Nikon D300 questions or maybe a different DSLR

[Samriel]

I have to agree that it is a big jump from the Coolpix to the D300, but if you're serious about it, go for it. The D300 is a great camera, and you probably won't be needing another body for a while. I'd say you won't be buying a new body until there is an affordable Nikon full frame camera (D400, D4?). If you have the money, go for the the D300.
However, if you are on budget, I'd suggest getting a D80 (ca. USD750) or a used D200 (ca. USD800-900), and using your money on lenses and accessories. You could get a Nikkor 18-200 (ca. USD700) and a Nikkor 50 F1.4 (ca.USD250)+ a good tripod and head, a SB-600 Speedlight (ca. USD250), and all the other stuff like filters, bags, batteries etc. Also you could get a Tamron 18-50 F2.8 (~USD350) and a Nikkor (old model - new only if you have the money) or Sigma 70-200 F2.8 (~USD1000) and a Nikkor 50 F1.4.

The 18-200 is a very typical zoom lens - you get a very useful zoom range (probably won't be needing another lens anytime soon), but you lose some image quality compared to primes and better zoom lenses. The choice is yours.

 

[prodigy2k7]

I suggest going for a lower end camera like a D40 or maybe even D80 and get a good quality lens.


You can have the best camera body in the horrible but get *okay* shots because you didnt have a good lens.

 

[JerryPH]

Honesly the only accessory you really need is a good fast lens.

I would counter that the only accessory someone that goes from a P7S to a D300 is a brain with a strong desire to learn how to use that camera to it's fullest.

No use in getting a D300 if all you are going to do is take pics in the manner you did with the P&S.

I went from a P&S to a D200. You'd be surprised at how many people blasted me for wasting money. Well, it WOULD have been a waste if I did nothing more with the camera but use it as a point and shoot... but I sure am doing a lot more with it, and enjoying photography in ways I never imagined.

 

[JIP]

I would counter that the only accessory someone that goes from a P7S to a D300 is a brain with a strong desire to learn how to use that camera to it's fullest.

No use in getting a D300 if all you are going to do is take pics in the manner you did with the P&S.

I went from a P&S to a D200. You'd be surprised at how many people blasted me for wasting money. Well, it WOULD have been a waste if I did nothing more with the camera but use it as a point and shoot... but I sure am doing a lot more with it, and enjoying photography in ways I never imagined.

So what are you exactly trying to say about my comment???.

 

[DWS]

Going from a Coolpix to a D300 is a quantum leap, to say the least. If it were me, I would seriously look into the D40/40x/60/70/80 levels before jumping into a D300 unless you are REALLY going to use the power of the D300.

Over the years, I have evolved from a Coolpix 4400 to a D40, D80 and a D300 only a month ago. In a good way, trust me when I say that the D300 is a lot of camera to learn and use effectively.

I recommend that you do a lot of independent research and fully think through "how" you will use your camera, ie., hobbyist, avid amateur, professional, etc. Short of ramping up equipment for a professional application, I would seriously consider a camera other than a D300.

Best of luck and have fun in the process!

 

[kundalini]

Over the years, I have evolved from a Coolpix 4400 to a D40, D80 and a D300 only a month ago.

And how much money did you spend on all the upgrades?

From a financial point of view, it seems wise to go ahead and make the leap to get the D300 if it's not stretching the OP's money.

Someone with the desire to learn, accept the learning curve required and has most of the circuits attached in the grey matter, can be quite content with such an upwards move. I wouldn't assume they aren't capable.

 

[andrew99]

I don't understand why people are so negative about going straight for the D300. If someone uses a Corvette to pick up groceries, are they wasting their money? Or just enjoying what they have worked hard to afford?

However, camera bodies (like cars) go obsolete and depreciate very quickly. My plan has been to get a cheap body (D40) and start accumulating good lenses as I go. Next year the D300 will be almost half the price of what it is now, but the lenses will be about the same.

 

[DWS]

In my case, I grew into the different bodies as my interest grew over time, and yes, I spent a considerable amount of money.

I did not, however, assume the OP is not capable.......I recommended that he do the homework before spending big bucks and then realize after the significant cash layout that he would have been just as satisfied by spending less. If the research and decision process says D300, I say go for it.

 

[Mav]

I won't recommend a lens for you, because you didn't mention (or I overlooked it) what your main interest or shooting style is. I can, however, vouch that all the following Nikkor lenses work superbly on the D300.

Primes:
35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8, 300mm f/4

Zooms:
12-24mm f/4, 24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8

I can also vouch that the 18-55mm and 55-200mm starter lenses make awesome paperweights.

