D300 as First DSLR?

What are your opinions on a beginner purchasing a D300 for their very first DSLR camera? Keep in mind that I am no child. I am 30 years old, and would like to take up photography as a hobby. I like to do things right the first time, and would plan on keeping the camera for quite some time (Would I ever need to upgrade?).

I did stop by my local camera shop, and they were pushing me towards the Oly E510 kit, but I don't want to purchase a starter camara now, and then upgrade and upgrade etc. So, are there any downfalls to me starting with a D300, as opposed to something like a Oly E510? And realistically, is this a camera that I could use for the next 20 years?

Thank you for your insight.

Ben

The D300 yelds exellent results even out of the box compared to say Point and Shoot cameras. But you will hardly be able to utilize all the options and facilities in the D300 from the beginning. And remember, photography it's as much a question of understanding how light works light as understanding how the camera works, and that only comes with time, practice and a little talent. It's about seeing as a photographer and has relatively little to do with gear. But I'm sure you will like the feel of the D300. It's always nice to hold quality items in the hand, and that alone can be a reason to get them, if you can afford it.

Look at it this way: If you just started out playing piano, would it make any big difference to the musical result if you had a ordinary upright piano or a Steinway concert grand? Nevertheless the Steinway would look great in yor living room.

And no, the D300 won't last you 20 years. Likely some of the electronic parts have broken down before that, but, more important, you will want a newer model long before that. I kept my Leica M6 for 20 years, but I knew when I switched to digital it would be different. And it has been. I have just replaced my 5 year old D100 with a D300. We are really taling about computer gear here more than cameras in the old sense.

I don't see why not if you can afford it and interested enough in photography to put time into it. If you're technically inclined and put the time in you can pick up about 70% of the technical aspects in a month. Then there are the aesthetics which you never really learn and are constantly practicing and experimenting with.

Honestly, I don't think so. But it depends on you, and some questions.

Is money no object?

Due you tend to get hooked on some new hobby, spend alot of money, and then walk away?

I'm sure any DSLR would server you fine. What would stop most beginners from getting a D300 is first the price, and then maybe the lack of the auto-mode like 'Portrait', 'Kid', 'Night Landscape', etc. These are things that make it easier for beginners to capture what they want.

With the D300 you will have to know a little more about photography to capture certain scenes since these auto-modes are missing. But honestly it's not rocket science (Night-landscape: Don't put up the flash when shooting something a mile away).

And the D300, as with any DSLR, will probably be outdated in a couple years. Unlike film SLRs which could easily serve for 10 or 20 years, technology improves so fast that the D300 will seem totally silly in about 4 years.

Personally, I think all hobbies should be started small. You might learn more about photography from a low-level DSLR and a 50mm prime lens for awhile then you would from a D300 and pro zoom lenses. I think starting small means your more likely to say "Now, how do I accomplish this particular look" instead of "ok, what is custom setting Q77 for?"

Also, there is an odd thing about the attention a big fat camera gets you. With my D50, once in awhile someone would say "oh, nice camera". With the D80, more people where like "Wow, you must be good". With the D300 everyone is like "You must be a pro with that big fat camera". My point here is that I personally find myself at odds with people who comment about the camera and seem to expect me to be a pro instead of a hobbyist. Yes, I know, their opinions don't matter, but it can be awkward at holiday dinners when some distant relative says "Holy carp, what did that cost you?".

My advice: Build and earn your lust for equipment, and make sure its driven by a need for better photography.

Whatever camera you get, go out and make pictures that you want, and have fun.

--

Everything I write is a personal opinion. Even when I quote facts, they are the facts I personally choose to accept.
http://www.pbase.com/mariog

If you can afford it, go for it. You'll probably be having just as much fun with it as I am, though this is my 3rd digital SLR.

And... you won't have an excuse that your camera was at fault taking pictures!

You will have quite a learning curve, and with a D300, you'll have lots of features to master. You can spend a looong time figuring it all out.

One thing I think will help you with a D300, as opposed to a D40/50/70/80 - no vari-program mode to serve as a crutch. When I switched from a D70 to a D200, I did not have my little dial with portrait mode, macro, etc. That was disconcerting at first, but I eventually learned what settings I should use on my own, and could then easily vary them to suit the immediate conditions.

As long as your willing to accept the fact that there will be a learning curve, I think this would be a great first DSLR. I got my first DSLR about 10 months ago, a Nikon D80 (I had previously used a Minolta film SLR). After using fit or about 4 months and reading about the D200, I really wished I had bought that instead. Well then came the D300 and I couldn't resist. I have now sold my D80 and have a D300 (of course I had acquired some nice glass over that time to go with the D300). I don't feel to bad though, I did get 12,000 photos from the D80 over the 10 months I owned it. As far as the D300 not having the various pre-programmed modes (i.e. portrait, landscape, etc) I never used them on the D80. I did however use the "P" mode for about the first 3 months until I became comfortable with the camera.

