Are D300, D700 and D3 good point and shoot cameras?

miurasv

miurasv

Suspended / Banned
Messages
339
Name
Steve.
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm considering getting a used Nikon D300, D700, D3 or Canon 5D Mk11 if I don't get a D200 that is and was wondering how good these cameras are if left in Auto Focus mode or Fully Auto mode or however fully auto works on these cameras. Currently I don't know how to use any of these cameras to anywhere near their capabilities, but will learn. I know that to buy a camera of the calibre of the ones I've listed is missing the point of them to use them fully automatically or is it? I guess what I'm trying to ask is if they will give better pictures than cheaper cameras in auto mode or do they only come into their own when their features are fully utilised manually? Thanks in advance for any replies I may receive.
 
save some money and buy a D90, use the extra to buy some lenses, a decent tripod, photoshop, etc. The D300 upwards are aimed at people who know what they are doing, you'll find it easier to grow into something like the D90 and by the time you need to upgrade the D700/D3 will have been replaced so you can pick them up cheaper (or get the upgraded versions).
 
If you want a point and shoot and stay on auto stick with a compact or bridge camera. The cameras you have listed will give you fantastic results if you learn how to use them, which I'm afraid means venturing away from auto type modes.
 
:wave:

Do you know the relationship between aperture and shutter speed?

I suppose i'm asking how much of basic photography do you know and understand?

If the answer is very little then forget the D3/D700 and to some extent the D300.

However if you have money to burn then get a D3 .... i'll swap my D300 with you when you get fedup with it ...... :D

The above are not aimed at the consumer market so an understanding of the Basics is needed. IMHO :|

Paul
 
Dude,

If you have the money, spend it on the best you can afford. I did the same, I had ZERO idea what any of the settings did, had no idea what the various terms meant. I did not know how to attach a lens, or how to change the various modes. I still don't, but it's sure a lot of fun learning :D

If you have the money, go crazy. Have a blast.

Gary.
 
the saying goes learn to walk before u can run......
 
I'm with Gary - if you can afford kit like that to start with, then why not. Yes, sure you can use them in full auto mode and they will work just like entry level cameras.

All I would say is, if you don't grow into them quite quickly, their extra complexity might just get in the way and certainly you don't want to be carrying a lump like a D3 around unless you have to. And if you use it like an amateur, you will get sniggered at :lol: Basically, the main advantage that top end cameras have is to allow you to do (a few) more things, and they are built to a very high professional standard for heavy use in all weathers. But if you just use them for everyday stuff on sunny weekends, you will not see any difference in your pictures. Unlikely anyway.

You should also think seriously about whether you need to go for full frame when crop format (eg the D300 or Canon 50D) might be better. Crop format is quite a lot smaller and lighter when you start adding a few lenses, as well as cheaper. In most situations it is just as good, and arguably better in some. Full frame is not automatically 'better' from every point of view.

And welcome to TP :) Care to explain your user name ;) ?
 
Buy what you want. No camera is harder to use than any other when you get down to it.

In fact the top level cameras are easier to use a lot of the time. That's why they're the top level cameras; they allow the photographer to get on with his/her job easier.

All you need to do is point the glass end at the pretty thing over there and press the button. Auto or semi auto modes will take care of everything else to an extent, just as well or better than a cheaper bridge or point n shoot camera.

Once you build up more of an understanding, there's still not a lot to it. You have three settings, aperture, shutterspeed and ISO equivalent, then you have a button that takes pictures.
 
miurasv said:
Currently I don't know how to use any of these cameras to anywhere near their capabilities, but will learn.
Click to expand...
By that time, though, the cameras will have been upgraded. The product replacement cycle in this industry is very short. It might be a more effective strategy to buy a cheaper body to start with, for learning on, and then to upgrade as and when you outgrow it.

Two other possible reasons for not jumping right in at the deep end. They might not apply to you, but I'd suggest they're worth considering.

(1) If your budget is limited (which applies to just about every beginner apart from EdinburghGary!), economising on the body will allow you to buy more/better lenses - and generally speaking the lens makes more of a difference than the body. Putting a cheap lens on an expensive body is a really bad idea.

(2) DSLRs which aren't aimed squarely at the professional usually have more automatic modes. For example the Canon 50D and Nikon D90 - which are both serious cameras - have a variety of modes to simplify taking pictures of landdscapes, sports, portaits, etc. One way of learning (which would work for some people, though perhaps not all) is to use modes like these, study the settings the camera chooses in certain situations, and work out why it chooses them.
 
Some super technical advice here, but I am totally with Gary on this subject. I've said it before several times; if you can afford to spend the money on a quality camera and quality lenses, and you intend to learn about the skills and techniques required to use the kit... then 100% absolutely - go for it, go for the best you can afford...!

