Is D300 MUCH better than D40?

[sabbath999]

I disagree, you'd be framing on one axis and shooting on another. Only using the center AF point will work ok if you're at f/5.6 and shooting at distance, but if you're at f/1.4 close in, no way. The eyes will be out of focus every time, it's poor shooting technique. The red line indicates what would be in focus had the photographer focused, then recomposed like what you're saying, the green line is what the photographer intended and would achieve, had he composed how he likes, and just selected the nearest AF point to whatever he wanted in focus. make sense?

Excellent explanation. That is exactly what I meant.

 

[philaphotog]

On Mike_E's tip I checked out some reviews of the D700... seems like that might also be a great choice. Anyone able to speak to the D300 versus the D700?

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I just don't see how either half-pressing the shutter and reframing or using Fn button for continuous AF start, letting go then reframing is worth $1500 difference.

YMMV.

I don't know about you, but an in-focus shot is worth the difference to me, i've done the whole focus/recompose shtick and like what sabbath said, I see the difference and it's make-or-break when you're shooting with fast lenses.

 

[Bifurcator]

And what about the fact that if you even breathe on a D40 it falls apart but you can effectively run over the D300 with a truck, pick it up, and continue shooting.

 

[Mike_E]

Ummm, there is that too.

 

[dEARlEADER]

On Mike_E's tip I checked out some reviews of the D700... seems like that might also be a great choice. Anyone able to speak to the D300 versus the D700?

again... these can be but shouldn't be compared...

your first question was to compare a $400 D40 against a $1500 D300

and now your asking to compare a $1500 D300 against a $3000 D700

next we will be comparing the D700 verses the D3

give us your body and lens budget of what you can spend within the next two years and you might get a more customized opinion of what the best value for your money would be...

 

[djacobox372]

I'm with the masses on this one, for the $$ difference between the d40 and the d300, you could buy two nice flashes and a really fast, sharp lens for your d40 that would outperform a d300 with a kit lens.

So only buy the d300 if you already maxed out your lens/flash upgrades and still aren't happy.

 

[Joves]

And what about the fact that if you even breathe on a D40 it falls apart but you can effectively run over the D300 with a truck, pick it up, and continue shooting.

Yeah I love that my D300 is built like a tank.

 

[Mike_E]

Rereading the OP Amanda already has the D40 and is looking to upgrade for professional work.

From my experience in location portraits (not tremendous but still- ) Wide without Distortion is good. And by distortion I mean from the kind you get from the short focal length lenses you have to use in someone's living room or nursery. The kind that gives you a reverse nose job.

So, if your business can can handle the expense, a full frame camera is worth strong consideration.

 

[sultan]

If you can afford it, go for the D700. If not, the D90 has the same image quality in most light. The images from the D90, D300, D700 and D3 look IDENTICAL (even to pixel peepers) at ISO 800 and below.

Don't forget to invest in good glass. Bodies depreciate and become outdated junk in a couple years. Many lenses are still good 40-50 years later.

 

[epp_b]

And what about the fact that if you even breathe on a D40 it falls apart but you can effectively run over the D300 with a truck, pick it up, and continue shooting.

What on earth are you talking about? I'm sure the D300 is superbly well built, but there's nothing wrong with the D40's build quality.

 

[shivaswrath]

from my personal experience, the D40 has horribly grainy pics at ISO 1600 (I just shot a wedding and was pretty let down, like PRETTTTY DAMN let down; I did it cheap, however, with rented glass, and was still disappointed)- even if you have amazing prime's with low f-stops, you'll get tremendous grain at that level.

I would suggest the D90 in your case, since the sensor is a little more updated than the D300's (although they should shoot identically in terms of noise).

D700 is a huge jump up - if you can swing it, go for it! They are running a little cheaper now, in the $2600-2800 range (as I've seen on Amazon, subject to fluctuations). . .by next fall, the D700 should settle at a price point $500 north of the D300 (around $1999 to 2200?)

But if you need a good upgrade NOW, I'd suggest the D90 for sure (about $1000, right?)

 

[amba]

And what about the fact that if you even breathe on a D40 it falls apart but you can effectively run over the D300 with a truck, pick it up, and continue shooting.

Well that may be a valid argument against buying a D40 in the first place, but for someone who already own a D40, wouldn't it make more sense for them to wait until the D40 actually falls apart rather than buying and additional D300 body as a cautionary measure?

Anyhow, I don't believe the D40 body is really that flimsy, I have a D70 since almost the day it was announced, and ecxept for the GLOD failure (which Nikon fixed for no charge two years after I purchased it), I never had any problems with it. Being the gadget freak that I am, I'm always tempted to purchase a new body, but then I calm down, realize there's not justification for replacing the D70, so I buy a new lens instead

 

[LWW]

Hi all -

I shoot mostly indoor, natural light portrait photography of babies and their families. My main issue is getting sharp images in potentially low light situations.

I have a Nikon D40. I am considering upgrading to a D300. Would the picture quality improvement be worth the extra expense of buying a D300. Or should I consider going even further and getting an even more pro grade Nikon?

Your thoughts appreciated!
Amanda

Are a set of Ping golf clubs better than a set of K-Mart clubs?

If you are a skilled golfer yes. If you are a hack like me the Pings only allow me to hit the ball slightly farther into the woods ... and, of course, I look a little classier doing it.

I don't know your skill level or income level. If you make a living with the camera and/or can comfortably it and you want it go ahead.

OTOH, don't expect it to take your game to an entirely new level.

If you don't have fast ED glass, I would put the money there first.

LWW