nikon d300

puddleduck said:
Money. Simple as that.

As soon as the D400 comes out, the classified will be full of D300s and people will be saying how the D400 is "far superior in every way" to the D300 they just lost £800 by selling so they could get latest toy that produces identical images to the last one :)
Click to expand...

But there lies the difference between the 300 and the 200, the 200 cannot produce the shots the 300 can in low light.That is the only reason I bought the 300.
 
Just watching where this is going.Your both still putting in valuable info as far as I'm concerned.each backing up his own statement
 
fracster said:
But there lies the difference between the 300 and the 200, the 200 cannot produce the shots the 300 can in low light.That is the only reason I bought the 300.
Click to expand...


Its certainly a little better at high ISO. But I've had no problems selling D200 ISO800 images for publication. I find the clients never complain about noise. In fact, ISO1600 hasn't been a problem. Much over. Nope, breaks up.

I found the D300 high ISO advantage a little over-stated. Although here it was WAY better than the D2X it has to be said. About 2/3rd of a stop over the D200.

If you expose correctly on the D200 it still produces excellent images. Not having proper ISO100 on the D300 is a major deal breaker. Even the mighty D3 suffers badly when its "pushed" down to ISO100, losing dynamic range.
 
puddleduck said:
I guaratee that a D40 with a Nikkor 70-200 VR onboard will blow away a D300 with an 18-200 onboard.
Click to expand...

Whilst the 70-200VR is quite rightly a superb lens, its a professional quality lens and its big and cumbersome ( almost 1.5 kg and 215 mm long) and only covers a small range, but, if your ok lugging that around all the time, that would be great. I had a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 for a while. Its 25mm shorter than the Nikon lens, but it was too big for me to use all the time. I would also have needed a bigger bag to carry it in whilst attached to the camera. I sold it.

Also I am sure that the 70-200 iq would be great on a D40, but the camera only processes what the lens sees and I cant believe all the advances in the D300 would be negated just by the use of a lens on an older less sophisticated camera.

But if you get the 70-200, what will you use for closer work? Taking the glass glass glass arguement further, you will need at least 2 more lenses. Say, a 24-70 f2.8 at £1200 and a 14-24 f2.8 at £1000. What about over 300mm? Will it have to be an f2.8 lens?

So, are you going into Nikon ownership as a Pro, needing pro lenses, or do you want a lens/camera combination that you can carry around on holidays / day trips etc.

And, if you do buy the 70-200VR as an investment ( I`m not knocking the lens, I would love one too, but I am practical) what will your ultimate camera be? Full frame or cropped? The latest review from dpreview on the lens suggests it is not too good on a full frame camera ( linky)

I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the "glass first" argument, but, you need to weigh up what sort of photography you will be doing against the cost of doing it.

Then, go buy the D300........ :naughty:
 
puddleduck said:
Its certainly a little better at high ISO. But I've had no problems selling D200 ISO800 images for publication. I find the clients never complain about noise. In fact, ISO1600 hasn't been a problem. Much over. Nope, breaks up.

I found the D300 high ISO advantage a little over-stated. Although here it was WAY better than the D2X it has to be said. About 2/3rd of a stop over the D200.

If you expose correctly on the D200 it still produces excellent images. Not having proper ISO100 on the D300 is a major deal breaker. Even the mighty D3 suffers badly when its "pushed" down to ISO100, losing dynamic range.
Click to expand...

Granted, as stated before, I still use my D70s for low ISO landscape work and love the images it produces.It is not worth a great deal,so I keep it and my daughter also uses it.

My D200 is currently for sale, I doubt it will sell and i`m not unduly concerned if it doesn`t.The ludicrously low price these models are selling for beggars belief. It is a VERY capable camera and can produce stunning images.

However, I do a lot of wildlife stuff and in lowlight the 300 is far better than the other two.That was the clincher for me

If I were only to have one body, which would I keep? The 300 is more capable of doing what the others do , than they are capable of doing what the 300 does.
 
So, are you going into Nikon ownership as a Pro, needing pro lenses, or do you want a lens/camera combination that you can carry around on holidays / day trips etc.

Well the holiday / day trip camera is the D40. Its for casual 3 or 4 times a year users.

The way I see it is that if you are serious about photography, say a Pro or just want the best image quality get lenses first, and buy all means a D300.

But if you just want a holiday snap / day trip camera, then I'd be looking at D40 + 18-200 VR lens.

Then, go buy the D300........

I'm not anti-D300, but its not the cure for cancer, and paying nearly £1k then saddling it with a 18-200 DX is not good advice. So decide what you really want here.

PS - I don't like big lenses either, check the Classified for what I just sold.
 
puddleduck said:
PS - I don't like big lenses either, check the Classified for what I just sold.
Click to expand...

