Beginning into photography

Started 9 months ago | Discussions
Leonard Migliore
Leonard Migliore Forum Pro • Posts: 16,898
Re: Beginning into photography
1

Hight Fly wrote:

Leonard Migliore wrote:

The only areas where it shows its age are high ISO noise and the fact that it's only 12MP.

Excuse me for the novice question, but what does it really mean? It is the resolution that is worst?

I understand what higher noise mean, just the fact that it is "only 12 MP".

I often heard people say that it doesn't mean nothing, and you can have 16 MP cameras that are really bad.

The D300 is a very good 12MP camera. What this does for me is limit the size of the prints I can make. I can make pretty good 11X14 prints from a good sharp image that I don't have to crop very much. I can't do a good 16X20.

I now use a 24MP camera and 16X20 prints are relatively easy (as long as the image was sharp in the first place). And I can crop quite a bit and still have good image quality.

If you're not making large prints, a 12MP camera is no problem.

-- hide signature --

Leonard Migliore

 Leonard Migliore's gear list:Leonard Migliore's gear list
Canon PowerShot G12 Sony RX100 III Nikon D300 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +12 more
PhotoTeach2 Senior Member • Posts: 9,648
Re: Beginning into photography

Leonard Migliore 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.

With EVF you have a direct visual-feedback when making exposure/WB adjustments/corrections and "zebras" for easy/FAST exposure optimization via ETTR.

(so it is MUCH faster/easier to LEARN to use, and eventually get better-exposed images w/ lower-noise) Note that is also has a "Hand-Held NIGHT-shot" mode for lower-light.

And what could be very important, is that it has a "LEAF" shutter than can flash-sync at ANY shutter speed so you can get SUN-light fill-flash to 20', (w/ BUILT-IN FLASH).

A free D300 is a hard deal to beat. Note that the D300 can use thousands of lenses old and new. There are lots of inexpensive used Nikkors; the D300 works fine with manual focus AI lenses, some of which are excellent optics. The D300 has excellent autofocus and is very responsive. The only areas where it shows its age are high ISO noise and the fact that it's only 12MP.

Yeah, it was really an amazing camera for its day.  First introduced in 2007, and remained in production until only recently when the D500 was announced.

I am going to go out on a limb and suggest it was Nikons longest continually produced camera, (10 years, and even skipping the D400).

But it is still a 10yo design, and I suggest it still would cost more than $600 to equal the lens range of the FZ/RX.

**********************

I had a friend back then that wanted a D200, (because it was the first digital that did "double-exposures" and he was from back in film days when he used multiple-backs on Hassy's w/ matt-boxes for double exposures and was enthused he could do that again.

I tried to talk him OUT of ordering it because I was already aware the D300 would be available in only another "2" weeks.

But he insisted on having the D200 so I ordered it for him, (and he has never figured out how to do the double-exposures anyway).

PhotoTeach2 Senior Member • Posts: 9,648
Re: Beginning into photography
1

Hight Fly wrote:

Leonard Migliore 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.

With EVF you have a direct visual-feedback when making exposure/WB adjustments/corrections and "zebras" for easy/FAST exposure optimization via ETTR.

(so it is MUCH faster/easier to LEARN to use, and eventually get better-exposed images w/ lower-noise) Note that is also has a "Hand-Held NIGHT-shot" mode for lower-light.

And what could be very important, is that it has a "LEAF" shutter than can flash-sync at ANY shutter speed so you can get SUN-light fill-flash to 20', (w/ BUILT-IN FLASH).

The only areas where it shows its age are high ISO noise and the fact that it's only 12MP.

Excuse me for the novice question, but what does it really mean? It is the resolution that is worst?

I understand what higher noise mean, just the fact that it is "only 12 MP".

I often heard people say that it doesn't mean nothing, and you can have 16 MP cameras that are really bad.

Yes, 12mpx is sufficient for most anyone.  The m4/3's are only 16mpx.

Many say that 8mpx is sufficient unless you need to "crop" portions of an image and enlarge that.

The biggest drawback is simply that it is a 10yo "design" and will get more noisy at lower ISO than current sensors are capable of.

So even though it is a larger/heavier camera/lens than the FZ-1000, the FZ is capable of higher ISO for lower-light.  (and the FZ will actually AF under moon-light @ -4EV)

PhotoTeach2 Senior Member • Posts: 9,648
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).

