
Ask yourself, what do you need the second body for?
If you have paying clients, have something as similar as your primary body. If its a better camera then that becomes your primary body.
If you're not shooting pro.. why do you need a second body at all. If the first breaks... great!! Good excuse to go buy something else. What deadlines do you have?
If you need it for other reasons like travel... buy whatever is most suitable.

[reflect]

Stick with same brand, invest in great glass, your lenses will be with you for years, whereas bodies come and go, my tip (very biased) would be the D700, then the D7000. But once you see the full frame difference its hard to go back. Good luck, I am right a the point of buying another body, I love my D700 and am deciding whether to wait for the new bodies or get another D700/D3. Is it so exciting...you gotta love photography, cool gear, great folk, and always learning.