If you can afford it - and if you're going to learn, then it's better to learn with kit that is unlimited in what it can do. Saves you upgrading later on when you find (which you will) you want the 'next one up'. :)

Forget the mumbo jumbo about sticking to bridge cameras first, about steep learning curves, and the somewhat patronising comments about taking your time because photography is a skill that takes so long to acquire, and you'd best pace yourself... phah... poppycock!

Yes, there is lots to learn, I'm always learning, we're all always learning... but if you can afford it... go for it. Just remember that to get the best out of whatever camera you purchase, you'll also need quality glass to accompany it.

Good luck! :)
 
Buy Right - Buy once. If only I could follow my own advice :bang::bang::bang:

If you buy cheaper, and can afford it, you'll soon be upgrading like everyone else round here.
 
mrgas said:
I didn't realise these cameras had the full auto mode
Click to expand...

Great idea to get a high spec camera, but there is no proper "auto" mode on these cameras. Closest you will get is P ( programme mode) which will set the shutter speed and aperture for you. Then you can set auto white balance and auto ISO yourself. set the autofocus to single servo and away you go. Most of your shots will be pretty good.
Then, start to learn about the camera and experiment with settings.

In the old days, this was how most cameras worked, but you couldnt see the results for a few days to see if you got it right!

Get yourself a zoom lens ( something like an 18-70) or go for a super zoom ( 18-200 or so) You will soon notice which focal length you use most which will give you a pointer when it comes to upgrading the lenses.

Just bear in mind, the D3 and 5D dont have an inbuilt flash either which will bump your original price up if you need a flash. They do have great low light capabilities though so you may not need one to start with........

Allan

Allan
 
Starting out with something like a D3 would be a serious waste as I doubt you use 20% of its capabilities. I would say go for a D90 and decent glass and accessories. Bodies change all the time, but the glass always remains. Can always upgrade the body later....
 
There are a couple of interesting comments on 'obsolescence' (i.e. cameras being 'out-of-date' once the next upgrade becomes available), but here's a funny...

I bought my D2Xs about 3 years ago - at that time it was Nikon's best/top spec Pro camera - all reports said it was brill (except if you had to push the ISO)

There is of course now the D300, D700, D3 & D3x all of which offer something more in the ISO stakes or more pixels in the D3x - but do you know what???

The D2Xs is STILL A BRILL CAMERA - and I reckon it'll remain a brill camera until it breaks in a few (perhaps lots) more year's time!!!

You don't HAVE to upgrade all the time if you buy a great camera in the first place - I'd say the D3 now, especially to a hobbiest (even a super keenie like EG) will easily last 10 years

Buy the best you can afford at the time - then stick with it until you truly need to replace it, or it breaks beyond sensible/economic repair - period

DD
 
miurasv said:
I'm considering getting a used Nikon D300, D700, D3 or Canon 5D Mk11 if I don't get a D200 that is and was wondering how good these cameras are if left in Auto Focus mode or Fully Auto mode or however fully auto works on these cameras. Currently I don't know how to use any of these cameras to anywhere near their capabilities, but will learn. I know that to buy a camera of the calibre of the ones I've listed is missing the point of them to use them fully automatically or is it? I guess what I'm trying to ask is if they will give better pictures than cheaper cameras in auto mode or do they only come into their own when their features are fully utilised manually? Thanks in advance for any replies I may receive.
Click to expand...

Leaving aside the 'politics' of your purchase for a moment, here are a few things that you should be aware of concerning the Nikon D700 (the only one that I own on your list ;)).

First off, it does not have a full "Auto" mode, nor any "Scene" modes - unlike all of the entry level DSLRs. The closest that you can get to "Auto" is probably "P" (Program) mode, which will choose both the shutter speed and the lens aperture for you. It won't necessarily change other setting like ISO and flash activation, which some DSLRs will do when used in scene modes. In short, it's not really designed for being used in this p&s way :shrug:.

That said, with the absolute minimum of effort (a morning's reading of the instructions and playing with some very basic settings), anyone would be able to get to grips with using "P" mode and the vast majority of people would have no trouble at all in understanding which speeds in "S" mode will give them the levels of movement blur (or rather, lack of camera shake :naughty:) that they need to get good pictures. From there onwards, it's just a small step appreciate the benefits of choosing the aperture size yourself and any curious and intelligent person (as your post implies that you are :)) would soon be happy shooting in "A" (Aperture) mode too, I believe.

