Upgrade from D300

Mart61

Mart61

Messages
831
Name
Martin
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys

I've not posted in a while and indeed haven't taken too many pics using my DSLR. I travel a fair bit and, due to luggage limitation, I often only take my little TZ-40.

Here's the thing. I have a Nikon D300 and am considering getting either a D750 or D810 and can't decide which I should get, if I get anything at all.

A part of my quandary relates to my lenses. I have Nikkor 17-55mm (DX), 80-200mm (FX) both f2.8 and a Sigma 105mm f2.8 (DX).

Hence two out of my three lenses would restrict me to using DX on either the D750 or D810.

My question is should I bother upgrading at all? If I do decide to, should I sell off both my DX lenses and start again?

I'm struggling here and any input, positive or negative, would be gratefully received.

Thanks,

Martin
 
Whether you should bother upgrading is up to you mostly. From an outsider looking in, if you go full frame I would swap the DX lenses for FX versions, there's plenty of options to replace your current setup in FX form.

The question I would ask myself in your situation is if I upgraded would I use it more? FX gear isn't going to help with travelling weight restrictions. An alternative might be to look at a CSC of some sort giving you excellent quality in a smaller, more travel friendly package?

That sounded a little like I was steering you away from an slr which wasn't the intention really, just an alternative. The D750 is meant to be a lighter weight than other full frame cameras, the only issue is the 2.8 zooms weigh a bit as you well know. Maybe take a look at some of the variable aperture lenses or primes to keep the weight down but get to keep an slr :)
 
Last edited:
What do you expect from the upgrade? Better quality, more resolution, more features (video) or something else?

I think the D810 is the most natural upgrade path for most D300 users. The D750 or even D610 would make a great upgrade too. Between D810 and D750/D610 it is all down to your personal preference about style of camera control (traditional pro vs consumer oriented), cost and size. There is a very little if any difference in image quality.

Since you already have two solid DX lenses it would make a sense to not upgrade unless you are prepared to spent extra money to replace them. This could be expensive (in case of 17-55/2.8 FX equivalent) with only a little benefit.

Given by your point about luggage limitation perhaps I would even consider doing a more radical step, get rid of everything and check if Sony or Fuji system wouldn't work better for you.
 
Thanks for your swift replies guys - they're helpful and appreciated.

I've just got the D300 out and I'd forgotten what a great piece of kit it is. I'm just charging the batteries now having cleaned a few specs from the viewfinder screen.

It feels good in my hand, especially with the MB-D10 installed. I'm not sure I'd get the same feel with the D750?

I believe my Sigma is DX but wouldn't swear to it. It's the older EX DG lens.
 
Last edited:
The 105 is a fx lens.

I went from a D300s to a D610, which is a great camera but feels less feature packed than the D300. I'm going to trade it in for a D750 in Feb or March time.

Body shape hasn't really bothered me compared to the D300/700/800 style, I soon get over it with the amazing image quality of the new FX sensors. That said I still love using my D300s as it does sit very nicely in the hand.
 
I've just been on Google and yes it would seem the Sigma is full frame. I guess that only means my 17-55 would be "superfluous".

Mind you, it's a great lens and if I did make the jump to FX I could still use the 17-55 with the camera on the DX setting?
 
Last edited:
For info for the future, Sigma DG is Full Frame (can also be used on crop) and Sigma DC is for Crop.

You can use the 17-55 in DX mode and you can set the camera to auotmatically recognize the DX lens. Another option, as the 17-55 go for good money you could sell and put towards the Tamron 24-70mm VC which is reported to be a good FF lens.
 
Last edited:
Beware of that old 'grass is greener' line. I've had loads of different Nikon DSLR's over the last few years (always chopping and changing) and in my opinion the D300 is the only one that hasn't had some sort of Achilles heel. It's pretty vice less. Unless there is something very specific that the D300 is holding you back with (high ISO noise being the only example that springs to mind), you may well be better keeping your upgrade money for other purposes. It would pay for a great photographic trip for example....
 