So I guess the bottom line is, if you are planning on getting serious about photography, and don't mind the learning curve, you will love the D300. If however you just plan to take a few snap shots here and there, you might better served with a simpler camera. Just my opinion.

--
Regards,

Jeremy

At a basic level, all cameras operate the same way.

What I might suggest is that if you really want to learn photography, disregard most of the bells and whistles initially and try shooting everything manually in JPEG. Learn to meter light. Learn to white balance. Play with depth of field and shutter speeds. If things aren't working out, switch to fully automatic and take note of what the camera is programmed to do. The D300's automatic mode still allows the user to adjust shutter speed and depth of field. Recreate the settings manually. keep practicing.

Give yourself assignments. Try motion blur. Black and white. Try shooting color themes. Capture people's expressions. Landscapes. Sunsets. Flowers and butterflies. Still lifes...

Learn to compose the frame. Learn why certain compositions please the eye. Set up staged shoots and play with the arrangement of objects. How many ways can you arrange a still life and make it look good?

All the while, read the manual, read the forums, post questions if you have them. People here are very helpful and very knowledeable. Nikon has a few helpful tutorials to get started. Take a photography class where your work is critiqued. Join a photography club.

By now, you will have a better feel and gravitate to those features your camera offers to help you take pictures better and/or easier than trying everything manually. You will likely have ventured into a type of photography that most interests you, whether it be landscapes, wildlife, sports, portraits, etc.

Then try shooting in RAW. See how post processing can enhance your images. Learn CaptureNX, Photoshop, lightroom...

At this point, one of two things will have happened: 1) you will thank your lucky stars you invested in a tool as capable and feature laden as the D300 or
2) years have past and you're salivating over the new D700.

Good luck and hope to see your 1st D300 pic!

I know you kind of want to buy once and forget about gear, but it'd be more beneficial and cheaper to go for a basic camera.

From a financial standpoint, a D300 body is $1800 right now. A D40x kit is $700. If you were to use the D40X for 18-24 months, a D300 would probably be around $1100 by then. You'd come out even if you bought a D300 then, or on top if you sold the D40x. (Also, keep in mind that camera bodies depreciate faster than lenses.)

Sure, the D40x is not Nikon's biggest and baddest camera, and it only has three AF-points, can't drive older lenses, isn't weather-sealed, doesn't have a large RAW buffer, and all that jazz, but do you NEED all that?

Do you?

The legends made fantastic photos on cameras technologically inferior to anything we have today. They did so by improving their photographic craft. We seem to have forgotten this concept of skill and craft in our age of heavy marketing. Unless you plan on shooting a lot of action photos, I can safely say a lesser camera will suffice.

Frankly there a significant number of posters in this board that don't need a D300 to accomplish the shots they've posted. Don't be one of them. If you're starting out, shoot as much as you can until you honestly pinpoint how your camera limits you. Then shoot some more.

I think the D300 is a great body, but with an extremely complex and endlessly customizeable feature set that could overwhelm and frustrate a user not willing to put in the time necessary to learn what setting to use under any given set of conditions. If you are game for the challenge, go for it.

However, a 20 year Dslr is entirely too optimistic in my opinion. Dslr's are consumer electronics which may operate sucessfully for several years into the future, but realisitically, like computers, will be made obselete in one or two generations. A solidly built Dslr may last you 5 years tops where the eventual (but inevitable) cost of repair exceeds the value of the body.

My last body was a D200 that I preordered the day it was announced and I was terribly pleased with it during its service (likewise the D70 before it). In fact, I believed until the later part of August 2007 that I would skip a generation or two because of my sheer delight with the operation and image quality of the D200. However, one day after the D300 was announced I preorder it and soon thereafter departed with my D200. I am not a gaget freak or a collector but the feature set and price point for each advancing generation make the impulse to upgrade almost irresistable. It is not that each newer model has made me a better photographer, but rather, it has made the experience more effortless, more enjoyable, and of course the gear, heavier.

benk777 said:

What are your opinions on a beginner purchasing a D300 for their very
first DSLR camera? Keep in mind that I am no child. I am 30 years
old, and would like to take up photography as a hobby. I like to do
things right the first time, and would plan on keeping the camera for
quite some time (Would I ever need to upgrade?).

I did stop by my local camera shop, and they were pushing me towards
the Oly E510 kit, but I don't want to purchase a starter camara now,
and then upgrade and upgrade etc. So, are there any downfalls to me
starting with a D300, as opposed to something like a Oly E510? And
realistically, is this a camera that I could use for the next 20
years?