I do............:D

600Test_200810Jul_9002.jpg


:lol:
 
puddleduck said:
What the hell is that, I'm gonna need a bigger monitor!! :lol:
Click to expand...

Now thats big.
I'm really into photography as a serious hobby (more than just holidays and snaps).I have a feeder etc all set up .I also do quite alot of car photos( mostly static) I use my camera probably every other day and really want to get the best I can afford.The Sony can be quite noisey,Thats why i was thinking of changing.All your advice and statements have been very helpful.
Thanks again
 
It`s my prototype rocket launcher......:lol:
 
JIMC said:
Now thats big.
I'm really into photography as a serious hobby (more than just holidays and snaps).I have a feeder etc all set up .I also do quite alot of car photos( mostly static) I use my camera probably every other day and really want to get the best I can afford.The Sony can be quite noisey,Thats why i was thinking of changing.All your advice and statements have been very helpful.
Thanks again
Click to expand...

The price that 200`s are going for at the moment, that is the route that I would recommend for you.
 
I'd be looking at a D200 too. I've seen bodies around £400, and thats a good £550 cheaper than a D300. Going back to my lenses thing again, that saving would buy a really nice lens.

OK JIMC, if I was spending your money, I'd get a D200, a Nikkor 300mm f/4 AF-S and a 1.4x TC and you will produce WAY better images than a D300 + 18-200 VR of your feeder birds.


278462609_b32750beae_o.jpg

​
 
puddleduck said:
I'm not anti-D300, but its not the cure for cancer, and paying nearly £1k then saddling it with a 18-200 DX is not good advice.
Click to expand...

Thats what I`ve got. Its a very capable lens despite its "many" flaws. I also have a 70-300VR and a Siggy 105 EX macro and an A3 printer that produces superb prints of anything I have taken. The detail in them is amazing.

Allan
 
Thanks for your help will check this out.
cracking photo by the way
 
Only if there is enough light.............:D

Seriously, the 300 F4 is a nice and light piece of kit, I use one with a 1.7 tc and it gets pretty good results............:thumbs:
 
The Nikkor 300mm f/4 AF-S is one of Nikon's optical jewels. Cheap, light. Insanely sharp. Focuses really close for macro-type stuff. Works great with TCs too (I never got quite as good results with a 1.7x but still OK)

By my sums:

D300 + 18-200 VR = £1350
D200 + 300mm f/4 AF-S + 1.4x = £1150

Still £200 left to get a nice 18-70 DX (which is better than the 18-200 VR) and a 55-200 VR (also better than the 18-200 VR) with the left overs.

Job done :)
 
D200, 300 F4 with 1.7 TC.

Pied_Woodpecker056.jpg
 
D200, 300mm f/4 AF-S (no TC)



371688571_4ef729e4b7_o.jpg


​

I found the 1.4x didn't degrade too much, I have a 420mm version somewhere. Don't think I have a 1.7x one :(
 
Thanks again for the info,some great photos there
 
Another vote here for the 300mm F4, a sweet lens.
 
Ive recently sold my D200 to buy a D300, costing me £550 to do the upgrade.

There is an argument for "glass" but for me i wanted the low light capability and on high ISO it wipes the floor with the D200.

If you dont need this or the available 8fps with grip, then buy the D200.

I couldnt use a D40 now, i had one and its just too small for me, even the D80 feels on the small side.

So if you dont need the extras the D300 has, Get the D200 and put £500 to glass, you can always upgrade the body later and if you buy second hand now, you shouldnt drop much over a year or 2. Ive just let my D200 Body + extra battery for £450 delivered. Even in 2 years i cant see people selling for less than £350..
 
£550 used or from Hong Kong (One Stop Digital), its not £1k even over here.
 
JIMC said:
Is this the one costing about £1000+
Click to expand...


No that's the F2.8 and my budget wouldn't stretch....yet.

F4 though is exceptional value for money and i have a 1.4 TC to go with it as well.
 
fracster said:
I got mine from HK Jim for £562.
Click to expand...

Mine was £480 from HK. I was prepared to pay full duty as would still have been a good saving, I had to pay just £28.00 in the end.

Came in Tropical Grey to confuse those Canon shooters.
 
I used to have the 300mm f/2.8 VR. Wow! Best lens ever. Huge though.

I took it to an airshow and folks were walking up to me all afternoon with variations of "Cor! Thats a big one!". And it was.



752927388_f46e0fb3e5_o.jpg


​
 
puddleduck said:
I used to have the 300mm f/2.8 VR. Wow! Best lens ever. Huge though.

I took it to an airshow and folks were walking up to me all afternoon with variations of "Cor! Thats a big one!". And it was.