^^ I'm with Graham on this one

I had a D300 and felt the need to "upgrade" to FF, i went the D700 route, but for me the grass wasn't so green, new (more expensive) lenses were required, new bag as my gear wouldn't fit, i lost far too much reach at the long end (300mm f4 prime lens) and within 7-8 months i was back with a crop frame D7100 and haven't noticed much in the way of image quality difference (good or bad) between the D7100 and the D700

Ok, i'm comparing a brand new crop against a relatively old FF, but i wasn't as blown away as i was expecting

In a way i wish i had kept the D300 as it really is a quality piece of kit, and the D7100 doesn't feel quite as nice in the hand, but the better high ISO performance really helps in less than perfect light
 
The reality is many DX users are happy to stay DX users. Particularly if reach is what you are after. But, there is not a suitable Nikon body any more. No D300s replacement. You are left with a d7100 as your only choice.
 
You know what? I've just updated the firmware on the D300, gave it a little clean (didn't need too much) and shot a few images. I'd forgotten how good it was.

As it's been a while since I used it I've restored all the settings to factory defaults and am gonna rediscover the camera.

Reckon I might put the cash I would spend on a D750 or D810 into some new glass. May even look at a 70-200 2.8. :D
 
Good man indeed, if you can't have the one you love, love the one you're with :D

Go and use it, and enjoy it. You've already got some top notch lenses that deserve to see some of the world ;)
 
I can't see the point in upgrading to something new - you didn't use the D300 as it was too big to lug around, what makes you think a D750 would be any different.
 
I've just re-discovered my D300 after having a minor issue fixed, and use it at the long end for wild life shots (I use D700 for wide end). Like you I'd forgotten what a capable camera it is in good light :)

D300 and Nikon 17-55 is a killer combination I reckon :)
 
Once again you guys are right. No I wouldn't carry a new camera any more than I'd carry the old, well other than in the first few weeks during that "honeymoon" phase.
 
I definitely think I've a bee in my bonnet about a D750. Is that bad?
 
Why not look into the csc route where the weight advantages might help you use it more with regards to your travelling. There are some quality options from fuji, Sony, Olympus and even samsung now with the nx1. Plenty of lightweight lenses to go with you aswell
 
on your route to FX, if you can get a good deal on a D700 that IMHO is a good route

FX lens are more demanding and expensive than DX lenses but I feel have a different look especially when used with the D700

A use D600 is available at at great price and a NEW D610 is marvellous value for money for general photography

remember a DSLR body, whether it be D750 or D800, is big compared with mirror-less, M43 or bridge - it is not something that you can put in your coat pocket ……….. and DSLR lens are not small if you want quality
 
BillN_33 said:
FX lens are more demanding and expensive than DX lenses but I feel have a different look especially when used with the D700
Click to expand...

That's twice I've read that in 5 minutes (not both you) but FF lenses are LESS demanding than DX lenses have to be to achieve the same resolution as they don't have to magnify as much. Or to put it the other way around, smaller sensors are more demanding on lenses.

That's not to say FF lenses aren't typically very good but that's because they have to be to justify the price. You can, after all, get FF lenses as equally crappy as some DX lenses and vice-versa.
 
Nawty said:
That's twice I've read that in 5 minutes (not both you) but FF lenses are LESS demanding than DX lenses have to be to achieve the same resolution as they don't have to magnify as much. Or to put it the other way around, smaller sensors are more demanding on lenses.

That's not to say FF lenses aren't typically very good but that's because they have to be to justify the price. You can, after all, get FF lenses as equally crappy as some DX lenses and vice-versa.
Click to expand...

fair enough

central versus edges, using all the sensor

more demanding in design
 
Last edited:
I made the move from D300 to D750 just before Christmas, I wanted better low light performance than the D300 could provide even with fast glass. I swapped a 16-85 DX lens for a 24-120 F4 FX lens & a 35mm F1.8 DX for a 20mm F1.8 FX lens. I am happy with the handling of the D750 vs D300, low light performance is awsome. I tend to keep my cameras for a long time, the D750 was a retirement present to myself so that's how I justified the cost. If Nikon had released a true successor to the D300 I would have probably stayed with DX. For me, the D7100 isn't a suitable alternative to a D300.
 
Thanks for the extra comments and suggestions. I think the non-availability of stock is actually a good thing on this occasion. Perhaps by the time they return to the shelves I'll have gotten over the bee. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top