Need your opinions and thoughts

I think that higher end cameras are Easier to learn on than low end cameras. pro models seem to be easier to operate and more comfortable to use. Take for example the XT/XTi, and the 20D-40D, there is only one control wheel to change settings, the X0D has 2 well positioned controls. Learning to shoot and meter manually setting Aperture and Shutter, would you rather have one control or two?

Consumer bodies have many more compromises, than more professional models, this in my opinion is a detriment to learning.
 
Higher end cameras "may be" harder to learn because they have more features.

But nothing says beginner has to use all the features - or for that matter even know how to access them.

My goal for a camera is to take good pictures of family. Learning to use what I have is part of reaching this "goal". High-end cameras will yield better results so naturally I go for the best camera I can afford.

There is nothing wrong with a beginner getting a top of the line pro level camera. If anything, this will save money from all the upgrades to reach this pro level.

If beginner can afford camera, I see no reason to discourage them. I would not recommend they cough up $5K+ for a first DSLR, but if they can afford it, it's their money.
 
Do you think I jumped too quickly for the upgrade?

I think you did. But if money is not a problem for you why not. I have no money problem at all for my photographic hobby, yet I bought D40 only couple months back.

So if there is no other more important need right now, or you are not in debt, and if you think you going to move forward than you may keep it.
But if there is feeling of remorse regardless of reason than just return it. There always is tomorrow. The main thing is you are happy with what you like.

Stick with the simple world to lessen the load.
 
My question is... Do you shoot in Manual all the time and are 100% comfortable with it?

My suggestion would probably be to return it.. get something like the D80.. and invest in some nice glass for it.
 
I think it might be daunting and at first you might have some issues. But if you have some experience, shoot in manual mode and have been doing it for atleast a little while, your pics should look fine.

In the D3 - D40 comparison, I think that's pretty far off. Obviously it's situational, like the low-light capabilities of the D3. But if you had like a 17-55 f2.8 and an SB800 on a D40, your images wouldn't be that much different than the D3 with a similar performing lens, especially in prints of similar size and similar DPI.
 
crap- If you want the camera and can afford ir keet it. Otherwise send it back. Most cameras have a bunch of features that you will never use.
I like to start with a basic body, up grade the lens and generally stay that way- but that is me. Its not the camera is the guy behind the lens that counts. I would start everyone with a brownie and when they could not so what they wanted go from their.
Great old AA used esentially a lens and a sheet of film.
Useing a better camera will not slow youdown if you keep it simple at first - the KISS principal.
How much junk do you actually use on your PC?
JS
 
I think we are very much onthe same page. :D

If there is no difference between cameras, let me take an example that is a little more extreme and demonstrate. Ask someone with a D3 and a pinhole camera to shoot an event, lets say a wedding or a graduation. The results will be different.
I don't know what a pinhole camera is (never looked it up, but I've heard of it). But I am assuming from what I know, you are talking something completely different here than just comparing a cheap dSLR and an expensive dSLR such as the D40 vs. D300

The D300 is so far above a D40, its not even a joke. If you need to ask what the difference is... you have simply not taken a look at both cameras.
So, there is more to taking a photo with a D300 than simply ISO, aperture, and shutter? What is the extra variable that goes into a photograph with a D300 that a D40 does not have? I'm not talking limitations in what the 3 exposure variables may be between the cameras. Obviously, if I or the OP would not be able to handle a D300, then there must be a 4th variable that we don't understand yet with our limited "beginner" cameras.

Features mean nothing. They are just that, features. They have nothing to do with taking a basic photograph other than making it easier or putting some kind of spin to the photograph.

Yes, yes, yes... we've all heard that the photographer takes the pic, not the camera. This is true ONLY up to a point. :)

Give that photographer a superior camera, you WILL get superior results. If this was not true, all professionals world wide would be using 1MP point and shoot cameras, saving themselves thousands of dollars.
Exactly. A skilled photographer will get better photos with better equipment. But, a snapshooter photographer will also get better photos with a better camera. It doesn't matter the skill of the photographer when comparing cameras. It is the quality comparison that matters. Note, I do not say "a good camera does not make a good photographer" as I see argued all the time. Simply put, better quality equipment creates a better result.
 
Simply put, better quality equipment creates a better result.

Simply put, you and I are in agreement 100%. ;)

As far as the differences beyond ISO, aperture and speed, there is one other, and thats how the capability of the camera and the way it processes whatever is captured. Some say MP is a feature, way the picture is processed is a feature, high ISO sensitivity is a feature, FPS is a feature. I see that as improvements, or forms of evolution that permit one to take a better picture.
 