OP Hight Fly Forum Member • Posts: 54
Re: Beginning into photography
1

Thanks a lot for your opinion.

But in the end, isn't it the same for the bridge you're talking to me about?

If I bought the bridge you advise to me that was released a few years ago, when I'll resell my lenses, there will be so many and especially some made by the best companies (Nikon/Canon), so the price will drop by a lot. So that I buy a 16-80mm lens or the bridge you advise to me, it is the same.

If I had no Budget-Limit, I would most likely go for a Mirrorless Camera, but with the budget I have, I reckon it is better for me to buy a lens.

If the price I could get out of it is too low, I'll just keep it in the background.

 Hight Fly's gear list:Hight Fly's gear list
Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D
PhotoTeach2 Senior Member • Posts: 9,648
Re: Beginning into photography
1

Hight Fly wrote:

Thanks a lot for your opinion.

But in the end, isn't it the same for the bridge you're talking to me about?

If I bought the bridge you advise to me that was released a few years ago, when I'll resell my lenses, there will be so many and especially some made by the best companies (Nikon/Canon), so the price will drop by a lot. So that I buy a 16-80mm lens or the bridge you advise to me, it is the same.

Actually is it not a all the same. It is a difference between night and day.

I do accept that you are getting the "camera" free. But the (one) "used" lens alone will likely cost more than you can get a "new" FZ-1000. (you can get a used FZ for <$500)

Lets accept that both are exactly the same price -- and even the resale value may both drop the same.

It is still a fact that there is no comparison what-so-ever between the capabilities you will have w/ FZ. It is quicker/easier to learn, and will offer better images.

I am not going to repeat the earlier "list" of options I posted, but that was only about a third of its total options/features that you can use to your advantage, (even if you don't know what they are right now -- you can easily learn).

They include "auto" bracketing, HDR, Multiple-Exposure, Time-Lapse for both still-shots and animated movies, (in 4K).

Also Panoramic. Don't forget the 5-axis IBIS, faster AF (in low-light to -4EV which only a couple of $5K dSLR's can now do).

Faster AF, LIVE-VIEW, and the fully-articulating LCD.

And a (built-in) strobe you can use in SUN-light to 20' fill-flash.

Hand-Held NIGHT-shot for low light.

Finally factor that your $600 is only getting you a (16-80) 24 to 120mm-EFL compared to 24 to 400mm-EFL. Note that a 400mm @ f/4 would costs $1000's.

The below photos are "Straight Out OF Camera" ... (w/ NO PP what-so-ever).

Most are impossible w/ dSLR's ... (especially in same price range) ...

AlbertTheLazy
AlbertTheLazy Veteran Member • Posts: 7,699
Re: Beginning into photography
3

Hight Fly wrote:

Thanks for the advice.

As many of you say that I should get the 16-80, I might try to get it then.

Still interested in other points of views tho'!

For a start, don't worry about phototeach. He is obsessed by the FZ1000 and recommends it to everybody, regardless of their stated wants and needs. For many people it is all the camera they will ever need; for others it has an overwhelming array of options that they will never explore and for yet others it has limitations that they soon struggle to overcome. Only you can know what group you are in.

The 16-80 sounds like a good option.If you buy used carefully you should be able to sell any lens for about what you paid for it if/when you decide to move to an incompatible system. Or maybe you'll be able to use it adapted on any future Nikon mirrorless.

That said, I use a mixture of native Fuji glass and adapted (manual only) Nikon mount lenses on my mirrorless camera. This is partly for cost and partly because there is no similar native lens. For example, I use a Nikon mount 70-300mm Sigma zoom that cost me 50 euros. You could fit that directly to a D300 as a cheap way into the world of long telephotos. It's not the sharpest lens in my bag but it is inexpensive fun.

 AlbertTheLazy's gear list:AlbertTheLazy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G15 Fujifilm X-T1 Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +4 more
OP Hight Fly Forum Member • Posts: 54
Re: Beginning into photography

Thanks a lot for you feedbacks!

I'll deeply consider this option then.

Is there anything better about the 16-80mm lens that will perform better than the bridge?

Furthermore, if it is that much better, why do people keep buying DSLRs used and used lenses when they could get this one? The OVF is probably not their only reason.