Where more advanced cameras like the top Nikons really come into their own for capturing great images in the hands of a total beginner (IMO/IME), is with their fantastic 51 point auto-focus feature and their great control of metering and white balance functions. This anwers the first part of your question; yes, the D700 will perform the auto-focus 'better' than a much cheaper DSLR, IMO. If you leave it set to auto area focus, it can recognise all kinds of different scenes (including people's faces, landscape features etc.) and will usually pick exactly the right areas to focus on. What's more, if you want to focus on a specific point in the viewfinder, you can switch to select any one of the 51 AF points and move a little red around the viewfinder (using the direction arrow buttons on the camera back) until it covers the area that you want to be your main subject and focus on it. With a 3 point AF system, you can't do this nearly as well - if your subject isn't directly under one of those three points, you have to move the camera around until it is and then recompose the image, whilst holding down the AF button (or shutter release).

Even after several months of owning both a D40 and a D700, I still occasionally screw up otherwise great pictures on my D40, by not selecting the correct AF point (out of the measley three available :razz:), whereas the D700 rarely lets me down on this front.

Now for the poilitics :D!

You sound a bit like me, 7 months ago ;). I started with an entry level Olympus DSLR and immediately began to find limitations with it wanted to change it for something with more "growth potential". Against the advice of about 65% of people here, I went straight for the Nikon D700 and just ... learnt to use it :shrug:! Even though I'm only an amateur togger and haven't managed to get the best out of this great camera yet, I can already appreciate some of it's finer qualities (great low light shooting image quality with high ISO settings, big clear viewfinder, ergonmics and ruggedness etc.). I've never regretted my decision to buy this camera for a moment and doubt that I will want to upgrade from it for a very long time - if at all!

I say, if you can find the money - do it! If after a month it's sitting on a shelf because it turned out to be more hassle than you thought, stick it back on eBay and you'll get 95% of your money back :thumbs:. I'd bet that you don't though :D!

Good luck!
 
DiddyDave said:
You don't HAVE to upgrade all the time if you buy a great camera in the first place - I'd say the D3 now, especially to a hobbiest (even a super keenie like EG) will easily last 10 years
Click to expand...

Great point Dave. My 1DsII was the best DSLR money could buy at launch and it isn't any worse now!
 
My little addition to the discussion.

When I started out I bought a D200 (so like you buying a D300)

I learned quickly reading lots of posts, books and other articles. I have now bought a D700 to add to it.

I would suggest that there is nothing wrong with going for a D300 but would question getting anything more expensive.

Remember, and this is a mistake made by lots of people new to this hobby, it is NOT the camera! That is secondary!! The biggest factors are the owners abilities and knowledge followed by the light and GLASS.

If you have £3000 you could afford a D700 plus a 24-70 which would be superb BUT you would get more out of a D300, af50mm, 18-200, sb600/900, tripod, good bag, software and books. PLUS the lenses would hold their value better and move with you to your next camera! If you bought a D90 you would have even more to spend of GLASS and could maybe get a wide prime or split the 18-200 into an 18-105 and 70-300.
 
I recently bought a D90 and my reasons are as follows :

The wife!

We needed a camera that we could share. The wife needs full auto, video capabilities and live view

So if the wife takes the camera i pop on the kit lens, set it to full auto and she's chuffed to bits.

I am a total noob, but i'm learning. i use full auto for regular family snaps etc until i can use the camera properly. I have the 'nikon D90 for dummies' book and in my spare time i'm learning about the resty of the camera and playing around in full manual with what works and doesn't etc.
 
I say by the best you can afford but do go and buy "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson. It will help.
 
If you're looking for an advanced point and shoot, chances are size matters to you anyhow. Personally, because I walk around with my camera a lot, I don't want to carry anything around that's bigger or heavier than the D90 - even if the D3 were to drop a few thousand in price. I agree with others to say that the best DSLR currently on the market for the enthusiastic beginner is probably the D90. And honestly, if I weren't routinely blowing up my shots beyond the A3 range, I'd probably have stuck with the D40 just for its compactness and light weight.
 
I'm with the "if you can afford it do it" camp.
"P" is close to auto, use autoISO and the "dummy" focus mode and all you need to do is work out when fill flash is required.
I'm going through a period of wanting to upgrade my lenses and really wish I'd got the best to start off with.

Oh I shoot well within my cameras capabilities, but you only need one situation to make it worthwhile, as soon as you end up shooting a local gig you'll be wishing you bought the body with better high ISO performance.
 
My first camera was a D300. I knew nothing about photography was very keen to learn. The good news is via magazine articles, the tutorials on you tube and the net its never been easier to learn and obtain information. After 12 months I am now an intermediate photographer keen as mustard and with loads to learn which is how I like it. Also very importantly I don't feel the need to upgrade any time soon there nothing worse than buying a toy thats not quite what you want. If you have the cash go for it. Agree with the poster above no need to go above D300 unless you are on a man city / real madrid contract then I would go for D3 and three spare bodies.
 
