D80 or D300

C

Cordina

Guest
Please help i'm trying to deside between the Nikon D80 and the Nikon D300 :bonk: i'm just starting out as a pro photographer and i'm really unsure what to go for, the d80 is smaller and feels good in the hand but will it last long enough, or should i just go the hole hog and go big from the start. :help:
 
If you're starting out as a pro. Then D300 or D200 hands down really?
Maybe thats abit blinkered.
 
I had the D80, upgraded to the D300 and was more than happy. I wish I had kept the D80 as a second body though. So go buy both!!!
 
Cordina said:
Please help i'm trying to deside between the Nikon D80 and the Nikon D300 :bonk: i'm just starting out as a pro photographer and i'm really unsure what to go for, the d80 is smaller and feels good in the hand but will it last long enough, or should i just go the hole hog and go big from the start. :help:
Click to expand...

Err....if you're starting out as a pro and considering a D80, what are you using at the moment?
 
i've been using a small compact which has seen me good but i need to move on sooner rather than later:) and the d80 is ment to be the new small pro or so i've read
 
by just buying decent dSlr you wont turn in to PRO tog ..at least in my opinion :)
 
I've just sold my D80 for the D300. Definitely worth the upgrade!
 
Well going from a compact to a dslr is a big step-good luck to you if you can make it as a pro-afterall a pro just means getting paid. if people like your work then your there. But I feel you might have a sudden shock as slr and dslr are nothing like a compact.
 
I have used slr's before but back in the dark age when there was only film and digital was something out of the movies, but thanks for the advice, i'll proceed with caution :)
 
Well if you are pro, then you need a D300 over a D80.
Are you selling much with the compact?
 
vecsri said:
Are you selling much with the compact?
Click to expand...

That's what I was wondering :thinking:

What kind of things have you been shooting in a pro capacity with your compact? Perhaps if we knew that we'd be able to give you advice as to whether you need a D300 over a D80....
 
:bang:
 
Cordina,
I would go for the D80 or better D200 ( Could be 2 x D80 )
Lenses: 17-35/2.8 + 50/1.4 +80(70)-200/2.8
or: 20/2.8 + 50/1.4 + 85/1.8 + 180/2.8
Flash: Don´t need to be a Sb800 you will be fine with Sb28 or even Sb25 in manual mode

As a PJ for 15 years I found myself using 17-35 almost 80% and the 80-200 mostly for sports.

Kjeld
 
This " I wanna be a pro tog" never fails to baffle me......:cautious:

We have threads saying "I`m doing a wedding, what lenses should I use, I wanna be a pro?", " I wanna do motorsport, what lens should i get, I wanna be a pro? " and " I wanna do wildlife, what lens should I buy, I wanna be a pro? ?"

If you don`t know the do some research,FFS!

Read , learn, digest, understand and try to get better.Make mistakes, everyone does, and learn from them.Contrary to the mags you read, being a pro, does happen overnight!

Posted by a complete novice, but hey, i`m learning............(y)
 
fracster said:
Read , learn, digest, understand and try to get better.Make mistakes, everyone does, and learn from them.Contrary to the mags you read, being a pro, does happen overnight!
Click to expand...

:clap:

Anyway - some kind of help doesn´t spoil my day
Kjeld
 
alexisonfire said:
:shake:

A professional photographer is someone who can constantly meet the criteria at a very high standard. IMO its completely regardless whether they get paid for it or not.
Click to expand...

Well most people on most forums would class a pro as someone who earns from their photography.

Your not a pro if you do it for a hobby in other words. Also consistency kinda speaks for itself as if you were no good you wouldnt be getting paid.

Besides ive seen many so called pros-especially the events photographers who could do with a few lessons in photography LOL
 
Well I don't think I will be a pro, but I (myself and Daz in fact) have scored £500 for taking some easy photos, just this week! What does that make me? A lucky novice? :D

Gary.
 
If you continue to sell some work but work part time at it a semi pro
 
digitalmaniac said:
If you continue to sell some work but work part time at it a semi pro
Click to expand...

If you are referring to me, then thats a load of balls :) My pics are nowhere near pro level, and I don't understand half the settings. It's like me picking up a black and decker drill and removing a friends tooth with it, then calling myself a Dentist. The job might be done, but the methods and means used, not even remotely pro.

Getting paid does not = PRO to me. Getting paid and being able to produce the goods the right way = PRO I reckon.

:D

Gary.
 
Well others would disagree-and those who call themselves pro often are not-it is a very grey area.

I have seen definitions many times on many forums and online encylopedia saying just that.

Take it or leave it I dont really give a hoot.

If you dont feel pro or semi pro or even a novice-thats your lookout.

But then of course I am always wrong and others are always right.

Ha
 
digitalmaniac said:
Well others would disagree-and those who call themselves pro often are not-it is a very grey area.

I have seen definitions many times on many forums and online encylopedia saying just that.

Take it or leave it I dont really give a hoot.

If you dont feel pro or semi pro or even a novice-thats your lookout.

But then of course I am always wrong and others are always right.

Ha
Click to expand...

Hey no disrespect to your opinion :D Maybe one day I will call myself a pro, until then, novice, noob and clueless **** will do just fine! :)

I see some guys here who should DEFO be considered a pro, but apparently don't make money. AJPhotoTog and his macro work, that's pro to me! :)

Gary.
 
My point is anyone can sell their work-yes of course there are different levels of this as in any field. But many can sell work on alamy and make a bit of money.

Wedding photographers can earn some money but still work in a day job.

Others become superstars and are paid thousands a day.

Bit like im a driving instructor and we can be graded between 4 and 6.

