Nikon d300 and d700

[kundalini]

One more consideration to make in regard to the D700. Personally I would wait for the first run to get out there and have the bugs worked out. Maybe six months, if you can. I got my D300 about 5 months after it was introduced and none of the problems I read about the first run appeared with my copy.

BTW D3 and D300 users, there is a firmware update available.

Like I said earlier, the rumor mill is on about the D900 as well.

 

[Ejazzle]

i hink if this is your first slr and you really want something nice, go with the D80 and get some really nice glass.

but by all means if you have no budget get the D300. i have the D300 and love it so much, i barely have any noise @ iso 6400 its awesome i love it and wouldnt trade it for the world!!

 

[Senor Hound]

theres not a photo a D300 can take that a D80 cant

Not true. The D300 can take a photo of said D80, which cannot take a photo of itself (unless you use a mirror which is cheating).

Sorry, I'm just in a silly mood. I think you should buy the body which will work with your lens the best. If you're set on the 18-200, by all means go with the D300. But I'm just a newbie, I could be wrong.

 

[kundalini]

You could have done this handheld on a D3 at iso6400 if you could manage a steady 1/4s handheld shot, which isn't impossible at ultra-wide (or iso 12,600 at 1/8s), but this photo at iso 100 ...

Truely, nice photos Mav. However, it seems you putting an apple in a bunch of oranges for comparison sake. What does the D80 have to do with the topic of discussion between the Nikon D300 and the D700 from the OP? Very little to nothing in my estimation.

Your theoretical analysis of what could be a possible comparison between the D3 handheld at ISO6400 at 1/4s and the fact that you were able to tripod mount your D80 at f/2.8 for 15seconds has nothing to do with the topic at hand and is a useless comparison.

Let's put apples with apples and oranges with oranges for a change. Otherwise, pour in some Vodka in the mix and let's have a party.

No one here will disagree that you have a very steady hand, but FFS what's this all about?

 

[Garbz]

Not true. The D300 can take a photo of said D80, which cannot take a photo of itself (unless you use a mirror which is cheating).

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

You have made my day!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Tinstafl]

I would go with the D700. I have had a D100 and now a D 200 I bought a little while before they announced the D300. I went with all FX lenses though with it knowing I will get a FFX someday just not yet. I remember reading an article on sensor size and mega pixel wars and they came to the conclusion that the bigger the sensor the bigger the spacing and deeper the pixel and it was a better deal than shoving more pixels on a smaller sensor. Now this was aimed at the Point and shoot vs the DSLRs and they had shot to show the difference.

I also saw an article on the D3 adn how the author took a small section out of the shot and blew it way up. It was amazing...

I would go with the D700 and build from there. You know there will be other FFX coming and that is the kit you want to start. I bought the 70-200 2.8 VR a little while ago and will be getting another 2.8 a bit shorter soon. I have other lens and they all work on this D200 but will also work just fine on a D3/700 or the next iteration.

 

[Mav]

Truely, nice photos Mav. However, it seems you putting an apple in a bunch of oranges for comparison sake. What does the D80 have to do with the topic of discussion between the Nikon D300 and the D700 from the OP? Very little to nothing in my estimation.

Your theoretical analysis of what could be a possible comparison between the D3 handheld at ISO6400 at 1/4s and the fact that you were able to tripod mount your D80 at f/2.8 for 15seconds has nothing to do with the topic at hand and is a useless comparison.

Let's put apples with apples and oranges with oranges for a change. Otherwise, pour in some Vodka in the mix and let's have a party.

No one here will disagree that you have a very steady hand, but FFS what's this all about?

Of course it's relevant. The whole idea was to point out that you don't need to spend $3000 on the camera body alone just for nice beach photos and for what seems like just general photography needs. Unless the OP comes back saying they want to do indoor sports photography, I think even a D300 is going to be more than enough overkill. I could have taken all of the above photos with my even more inferior D40 just as easily. For people shots on the beach in not so great light, a little fill flash from a remote fired SB-600 would probably look way better than a D700 with no fill flash and even higher ISO.

 

[Golfer_Cody]

Those pictures are amazing and yes that is what I will be talking pictures of and maybe even darker so I know I can do it with the d300. I also dont want something thats way over my head and if I got the d300 I could get my 18-200 lens and use the money i saved for another lens like a ultra wide or something. I know I will be happy with the d300, can you get down to 100 iso with it thugh?

 

[kundalini]

I know I will be happy with the d300, can you get down to 100 iso with it thugh?

No doubt you will be happy with the D300.

With regard to you ISO question, I will quote from Thom Hogan's "Complete Guide to the Nikon D300" so I don't screw it up.

The D300 allows user controllable ISO values from 200 to 3200, in as little as one-third stop steps (you can alter the settings to half or full stops using Custom Setting #B1 [see page <561>], but I'd suggest just leaving the camera at the default).





The D300 also has settings of LO 0.3, LO 0.7, and LO 1.0, HI 0.3, HI 0.7 and HI 1.0, which are approximately equivalent to ISO 100, 125, 160, 4000, 5000 and 6400 respectively. These last six values are not labeled with an ISO value because they have image quality limitations that the numbered ISO values do not. The non-numbered ISO values are a warning to you that some aspect of image quality will be compromised:

• LO values: the LO ISO values compromise highlights. What tends to happen is that highlight data gets "clipped" in high contrast scenes: (chart illustrating the effect)

Think of it like this: the image is overexposed at ISO100 by a stop, then data pulled back downwards to adjust for that. This has two primary effects: first, bright highlights that were near blowing out at ISO200 are now blown out; and second, noise is somewhat buried in the deep shadows. In my experience, LO values work okay for low contrast scenes, but are dangerous for high contrast scenes due to the loss of highlight information. Moreover, if you look closely on long exposures, you often see artifacts at LO values that you don't at ISO200.