Thank you for your insight.

Ben

Click to expand...

--
http://imageevent.com/chadgladstone

benk777 said:

What are your opinions on a beginner purchasing a D300 for their very
first DSLR camera? Keep in mind that I am no child. I am 30 years
old, and would like to take up photography as a hobby. I like to do
things right the first time, and would plan on keeping the camera for
quite some time (Would I ever need to upgrade?).

Click to expand...

If you have a fixed budget you may want to spend less money on an expensive camera body and more on lenses and external flashes, etc. I wouldn't over invest in the body at the expense of the other accessories you will need. But if you've just won the lotto or something, sure, go for it.

It's not rocket science as some would lead you to believe. If you can multiply and divide by two and have some idea of what your goal is before pulling the trigger you'll be fine. There is nothing wrong with beginning with this camera. In a certain amount of time you may likely find it's overkill for your needs. It's bigger and heavier than some of the other lower level Nikon DSLRs. And it's loaded with features that you may never need. There again, in time you may find it fits your needs perfectly or worse you might start wanting the full frame monster(s) for your style of shooting. These would be my suggestions for you to consider before purchasing:

1) This camera has features that lean toward taking action shots. If you know that you have no need for shooting say sports, or nature photography with animals on the move, then you might be wasting a lot of money. A D40X will give you 10MP and I would venture to guess that the image quality will be close to as good as the D300 (in other words not a noticable fall off).

2) If you buy the D300 don't go cheap on your lenses. For that matter, don't go cheap on your lenses period. Indeed the new bodies add more to the equation of Image Quality than bodies of the film era meant. But the lenses (in my opinion) are still the biggest influence in image quality. If I were on a budget I'd splurge on a couple of lenses and get the likes of a D40X before buying a $2K body and slapping a few sub-par lenses on it.
--
Derbez

I think that for most (not all) it would be better to get a low end model if you are new. Learn on that. Then ebay it off or gift it to somone. Very little extra cost, net. Maybe even just for a couple months.

So often I see newer photgraphers that have the money to start of big. One guy I saw had a D200 and a 70-200 as his very first camera at a soccer game where his girl was playing. He was a bit overwhelmed and I helped him out as I know that camera and lens well.

Honestly, his shots would most likely come out better if he had a D40 or D40x and a more basic lens. Then move along as you grow in ability and interest.

This does not have to cost more or take more time. Rather it can save time and keep the good results coming earlier, build a foundation.

But there are many exceptions.

Starting with a basic camera here is a good story. I read about a women who started photography in her early 40s and 2 years later is winning awards and travelling the world as a full time photographer. She is in the latest Pentax ads and started with an istds, a small and basic dslr.

I was in your position a few months ago. I almost pre-ordered D300. After a few month research (checking all reviews, forums, samples...), I finally know Panasonic DMC-FZ18 is a better one for me to learn taking photos. It has RAW, manual, 6400 ISO, 28mm wide angle, 28.7x optical zoom, anti-shake, face detection etc. It also has many auto sences/modes if I'm tired of manaul. It is a great camera for learning. After I gain more skills in 2 years, I'll buy D300 at 10x zoom. The DX lens could be gabarge if you want to go full frame in the future. FZ18's quality and performance is very good. Although it dosen't match D300, there is no big different in daytime, at low ISO, or on smaller prints (8x12) for beginners. It is also very light and there is no need for lens change. This makes you easier to take more photos so your skills will improve much faster. The lost is super low, $350 at vanns.

--
FZ18

It depends on you budget. Usually the larger part will goes to lenses, so if you can afford a D300, I assume you can also put another $2000 on lenses. You may first start with a super zoom 18-200mm VR, which is $700 in the market, then want some primes such as 50/1.4 or 85/1.8, anyway, $300 each. Then you find yourself interested in macro photography. So another $300 bill on you cc for either a 60/2.8 micro or a Tamron 90/2.8 macro. After all these lenses, you want a little wider, bang, $400, a little longer, ...and "where is my speedlight?" You ask yourself.

If you just want better pictures and some funs in your leisure time with your family, don't bother with D300. The weight (of the camera, the lens, the tripod, blah blah) will kill you.

Summary:

1. Don't buy D300 if your budget is limited. You can buy a Nikon D80 or Canon 40D and buy some good quality lenses.
2. Bigger is not always better. It's painful to look like a pro.

benk777 said:

What are your opinions on a beginner purchasing a D300 for their very
first DSLR camera? Keep in mind that I am no child. I am 30 years
old, and would like to take up photography as a hobby. I like to do
things right the first time, and would plan on keeping the camera for
quite some time (Would I ever need to upgrade?).

I did stop by my local camera shop, and they were pushing me towards
the Oly E510 kit, but I don't want to purchase a starter camara now,
and then upgrade and upgrade etc. So, are there any downfalls to me
starting with a D300, as opposed to something like a Oly E510? And
realistically, is this a camera that I could use for the next 20
years?

Thank you for your insight.

Ben

Click to expand...

You are talking about a semi pro body and quite a stiff price here so think before buying. If you are completely new to SLRs then I think D300 is not the way to go.

Anyway the most important part of camera is the Lens not the body itself. DSLRs body are almost identical to disposable cameras.

So I say invest on D80 or similar camera and invest on GREAT lenses. If you buy D80 instead of D300 you can buy quite a few lens with the saved money. People generally start with a 50mm lens which you can get for about $150 then after shooting a bit you will become interested in particular style of photography. If you get interested in close up shots, you can get a good macro lens, and if you get interested in shooting birds and wild life you can get a nice telephoto lens. I say never be tempted to buy cheap and low quality lens, but cheap body is okay.

After a year or two you will be in position to decide yourself which direction your are going and the limitations of your current gear, then you can move up to high end bodies. My suggestion for now is D80 (or who knows D90 might be coming soon), and some cool glasses.

As for me I will never ever buy a camera that costs more that $1000, I am not a pro so the price beyond that is not justifiable for me. If I can save up money I will get new lenses.

Ben,

the D300 (and the Sony A700 I believe too) has one advantage for beginners: the very highly regarded 920 000 pixel LCD screen most useful for reviewing the shot.

Bear with me, I am just reporting on what I have picked up reading in the fora, so others may expand on the actual usability of this LCD.

For learning photography this would be invaluable both for experimenting on technicalities as well as composing. An instant quality assessment of your shot could shorten your learning phase.

The sentiment of other posters that in digital photography equipment 5 yrs. is a long time is certainly true. You will notice this soon, as well as there are no cams for all purposes.

One poster mentioned the FZ18 as an alternative for starting the hobby. You could open up many shooting opportunities over the day by having a pocketable digicam with you all the time. This is sterling advice and could be a valuable complement to any weighty outfit that would neccessarily stay at home more often than not ...

In learning photography you may become aware that getting the shots is just 10 % of the experience. 90 % will be your developing a more acute perception of the world - a new way of seeing. Then the camera will not be that important but you might wish to have a cam (any cam) at hand to get the shot


Regards, Guenter

Hi there,

I had to answer that same question several times this week.

If it is a new hobby, I would choose an other model. It has nothing to do with your ability or knowledge level, or age related or not. Suppose after a year you do nothing with it anymore, and you find out it is not the hobby you like to continue. Waste of investment.

I advice people who start with photography as a hobby to buy a D40X or a D80. with a 18-135. They are both very good cameras' which give for someone who starts with photography a lot of options to grow in it.

Michel

--
~ Light is eveything ~
http://www.fotopropaganda.com
http://www.pbase.com/photopropaganda

Hi I am in a similar position, Although i used to do lots of photography somes years ago with 35mm, and have a reasonable understanding of how to use an SLR camera. hell, the cameras i used to use didnt have any automatic modes or autofocus.

I have just purchased a D300, I take lots of action sports photos Mountain biking , cyclocross, I found that most Pro-sumer Digital cameras just couldnt cut it.
lenses just not fast enough.

I upgraded from a D80, and Love the D300 so far, Purchased it from the USA. i live in the UK and saved a bundle. only cost me £880. another great thing with digtal is you can experiment as much as you like your not wasting film. !!

The D300 will function as a great camera with just using the 'P' mode and as you Learn more you can start to use more functions. so if you can afford i would go for it.
Cheers
Mark

Would you learn to drive by purchasing a Ferrari? The D300 offers tons of trouble for the beginner. Witness all the "problems" on this site. The D300 is a semi-professional to professional camera. It was designed for the very experienced amateur or pro. You would be much better off by purchasing a D80, or even a D50 if you can find one. As for lasting 20 years? No way. It will be outdated in 2 years and totally obsolete in 10.

As a status symbol, it is great. Very impressive. As a first DSLR - no way! (I say that with 33 years of teaching photography at high school and then college level. This "going for broke" can be a disaster.)

Should you wish to enroll in an evening photography class then I might recommend it. Might. Lastly, if you get into photography seriously you can always upgrade (and save money doing it).
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com

Kaushik's note is one of the best I've seen in a long, long time. The information provided was spot on. I spent years with an Olympus point and shoot, moving up to a D70 (where I also stayed for years) and have just upgraded to the D300.

Learn to shoot. Learn to see compositionally. Learn to see and manipulate light. ...and then, once you've been able to master those things, see if you have outgrown your tools.

Scott

PS: Having said all this, I do have to give kudos to Nikon. I absolutely love the D300.