Paperweights sure do make some great photos! I had a 55-200 too and the secret is slowly getting out that these are great little lenses that have "no right" to perform as well as they do at their price points. Amazing how cheap and good lenses can be these days. In fact I just picked up another "paperweight", an unwanted 18-55VR from a D60 kit since there's virtually no difference between that and a $1200 pro 17-55 (which I also have) when you're stopped down during daylight shooting, or walking around at night (f/2.8 vs VR = the same, I tested it).

Anybody that is recommending you to buy a cheaper body than the D300 has a serious case of penis envy or empty pockets.

So I guess you're describing yourself then, huh? If I was going to spend $1800 today on camera gear I'd probably pickup a 135mm f/2 DC for about $1k, and then an 80-200 f/2.8 somewhere for $800-900 and call it a day. Or I could get a D300 whose extra FPS, MPs, ISO, etc are really not going to help improve my photography at all, and will be selling for $800 used (half their original price) in just a year or so like D200's are today. New glass bought today would be worth about 90% of what I paid for them (or the same if I bought used), and if I wanted to try something else and sell them off they'll have cost me exactly nothing. Meanwhile the D300 that I could have picked up instead that I realize I don't really need and want better glass instead has just cost me a 135mm f/2 DC lens based on depreciation alone and I'll never see it again. Like they say, pissing money down the drain.

If you're truly going to use the D300 for ALL it's worth then by all means get one. But otherwise a poor decision buying way more camera than you need will cost you a PRO level lens in a year, which you'll realize you want. It's ok, keeps economies running!

 

[Mav]

It is a weak amatuer lens for amatuer cameras. Nikon is doing it's customer base a disservice by putting yp this deal and promoting this combination but if they can sell a cheap crappy lens at an exorbinant price bring on the suckers. Your statement about taking the deal and selling it later makes my point Nikon would love you money now and a little more later. If you want to buy D40 or something like that fine buy whatever lens you want but if you are buying a semi-professional body why are you going to weaken it's potential with a marginally sharp, expensive, slow lens. Honestly to the OP if you cannot afford some decent glass why not back off on the D300 to something like say a D80 and get some fast glass with it. The tech on the body is going to go obsolete faster than the lens so why not invest in something that is going to last. As far as a lens it is all a matter of your personal shooting style but a good starter lens might be the previously mentioned 17-55 2.8 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/186250-USA/Nikon_1960_AF_S_Zoom_Nikkor_17_35mm.html . The only cavaeat being is I would be careful investing in DX glass at the moment as I am not sure if the full-frame sensor on the D3 means we are on the cusp of a full-frame sensor war between Nikon and Canon.

LOL, I don't disagree with you on going for nice glass before a nice body, but I think you go overboard on the 18-200VR rants.

Back in my former life I was a globe trotting product design engineer always running off to the Far East, Europe, the UK, Scandinavia, domestically, or wherever the heck there were design centers or manufacturing facilities that needed support. Back then I would have LOVED an 18-200VR and one of these modern DSLRs. A one-lens solution for whatever you need. After you pack two weeks worth of clothes and have a laptop and other work gear to tote, often through three airports, believe me you'll have no desire for a heavy camera bag too. Woulda loved a D40 and an 18-200VR for sure.

They're selling for $650 new now. Nikon is giving you $300 off, or effectively for $350 total. They still sell used for $550-600. Try it and if you don't like it, it's FREE. Actually it's not free, you'll be able to pocket $200+ USD. How is that a "disservice"? And how does Nikon know that you're going to buy Nikkor lenses after that if you want something else? How many people have Sigma 10-20's, or 70-200's? Lots.

Anyways with my situation now a 18-200VR isn't appropriate. I've never loved the lens enough to buy one, but have never hated it enough to go on rants about it either.

 

[chevy01xtreme]

everyone stop fighting. i am not trolling. i asked for some advice of accessories to go with the NEW camera the i want to get. i asked about pricing since its hard to come by at a dealer cost rate on the nikon slr lines. unless you want to be a Nikon dealer and spend 40k a year on buying nikon stuff. well i dont.

the accessories i can get. so i am not worried about what they cost at all.

i used my coolpix for everything. and i am getting grown out of it and want something more to learn from while tuning my skills and learning more along the way.

Maybe the D300 is a huge leap for me. but thats for me to decide.i dont want to buy a d40 or another camera and couple months down the line say. i want to upgrade. it will only cost me money doing it that way.

 

[kundalini]

another "paperweight", an unwanted 18-55VR from a D60 kit since there's virtually no difference between that and a $1200 pro 17-55

Surely, you jest.

So I guess you're describing yourself then, huh?

I did not recommend the OP to buy a cheaper body. I am quite happy with my package (and confirmed by others) and I certainly have more than lint at the bottom of my pockets.

If I was going to spend $1800 today on camera gear I'd probably pickup...

Good for you, but I believe the OP’s question was what lens with the D300, rather than “How would you spend $1800.”

All the lenses I listed above were purchased while I had the D80 only, so I had good glass prior to the upgrade

Or I could get a D300 whose extra FPS, MPs, ISO, etc are really not going to help improve my photography at all...

I agree with you that 2 MP is insignificant and would be a poor reason to upgrade. However, the FPS and ISO were near the top of my list for making the upgrade. As you can see from this sequence, there is no way I could have captured that with my D80. 6 FPS (forget the typo in the title) at ISO 2000. I can honestly say that the improvement those two features will impact your (my) photography is the ability to capture shots that are otherwise missed. In my opinion, that is significant.

...and will be selling for $800 used (half their original price) in just a year...

The price for a used D300 may drop that much in a year, but that is the nature of economics, advanced technology and consumer driven markets. Besides, I will have enjoyed my camera for that year already.

If you're truly going to use the D300 for ALL it's worth then by all means get one.

In the year that the price of a used D300 may drop to $800, I expect to still be in the learning curve to master ALL its functions and ability for customization for my particular shooting styles and situations. So I am still getting my moneys worth rather than pissing it down the drain. And to top it off, I kept the D80. If I decide to buy a D3, I will keep the others as well.

 

[Mav]

Chevy, it's tough to recommend anything without you giving more specifics. Do you want to stick with a single "do everything" type of lens, or multiple lenses that do less at once, but do what they do better? Do you want stuff to come off the camera perfect, or are you the type that would want to mess with stuff in photoshop afterwards?

 

[JIP]

everyone stop fighting. i am not trolling. i asked for some advice of accessories to go with the NEW camera the i want to get. i asked about pricing since its hard to come by at a dealer cost rate on the nikon slr lines. unless you want to be a Nikon dealer and spend 40k a year on buying nikon stuff. well i dont.

the accessories i can get. so i am not worried about what they cost at all.

i used my coolpix for everything. and i am getting grown out of it and want something more to learn from while tuning my skills and learning more along the way.

Maybe the D300 is a huge leap for me. but thats for me to decide.i dont want to buy a d40 or another camera and couple months down the line say. i want to upgrade. it will only cost me money doing it that way.

LOL well there are some people that get a little overly emotional about things but we all have fun here so I would not worry about the fighting too much. I do know though it sometimes highjacks a thread occasionally. I do think you are making the right decision as far as the body goes though I just hope you make the right one on the glass. So what do you intend to spend for glass with this camera and do you have any thoughts on what you want price?? focal-length??.

 

[Mav]

Surely, you jest.

I have both. Stopped down during the day at ISO 100 they're the same. Most lenses look similar stopped down to f/8 during daylight shooting. Walking around at night the VR in the 18-55 lets me get by with the same ISO 800 setting that the f/2.8 lets me get by with in the 17-55 without VR. Here the limit is high ISO performance and not lens sharpness, and they're once again the same. I've tested both. This is great since now when I go on trips where I'm mainly doing scenic work I don't have to lug around my big heavy 17-55 anymore if I don't want to. I got my 17-55 for other purposes.

I did not recommend the OP to buy a cheaper body. I am quite happy with my package (and confirmed by others) and I certainly have more than lint at the bottom of my pockets.

Thanks for the clarification. :roll:

I agree with you that 2 MP is insignificant and would be a poor reason to upgrade. However, the FPS and ISO were near the top of my list for making the upgrade. As you can see from this sequence, there is no way I could have captured that with my D80. 6 FPS (forget the typo in the title) at ISO 2000. I can honestly say that the improvement those two features will impact your (my) photography is the ability to capture shots that are otherwise missed. In my opinion, that is significant.

That was a nice demonstration of 6 FPS, but really, this is why the real high-rollers or pros are shooting D3's, or Canon 1D MkIII's for this kind of stuff, which is why I laughed at your 'penis envy' comment about a D300. For high ISO, I either need no excuses for quality shots at 6400, or I'll be chugging away at 400 with a flash for my needs. There's lots of noise and smudging visible even at web-size in your shots. It's not anything you did - just pushing the limits of what the camera was intended for, and that was "only" iso2000. No way I'd pay $5k for a D3 which is way more camera than I need and more than I'd ever want to lug around, but I could go for a "D400/FX" type body in a year or so. No sense blowing nearly $2-grand on a D300 if it's still not going to do what I'd need it to do. If it works for you that's great though. The 'penis envy' type comments are childish and also ridiculous.

The price for a used D300 may drop that much in a year, but that is the nature of economics, advanced technology and consumer driven markets. Besides, I will have enjoyed my camera for that year already.

In the year that the price of a used D300 may drop to $800, I expect to still be in the learning curve to master ALL its functions and ability for customization for my particular shooting styles and situations. So I am still getting my moneys worth rather than pissing it down the drain. And to top it off, I kept the D80. If I decide to buy a D3, I will keep the others as well.

Well like I said elsewhere, people enjoy very different things about this hobby.