• HI values: the HI ISO values compromise overall camera dynamic range. As you move ISO values up, the camera dynamic range decreases. Eventually, that range becomes suspect and it gets difficult to reproduce a wide range of tones. Nikon marks that changeover point by stopping the use of numeric ISO values: (chart illustrating the effect)

Hope that answers your question.

 

[Golfer_Cody]

yeah that helps so ill be able to do it. Its almost the same with the d700 I am having a hard time trying to even think about going away from the d300 it just seems logical to get the dx version till I get better. i am gonna check some prices this week and hopefully soon ill have the camera. only thing now is lenses I know I want the 18 200. Is there anymore like a ultra wide or anything? I want to be able to take pics of the sun like that one above, how much difference in the 300 vs the 200? like how much different would it look?

 

[TamiyaGuy]

I have a tamron 28-300 zoom that works perfectly on a non-crop body--I use it on my film slrs all the time.

Huh, in that case I stand corrected. I still think it would be a bit of a waste using any superzoom on such a high-end body as a D700. Any camera above a D80 only works at its best when coupled with some good lenses (well, ANY camera works at its best with good glass). It really isn't that much of a hassle changing lenses, to be honest. I do it all the time from my 18-55 to my 55-200 to my 50 f/1.8.

I'd still suggest getting a D300 or even a D80. Even the absolute bottom of the range DSLRs nowadays can take stunning photos with the right person behind the camera. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that unless you're already very content with photography techniques (rule of thirds, HDR, post-processing, various apertures and their consequenses, hand-holding "rules", etc), then by all means get a D300. However, if this will be your first DSLR, then I think you may find a D300 or a D700 too daunting at first. When I switched to a D40 I was amazed and only just managed to keep my cool when taking photos.

Right, enough seriousness. Here's some smileys to make up for it. :lmao::mrgreen::blushing:

There ya go. Enjoy!

 

[kundalini]

For zoom lenses, I ran the (normal) full range. 12-24mm f/4, 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8. They are all keepers. I started with the 12-24mm first because I like wide angle landscapes. Next came the 70-200mm because my interest in "reach" grew. Finally I got the 24-70mm to fill the gap and surprisingly (or not), it is the most used of all the zooms. Oh, and these were purchased prior to the D300, with my D80.

The best suggestion I can offer for the difference you get between 200mm and 300mm is to go to your local camera shop and slap on a zoom lens that reaches to 300mm. Set it to 200mm and focus on an object at some distance. How does it look? Now, twist the zoom to 300mm. How much difference do you see? Your eyes, your money.

 

[Mav]

yeah that helps so ill be able to do it. Its almost the same with the d700 I am having a hard time trying to even think about going away from the d300 it just seems logical to get the dx version till I get better. i am gonna check some prices this week and hopefully soon ill have the camera. only thing now is lenses I know I want the 18 200. Is there anymore like a ultra wide or anything? I want to be able to take pics of the sun like that one above, how much difference in the 300 vs the 200? like how much different would it look?

You wouldn't want to set the D300 to iso100 because you're getting sub-optimal quality. The base ISO on a DSLR is defined where the sensor has its native or peak (best) sensitivity and quality, which in this case happens to be equivalent to ISO 200. If you wanted a slower exposure to capture wave motion and you already have the lens aperture closed down (stopped down) at f/11 or so (it'll get softer past that due to diffraction) what you'd want to use is a 1 or 2-stop neutral density filter. That'll get you to the equivalent of ISO100 or ISO50 as far as expsure time with no need to stop the lens all the way down to f/16 or f/22 which will result in a soft image due to diffraction. For this beach trip, I purposely brought my D80 which has a base ISO of 100 rather than my D40 which has a base ISO of 200 because I knew the higher base ISO on the D40 was gonna get in the way of slower exposures for wave motion shots. Otherwise I'd probably have brought the D40 instead.

There's now a VERY nice selection of ultra-wide lenses for Nikon DX cameras. The Nikon 12-24 f/4, the Tamron 11-18, Sigma 10-20, Tokina 12-24, and the newest Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, the only f/2.8. I have that one and love it, and the best thing is that it also works at 15-16mm on a full frame FX or film camera and you still have f/2.8 speed! I think the other Tokina 12-24 and the Nikon 12-24 work OK on FX/film from about 17mm onwards. If you were thinking of upgrading to FX one day, I'd avoid the Sigma 10-20 since it vignettes on FX at every setting.

As far as a tele, here's the difference between 200 and 300mm.


195mm (close enough)

300mm

I actually want to get even closer on these shots so a 400mm lens may be in my future. If Nikon comes out with an updated 80-400mm VR lens, I may try to pickup a mint used version of the current one. There's a Nikon site out there where EVERYBODY always ditches their perfectly good lenses for the newest version whenever something new comes out which is great for finding deals on stuff!

 

[kundalini]

There's a Nikon site out there where EVERYBODY always ditches their perfectly good lenses for the newest version whenever something new comes out which is great for finding deals on stuff!

Please name that site. I love a good deal, have no objection to 'used' and several lenses are still on my wish list.

 

[Golfer_Cody]

Ok so iso 100 is going to be the best for the beach and the d300 doesnt have it neither does the 700. so how much of a difference would it make on those waves if it were set at the lowest 200? But i also dont understand why you cant put the 300 on LO-1 which it says is just like iso 100 I understand you say it wont look as good but i dont know why.