Thanks again for your concern,

Regards

 Hight Fly's gear list:Hight Fly's gear list
Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D
OP Hight Fly Forum Member • Posts: 54
Re: Beginning into photography

AlbertTheLazy wrote:

Hight Fly wrote:

Thanks for the advice.

As many of you say that I should get the 16-80, I might try to get it then.

Still interested in other points of views tho'!

For a start, don't worry about phototeach. He is obsessed by the FZ1000 and recommends it to everybody, regardless of their stated wants and needs. For many people it is all the camera they will ever need; for others it has an overwhelming array of options that they will never explore and for yet others it has limitations that they soon struggle to overcome. Only you can know what group you are in.

The 16-80 sounds like a good option.If you buy used carefully you should be able to sell any lens for about what you paid for it if/when you decide to move to an incompatible system. Or maybe you'll be able to use it adapted on any future Nikon mirrorless.

That said, I use a mixture of native Fuji glass and adapted (manual only) Nikon mount lenses on my mirrorless camera. This is partly for cost and partly because there is no similar native lens. For example, I use a Nikon mount 70-300mm Sigma zoom that cost me 50 euros. You could fit that directly to a D300 as a cheap way into the world of long telephotos. It's not the sharpest lens in my bag but it is inexpensive fun.

First of all thanks for you comment.

The thing is, i don't even know really myself what I want. I am a beginner, but I have done lots of researches. What are the inconvenience of the bridge compared to the D300+ 16-80mm? The fact that I could get a telephoto lens later is pretty good IMO!

I am really interested into exploring lots of options, that is why I have offered so many possibilities in my first message of this topic.

Thanks for the picture!

Can you give more details on your configuration? Unfortunately I didn't get all of it! And this idea of mixture interests me! Do you recommend me to do like you, and get for instance an X-E1 or a X-E2 or another model of a mirrorless camera, used, for a fair price and then get lenses from Nikon or idk? This topic interests me!

Regards

 Hight Fly's gear list:Hight Fly's gear list
Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D
PhotoTeach2 Senior Member • Posts: 9,648
Re: Beginning into photography

Hight Fly wrote:

Thanks a lot for you feedbacks!

I'll deeply consider this option then.

Is there anything better about the 16-80mm lens that will perform better than the bridge?

Furthermore, if it is that much better, why do people keep buying DSLRs used and used lenses when they could get this one? The OVF is probably not their only reason.

Thanks again for your concern,

Regards

Many, including "me", once shared the opinion that only "larger", (FF/DX), sensors could possibly produce a clean image.

It was only when circumstances forced me to buy/use a (

small (1/2.3" - FZ200), camera, (on an Alaska cruise) -- not expecting very good IQ/noise.

I was surprised when I found the images were not nearly as bad as I expected.  (and I printed 20"x30" from it)

But I was even amazed to find I had shot 10X the number of images I normally would have because of the convenience of its additional options & features.

I used it for two years and then got the FZ1000 because it had even more options & features., (and a 4X larger sensor so I am now printing 24"X36" posters).

Most others here have never used it and still feel the same way I used to think, (before trying it).

The most predominant regulars only have FF/DX so recommend what they still have, (ILC-dSLR).

I also have over $25,000 in gear since 1959, but will probably never use them again unless needed for some specific tasks, (like a Boat-Anchor).

PhotoTeach2 Senior Member • Posts: 9,648
Re: Beginning into photography

AlbertTheLazy wrote:

Hight Fly wrote:

Thanks for the advice.

As many of you say that I should get the 16-80, I might try to get it then.

Still interested in other points of views tho'!

For a start, don't worry about phototeach. He is obsessed by the FZ1000 and recommends it to everybody, regardless of their stated wants and needs. For many people it is all the camera they will ever need; for others it has an overwhelming array of options that they will never explore

But if the same price for (only) a lens, what is wrong with having options/features he indeed does not have to use until later ???

It has a normat "auto" or "P" mode for starting out.

You dont think he could/would use auto-bracketing, or HDR ??? Built-in flash or the fully-articulating LCD ???

There is a current ongoing thread about a FZ-1000 being used w/ "Time-Lapse" of the metor-shower so he won't have to continue manually shooting.

and for yet others it has limitations that they soon struggle to overcome.

Like what ... I indeed cant go to 100,000 iSO, but the Hand-Held Night-Shot works well.

Only you can know what group you are in.

