Beginning into photography

Started 8 months ago | Discussions thread
PhotoTeach2 Senior Member • Posts: 9,395
Re: Beginning into photography

Hight Fly wrote:

PhotoTeach2 wrote:

Hight Fly wrote:

PhotoTeach2 wrote:

May I respectfully ask WHY the "D300". Do you have a used one on a special deal available ???

That is now an older camera and may I suggest you look at Mirror-Less cameras.

AND if budget is an issue, may I suggest you can get a lot more for your money with a 1"-type bridge camera, (ala FZ-1000).

ALL Mirror-Less cameras do things not possible w/ dSLR's, (because of the inherent limitations of their "mirrors").

That is indeed a good point you raise. When I started doing my researches, like you advised, I oriented myself towards Mirrorless Cameras, more specifically the Olympus EM-10 II (that is what I thought I'd get at the end of my researches). But after a while, an acquaintance of mine told me he had an old D300 in perfect condition he did not use, so he's gonna give to me.

Long story short, I'm gonna get the D300 in perfect condition for free.

Well ... can't argue with "free" ... LOL

And the D300 is not a "bad" camera. BUT ... you do need to consider what your (eventual) cost for "lenses" will be, (albeit you can get used from eBay, etc.).

Do you reckon it is still better to invest on a Mirrorless camera?

Well ... maybe ...

And the Olympus is also good, BUT ... again you will eventually spend a lot on lenses.

I can only "suggest" you may want to "look" at a FZ-1000 first ... it could still be your cheapest and BEST option.

A STEAL-VALUE @ only $600 new, (<$500 used), with (close-focusing) "continuous" zoom lens that is wider/longer/FASTER then typical "kit" lenses. (25-400mm-EFL @ f/2.8-4)

It has features that are not possible w/ dSLR's or Interchangeable lens cameras.

It has a faster AF and better (5-axis) Image-Stabilization than dSLR, (which is limited to 2-axis In-Lens VR).

Frame rate to 12fps.

And even 4K-video.

I will consider this option, but this is not "Future-Proof" if you see what I mean. I can always re-use my lenses if I decide to change cameras, especially if I get to find some very good deals in the coming years. DSLRs are such a big part of the camera market that it will take a at least 10 years to fade (I'm not even sure of that. But I think it'll take a lot of time).

I would like to get a Mirrorless camera, but again, remember I will have a great opportunity to begin into photography (the D300).

Nevertheless, I'll continue my researches.

Thanks a lot for your suggestion!

You, (and many other people), MAY be correct that it will take at least 10 years before dSLR's are totally obsolete, BUT MAYBE NOT.

The once said the same thing about "film" cameras, but when the "avalanche" came, they slid-down quickly.

Now that both Canon and Nikon have announced FULL COMMITMENTS to Mirror-Less, it could happen just as fast. I honestly don't know.

The problem is that they will both have NEW "MOUNTS", and while they will indeed have "adapters", it is unknown how well they will interact, (or what the cost of the adapters will be).

And if the adapters are operationally "slower" it defeats the entire advantage of the Mirror-Less.

So the FACT is that the current used value of todays (dSLR) lens will dive.

So I again can't argue against the "free" value, but I would only buy (cheap) used lenses.

BUT ... it is also true that they will have older-technology Image-Stabilization, (or not at all), and it will only be "2" axis compared to a very effective 5-axis on most Mirror-Less today. (the new Canon/Nikon will probably also have 5-axis IBIS)

The original 2-axis in-lens were only promoted to give a 2-3stop advantage, compared to 6.5stops claimed today by Panasonic and Olympus.

ALL my dSLR's are now in a box since I started using the FZ's 6 years ago.

So the D300 will "work" for you, but there will be a learning-curve, and don't expect to retain much resale value on lenses, even if you get a "great" price today.

I mean that if you bought "used" you once could expect to sell again later for nearly the same, (or higher), price than you paid. I fear that will not be the case after Canon/Nikon announce their ML's.

Note that the FZ is (very) automatic, and with EVF for (ETTR) exposure-optimization.

It also has a FULLY-articulating back for more creative shooting positions from ground-level or held high-overhead, (and even off to the side or "reversed" for "selfies" if you are into that).

The bottom line is that while I repeat the D300 is indeed a "camera", it does not even begin to compare with the options/features of the FZ, (or RX), that are not even possible with modern dSLR's because of the inherent limitations of their "mirrors", (thus the entire reason for "Mirror"-Less).

The 16-80 is 24-120mm-EFL, compared to a 24-400mm-EFL @ f/2.8-4, (w/ digital zoom to 3200mm-EFL).

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow