Nikon D40 or D300 as 1st SLR?

[Ben-71]

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 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.

Make sure she can handle the bulk and weight of the 70-200.

 

[Ben-71]

manaheim
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 reminds me of something I told about on another thread, but from a
different angle.​

I had do some location shots and make large B&W prints for an exhibition.
The best resolution possible was by taking it with Kodak's TP2415, a 35mm
film. It would have given a better result than a 4"x5".
I showed up with nothing but a Nikon F-3 and a tripod...
My client expressed his doubts... I replied – "Have I ever let you down? Let's
get back to this question when you see the results...". ​

I used Medium Format when people expected to see my Sinar, when it was
the right tool for the job.​

Mav

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.​

​

For many, many uses, you won't see a difference.
On the other hand, the D3 too, has an excuse.
You want "no excuses quality and sharpness, in a completely different
league" than the D3? – get a Medium Format digital back...
I see some beautiful photographs that people show here, taken with much
less expansive cameras than the D3, this one, for instance:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=104845​

manaheim
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.​

I closed the studio, so I can ease it, and do good business with much less
work.
If I still worked in the studio, I'd have had the D3.
I thought about it before I bought a D200, then I thought about it again
before I bought the D300.​

It's bulkier and heavier. I wouldn't have liked to have it with me much of the
time, as I do with the D300 and the 18-200, and the Dxxx are very good.
For the enlargement sizes that I do, it seems to me that the 70-200, which
I'm waiting for, would make a bigger difference than to replace the D300
with a D3.​

The bottom line is that while better equipment opens possibilities, the
photographer is more important than the camera. ​

manaheim
It's STUPID for anyone to base their perception of your skills by
the label on your camera strap​

Oh, the strap...
That's the first thing I tend to, on a new camera...
I don't believe in being used as a walking advertisement, AND get punished
for doing so... I put a much more convenient strap... ​

 

[Ben-71]

3) Someone said I wouldn't look funny as long as I put a pro lens
on D40.
​

What's funny about taking pics of your dogs with a D40 and a kit lens ?!

I used expensive Pro cameras, up to a Sinar View Camera,
I use a D300, I wait for the 70-200, and I couldn't care less
what others think when I use a Coolpix S-10, when that's
what suites me for some things.

For Documenting a meeting for signing of a contract that I'm
involved with, for instance, I'd look silly pulling out a D300 with
a 70-200 and a SB800 on top.
I use the Coolpix.

Make sure your wife can handle a 70-200 !
If possible, take her to a shop and let her try it.

 

[Mav]

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.

You'd want to be shooting at a high enough shutter speed shooting dogs (1/200s or faster minimum) that I don't think holding something steady is going to be an issue. Blurry shot is mostly the fault of slow P&S cameras and not the photographers. Heavier pro lenses are heavy enough that they have a higher moment of inertia and in effect can stabilize themselves to some extent.

But f/2.8 is still slow for indoor low light shooting. With it completely dark out and just relying on household lighting, I can get about 1/60 to 1/125s at iso1600 and f/1.4 with my D80 and 50mm f/1.4D prime lens. That's four times more sensitive than an f/2.8, or two stops. So at the same ISO you'd only be getting 1/15 to 1/30s shutter speeds which is barely quick enough to posed shots, let alone things that move with an f/2.8. Even if a D300 gave you acceptable results at iso3200 (one stop better) and 1/30s to 1/60s at f/2.8, that's still too slow for any sort of motion. This is why you'd need either a flash or several flashes, or a much faster lens than an f/2.8 for indoor shots trying to freeze motion. Or a D3. You probably wouldn't want to shoot at any aperture larger (smaller f/number) than f/2.8 anyways though, because the depth of field of where you're focused at becomes so slim that it's nearly impossible to keep anything in focus at all. f/1.4 is great for posed shots where you can compose precisely or for outdoors at longer distances, but is extremely demanding at close range with moving targets and not really feasible. So you're back to a smaller aperture (higher f/number) and needing a flash. That's where the superior 1/500s flash syncing capabilities of the D40 make a huge difference.

Get a D40 with a Nikkor 17-55DX or the 24-70 f/2.8 and a good flash and you'll be set. The Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 HSM might be a great indoor lens too. Then get a 70-200VR f/2.8 for the outdoor shots. If you really want extra reach, the 70-300VR f/4.5-5.6 is a great lens too, but might not give you the speed you need when the light fades. But you can always crank up the ISO on the D40 since it looks great, and you've got 1/500s flash syncing capability too on that camera.

The best thing about the D300 for what you're describing is the fact that it'll shoot at up to 8 frames per second with the optional battery grip, and 6 fps by itself. The D40 and middle-road cameras only do about 3 fps. As fast as dogs move, you could easily miss shots between frames at only 3 fps.

Like most things in photography, there's more than one way to do things, and a lot of it depends on your own budget, style, and personal preferences. So there's no right or wrong answer.


BTW, don't forget about Canon. The 40D is an awesome camera. Combine that with maybe a 24-105 f/4L IS lens and a flash and you'd have a great setup for both indoors and outdoors. Canon generally has snappier AF performance, but that shouldn't be a problem if you can afford pro-level Nikon lenses which are just as quick.

