nikon d300

allanm said:
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
Click to expand...

Ha ha! Not even a Nikon (well, not a proper one ).... A Fuji S5 - a mangled D200.

There are so many points laid down in argument here. There is a always an argument for better glass. As for the points raised against the D300 I can't find one that is relevant, except cost.

Yes, I think I can tell the the difference between D40, D200 and a D300 at A4, all things being equal. The noise side of it alone is a no-brainer - the D300 leaves the rest in it's wake. Anyone tried "live-view" with macro and "hide" work for birds?

How about 51 point 3D AF focus tracking? If it's the difference between getting the shot or not..... the D300 is head and shoulders above the rest! So what if the glass is a little 'off'? If it aint in focus because the AF hardware is behind the times better glass won't get you the shot!

Having done a couple of weddings now with D300 compared to D200 - I wouldn't even get the D200 out of the bag in a church where the minister says "no flash".

To suggest that Nikon brought out the D300 because of money is a load of tosh! I can't imagine Canon thought of that argument. Did they not rule the roost with regard to noise and handling for more time than I care to remember? D300 and D3x are streets ahead at the moment and to suggest a D40 or even a D60 makes my mind boggle!
 
S5 ... beat me to it.... had to much to type!

And another thing!

What's the point of having good glass if you haven't got a sensor capable of capturing that resolution?

Anybody tell this has wound me up?
 
puddleduck said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

The D300 will give it a run for it's money! I know for certain!
 
I get the impressions you'd make a cookie cutter response without really reading the thread?

OK, consider this for a wedding.

D300 with 18-200 VR
D40 with 70-200 VR

Same cost - the D40 will give the D300 - 18-200 VR a poke in the eye with a sharp stick for image quality.

Much better lens, and those two stops gain on the lens will allow you to shoot at say ISO800 on the D40, vs ISO3200 on the D300.

D300 and D3x are streets ahead at the moment and to suggest a D40 or even a D60 makes my mind boggle!

So why saddle it with an 18-200 VR?

Like I said, you've not really read the thread. This is about glass over body. If you have the glass, by all means consider a D300.
 
Consider this for a wedding......

.... the bridal group of 30 people is 10 metres in front of you and you have to get them all in!

70mm against 18mm ..... 70mm will leave Aunty Flo and Uncle George out of the shot! As I said..... it's the difference between getting the shot or or not. I know where my money is!

I have read this thread - please suggest I haven't.
 
If you are doing a wedding, you'll probably have two bodies, no? At least if you are doing it professionally.

You can do the same shot with a D40 + 18-55 VR lens I think if you an amauter. You don't "need" a D300 for this.
 
Suddenly you've introduced another lens..... the brief was for the 18-200 VR lens and a D300.

Not only have you moved the goal posts you've introduced an inferior 'kit' lens into the bargain! Now way is the 18-55mm better than the 18-200mm ;)

If you're going to argue glass over body then you're failing.

My money is definitely on the D300 with a 18-200VR. It is a far better balanced set up in the hands than the other combinations you're coming up with.
 
JIMC said:
Thanks again.D300 felt a really nice camera.Never had a Nikon before
Click to expand...

My point exactly.... if it feels good in the hands you're well on the way to feeling confident in the camera! Confidence leads to better shots :clap:
 
Now way is the 18-55mm better than the 18-200mm

The 18-55 VR is better than the 18-200 VR throughout the range. Thom Hogan now recommend the 18-55 VR / 55-200 VR over the 18-200 VR.

Indeed when the 18-200 VR came out he said the D200 needed better glass than the lens, and that was at 10 megapixels.

If you are happy with your compromise great - but don't kid yourself.
 
As a D40 owner I wouldnt get another one. The 2 biggies for me are the lack of motor (which means I do miss a fair few shots using my 50mm f/1.8 as I don't always get them in focus) and the lack of AEB as I really want to have a play with HDR.

Other than that I love it.
 
Wow, a "Nikon civil war".........:LOL:
 
My point really is that at nearly £1k for a D300 alone, you can get some awesome glass instead. For folks with a limited budget, glass is the way to go.

And I'm sticking to it, even though I seem to be in a minority off one :LOL:
 
I have no compromise to be happy about or kid myself over - thanks!

As I've never used any of the three lenses mentioned I can't objectively comment. All I can say is by far the majority of people I've heard comment on the 18-200mm say it is an excellent all-rounder, traveller's lens.

To get what the OP wants you've had to add another optic which flies in the face of economics and quality. That's where the compromise is..... I stand by my original choice and recommendation.
 
Up until a few months ago we were shooting using D200s - changing over to D300s is like comparing apples with pears!

I'm in no way saying the D200 is bad..... we were quite happy with them until wanting to shift above 400 ISO. Then the D300 appeared! What can you say... it is streets better.