Get what you can afford.

The ways it can go is either:

1. you learn alot about photography because you don't have the safety net of AUTO mode, then you will really appreciate your photo's.

2. You will get really annoyed and frustrated with the camera, will sell it on and buy a cheap point and shoot.

It's more what you are like, if your determined then get the D300/D700 or D3.

Good luck whatever your choice.
 
If you can afford it, buy it...those who say it's a waste of money haven't got a clue - learning on a Pro-Spec camera is no different than learning on a cheaper model and would probably be even easier as the menu system is often easier to use on higher-end cameras.
Plus it saves you having to upgrade later on and thus saves you money in the long run.

I learned on a Pentax Spotmatic-S (given me by my Grandfather) back in 1974 and quickly upgraded to a Nikon F2-AS as soon as I could afford it - I realise digital-SLRs are slightly different, but hey, why not?
A D3 isn't going to be as completely obsolete as fast as a D1 was eight years ago...
 
Thanks very much indeed for your excellent replies everyone. Absolutely fabulous every one of them.

HoppyUK, my user name, MIURASV is after the Lamborghini car which is a Miura SV. It's my favorite car. My father had one in the seventies and I sold another example in the 90s when I worked a a salesman that sold clasic and super cars.

Will have to keep looking in the Classified Section for a used D700 or D3 or maybe even a 5D MK 11 but I think the D700 would be better. What do I know? I know nothing. Yet! Thanks again.
 
miurasv said:
Thanks very much indeed for your excellent replies everyone. Absolutely fabulous every one of them.

HoppyUK, my user name, MIURASV is after the Lamborghini car which is a Miura SV. It's my favorite car. My father had one in the seventies and I sold another example in the 90s when I worked a a salesman that sold clasic and super cars.

Will have to keep looking in the Classified Section for a used D700 or D3 or maybe even a 5D MK 11 but I think the D700 would be better. What do I know? I know nothing. Yet! Thanks again.
Click to expand...

Good luck matey! There are some cracking examples from guys who have only just started.

Looking forward to seeing what kit you get and the resulting photos!

Gary.
 
DiddyDave said:
There are a couple of interesting comments on 'obsolescence' (i.e. cameras being 'out-of-date' once the next upgrade becomes available), but here's a funny...

I bought my D2Xs about 3 years ago - at that time it was Nikon's best/top spec Pro camera - all reports said it was brill (except if you had to push the ISO)

There is of course now the D300, D700, D3 & D3x all of which offer something more in the ISO stakes or more pixels in the D3x - but do you know what???

The D2Xs is STILL A BRILL CAMERA - and I reckon it'll remain a brill camera until it breaks in a few (perhaps lots) more year's time!!!

You don't HAVE to upgrade all the time if you buy a great camera in the first place - I'd say the D3 now, especially to a hobbiest (even a super keenie like EG) will easily last 10 years

Buy the best you can afford at the time - then stick with it until you truly need to replace it, or it breaks beyond sensible/economic repair - period

DD
Click to expand...


I agree I have been shooting digital for 2 years and only just upgraded to a D2X with the A and B firmware to effectively make it the xs and cant wait to have a play tomorrow even though it will probably be the same as my old 2h but better software:thumbs:
 
I have a spangley new D700 but my D200 is still a wonderful camera as is the D1x the I bought as a second camera and is now a third camera (soon to be IRd unless I decide to go film for IR) and now today I have just bought an F80 (I have just put it's third EVER film in!!).

If it was a decent camera then then it still is now. My advice is to buy a decent body D300 and invest in glass.
 
miurasv said:
Thanks very much indeed for your excellent replies everyone. Absolutely fabulous every one of them.

HoppyUK, my user name, MIURASV is after the Lamborghini car which is a Miura SV. It's my favorite car. My father had one in the seventies and I sold another example in the 90s when I worked a a salesman that sold clasic and super cars.

Will have to keep looking in the Classified Section for a used D700 or D3 or maybe even a 5D MK 11 but I think the D700 would be better. What do I know? I know nothing. Yet! Thanks again.
Click to expand...

You have superb taste in both cameras and cars :) That was some motor for your father to have back then. I don't think I've actually ever seen one on the road, outside of a classic show. Utterly fabulous :thumbs: My dad had a Hillman :shrug:
 
I'd certainly go for the D700 over D3, the weight saving alone will be worth it when you are getting started. Go and try them out and you'll see what I mean, the D3 is a serious bit of kit, as far from point and click as you can get. You really lose out on very little by going for the D700 and you can always buy a grip later to bulk it out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top