New Camera!!!

N'Kolor · Dec 26, 2007

I bought a Canon 40D w/28-135 about 60 days ago and to be honest, it was a great camera but when I seen the D300, I knew I had to have it. I tried to sell my Canon 40D but was getting real low offers.

While at Ritz Camera tonight I mentioned that I wanted the D300 and wish I would have waited. The guy asked to see my camera, asked if I had the receipt and box, which I did and he swapped it out for a D300. Now I had also purchased a Canon 70-200 f4L IS lens for it which he also took back.

I really love the D300, the glass on my Nikon lens may not be as good as the Canon glass I had but with this range, I won't need to change lenses all the time like I did with the Canon. I do expect to invest in some more Nikon lenses but as of right now, I am happy with what I have.

I need to sell my battery grip and my 580EXII flash from my Canon so I can get a battery grip for the Nikon but WOW, the quality of the first few shots have exceeded the 40D.

Mike

kundalini · Dec 26, 2007

Congratulations!

The sting for the loss of money will be short-lived. Don't forget to post some pics soon.

N'Kolor · Dec 26, 2007

It cost me $21 and I haven't even sold my flash or grip yet! Since I had that expensive L series lens, $75 from Christmas cards and $119 for a crappy photoflood light kit...I was set!

JIP · Dec 27, 2007

O.K. here I go

to piss off the ones here who swear by it. Why in the world would you put that piece of crap glass on such an excellent camera. You obviously know good glass as you had a 70-200 f/4 for your Canon but why go so far downhill when you jump to a new body. Your better investment would have been mabye a D80 with some decent glass but honestly, if you spent what $700 or more on the 18-200 there is sooooo much better glass out there for that kind of money and 2.8 glass to boot.

N'Kolor · Dec 27, 2007

I need a walk around lens. The 18-200 may not be your opinion of a great lens but for what it is, its great. I hated having to switch around my Canon lenses to get to 200mm then back down to 28mm. With this lens, I can go from 18-200mm without having to swap lenses.

I do plan to get better glass in time but I had a budget to work off of. I understand that lenses make the camera but in my opinion, starting with a D300 and adding lenses is the way I think it should be done. My 18-200 takes great pictures in my opinion...it may not be extremely sharp at 200 but its close enough.

I personally don't like primes, for me any zoom is better. My next lens will be the 24-70 2.8, then will come a real long zoom like a 200-400 f4.

Thanks for your opinion but I don't see 18-200 listed on your signature so how are you making your judgement on a lens you don't own...I know this question sounds sarcastic but I am serious, did you have one and return it?

I still have 29 days to return the 18-200 so if you can think of a better zoom lens that will get me from wide to telephoto for around $750, please let me know.

Mike

Joves · Dec 27, 2007

He is right that the 70-200 is better but, what you have is fine too. Congrats on the new toy.

memento · Dec 27, 2007

N'Kolor said:
I need to sell my battery grip and my 580EXII flash from my Canon..

Mike

I'm interested.
How much ya want fer dem?

Are batteries included w/ teh grip?

MAtt

N'Kolor · Dec 27, 2007

The grip sold actually but I have an extra battery I can sell. I am asking $300 shipped on the 580EXII, I could throw the extra Canon battery in for $25.

Keith Gebhardt · Dec 27, 2007

usayit · Dec 27, 2007

JIP said:
O.K. here I go to piss off the ones here who swear by it. Why in the world would you put that piece of crap glass on such an excellent camera. You obviously know good glass as you had a 70-200 f/4 for your Canon but why go so far downhill when you jump to a new body. Your better investment would have been mabye a D80 with some decent glass but honestly, if you spent what $700 or more on the 18-200 there is sooooo much better glass out there for that kind of money and 2.8 glass to boot.

I agree with JIP 100%.... Common mistake I see all the time... people focus so much on the camera and completely forget the lens. The 70-200 f/4 is a far better lens. Splurge away your money.. thats fine.. but Ritz got the best of yah.

The excitement of moving to a higher end body causes them to loose sight of what is important.. the photographer.. not the camera. This is what is unfortunate.

That Canon 40D with that lens OR the equivalent Nikon set is more camera than almost anyone on this forum push.

N'Kolor · Dec 27, 2007

usayit said:
Splurge away your money.. thats fine.. but Ritz got the best of yah.

The excitement of moving to a higher end body causes them to loose sight of what is important.. the photographer.. not the camera. This is what is unfortunate.

That Canon 40D with that lens OR the equivalent Nikon set is more camera than almost anyone on this forum push.

I returned that junk of a lens today...you guys were right, it sucked! I got a 70-200 f2.8 VR! This lens is awesome! I also bought a 50mm 1.8 just for portrait stuff. I plan to get a 27-70 f2.8 in a few months.

Sorry I was so hard on you guys, I didn't realize how right you were!

N'Kolor · Dec 29, 2007

Edited last post!!!

Garbz · Dec 29, 2007

Newbie mistake we'll forgive you. Many of us don't need to own a piece of equipment to know it'll give a crap image and build quality. Afterall that's what sites like photozone.de are for, to measure the lenses.

For the record a range like 18-200mm or anything so flexible is likely to ring alarm bells in the quality department.