And, I'm almost too scared to say it.... it is technically superior. With it comes an increased confidence. Whether that's a good thing or not (I think it is) depends on the tog but, if it helps in getting better shots all well and good.

Civil war indeed..... :naughty:
 
chuckles said:
All I can say is by far the majority of people I've heard comment on the 18-200mm say it is an excellent all-rounder, traveller's lens.

To get what the OP wants you've had to add another optic which flies in the face of economics and quality. That's where the compromise is..... I stand by my original choice and recommendation.
Click to expand...

This is the crux of the matter isn't it? It's a choice between "all-rounder" vs. "specialist". I bought a 18-200mm because I didn't want to be lumbered with more than one lens. Rightly or wrongly that was my choice and I don't regret it. The real question must be - can you get the same quality as an 18-200 with two lenses 18-70 and 70-200 for the same price? I don't know - but somehow doubt it.

That said - puddleduck makes some good points. It's a good discussion.
 
Just in from work,see the debate is still going,Again all with their own valid points.A friend of mine has the D300(only found out today)and a great set of lenses, so going to have a go with that to see exactly how I feel with the camera etc.Will keep you all posted.
Thanks again for all the comments
 
puddleduck said:

The 18-55 VR is better than the 18-200 VR throughout the range. Thom Hogan now recommend the 18-55 VR / 55-200 VR over the 18-200 VR.
Click to expand...


I think you need to take Thom Hogans views with a pinch of salt, after reading his site, it seems to me that whatever new he reviews is best. Look at his reviews of the Nikon speedlights! If you went by what he says, nobody would ever buy an SB800 because the SB 600 is better :thinking:

Anyway, its still all academic, I would still like to see some evidence to back up these claims about lens / camera combinations.

Allan
 
puddleduck said:
My point really is that at nearly £1k for a D300 alone, you can get some awesome glass instead. For folks with a limited budget, glass is the way to go.

And I'm sticking to it, even though I seem to be in a minority off one :LOL:
Click to expand...

there is something just "nice" about the the D200/D300 though, you can see the appeal.

I do agree with you that good glass is a must, but there is a benefit to a better body, you must agree, you have D700 on pre-order
 
Monkey said:
ill second that, might be older technology, but i hate the fact nikon ommited AF drive from the D40/D40x/D60
Click to expand...
I think these 3 newer ones are a backward step from the D50 and D70, I had both and both were excellent and felt like real cameras, mated to my 18-200vr, which, incidentally, cost me over £500. That to me was expensive.
But, theres far more to a good camera kit than just a good lens, or why else would the pro`s pay thousands for a body, and why would I, a mean Scotsman, pay £970 for a D300.

Allan
 
i have a D80 and have had it for about 9months with a sigma 18-200,

i have just been given a nifty fifty.

i am now going to invest into some glass. looking at the 70-200 F2.8 VR, and a 1.7 converter, but no stock in theUK at the moment its all over in bejin for the olympics lol so ill have to wait for a while.

then ill look at the 300mm prime considering the F4 version due to cost but a cracking lens.

i feel the same the bodies come and go but the lenses just stick around for ever....

good luck on what ever you decide
 
thanks again for all the input,I agree bodies come and go but a good lens stays.I have a few minolta I use on the Sony and are cracking compared to the Kit type lens you can get.Had a go with my friends d300.It feeels just right to me,so I think I know what I will be doing.(I also play guitar and same thing if it doesn't feel right you'd never be happy with it).Will keep you all posted.Thanks again
 
jonnyjogpants said:
i have a D80 and have had it for about 9months with a sigma 18-200,

i have just been given a nifty fifty.

i am now going to invest into some glass. looking at the 70-200 F2.8 VR, and a 1.7 converter, but no stock in theUK at the moment its all over in bejin for the olympics lol so ill have to wait for a while.

then ill look at the 300mm prime considering the F4 version due to cost but a cracking lens.

i feel the same the bodies come and go but the lenses just stick around for ever....

good luck on what ever you decide
Click to expand...

Calumet promised me a 70-200 VR by the 14th of this month, still waiting :shake:

The 300mm f/4 is in short supply too, Kea-Photo had one, but I procrastinated for too long (mainly because I thought I was getting the 70-200 and would need to pony up for that) so I missed it. Calumet have them in stock though......for about 200 quid more :bonk:
 
i think ill get the 70-200 first due to its more versatile

in the long term ill get a 300 at some point no rush..

nikon have said to one of my suppliers 3-4weeks wait at least.. so i am holding on. i really waiting one for the 9 august as i will be going on the cat meet, but wanted assuance it would arrive by then. but due to high demand i will wait for the rush is over and get it to wards the end of the summer.

