Nikon D40 or D300 as 1st SLR?

[manaheim]

manaheim,

Please notice that I did not say that about the D200.
I said that the 18-200 lens is a very good all-rounder,
but not pro quality.

Whoops... sorry, man. Serves me right for reading when I'm 1/2 awake. I totally agree, btw... the 18-200 is nice, but definitely not what I would lean on heavily for pro work. Awesome kick-around lens, though.

I had the D200, and it's a very good camera.
The only con I had about it was the noise that "woke up" early
on the ISO scale.

BTW, regardless of how the D300 is commonly considered, I regard
it as a pro camera.
(and quite a few pros use it, as well as the D200 and other models.
The photographer is much more important than the camera.
Incredible photographs were taken, along more than a century, and
most of them were taken with less advanced cameras than we have
today.)

The D300 is limited only by the format (DX and not FX), but for many
uses it is perfectly good.
Just like when I sometimes preferred using a 35mm Nikon, even
though I had both medium and large format cameras at the studio.
The smaller format has its merits & uses.

Another advantage of the D300 is the superb battery time, about
double the no. of pics than the D200.

Yup, I agree on all points. Though as I've told a number of people, I wouldn't dare show up for pro work with a D40 or any of the non Dx00 cameras (or DXs if you can afford them, of course), just because I think it would send the wrong message ... if there is a single soul in the room who knows the gear, you may wind up looking a little funny.

 

[Mav]

Yup, I agree on all points. Though as I've told a number of people, I wouldn't dare show up for pro work with a D40 or any of the non Dx00 cameras (or DXs if you can afford them, of course), just because I think it would send the wrong message ... if there is a single soul in the room who knows the gear, you may wind up looking a little funny.

This is the Beginner's forum, not the starting out as a pro forum.

 

[GeorgiaOwl]

I doubt most people that know something about photography are quite as critical as some folks here.
Everyone says the camera doesn't matter...but it's like having the latest trend in sneakers...almost like junior high sometimes...

of course, it's easier for me to not worry about my gear making me " look funny" since I'm already pretty stupid looking behind a camera anyway!

 

[manaheim]

The D300 also starts to obliterate detail at 1600 and above whereas the D80/D200 don't do nearly as much noise reduction.

You can also turn the NR down or off if that is an issue. You don't have the option to make it work better on the other cameras.

If you're looking to maintain sharp fur detail on a fast moving dog at high ISO, I don't think you'd be satisfied with either of these cameras. The D3 would be the one to get. That one gives you no excuses quality and sharpness at iso6400 and is in a completely different league than the D300 at that ISO.

Totally agree, but OP was tossing around a budget figure of around $2500... last I checked that wouldn't even pay for the D3 body. But yeah, if he could swing that, I'd say go for it.

Just because a camera has dummy modes doesn't mean that you have to use them, nor does it mean that it's in some way "inferior" to the higher end cameras. The D200 has a bunch of small little extras that full-time pros who use their cameras all day long will appreciate, but the optical and sensor performance of the D80 and D200 are practically the same.

I'm not (nor was I) poo-pooing the cameras with them, but Nikon puts them there for a reason, and that reason is likely that they expect the target market wants those features. How many similarities do you share with a target market that wants these things? How many differences. My point was only that you should consider this when deciding what camera to buy, not that it necessarily votes for or against any such camera.

And I wouldn't go dissing the little D40 "budget" camera either.

I'm not, and I didn't. As I said... if you can afford more, buy it. You'll likely be happy that you did. D40 is fine, but it IS limited in a lot of ways. I recommend D40s to some people, D80s to others, D200s and D300s to others... to date I haven't recommended a D3 to anyone, because anyone looking at that class of camera is usually the person I am asking for advice.

I think the OP would be far better off with a little D40 and something like a 70-200VR f/2.8 than a more expensive D300 camera but only having an 18-200VR f/3.5-5.6.

Yeah, that's cool. I don't personally agree, but whatever. I don't think I would necessarily recommend a D300 anyway unless he had the cash to blow. I think the D200 is a better overall option for most folks. I have the D300 because I make money with it and I can afford to blow an extra $600 on a body and not worry about it... but if I didn't make money with it, I would have gotten a D200 no question.

 

[Socrates]

Holy crap!!!! Socrates we agree how did that happen...

I need to rethink my position.

 

[Socrates]

I doubt most people that know something about photography are quite as critical as some folks here.
Everyone says the camera doesn't matter...but it's like having the latest trend in sneakers...almost like junior high sometimes...

of course, it's easier for me to not worry about my gear making me " look funny" since I'm already pretty stupid looking behind a camera anyway!

Of course, the camera matters. There's a reason why the SI photographers don't use P&S cameras.

 

[Socrates]

Whoops... sorry, man. Serves me right for reading when I'm 1/2 awake. I totally agree, btw... the 18-200 is nice, but definitely not what I would lean on heavily for pro work. Awesome kick-around lens, though.

