What do you think is one of the best Discontinued Nikon DSLR's?

[keyboardlover]

Thinking about picking up a used or refurb. discontinued Nikon DSLR (body only) to put my Macro lens on.

Any suggestions? Looking to spend <= $500.

[mkawa]

macro? possibly the d2x unless you do cray cray high dof macro and need better high iso

[mkawa]

also consult thon hogan's entire site

[keyboardlover]

Not seeing a D2X body less than $800...

[laffindude]

If you're only going to use it for macro, a lot of the stuff on higher end bodies don't really matter. You don't need the high flash sync speed, don't need huge amount of autofocus points (you'd probably do manual anyways). I'd see if anyone is dumping their D5100. Newer sensor in a lower end body is probably better than getting something older and have features you don't need. I'd also put an infrared remote on the shopping list too.

[mkawa]

d2xs are ancient and should actually be cheaper than d5100s at this point

thom hogan has this theory that the d2x has the best theoretical resolution of all the 1-14mp nikon APS sensors but i assumed they were selling for 4-500 at this point when i recommended it.

the cheapest modern body i've found are the refurbed d3100s that cameta sells on ebay. (350 for the d7000 sensor). that could very well be the best choice otherwise.

[laffindude]

It is D5100 that has the same/similar sensor as D7000.

[shawn o]

For bargain  body with no focus motor: D40 or D40x.

For bargain with built in focus motor: D50/D70/D80/D90.

[mkawa]

It is D5100 that has the same/similar sensor as D7000.

oh right, sorry, for some reason i thought the d7k sensor was 14mp

[keyboardlover]

For bargain  body with no focus motor: D40 or D40x.

For bargain with built in focus motor: D50/D70/D80/D90.

Thanks! I think I will go with one of those.

Very helpful post and you used correct spelling, unlike the moderators here.

[captain]

You said that you want it for macro, so getting a smaller sensor will actually give you MORE zoom.  e.g. a 50mm looks like an 85mm on a 3/4 chip.  D300 is the lowest end of the Nikons I would get, but if you don't mind the headaches a D70 will do, just watch out for the ones with "problems".  Read kenrockwell.com to get the skinny on that--the fish are eating those brain cells as I type.  What was the question?

[keyb_gr]

Not sure whether I'd still consider something like a D70 at this point. That old 6 MP CCD (!) sensor is really long in the tooth by now and does not give anywhere near SOTA performance. A D90 still is pretty good though (and actually still in production). Something I noticed on both the D90 and D5100, however, is that the viewfinder diopter adjustment range appears rather tight and would be inadequate for me (-3 dpt or so). Not sure whether that's a Nikon thing... but IIRC this wasn't the case on the D7000.

[keyboardlover]

Thanks...I still haven't made a decision yet.

[N8N]

I'm watching this thread with interest as I have almost the exact same question...

Now to throw another thought into the mix.  I'm thinking that I would really not want a DX-format body but a FX-format body, reason being that then I could use old Nikon film camera lenses (knowing that I would be giving up AF etc.) that presumably can be picked up less expensively at yard sales, eBay, etc. to give more options.  Is that a really valid point, or should I not be so prejudiced against DX?  (and yes, I've spent way too much time reading Ken Rockwell's site but did not purchase anything because I needed a vehicle, so spent the money on an old Jeep instead...)

[keyboardlover]

I'm also considering selling my macro lens and just buying one of the better "new" Nikons... :\

[laffindude]

Now to throw another thought into the mix.  I'm thinking that I would really not want a DX-format body but a FX-format body, reason being that then I could use old Nikon film camera lenses (knowing that I would be giving up AF etc.) that presumably can be picked up less expensively at yard sales, eBay, etc. to give more options.  Is that a really valid point, or should I not be so prejudiced against DX?  (and yes, I've spent way too much time reading Ken Rockwell's site but did not purchase anything because I needed a vehicle, so spent the money on an old Jeep instead...)

DX body have no problem using film era lenses. Some DX body still has the screw drive for AF, so you don't necessarily give up AF either. Get FX only if you need the extra DoF control. Of course, buy what you want. You'll be happier that way.

[mkawa]

"old film lenses" are not cheap. you're not going to find great lenses at your local yard sale, either. pick up a dx body, the kit lens and the 55-200vr. if you're comfortable getting refurbished, pick up one of the refurb packages on cameta's ebay store. that should get you pretty much set. if you find that you need to do more low-light shooting, pick up the 35 1.8g

the bottom line is that DX is where you should go for cost effectiveness. FX is great for specific types of photography, (wide angle with high control over depth of field, very low light, etc) but not a good general purpose choice. keep in mind that, currently, the cheapest FX body is the d700, which goes for about 1800$ used, whereas the cheapest DX body is the d3000, which is 340$ refurbed with a kit lens. oh, and want a midrange zoom for that d700? the cheapest is the 24-120vr at 1k$ used, but most people just get the 24-70 (1600 used).