752927388_f46e0fb3e5_o.jpg


​
Click to expand...

fantastic shot,shows you get what you pay for
 
puddleduck said:
but the D40 is too old and too low spec to be worth considering nowadays

I guaratee that a D40 with a Nikkor 70-200 VR onboard will blow away a D300 with an 18-200 onboard.

About the same price all in, but its GLASS that makes the difference.
Click to expand...

It will, up to a point. I still don't see the point in putting £1200 worth of pro glass on a £200 entry level body. :thinking:

A D80 with an 80-200 f/2.8 would be £500 cheaper and would produce the same quality images as the D40/70-200 combo, but in 10mp resolution. The D80 also boasts plenty of features the D40 is lacking. In fact you could have a new D200/80-200 combo and it would still be £300 cheaper than buying the D40 one ;)
 
It doesn't have be a D40, but my point is that most of the money should go on glass.

Bodies come and go (the D40 was called "old" in this thread and its been going 18 months), but a really good lens will last through multiple bodies.

A D80 would also be a good choice, but I personally think 80% of the money should go on lenses, regardless of body. Like I said before, lens are the camera's "eyes" and with bad eyes, you are not making the most of the shot opportunity.

PS: I use a D60, and have GREAT glass, I was using a Nikkor 14-24 on it the other day, never seen a wide angle so sharp. Again thats cheaper than a D300 with say a Sigma 10-20, and the optics absolutely will destroy the D300/Sigma combo. And its cheaper.
 
Oh, I agree that good glass is essential, but I still think there is a level (the D80, for example) below which expensive, "pro" glass makes no financial sense.....
 
Can't see why images from the D60 would be different from the D80, they have the same sensor no?

I'm an example of someone who did the 'wrong' thing in buying a D300 and consumer lenses but I'm happy with my decisions. I shoot for fun and the convenience and usability of the D300 adds more to my fun than the ultimate image quality of the pro glass. Especially when I consider carrying around a 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200. :gag:
 
Jamougha said:
Can't see why images from the D60 would be different from the D80, they have the same sensor no?

I'm an example of someone who did the 'wrong' thing in buying a D300 and consumer lenses but I'm happy with my decisions. I shoot for fun and the convenience and usability of the D300 adds more to my fun than the ultimate image quality of the pro glass. Especially when I consider carrying around a 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200. :gag:
Click to expand...
Thanks for your input.Think I started a debate here,but all helpful
 
Especially when I consider carrying around a 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200.

Well you don't have to carry everything at once.. I tend to carry a small shoulder bag and thats it.

Consider:
D300 with Sigma 10-20
D60 with Nikkor 14-24

Weight wise they are similar (the D300 weighs more than the D60, but the Nikkor lens is heavier)

D300 + Sigma 10-20 = £1200
D60 + Nikkor 14-24 = £1250

I really am not saying everyone should go out and buy a D60 and f/2.8 glass, but just pointing out that you can get nice glass (which makes much more difference to image quality) by not spending big on the body.

I'm just giving a different perspective to the usual the "buy a D300" mantra :)
 
Well I'm sure the 14-24 is optically far superior to the 10-20, and I completely agree that if you want the highest image quality on a limited budget then the D60 plus pro Nikkors is the way to go.

However if I had the 14-24 along with the 10-20 then I think that the 10-20 would see a lot more use. It goes wider and takes filters.

I'm saying that there are a series of trade-offs when selecting gear, and image quality is only one of those. Personally I've never looked at one of my pictures and thought man, if I'd just had a sharper lens then this would have been a much better shot. If my pictures were as good as yours then maybe I'd start to worry about it. ;)
 
puddleduck said:


Consider:
D300 with Sigma 10-20
D60 with Nikkor 14-24

Weight wise they are similar (the D300 weighs more than the D60, but the Nikkor lens is heavier)

D300 + Sigma 10-20 = £1200
D60 + Nikkor 14-24 = £1250

I really am not saying everyone should go out and buy a D60 and f/2.8 glass, but just pointing out that you can get nice glass (which makes much more difference to image quality) by not spending big on the body.

I'm just giving a different perspective to the usual the "buy a D300" mantra :)
Click to expand...


This is a great discussion and while I can certainly see the merit in good glass, this thread so far has been purely academic with no evidence to back up the claims.
You seem to have experience of the D40 D60 and D300, it would be interesting to see comparison shots of all the 3 cameras using the Sigma 10-20 and Nikon 12-24 as well as the OP`s suggestion of D300 with 18-200vr compared to a D40/60 with a 70-200vr.

Then there would be good info for all to take away.

Incidently, what camera did you use for the shot of the plane using that superb Nikkor 300mm f2.8. I want one of those!

Allan
 
Incidently, what camera did you use for the shot of the plane using that superb Nikkor 300mm f2.8. I want one of those!

Fuji S5 Pro :)

Better than any Nikon camera I have used - although I suspect the D700 may give it a run for its money :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top