I don't know what a pinhole camera is (never looked it up, but I've heard of it). But I am assuming from what I know, you are talking something completely different here than just comparing a cheap dSLR and an expensive dSLR such as the D40 vs. D300


So, there is more to taking a photo with a D300 than simply ISO, aperture, and shutter? What is the extra variable that goes into a photograph with a D300 that a D40 does not have? I'm not talking limitations in what the 3 exposure variables may be between the cameras. Obviously, if I or the OP would not be able to handle a D300, then there must be a 4th variable that we don't understand yet with our limited "beginner" cameras.

Features mean nothing. They are just that, features. They have nothing to do with taking a basic photograph other than making it easier or putting some kind of spin to the photograph.


Exactly. A skilled photographer will get better photos with better equipment. But, a snapshooter photographer will also get better photos with a better camera. It doesn't matter the skill of the photographer when comparing cameras. It is the quality comparison that matters. Note, I do not say "a good camera does not make a good photographer" as I see argued all the time. Simply put, better quality equipment creates a better result.


Think of it like this... You have an MR2, and somehow can afford an F1 car. Both have an engine, both have a transmissions, both are RWD and Rear Engine.

You will be faster in an F1 car... But with no experience in one, you wont be able to go full speed without wrecking and killing yourself.


If you dont want to shoot in Manual 100% of the time, The D300 isnt for you.


Another comparison. MS paint Vs Photoshop CS3.
 
Think of it like this... You have an MR2, and somehow can afford an F1 car. Both have an engine, both have a transmissions, both are RWD and Rear Engine.

You will be faster in an F1 car... But with no experience in one, you wont be able to go full speed without wrecking and killing yourself.


If you dont want to shoot in Manual 100% of the time, The D300 isnt for you.


Another comparison. MS paint Vs Photoshop CS3.

That car analogy is horrible :) A beginner will take better pictures with a D300 then with a D40 because of superior image quality ability of the D300 - I'm assuming lens are identical. Beginner will not mangle shots any worse with a D300 then with a D40. Beginner does not need to go "full speed" just like MR2 owner does not need to max capability of the F1.

Are you saying auto mode for D300 is more difficult to use then the D40? If it's the same (I suspect), I would rather use auto in D300 then in D40 because we are back to superior IQ in a superior quality.

We shoudl not "assign a camera level based on shooter experience". A professional with a D300 will shoot better pictures then a beginner. BUT a beginner with a D300 will shoot better pictures then with a D40 - I'm not a Nikon use so hope that is the case :)

Only reason I would not keep D300 is to use that money for higher quality lens.

To tell someone the camera is "too good for them" (that's what I'm interpretting) is unfair.

To the OP ... it's your money, and from what I've read, it's an EXCELLENT camera.
 
Is it safe to say that if a month was spent on a d300 and you returned it to get a d40 you'd be wondering what's happening with image quality as well as overall camera ability?


If there is a noticeably difference between the cameras than keep the d300 and learn that...(learn how to use it)
 
Think of it like this... You have an MR2, and somehow can afford an F1 car. Both have an engine, both have a transmissions, both are RWD and Rear Engine.

You will be faster in an F1 car... But with no experience in one, you wont be able to go full speed without wrecking and killing yourself.


If you dont want to shoot in Manual 100% of the time, The D300 isnt for you.


Another comparison. MS paint Vs Photoshop CS3.

So I walk around shooting in AV on occasion. Should I send my 30D back and dust off my 300D?
 
I'd rather shoot a bazooka than a 50 caliber. I'm sure the 50 caliber is easier to use but look what you can do with the bazooka? Much cooler to say I have a bazooka than a 50 caliber too.

I figured everyone is throwing in metaphors and analogies.

Who the hell shoots in 100% only? I'm sure there are applications where you'd need to use TV or AV instead.
 
That car analogy is horrible :) A beginner will take better pictures with a D300 then with a D40 because of superior image quality ability of the D300 - I'm assuming lens are identical. Beginner will not mangle shots any worse with a D300 then with a D40. Beginner does not need to go "full speed" just like MR2 owner does not need to max capability of the F1.

Are you saying auto mode for D300 is more difficult to use then the D40? If it's the same (I suspect), I would rather use auto in D300 then in D40 because we are back to superior IQ in a superior quality.

We shoudl not "assign a camera level based on shooter experience". A professional with a D300 will shoot better pictures then a beginner. BUT a beginner with a D300 will shoot better pictures then with a D40 - I'm not a Nikon use so hope that is the case :)

Only reason I would not keep D300 is to use that money for higher quality lens.

To tell someone the camera is "too good for them" (that's what I'm interpretting) is unfair.

To the OP ... it's your money, and from what I've read, it's an EXCELLENT camera.


Hell, maybe i was thinking wrong... Didnt even think the D300 had an auto mode.. I just thought it was straight manual?
 

Most reactions

Back
Top