Get a new Lens for Nikon D200, or Go to a four thirds camera and which one?

[toast]

Hi Everyone,

I've been using my Nokia Lumia 920 extensively now and wanted to add a camera for those longer shots where anything not close or midrange all but disappears on the 920's tiny fixed lens. The Panasonic Lumix four-thirds cameras seem to offer the best capability in a tiny and easy to whip-out package that is in a similar use-case as a smartphone. Albeit, with the ability to change lenses and use a longer lens.

Budget could be as much as $1000 AUD if the camera was really going to give a lot of capability and ease of use, etc. Otherwise, looking to spend around $600-$700 on a body and one excellent lens for those situations where the 920 just doesn't cut it (longer midrange and landscape).

The other option I have is to buy a couple of good lenses for my D200. But, that camera isn't going to be something I carry around with me all the time like I do with my smartphone and could do with a four-thirds. I'll be travelling for the next six months (at least) and would prefer to capture opportunities as they can present themselves at any time.

Cheers,
Nick

[old dog]

I`d be very tempted to buy a new D7000 for that sort of money. I have one and it`s a really good camera. It would have better iso performance that the 200.

[toast]

Cheers, Old Dog :)

I just checked out the D7000 and yeah I would have to agree that it is a good camera to consider right now. However, it is still fairly large and this puts it in a different category I think. I certainly wouldn't be able to carry it on me whenever I went out. Although, it would give me the best flexibility when actually on me, of course.

What lens would you recommend with that D7000, for mid to long ranges? OIS and VR Nikon, of course! I just want one lens on this trip.

Cheers,
Nick

- - - Updated - - -

Hmm, D7000 is around the $1100 mark for body only. Putting it still in a different category.

[ameerat42]

Sounds like you might be after something of the likes of 17-200, though on a crop sensor, and if you do
interior shots of cathedrals and things - depending where you travel - even 17 may not be all that wide.

It should do for landscapes, though, and the longer end would help bring in those distant objects that your Lumia 920 can't reach :o
Am.

[old dog]

I have a 17-55 nikon lens that rarely comes off the camera. I did the Milford track 3 yrs ago and had it on my D80...only lens I took and there wasn`t a lot that I missed because of that choice. A little heavy but definitely worth it. Will be hard to part with it if I go FF..probably won`t though. Got mine s/h...no problems so far. Hard choice for you. I am still ..after almost 12 months...considering a Fuji X-E1 or Sony Nex5 as a travel jobby but I would find it hard to not take the 7K and 17-55. Best of luck...

[ameerat42]

(PS: And Toast, what are your location, edit permissions, and skill level?)

[swifty]

I think you might mean micro 4/3 (m43) as oppose to regular 4/3.
If you really wanted compact, then the removal of the mirror in the micro 4/3 standard would be a better option than regular 4/3, which is a DSLR. Unfortunately as far as I know, no more cameras will be manufactured for regular 4/3.

Back to m43, the current smallest implementation is the Panasonic GM1 with a 12-32mm pancake zoom, or one of the small pancake lenses.
Arguably portable depending on what sort of pockets you're referring to, but as soon as you add a tele lens, its definitely no longer a pocket camera.

Another option you have since you have existing Nikon gear is the Nikon 1 (CX) range. They'll take your existing Nikon lenses via an adapter and due to the sensor size, apply a 2.7X crop meaning even most normal lenses will start having the field of view of a short/moderate telephoto lens.