The 16-80 sounds like a good option.If you buy used carefully you should be able to sell any lens for about what you paid for it

Do you seriously think that will remain true if Canon/Nikon's new ML takes off -- with their new mount.

if/when you decide to move to an incompatible system. Or maybe you'll be able to use it adapted on any future Nikon mirrorless.

What will be the "cost" of a new adapter -- and could you have gotten a new LENS instead of the "waisted" cost of the adapter.

Will it be as fully functional as native lenses ???

That said, I use a mixture of native Fuji glass and adapted (manual only)

Nikon mount lenses on my mirrorless camera. This is partly for cost and partly because there is no similar native lens. For example, I use a Nikon mount 70-300mm Sigma zoom that cost me 50 euros. You could fit that directly to a D300 as a cheap way into the world of long telephotos. It's not the sharpest lens in my bag but it is inexpensive fun.

You are making my point. (Manual Only / not sharpest)

The LEICA lens on FZ is very sharp.

Nice shots ... but all w/ a "normal" lens and SUN-light.

ANY camera could have taken those shots, even a $10 "disposable".

One of my photos was shot @ 800mm-EFL.

One was w/ flash @ 1/4000s.

One was of the Hawaii volcano, (at night and in the rain). from over 1.5 MILES away. And I assume you know the moon is 260,000 miles away.

The water-surfer was about 1/2 miles away.

I have another image of the (wooden), carving which is BLACK-SHADOWED w/out the SUN-light fill-flash.

I have another, (I didnt post), that shows the front of (an old) gasoline tanker where the back is totally washed-out -- followed by one where I reset exposure to darken the back and with flash to (equally) illuminate the front.

None of those could have been done as quickly as I did them, SOOC w/ NO "PP".

Two of them were shot at Wide-Angle FOLLOWED by a "zoomed" (400mm-EFL) IMMEDIATELY afterwards.

I challenge you to post a SOOC image I cant duplicate.

You cant duplicate most of mine.

Klaus dk
Klaus dk Veteran Member • Posts: 5,593
Re: Beginning into photography
1

Hight Fly wrote:

Thanks a lot for you feedbacks!

I'll deeply consider this option then.

Is there anything better about the 16-80mm lens that will perform better than the bridge?

Furthermore, if it is that much better, why do people keep buying DSLRs used and used lenses when they could get this one? The OVF is probably not their only reason.

Thanks again for your concern,

Regards

Many people regard the FZ1000 as a very good bridge camera giving other cameras a run for their money. It's much like a Swiss Army Knife of photography, good at many things, but rarely the preferred tool of professional craftsmen.

Joe (PhotoTeach2) is the only member who persistently writes an enthusiastic novel in several chapters to every beginner asking for advice on camera purchase (stick around, and you'll see), so consider his suggestions, but also look elsewhere.

 Klaus dk's gear list:Klaus dk's gear list
Sony RX100 II Canon PowerShot S120 Canon EOS 7D Canon EF 35mm F2.0 Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II +12 more
AlbertTheLazy
AlbertTheLazy Veteran Member • Posts: 7,699
Re: Beginning into photography
3

PhotoTeach2 wrote:

AlbertTheLazy wrote:

For a start, don't worry about phototeach. He is obsessed by the FZ1000 and recommends it to everybody, regardless of their stated wants and needs. For many people it is all the camera they will ever need; for others it has an overwhelming array of options that they will never explore

But if the same price for (only) a lens, what is wrong with having options/features he indeed does not have to use until later ???

Joe, I'm not going to get into a feature fight with you.

That said, I use a mixture of native Fuji glass and adapted (manual only)

Nikon mount lenses on my mirrorless camera. This is partly for cost and partly because there is no similar native lens. For example, I use a Nikon mount 70-300mm Sigma zoom that cost me 50 euros. You could fit that directly to a D300 as a cheap way into the world of long telephotos. It's not the sharpest lens in my bag but it is inexpensive fun.

You are making my point. (Manual Only / not sharpest)

50 Euros! (About 70 bucks for those who are not familiar with world currencies) Fully compatible with a D300 for exposure and autofocus. A cheap way for a beginner who doesn't know where he might be going to try long lens work.

Nice shots ... but all w/ a "normal" lens and SUN-light.

All those were shot with a70-300mm zoom on APS-C. The first two definitely using the 300 end. Ignore the EXIF -- that lens doesn't communicate with the camera.

