D300 or more lenses added to my d40

Mike_E · Jan 19, 2009

Ummm, folks, you do realize the poor guy is only showing ONE lens?

It's a nice lens but it only does so much, not to mention that it starts at an EFR of 77.5mm. He's showing his other camera to be a P&S. There is Nothing wrong with this but give the OP a chance to see what a DSLR can do before spending all of his money, K?

The D40 can make some great images Zakery, You will be happier using all there is to the D40 before dropping a half a ton of money and not even covering all the bases.

(Pssst, get a wider angle lens and a new pair of shoes, then get really close to stuff! You'll love it!!)

ranmyaku · Jan 19, 2009

Check ebay for used D300's. I just bought one last week for $1000 bucks including shipping. Camera is mint and only had 1300 shutter count.

sabbath999 · Jan 19, 2009

dEARlEADER said:
Looks like you have a great copy of that little 55-200.

The 55-200 VR is a fantastic little lens, at any price, let alone the $200 it costs...

sabbath999 · Jan 19, 2009

ranmyaku said:
Check ebay for used D300's. I just bought one last week for $1000 bucks including shipping. Camera is mint and only had 1300 shutter count.

Man, that's like 1 day for me.

Joves · Jan 19, 2009

While I love my D300 you only have one piece of glass. You could also do another option. Get a D90 it uses the D300s Image Processing Engine but only at 12bit but, still it has better high ISO performance and, the 12.1 MP count. This way you could get a new lens with the extra money you have or, get one of the kits. The D300 is $1480. for the body the D90 is $900./body or kit 18-105 is $1170. or, the other kit 18-105 &70-300VR for $1850. For just $400 more you get two lenses and a new body. The D90 also works with any Nikkor lens so you kill that problem as well. And while those two lenses arent my favorites they will open alot more options for you. I figured Id throw that out to you. All prices are from B&H so they are reputable.
BTW. Nice gallery. The hummingbird does have some nice colors.

czsmola · Jan 19, 2009

if you had at least a d80 i would say glass but in your case buy the body... and then some glass..

shivaswrath · Jan 20, 2009

i think you might be slightly limited by your body and should make a jump for sure, but I would say make a jump for the D90.

like someone above said, picture quality is quite comparable to the D300 - I'm in the same boat, debating between body or lenses, but my new found love for prime's is pushing me in the direction of a new body, since the Nikkor 35 f/2 and 85 f/1.8 don't AF on a D40x - the D90 and D300 certainly do, so for the cost of a D90 ($850), and and two primes (about $300 and $400), you'll have an amazing array of fast lenses!

NateS · Jan 20, 2009

shivaswrath said:
i think you might be slightly limited by your body and should make a jump for sure, but I would say make a jump for the D90.

like someone above said, picture quality is quite comparable to the D300 - I'm in the same boat, debating between body or lenses, but my new found love for prime's is pushing me in the direction of a new body, since the Nikkor 35 f/2 and 85 f/1.8 don't AF on a D40x - the D90 and D300 certainly do, so for the cost of a D90 ($850), and and two primes (about $300 and $400), you'll have an amazing array of fast lenses!

Good suggestions. THe OP could pick up a D90 and Sigma/Tamron 70-200 f2.8 for roughly the same price as the new D300 or Nikon 70-200 f2.8.

sabbath999 · Jan 20, 2009

I own both cameras, I vote (as always) glass over body.

The D300 will be obsolescent in a year and obsolete in two... it is already technically behind the much cheaper D90 in many ways.

The 70-200 VR will NOT be obsolete in 2 years. I would go with that.

schumionbike · Jan 20, 2009

I would go with fast glass first, that 55-200 VR is great outdoor but F5.6 at 200mm suck indoor though. F2.8 is two stop faster and that's a lot!!!!!!! It'll depend on what you shoot too of course.

sabbath999 · Jan 20, 2009

schumionbike said:
I would go with fast glass first, that 55-200 VR is great outdoor but F5.6 at 200mm suck indoor though. F2.8 is two stop faster and that's a lot!!!!!!! It'll depend on what you shoot too of course.

Two steps faster and $1,500 more money... on a $1,700 lens.

I am not saying that f5.6 is optimal, mind you... it isn't... but that's a LOT of money in difference.

I own both, and I use both.

JerryPH · Jan 20, 2009

jlykins said:
Everyone says lenses before bodies, but at some point the body does limit you. The image processing power of the body along with the iso capabilities... I would get a D300 if I were you. If you want a 70-200 2.8 save a little and pick up the Tamron 70-200 2.8. Great piece of glass and costs about $700... Great photos by the way.

My thoughts almost exactly.

I'd go for the D300, but where I differ is that instead of getting the Sigma or Tamron 70-200, I would rather do without, use what lenses I have now, and save for the best lens out there rather than settle for 2nd best. Nikkor 70-200 is the best in this scenario.

I hit "the big wall" with the D200 in just over a year. I cannot imagine how much shorter a time I would have hit the wall with a D40... maybe 20 minutes? :lol:

schumionbike · Jan 20, 2009

sabbath999 said:
Two steps faster and $1,500 more money... on a $1,700 lens.

I am not saying that f5.6 is optimal, mind you... it isn't... but that's a LOT of money in difference.

I own both, and I use both.

That's about the same money difference between the D40 and the D300, I would just rather get fast glass first since I know the lens aren't going to be any faster. The same can not be said of the camera bodies. I have the 55-200 VR, it's a great lens but it is just not optimal for indoor use which is where I shoot a decent amount of my pictures. 3200 ISO on a D40 is not a very pretty sight unfortunately. And unfortunately, it's expensive to get more light without getting more noise.

Lyncca · Jan 20, 2009

I had the D70s and was severely limited by the body in less than a year. If you are really into photography, I say upgrade the body first. If you don't feel it is limiting you, then go with the glass.

All the great glass in the world won't change you can't hardly print above 8x10 (or crop much) with the older/beginner bodies without severe quality loss.