 

[Mav]

Mav

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.​

For many, many uses, you won't see a difference.
On the other hand, the D3 too, has an excuse.
You want "no excuses quality and sharpness, in a completely different
league" than the D3? – get a Medium Format digital back...
I see some beautiful photographs that people show here, taken with much
less expansive cameras than the D3, this one, for instance:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=104845​

Right, but we're talking about sports/action type photography. Most MF systems don't even go past iso400 and aren't nearly agile enough for good sports/action shots. For "no excuses" for quality studio shots or other stills, sure, by all means to get a MF system or a 4x5" view camera and you'll be smoking any DSLR regardless of price.

 

[JIP]

Sorry maybe I didn't clearly state what lens I'm talking about. This is the lens I am considering to match either with a D40 or D300.

http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon...VR-Zoom-NIKKOR-18-200mm-f/3.5-5.6G-IF-ED.html

If you buy this lens your problems with low light are not going to get any better. Your camera can only go so far when helping you with low light and it ain't very far. The main thing that is going to help you with a low light situation is going to be a faster lens so asI said before go for the D80 and buy a faster lens.

 

[Ben-71]

Originally Posted by hoboahoy

Sorry maybe I didn't clearly state what lens I'm talking about. This is the lens I am considering to match either with a D40 or D300.
http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/....6G-IF-ED.html​

​

OK, that's the 18-200.

Indoors -
With a SB800 flash on the camera, pointed up to the ceiling,
a second SB800 used as slave and pointing up, not too strong
house lighting, and lower ISO (so the flashes, and not the
available light, do the job), the flashes would freeze movement.​

The flash lighting would eliminate the white balance issue of
house lighting.
There would also be no need for a very wide open aperture,
so the very limited DOF that goes with small f/numbers, at
small distances, would be avoided.​

 

[JerryPH]

Wow, I am a little wide-eyed here. Here we have a realtively new person to photography (don' care if they had 3 years of P&S or not... dSLR is another langauge that you are obliged to learn, at least it was for me).

So we are ranging in opinions on cameras from 450 to 5000.00... and no one (not even the OP) has a clear vision of what their needs are.

Define needs, and then make a decision... but no matter what, I could not justify a D3 ($4500) plus the lenses that a camera like that demand (nothing under $1000, most are over $2000)... as a FIRST digital SLR camera.

I think the D300 is a great camera that will challenge the OP more than enough... and at times, it will be
as unforgiving in user errors as my D200 was my first week.

Even with just a D300 and lenses/accessioroes, one could spend $8000 and STILL not have all they may need. The equialent setup on a D3 would be in the $15,000 range. This is more than beyond any but the most hard core enthusaists and professionals.

Specifications and what not aside... very few new photographers are willing to spend 5 digits for a setup. Most think that $6000-$9000 is nuts... lol

 

[passerby]

I have just tried my D40 with the 50mm a minute ago. I set the aperture at f2.8 and ISO 400. Shooting an object under the normal household lighting it was nice clear picture with 1/60 SS. ISO 800 still produced crisp photo with 1/160 SS.

I didn't feel the need to try ISO 1600, as ISO 800 is more than enough for the OP concern.
The VR feature is an equivalent of 4 clicks, so the 18-200mm or the 18-85 is good enough for the job.

 

[JimmyO]

Wow, I am a little wide-eyed here. Here we have a realtively new person to photography (don' care if they had 3 years of P&S or not... dSLR is another langauge that you are obliged to learn, at least it was for me).

So we are ranging in opinions on cameras from 450 to 5000.00... and no one (not even the OP) has a clear vision of what their needs are.

Define needs, and then make a decision... but no matter what, I could not justify a D3 ($4500) plus the lenses that a camera like that demand (nothing under $1000, most are over $2000)... as a FIRST digital SLR camera.

I think the D300 is a great camera that will challenge the OP more than enough... and at times, it will be
as unforgiving in user errors as my D200 was my first week.

Even with just a D300 and lenses/accessioroes, one could spend $8000 and STILL not have all they may need. The equialent setup on a D3 would be in the $15,000 range. This is more than beyond any but the most hard core enthusaists and professionals.

Specifications and what not aside... very few new photographers are willing to spend 5 digits for a setup. Most think that $6000-$9000 is nuts... lol

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

I think the OP should get something on the lower end and get a nice lens. If he likes taken pics he can always sell the body and move up.

 

[anubis404]

I know I'm going to get blasted for this, but I think you should go with a D40. Unless you plan on going pro, it does everything you need. The D80 also may be a good choice. I think you should get a D40 (maybe D80), and invest in some good glass. Buy yourself something nice with the leftover money.

 

[Senor Hound]

At your point of buying a DSLR for the first time, you don't really know what you want out of it. So I would spend as little money on a body as possible, until you get to the point where you are confident in what features you want out of your system. Then you won't have to worry about buying $1000 worth of camera you don't use (like you might be doing with the D300), or worry about having to get a new camera in a few months because you're frustrated with what you have (like you might be doing with the D40)

I think you should get a D70, and I'll tell you why. First off, that D70 is going to be head and shoulders better than your point and shoot is. Secondly, its 6 megapixels which is an adequate size even beyond 8x10. You would have to buy one used, but that's okay. They're super cheap, and you can get your quality lenses to put on it anyway. It has two control wheels, which will make your manual experiences MUCH simpler, and then when you use the camera, and know what features you would like that the D70 doesn't, or what features you don't need, you can buy the camera you'll want from there.


If you insist on buying new, I'd buy a D80. I could be wrong, but if you are a serious photographer (as in wanting to learn exposure and whatnot), then a camera with two control wheels will really make you happy. But that's just my opinion.