Yeah, it's weird. I'm personally thrilled with the versatility of the 18-200. I take fewer shots with it than pretty much any other lens that I own but I usually have it mounted "just in case."

 

[GeorgiaOwl]

What I meant was....well, here lemme put it this way...

When I started flyfishing 16 years ago, people said there were flyfishing snobs that looked down their noses at anyone not carrying a $400 flyrod and the latest gear.


I guess flyfishers on a stream don't have a lock on snobbery and I'm not talking about anyone here. I'm talking about the aforementioned "people" that might look at you "funny" if you don't show up with the latest $4000 camera.

Whether or not you 'look funny' with a D40, there are plenty of people out there armed with them that take better pictures than someone with no talent for it armed with a hasselblad.

I think saying people would look at you funny if you showed up to a customers wedding with a disposable camera with no flash...yeah, maybe that's a bit more of a legitimate reason to think someone might be blowin' smoke. But now, a D40 isn't good enough to take wedding shots for money?

pfffftttt....whatever.

I'm not new to photography so much as I am new to the idea of trying to take quality shots, worrying about lighting, etc. but I'm using the same philosophy that got me through trying to figure out fly fishing and all it's jargon, customs, "logic", conventional wisdom, rules, theories, etc. and one of the first things I learned early on was that I could catch more fish than alot of people that had 3 times the amount of money invested in gear that I did. Then, some folks with a $500 rod, $450 reel and the latest and greatest of everything else fished circles around me. Some that had a $40 rod did the same.

The gear allows you to do things faster, easier, and sometimes better....but you don't need a $1000 rod and reel set up to catch a 8 inch trout. And you don't need a $2000 camera to take good photographs. Not saying it doesn't help, but the emphasis should be ( and often is here) put on the photographer, not the camera type, style, or model #.


Buy the d40 or d60( if you want the MP to be able to freely crop without worry or enlarge until the cows come home) and use that money for something better - maybe a trip to Alaska or the Grand Canyon...or wherever....

 

[RubyMagic]

D80 & 24-70 2.8G FTW!!

 

[Mav]

I think saying people would look at you funny if you showed up to a customers wedding with a disposable camera with no flash...yeah, maybe that's a bit more of a legitimate reason to think someone might be blowin' smoke. But now, a D40 isn't good enough to take wedding shots for money?

pfffftttt....whatever.

Loved your fly fishing analogy! :lmao: Just shows there are gear heads in every hobby, and that a lot of hobbies are pretty much the same.

As for bringing a D40 to a pro event, I really don't think anybody would even notice that something was a D40 (or not) if you have a nice PRO lens on it. In fact when I have my Nikon 17-55 hooked up to my D40 you can barely even see the camera body. :mrgreen:

 

[Rogan]

isnt the new update to the D80 out soon?

that cud be worth waiting for?

 

[manaheim]

This is the Beginner's forum, not the starting out as a pro forum.

hahaha... good point. :thumbup:

To Georgia's point (and ignoring that this is the beginners forum for a moment), I'm speaking from experience. I agree with you. It's STUPID for anyone to base their perception of your skills by the label on your camera strap, but it absolutely does have an impact on people and that really can't be completely ignored.

You can shout and holler all you like, but perception is a powerful thing... it's obviously easier to start off with the perception of "Man, the dude has a D3... he must be pretty good to afford such equipment" than "Man, the dude is running a D40... can't he make enough money to buy a better camera?"

 

[hoboahoy]

Hi everybody, thank you much for your great opinions. This is helping me greatly. I'm reading your comments. Is it a bad idea for me to get a D40 and a Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR lens on it? This idea came to me because:

1) You say "the camera isn't as important as the lens"
2) I tend to be away (5+ feet) from the dogs at the field
3) Someone said I wouldn't look funny as long as I put a pro lens on D40.

I probably can't use this Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR as much inside the house. This means I must get another lens for the indoor use under low light situation in additiona to this lens. I could probably still add a lens for the inside the house. I need a VR function because the hardware will be used by my wife, who always ruin a shot because she can't keep her hand steady. Please remember my subjects (dogs) are moving fast erratically and I need the ability to shoot under poor lighting inside & outside of the building. Thank you again.

 

[ghpham]

I'm not sure if you can auto focus with that lens on a D40.

 

[ghpham]

hahaha... good point. :thumbup:

To Georgia's point (and ignoring that this is the beginners forum for a moment), I'm speaking from experience. I agree with you. It's STUPID for anyone to base their perception of your skills by the label on your camera strap, but it absolutely does have an impact on people and that really can't be completely ignored.

You can shout and holler all you like, but perception is a powerful thing... it's obviously easier to start off with the perception of "Man, the dude has a D3... he must be pretty good to afford such equipment" than "Man, the dude is running a D40... can't he make enough money to buy a better camera?"

I put black tape over the brand and the model number of my camera. Nobody would be the wiser . If someone ask, I would reply that it is a prototype camera