Flash In The Pan said:
Calumet promised me a 70-200 VR by the 14th of this month, still waiting :shake:

The 300mm f/4 is in short supply too, Kea-Photo had one, but I procrastinated for too long (mainly because I thought I was getting the 70-200 and would need to pony up for that) so I missed it. Calumet have them in stock though......for about 200 quid more :bonk:
Click to expand...
 
The D300 is a fantastic camera, little noise at 1000 ISO, I was blown away with it. I probably won't need to upgrade my camera again - maxed out as the saying goes. I personally wouldn't touch the 18-200 lens, too big a range to maintain high quality (see Photozone), the 18-70 and 55-200 VR kit lenses are, suprisingly, excellent quality though, even wide open. I tested the 55-200 against the 70-200 f2.8 and couldn't tell them apart at 100% in Photoshop.
 
Well there’s the next debate is the 55/200 just as good as the 70/200
 
cwp said:
Well there’s the next debate is the 55/200 just as good as the 70/200
Click to expand...

Easy..... no debate! The 55/200 is pretty useless at f2.8 :eek:
 
cwp said:
Well there’s the next debate is the 55/200 just as good as the 70/200
Click to expand...
Are we forgetting the 80-200? No VR but an f2.8 lens and a bargain price now at a snip over £500 ( onestop digital) Cheaper now than the 18-200vr was when I bought it a couple of years ago.
Allan
 
allanm said:
Are we forgetting the 80-200? No VR but an f2.8 lens and a bargain price now at a snip over £500 ( onestop digital) Cheaper now than the 18-200vr was when I bought it a couple of years ago.
Allan
Click to expand...


I'll do a side-by-side comparison of the 80-200 and the 70-200 VR if Calumet ever get round to sending me the one I've paid for :shrug:
 
allanm said:
I think these 3 newer ones are a backward step from the D50 and D70,
Click to expand...

Don't agree with that, the D40/D40x/D60 line up are in addition to the D80 which replaced the D70/D70s. They're not backwards steps, they opened up the DLSR market to a whole load more people, they're just for different markets.

Re the D300 & 18-200 or D40 & 70-200 debate, in the OP's position I'd personally go for the D300 & 18-200.

Why? Well forget image quality, any DLSR and Nikkor lens will give you perfectly good IQ. Only if you're looking to sell photos or blow them up to A3+ will you have to worry about it. What the 18-200 gives is versatility and the ability for a photographer to get to know his/her camera and find out what they like shooting. If they're always shooting at the far end and find that they need a faster lens they can get one. If on the other hand they're always shooting at the wide end and want something wider, they can get a better lens at that extreme. Or mid range primes, or macros, or Tilt/Shifts or whatever lens fits the direction their photography is going in but no matter what direction, they'd still have a very capable 18-200mm travel/walkabout lens and a cracking body.
 
Apologies for treading on the toes of the Nikon fan-boys in here but have you looked at the Alpha700 If you've already got an Alpha camera. It's not as good in specification as the D300 but if it's noise you're worried about it should be a cut above you're A350 because it's a CMOS sensor as opposed to a CCD.

A lot will depend on how much you've invested in the Alpha system already and how worried you are about getting a duff one, but it's something to consider.
 
NorthernNikon said:
Don't agree with that, the D40/D40x/D60 line up are in addition to the D80 which replaced the D70/D70s. They're not backwards steps, they opened up the DLSR market to a whole load more people, they're just for different markets.

Re the D300 & 18-200 or D40 & 70-200 debate, in the OP's position I'd personally go for the D300 & 18-200.

Why? Well forget image quality, any DLSR and Nikkor lens will give you perfectly good IQ. Only if you're looking to sell photos or blow them up to A3+ will you have to worry about it. What the 18-200 gives is versatility and the ability for a photographer to get to know his/her camera and find out what they like shooting. If they're always shooting at the far end and find that they need a faster lens they can get one. If on the other hand they're always shooting at the wide end and want something wider, they can get a better lens at that extreme. Or mid range primes, or macros, or Tilt/Shifts or whatever lens fits the direction their photography is going in but no matter what direction, they'd still have a very capable 18-200mm travel/walkabout lens and a cracking body.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input.Should have my mind made up today,Still thinking the same as you to get started with Nikon range.Can always buy new lens later.Deciding on what I want to shoot.a friend is going to try and get me a deal with people he knows
 
NorthernNikon said:
Don't agree with that, the D40/D40x/D60 line up are in addition to the D80 which replaced the D70/D70s.
Click to expand...

I said they were a backward step because many features of even the D50 were missing on the D40/x, ie, no bracketing, no status lcd, no autofocus motor and a lower quality af system ( 3 point Multi cam 530 as opposed to the D50`s 5 point multicam 900. Not sure what the D60 features are, but there is still no af motor.
That said, there are a few new features on these models as there should be on newer technology and Nikon aimed the D40X at the Canon 400d market, which probably explains the reduction in body size too.

Anyway, have you made any decisions yet JIMC?
Allan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top