If you can't see the difference between the perspective and DoF effects of using such a lens and using a '$10 disposable' then that might explain your obsession with using one camera to the exclusion of any others.

 AlbertTheLazy's gear list:AlbertTheLazy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G15 Fujifilm X-T1 Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +4 more
AlbertTheLazy
AlbertTheLazy Veteran Member • Posts: 7,699
Re: Beginning into photography
3

Hight Fly wrote:

The thing is, i don't even know really myself what I want.

I sympathise. Phototeach and I have been doing this for over half a century. Lots of similar experience but very different opinions at the end of it. The big difference is that I try to take people's needs into account. Once or twice I've even recommended an fz1000!

The problem is that it's hard to cover all the possibilities in photography with one camera, so let's start with you. Are you likely to put the effort in to learn how to get the most out of an 'advanced' camera? Are you prepared to carry the extra weight that an interchangeable lens camera entails? Are you prepared to spend the first few months of your new hobby using relatively inexpensive equipment so that this time next year you will really know what you need to buy?

Answering those questions will help you choose between the D300 and the fz1000.

I am a beginner, but I have done lots of researches. What are the inconvenience of the bridge compared to the D300+ 16-80mm?

The problem with a bridge camera is that it defines the envelope of what you can do with it.

As Joe (phototeach) will tell you , his beloved fz1000 has a longer 'equivalent' focal length than that zoom but what he doesn't accept is that there are times when you might want to do things it can't do.

The fact that I could get a telephoto lens later is pretty good IMO!

It's a cheap way of finding out if it is interesting enough to spend real money on better glass later.

Actually, that zoom that everybody suggests might be a bit expensive, judging by Joe's comments. Again, you could consider something cheaper which won't be a lot worse in quality terms.

I am really interested into exploring lots of options, that is why I have offered so many possibilities in my first message of this topic.

Thanks for the picture!

Can you give more details on your configuration? Unfortunately I didn't get all of it!

I have a Fuji X-T1, although I think the shots I showed were from my old X-E1. All of them were shot with my cheap long zoom.

To use most Nikon mount lenses on mirrorless all you need is an adapter costing about 10 beer tokens. However, that means that you don't get autofocus and you can't use shutter priority exposure, because the camera can't talk to the lens to set the aperture.

Do you recommend me to do like you,

Nope!

and get for instance an X-E1 or a X-E2 or another model of a mirrorless camera, used, for a fair price

Compared to a free D300 I can't see any mirrorless camera competing on price.

and then get lenses from Nikon or idk? This topic interests me!

Save it for when you have more experience and practice.

 AlbertTheLazy's gear list:AlbertTheLazy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G15 Fujifilm X-T1 Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +4 more
OP Hight Fly Forum Member • Posts: 54
Re: Beginning into photography

AlbertTheLazy wrote:

Hight Fly wrote:

The thing is, i don't even know really myself what I want.

I sympathise. Phototeach and I have been doing this for over half a century. Lots of similar experience but very different opinions at the end of it. The big difference is that I try to take people's needs into account. Once or twice I've even recommended an fz1000!

The problem is that it's hard to cover all the possibilities in photography with one camera, so let's start with you. Are you likely to put the effort in to learn how to get the most out of an 'advanced' camera? Are you prepared to carry the extra weight that an interchangeable lens camera entails? Are you prepared to spend the first few months of your new hobby using relatively inexpensive equipment so that this time next year you will really know what you need to buy?

Answering those questions will help you choose between the D300 and the fz1000.

I love to learn, this is my passion, and so I am ready to invest time, even months, to learn how to perfectly use my camera and to cover all the possibilities it offers.

I am prepared to carry the extra weight, because I used to wear my father's DSLR when I was a child whilst hiking. Since then, I have never wore a mirrorless camera, so I don't know that I'll lose anyway (in herms of weight gains).

So what is better?

Concerning the zoom (16-80), it is because I want to start with a really great zoom, to have sharp images and a nice aperture, to get some bright shots, and shoot at light. Like I've said, I am very enthusiast at beginning into photography and I want the best to begin with (but of course I have a budget otherwise I would just buy the 17-70mm from Nikon haha).

What would you rather recommend then?

Regards

 Hight Fly's gear list:Hight Fly's gear list
Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D
NikonNature Veteran Member • Posts: 3,690
Re: Beginning into photography
2

A new car might have blue tooth, a navigation system, and a rear camera, but you don't need any of that to drive and a ten year old car that's free is hard to beat.

