My sister in law is looking for a dslr plus at least one versatile lens. Since she has access to some old manual focus nikon glass, she is leaning towrd the nikon camp. Budget is around $2k. I so 'r know the nikon line up, so any input is greatly appreciated. Fwiw , fps isn't a major factor.

What is the next body up from the d90?

 

next in the lineup would be the D300...and you can get that for under $2k...probably around $1500 or so, which gives plenty of room for a nice lens too...

or, she could go for the D300S for $1700 and still get a decent lens...

 

A D90 and the 18-200 would be all she needs.

 

I agree with jup the d300 is nice but how crazy do you think she will go since the 90 is a smaller body and she will probably need some time to learn the dslr body.

 

how interested is she in it, I mean has she been taking pictures for a while with other cams, or is it like, one day she felt like she was interested. If she is interested in progressing with it and focusing on it I would have to suggest D300 or the s, and she can start out with a simpler lens to keep it around $2k. (And then as she progresses get a better one later). If she just wants to have a DSLR to take some nice looking photos casually, D90.

 

You can't find the 300 new anywhere now, if you do they are asking too much or more than the 300s.

 

She actually has a pretty strong interest in photography - might even go back to school to study it more. She also has some film background. We might have to stop by a store so she can hold them since that might be a major factor, too.

What does the 18-200 run?

 

about $800 on amazon.com I used it for the Rockettes images.

 

yeah I thought about that. The D300s goes for $1499, a $400-500 lens on top of that gives you a lot to work with, for starting out (imo). I just think given she has an extraordinary interest in it, it would be better to start there than get a D90 and then later want something else. The D300s has some serious shelf-life. And, she can get a better lens later on.

 

The 300 has more fps, pro AF, better bracketing, weather sealed. The 300s has SD and CF slots. The D90 is a little bit better in IQ, smaller and a little lighter, with still having the basic controls as the D300 and such. D90 and 300s have video.

 

I'd stick with the d90 at first the d300 is a bit heavy, and my friends complain about it.

The d300 will be the better solution if your more of a outdoor person not afraid to let it get rained on or snowed on.

If your not as daring you can safe a bit money with the d90.

 

We're going to take her to a store to hold and play with a few models. That will probably be a huge factor in the decision.

 

Would I be correct in assuming that if one gets the 18-200, there would be no real need for the 18-105, or is the 18-105 still worth having?

Is one lens better than the other? I see that they are both AF-S, have VR (the 18-200 had VR II?) and the same aperture ranges. Other than focal length, are there any significant differences?

 

The 18-200 is a much better lens.

 

So better quality and more versatile. Sounds like a winner.

She still needs to hold the bodies, but it sound slike the d90 + 18-200 should do the trick. Amazon has them for ~$1300 for both, including a $250 instant rebate.

 

If the D90 is decided and you need a book. I suggest this one, a friend and teacher of mine.

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-D90-Digi...1517087&sr=1-7

 

Screw it. That is what she is getting, along with the book. Thanks, Jup! If she doesn't like it, at least she will be halfway around the world and i won't have to deal with it.