Upgrading to D300

Pure · Oct 23, 2008

THIS! FINALLY

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/558921-REG/Nikon_9481_D300_SLR_Digital_Camera.html

edit: sorry, just realized i double posted.

reg · Oct 23, 2008

I would respectfully submit that you hold off on the D300 and get better glass.

Pure · Oct 23, 2008

reg said:
I would respectfully submit that you hold off on the D300 and get better glass.

Better glass as in the 24-70 and the 70-200mm lenses?

I was reading a lot about the 18-200mm glass, but while it is cheaper @ $700 it isn't crap glass. It's f/3.5, so bleh.
And I'm not going to be shooting that many night games, and when I do, it'll be under flood lights.

I'd rather not buy a D90 and then upgrade again....unless you somehow convince me, because the D300 gets much better picture quality and sharpness than the D90

Either way, those two pro lenses are massively expensive. Even with the $999 D90 + $1700 lens it would put me over $2700.

reg · Oct 23, 2008

Pure said:
because the D300 gets much better picture quality and sharpness than the D90

Says who?

I bet you could get better photos with a D40 and 70-200 than a D300 and kit lens.

Pure · Oct 23, 2008

Blah, maybe not that lens, gets distorted at some focal lengths.

...damn you nikon with your very nice, but expensive glass.

Also, what's "good glass" that isn't $1700?

JerryPH · Oct 23, 2008

Not much... lol

If you are doing indoor sports, an 85mm F/1.4 is not $1700, its only around $1100.

Sw1tchFX · Oct 24, 2008

D90 is almost 5fps, D300 is just over 6
D90 has the same sensor, arguably better low light performance then d300
D90 has better ergonomics for changing things like picture controls
both have the same LCD
ah.. whatever, you know the difference.

I've handled both the 300 and 90 alot and own a 700. If I had to put anything less then a 17-55 f/2.8 on a D300, i'd rather shoot with the D90 to try and get that lens on there. 12mp DX is VERY demanding, less then pro lenses look like crap.

I guarantee you, you'll get better pictures from a D90/17-55 f/2.8 then a D300 and 18-200VR everytime.

Digital cameras are disposable, lenses are not!!!

Pure · Oct 24, 2008

I'm probably going to buy the 70-200mm with a D90 which i can afford. Can somebody recommend a good low focal length lens?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/274780-USA/Nikon_2139_70_200mm_f_2_8D_VR_G_AFS.html
This right?

I can get away with the 70mm at some distance but close up, and with a wider shot I'll need a good 18-55 or 18-70mm. Or could i get away with a 50 prime?

TUX424 · Oct 24, 2008

i love my 18-70 it has a nice focus and that M/A-A switch which are both things that the 18-55 does not.
and you can get the 18-70 for about $200 used at adorama.com

shivaswrath · Oct 24, 2008

Pure said:
I'm probably going to buy the 70-200mm with a D90 which i can afford. Can somebody recommend a good low focal length lens?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/274780-USA/Nikon_2139_70_200mm_f_2_8D_VR_G_AFS.html
This right?

I can get away with the 70mm at some distance but close up, and with a wider shot I'll need a good 18-55 or 18-70mm. Or could i get away with a 50 prime?

a 50mm prime on a D90 would be equivalent to ~75mm; more of a portrait on a DX body.

I would consider the 35mm f/2.0 prime, will allow "wider" shots at a fast aperture. . .(and it's $229 or something?)

Good choice on the D90. . .

bhop · Oct 24, 2008

I see so many people say "forget the body, get better glass" but they don't seem to consider the focus system speed of whatever body someone is using. I notice a huuuuuuge difference in focus speed on my d70 compared to my old 90's era F100 film camera, I can only imagine what the difference would be if I were comparing it to a d300 focus screw. What good is the expensive great glass if your camera won't focus it fast enough?

Pure · Oct 24, 2008

TUX424 said:
i love my 18-70 it has a nice focus and that M/A-A switch which are both things that the 18-55 does not.
and you can get the 18-70 for about $200 used at adorama.com

i'll check it out.

shivaswrath said:
a 50mm prime on a D90 would be equivalent to ~75mm; more of a portrait on a DX body.

I would consider the 35mm f/2.0 prime, will allow "wider" shots at a fast aperture. . .(and it's $229 or something?)

Good choice on the D90. . .

ok.

bhop said:
I see so many people say "forget the body, get better glass" but they don't seem to consider the focus system speed of whatever body someone is using. I notice a huuuuuuge difference in focus speed on my d70 compared to my old 90's era F100 film camera, I can only imagine what the difference would be if I were comparing it to a d300 focus screw. What good is the expensive great glass if your camera won't focus it fast enough?

Is the D90 really that much slower than the D300? I mean slower AF is obviously bad, but still, how much slower is it?

bhop · Oct 24, 2008

Pure said:
Is the D90 really that much slower than the D300? I mean slower AF is obviously bad, but still, how much slower is it?

Having not messed with either of them, i'm going to go on a limb and say that it's not "that" much slower, but would be noticeable on some lenses. D300 having the same focus system as the D3, while the d90 has the same focus system as the older D80.

My comment was more based around owners of older cameras (such as my d70 for example) wanting to upgrade to newer bodies.

JerryPH · Oct 24, 2008

Sw1tchFX said:
I guarantee you, you'll get better pictures from a D90/17-55 f/2.8 then a D300 and 18-200VR everytime.

I agree.

Traditionally higher quality lens over a step up in camera body model has been proven more effective in terms of final results. I'd not want to do that comparison between a D90 vs D700 though, but you get my drift... lol.

reg · Oct 25, 2008

bhop said:
I see so many people say "forget the body, get better glass" but they don't seem to consider the focus system speed of whatever body someone is using. I notice a huuuuuuge difference in focus speed on my d70 compared to my old 90's era F100 film camera, I can only imagine what the difference would be if I were comparing it to a d300 focus screw. What good is the expensive great glass if your camera won't focus it fast enough?

Sure there's a huge difference between an F100 and a D70. There's also a difference between a D70 and a D300. But the fact is, if you're even on a budget, you can't just go get a D3 and bag of lenses from 70-200 to 600mm. But you should get the highest performance in real photographic situations for the money. A 70-200 will shine on a D300, yes, but to suggest it will be at all sluggish on a D70 just isn't true. And at the end of the day you can't make a f/5.6 lens into a f/2.8.