The D300 is a fantastic camera and a great tool to learn on. It has excellent external controls that minimize the need to dive into menus. 12mp is fine. People shot weddings with that camera! You can use it like a point and shoot, or in full manual, so you can learn and grow with it for years.

 NikonNature's gear list:NikonNature's gear list
Nikon D610 Nikon D500 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-17E II Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD +1 more
AlbertTheLazy
AlbertTheLazy Veteran Member • Posts: 7,699
Re: Beginning into photography
1

Hight Fly wrote:

I love to learn, this is my passion, therefore I am ready to invest time, may it be months, to learn how to perfectly use my camera and to cover all the possibilities it offers.

An interchangeable lens camera will give you more possibilities. Definitely.

I am prepared to carry the extra weight, because I used to wear my father's DSLR when I was a child whilst hiking. Since then, I have never wore a mirrorless camera, so I don't know that I'll lose.

For most purposes having a DSLR or a mirrorless of about the same standard is immaterial. 95% of the knowledge that you gain will work with either.

For a beginner with the chance to get a good camera for free the choice is obvious, to me.

Take the D300. Shop carefully for an older, hence cheaper, zoom to use with it and if you have any money left over get a cheap fast prime -- f:2 or faster in the 35-50mm range.

Use that combination for a year and then either build on it or decide what would suit your (by then known)  needs better.

-- hide signature --

Albert
Having fun with my cameras

 AlbertTheLazy's gear list:AlbertTheLazy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G15 Fujifilm X-T1 Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +4 more
OP Hight Fly Forum Member • Posts: 54
Re: Beginning into photography
2

Good evening,

Thanks for all the concern you show, I really appreciate.

Nevertheless, if I may, you lionise so much this bridge camera and don't specify the drawbacks it had that I can only have as a conclusion that your opinion is biased.

However, I'll continue my researches on the fz 1000. It is a great camera indeed, but very honestly, if you were in the same case as me, I think you'd get a lens, because a free DSLR is a great learning tool.

Indeed, I think that if I arrive in 10 years on the mirrorless camera sector, I think that the experience I'd have acquired by learning on a DSLR is non-negligeable and might give me some insights people who always used mirrorless cameras would never have had.

Regards,

 Hight Fly's gear list:Hight Fly's gear list
Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D
John Michael Winterbourne
John Michael Winterbourne Senior Member • Posts: 2,561
Re: Beginning into photography
4

Joe, I realise that you are trying (with no success) to get into a "mine is better than yours" chat with Albert, but you have a recent very polite but also very firm "thanks for your input so far, but no thanks, I'm going with the D300 for now" from the OP.

So I suggest that, however many "respectfullys" you might add, you drop your evangelical approach because OP isn't going to be persuaded at this stage, and the rest of us have heard it all before.

To the OP - I haven't read all of the lens suggestions, but I gather that the 16-80 is getting some good mentions. If it hasn't already been mentioned the earlier 16-85 Nikkor is another option to think about. Not quite as good as the 16-80, but a lot cheaper. You would save enough to be able to add at least one more lens - I would say the Nikon 35/1.8 as a "fast" lens, and a cheap but decent 70-300 to test the telephoto waters.

P.S.  I read what you said to Albert about being willing to learn, so I would recommend that you try to get hold of a copy of Thom Hogan's eBook "The complete guide to the Nikon D300".  It's not free, but it's good value.  It differs from the Nikon User Guide (which is a free downloadable pdf) in that it tells you why you might want to use a particular setting, and then telling you how - rather than just how to do it, which can be rather daunting to a new DSLR user.

 John Michael Winterbourne's gear list:John Michael Winterbourne's gear list
Olympus C-300 Zoom Fujifilm X100T Nikon D70 Nikon D80 Nikon D2X +32 more
philmar Senior Member • Posts: 2,472
Re: Beginning into photography

Hight Fly wrote:

The convenience of the zoom is something to remember, but in the end I lose quality and it is very expensive. The zoom is the maximum money I would put into lenses.

The quality loss is small compared to the increased  convenience.

-- hide signature --

Phil M. - Toronto, Canada
Time to kill? Then have a look at a few of my photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/phil_marion/albums
You will NOT be disappointed.

 philmar's gear list:philmar's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L USM Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Canon EF 70-200mm F4L IS USM +1 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads