D300 owners in London

G

goatee

Suspended / Banned
Messages
211
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm thinking of the unthinkable, swapping from Canon to Nikon - partly because of the D300. Are there any Londoners I could meet to have a play with a D300? I've not used a Nikon since a D100 many years ago, and I didn't get on with it all that well, but it was thrust at me, so I didn't have an opportunity to find out how it works!
 
If I had a Canon glass, I'd get a 40D instead.

Or a 5D - which is about the best bargain going at the moment.

You won't find a Nikon alternative to the 24-105 L or the 70-200 L.

I shoot Nikon - and am very happy - but I wouldn't swap if I had what you had glass wise.
 
Really? Hrm. Basically, I had a 1D Mark ii, and sold it, because I didn't need it, and felt it was overkill. I was going to pick up a 5D, but now I'm having second thoughts, as it does have a couple of areas (like AF) that could be better, and so I was going to wait for the 5D replacement to be announced, but then I started looking at the D300, and aside from the DX format sensor (I can't afford a D700), it's amazing. Image quality is great, ISO performance is great, plus it has the Nikon metering and flash, pro level AF, and, and, and. . .

In terms of glass, I was thinking of 3 main options

1. 18-200 VR, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8
2. 24-85, 70-300 VR, and a prime or two
3. 24-70 f/2.8, 70-300 VR
 
I'd take a 40D + 24-105 L + 70-200 L over a D300 with a 18-200 VR.

In fact, I'd snatch your arm off.

The lack of f/4 constant aperture lenses and USM primes is a big downer Nikon-wise.

You need to think in terms of a complete system, not focus around a body IMHO.
 
Hmm, you're right of course. I do tend to get strange ideas, and then get a bit too caught up in them. Anyway, I've got a 30D arriving tomorrow, which will tide me over until the 5D's successor is announced (hopefully soon!)
 
It's not comparable to the f/4 L. The 70-200 f/4 is as sharp as the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, but a third of the price.
 
Blapto said:
I'm in London (I work in Leicester Square) with a D300. I'll have it with me on Thursday in fact.
Click to expand...

Cool - can we meet up at some point?
 
goatee said:
It's not comparable to the f/4 L. The 70-200 f/4 is as sharp as the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, but a third of the price.
Click to expand...

It's is in fact sharper and cheaper :) F4L IS being the sharpest of the bunch
 
Yes, you do lose one stop, but it's amazing. I think that Canon's f/4 constant zooms are the big reason there aren't more Nikon shooters - they offer such amazing value for money. Hmm, I appear to be talking myself out of it - still I'd love to get to grips with a D300.
 
I'd love a 70-200 f/4 - the Nikon f/2.8 VR is a great lens, no question, but its very large. Ditto the 70-200 f/2.8 IS.

I'd happily trade one stop, for 1/2 the price and weight!

Don't get caught up in "grass is greener" type stuff, because a body really is a very unimportant cog in the overall system :)
 
It's not very unimportant, I'd say it's important, but if it's 60% photographer, 40% gear, then of that 40%, 30% is glass and 10% body. Ok, 10% aint much.
 
puddleduck said:
Don't get caught up in "grass is greener" type stuff, because a body really is a very unimportant cog in the overall system :)
Click to expand...

While there's some truth in that, don't not look at other systems. Either you find out that your system really is the one for you, which is always nice, or you discover a more suited one. I'd disagree that the body was unimportant at all. There are many factors whcih will affect not just your imaegs but your ability to take images.

To the OP, keep looking, if only to reassure yourself that you have the right kit but don't be afraid of changing if that is the right course for you.
 
goatee said:
It's not very unimportant, I'd say it's important, but if it's 60% photographer, 40% gear, then of that 40%, 30% is glass and 10% body. Ok, 10% aint much.
Click to expand...

You reckon? I reckon it's more like 90% photographer, 6% glass and 4% body. Too many people worry about image quality and forget the influence of the body on capturing the picture in the first place. At the end of the day though, a good photographer is a good photographer, irrerspective of gear.
 
You're right Northern, though I think what puddleduck was getting at, is that from what I've said, and the glass I have, whilst the D300 may be a better body, the glass would be very difficult to match. I'd love to have a play with a D300 to see what I'm missing out on, but I knew that if I jumped ship, I'd have to compromise on the glass.
 
The only reason I say that, is because if you want to take low light shots etc, then you need the kit to enable you to, but I take your point, maybe I'll settle on 80% tog ;).


NorthernNikon said:
You reckon? I reckon it's more like 90% photographer, 6% glass and 4% body. Too many people worry about image quality and forget the influence of the body on capturing the picture in the first place. At the end of the day though, a good photographer is a good photographer, irrerspective of gear.
Click to expand...
 
That's presuming that the unique features of the glass you have is important to you. One man's phtography is rarely the same as the next. While you have an investment in glass only you can decide what benefits of another system will outweigh the cons of changing over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top