But the 4 is still a professioanl as he can sell his service.

If you dont feel like a pro then fine-not saying you are.

Anyway we are hijacking this thread and im saying no more.

Sorry to op

But there is no absolute in photography unless they make it so you have to have a licence to charge for it.
 
For what its worth I myself have taken (and sold) some very nice pictures on a compact...don't get hung up on having the biggest camera...it won't make you an instant professional photographer (definition being; someone who earns their living from their images) The D80 is a fantastic camera but as already mentioned it is not new! Nikon will apparently be announcing its replacement in the autumn so if you can wait that long then get the upgrade model...but if you are willing to take a leap of faith and a steep learning curve then get D300 it is an exceptionally good camera and you won't have any need to upgrade for years! Ultimately it depends on a) budget and b) your own personal aspirations!!!

good luck.
 
i wouldnt call my self a pro, its a hobby for me nut (in my eyes) i think i would say i have seen me produce better pics at times than some i see in mags etc (personal opinion)

i would never be a pro, i've sold a couple of images in the past, but never even looked at selling them in all honesty

i would say a pro would need at least a D300, maybe even go as far as saying D3 but again personal opinion
 
digitalmaniac said:
Well most people on most forums would class a pro as someone who earns from their photography.

Your not a pro if you do it for a hobby in other words. Also consistency kinda speaks for itself as if you were no good you wouldn't be getting paid.

Besides ive seen many so called pros-especially the events photographers who could do with a few lessons in photography LOL
Click to expand...


Professionals do it as a profession, they specialise in making money from it, hence why the events photographers who trawl school proms and uni balls, can produce results which are sometimes frankly crap and definately mass produced.

People who shoot "Pro Level" photos (right up to the level of maybe especially people like David Bailey, Lord Snowdon and Annie Leibovitz), are frequently following what is known as a vocation... They're getting paid for doing something they enjoy.

I'd like to be the latter, should I ever reach the point that I'm good enough to make a consistent profit, from my results.
 
whitey said:
i

i would say a pro would need at least a D300, maybe even go as far as saying D3 but again personal opinion
Click to expand...

Sorry mate, but that is so wrong. Yes the 300 suits me for wildlife, the 200 ain`t too shoddy either, but some of my best pics are off my old 70s.

The person looking into the viewfinder makes the biggest difference, IMO.

(y)
 
TheKrikkitWars said:
Professionals do it as a profession, they specialise in making money from it, hence why the events photographers who trawl school proms and uni balls, can produce results which are sometimes frankly crap and definately mass produced.

People who shoot "Pro Level" photos (right up to the level of maybe especially people like David Bailey, Lord Snowdon and Annie Leibovitz), are frequently following what is known as a vocation... They're getting paid for doing something they enjoy.

I'd like to be the latter, should I ever reach the point that I'm good enough to make a consistent profit, from my results.
Click to expand...


I'd go a step further and say that a pro earns a living from it, obviously with doing other things such as exhibitions etc.
 
fracster said:
Sorry mate, but that is so wrong. Yes the 300 suits me for wildlife, the 200 ain`t too shoddy either, but some of my best pics are off my old 70s.

The person looking into the viewfinder makes the biggest difference, IMO.

(y)
Click to expand...


just the d300 is a little more ruggid and possibly will last longer if used a lot.

Give me a 15 year old ricoh kr10 and ill show you some super amazing pictures-but a lot of it also comes down to saleability-a lot of stock agencies are insisting on 12mp plus now-so these things need to be considered also
 
fracster said:
Sorry mate, but that is so wrong. Yes the 300 suits me for wildlife, the 200 ain`t too shoddy either, but some of my best pics are off my old 70s.

The person looking into the viewfinder makes the biggest difference, IMO.

(y)
Click to expand...

i thought my D40x was grat and did take some fantastic pictures and love my D200 but if i was going "pro" then i would want something upto date with all the features needed etc, just a personal opinion on it
 
if you want to be a pro, you need to nail the shots. i guess this will include weddings portrait etc...

the d80 will work and do fine, the problem comes when you need the higher iso, this is where the d300 excels and in that one day you need the high isos, could make the extra worthwile. you dont suggest a budget or what you shoot, but good glass is essential.

if the budget is tight, get the d80 and some decent lenses. if the budget is bigger, get the d80 and better lenses. if the budget is large get the d300 and the better lenses.
 
I think you need to worry about the lenses more than the Body. Stick a rubbish lens on a D300 and you will get rubbish results.
 
I guess it all depends one what you want to photograph. I agree with you both about the build quality and additional features of the 200/300,I didn`t know about the 12 mp requirement for stock agencies, thanks for the info......(y)

Yes, the high ISO of the D3 and, to a lesser extent ,the D300,is certainly a huge improvement, but I still feel that the person looking through the viewfinder is the most important part of any camera, otherwise we would all shoot in auto mode,wouldn`t we..........:shrug:


Who can genuinely say that they use all the features on a D200,nevermind a D300?.............I certainly don`t use them all........:LOL:
 
"Pro camera" - the best the manufacturer makes (albeit maybe more than one)

Best technology they can market which in turn increases your chances of a result that is saleable.

Would someone taking photographs for money use anything but the best tool on the market? Maybe... but time=money. A wasted day is money not earnt though.

Simple as that.

Do hobby togs use the best equipment? Yes they do. Does that make them "pro", well I dunno. Who cares!

Is some commercial photography crap? Yes! But the last laugh is on the person who can sell it I suggest. 100 photos of a school leavers disco is not a bad bit of cash for bugger all work and no creative talent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top