Recommend D300 for first time DSLR user?

[digitalj]

Thank you everyone for your posts. I am very thankful for everyone's insight on this situation. I will obviously be double thinking about purchasing the d300 as my first slr. I haven't ruled it out yet and am still greatly considering it, but I will do a bit more research first before I decide. Thank you all for everything.

 

[ecube]

I'm also an engineeer/physicist. Tend to expect people to comprehend
elementary arithmetic/algebra at least and get proven wrong a lot.
It's very hard to predict how specific individuals will take to
things that you or I may consider intuitive, once shown.
IMHO, without basic photographic knowledge (which P&S cheat you out
of having to learn) starting with a D200/D300/D3 class camera is a
recipe for disappointment and substantial money wasted.
--
Andy_F
[Equipment in use -- see profile]

I wanted to be as specific as possible without appearing to be egocentric, know-it-all, and arrogant. I hope I did not offend anyone.

Brian,
You echoed the problems shared by several posters.

Andy,

I am sure you have found that not all engineers are methodical, analytical, and possess the "knack" of Dilbert. I can picture your frustration when others fail to grasp things you consider self explanatory. I try to be extremely patient when dealing with non-technical people and I soon extended that patience to everyone, technical or none technical.

Take care.
--
ecube

 

[Steve Timpson]

Hello all,

I have been reading this forum everyday for several months now and
have really enjoyed what people have to say. I want to tell you about
what kind of photography I do and see if you would recommend a D300
as my first slr.

I can understand where you are coming from. A few years back I moved from my last P&S (a Nikon 990) to a Fuji s1 pro SLR. I bought it just as the S2 pro was coming out, kept the S1 a week, and then returned it and upgraded to a S2.

I found that the improved customization, as well as the better quality I could get out of the S2 made up for its higher cost.

My background in photography was a bit different though. I had owned a film SLR (and black and white dark room) in the past and the real reason I wanted a SLR was the controllable depth of field with longer fast glass. I went in expecting a SLR experience.

The way I would think about this question is:

How fast do I hope to learn? If you have the time digital photography can be much easier to get good at faster because of the immediate feedback it can give. So maybe you can use a D300's extra features in the next year. But maybe, even probably, not.

You have to give it time and comitment, and cameras are getting faster and better every minute.

So if you don't think you will push the limits of a D70 etc in the next year or so, you can have one of them for essentially free...buy the cheaper camera now, use it until it isn't giving you what you want, then upgrade. The D300 will likely have come down in price, and if you sell the old camera I bet the amount you pay for the D300 in a year or so, plus the difference of what you bought and sold the D70 for will be less than the D300 is now.

......and you might even decide at that point to get a D400, a D3 or whatever!

Just my two cents.

 

[mhorgan65]

Nikon is probably coming out with a d90. The d90 will probably have some of the d300's features in a cheaper package. Maybe not all but some of the good ones.

 

[Joakim Edsjö]

If you are serious about moving up to a DSLR, you won't regret the D300. However, you should check with yourself if you really are willing to carry around a large piece of equipment all the time, or if you will just leave it home because it is too big/heavy. Personally, I use my P&S camera very rarely since I bought my D70 several years ago (and upgraded to the D300 recently). It is only when I want to bring a camera along on a business trip or such that I take my P&S, otherwise I always carry the DSLR along as the image quality and handling is superior. I always bring my big camera also to family occasions and such as I know I will get much better results with it.

If you are uncertain to how much you will like it and if you are willing to carry it around, my best advice is to buy a used D70 or so. It is a good start and you can later upgrade if you feel you really like it. If you, on the other hand, is certain that you will like a DSLR, go for a D300 now if you have the money.

 

[WDrury_UK]

I too am in the same boat, but not from a P&S, but from the Panny FZ50. Having bought this camera to better learn photography and cheaper option to a DSLR last year I have leanrt muc.

I decided when I got the camera to only use Full Manual, Aperture Priority an on the odd occasion Shutter Priority. This was to learn these modes and thus forcing me to better understand exposure, aperture, depth of field, etc. I also decided up front to shoot only in RAW to appreciate such things as correct White Balance.

I have had a great time the past year, but now find myself hitting limits of the camera like bad noise in low light, retrictions of aperture (max f/3.2-> f/11) and slow card writing of the data.

I too am looking at the D80 and D300 very seriously, and hav concluded the D90 is really what I am after. Yes I know its vapourware, but to wait 3wks for PMA08 at the end of January as expectations by Nikonians is it will be a reality and thus be exactly what I am after.

Therefore my small piece of limited advice would be hold off until PMA08 as it appears from your post, the D90 maybe what you are after also.

If not then the D80 is what I will be going for and the 18-200mm VR + 50 f/1.8D lenses with what I saved on monies.

Hope this helps and look forward to continuing the reading f this thred along with new Nikon announcements at PMA08.

--
Wayne Drury, UK
Serious Hobby Photographer,, Software Developer (Full Time)
Galleries at http://flickr.com/photos/gkaruk
Equipment: PannyFZ50, Rnox250, Manfrot190xProB

 

[Daniel Oh]

So if I got it right you are:

-College Student:
a) somewhat limited budget,
b) faster learning ability
c) don't have too much time for pp
-Married and only camera for a while:
a) Camera needs to meet your wife prefs
-2 young Kids:
a) Good snapshots essential,

b) You may not be the one to take most of their pictures for "daily growing memories"
-Wants to really grow in photography:
a) camera cost should be 25%
b) lens/flash etc cost 75%

So based on your needs you should consider:

• A camera that your wife can also learn to use easily and fit her hands also. My wife basically refuses to use D200 and my new lenses, too big & too heavy. She loves Canons S5IS I gave her. She was happy with D80 and a lighter lens

• A camera with great output out of the camera JPEG

• A camera that let you grow

• Everything needs to fit budget of $2000

• Good lens for kids, good indoor picture system.

-No fast sports for few years

The truth is most people will "upgrade" their DSLR within about 3 years (just look at the previous posters. Invest in a camera good for you and your wife, cheaper, and use the money on lens/flash (you wil keep those)

Suggestion:

-Nikon: D80 with 18-200 mm VR and SB600 for now. Later get waterproof P&S (kids in beach, pool, waterpark), then fast lenses ( as they start sports). In 3 years get D500, sell D80 to recover 35% of initial camera cost. May want to wait for PMA to see what come out and also get 16-85 mm VR instead (cheaper and more useful later in combination with fast tele)

-Canon: 40D and Sigma 18-200 mm OS.The camera is the best bang for the buck though inferior in features it is kind of the best of D80 and D300. Try it first (my hands can't speak Canonish, I tried)

Then add lenses as you learn your needs.

Just my 2 cents

--
Daniel Oh

ps. I truly believe photography as a hobby is defined by the pleasure you get from the activity. It does not matter what equipment or results. I am a hobbyist and a very awful photographer (snapshooter is a better name) but a very happy one.

 

[AndyClitheroe]

I have been reading this forum everyday for several months now and
have really enjoyed what people have to say. I want to tell you about
what kind of photography I do and see if you would recommend a D300
as my first slr.

Short answer: No.

Long answer:

It's terribly easy to rationalise an extravagent and indulgent purchase, and that's what I see in your post: you convincing yourself that you are justified in purchasing an expensive high-end camera because the D40 is 'too small' (I read: "too cheap and bottom of the range; I wouldn't feel special enough buying one") and the D80/D200 are 'out of date' (I read: "Basically I just want to know I've got the latest and greatest so I can relax"). It's the same with your insistence that you want to buy something you can keep for years and years, not one body now and another next year: the actual net cost of buying and selling a stopgap D40 is almost negligable; the real reason you want to buy one camera and keep it forever is that means you get to buy the D300 now .

Please, do not be offended - I'm only familiar with these signs because I invariably exhibit them myself whenever something new and shiny appears on the market

I think at the moment the choice of camera body is dominating your purchasing plans, and it shouldn't. You need to take your budget, think seriously about what combination of equipment, including lenses, lighting, tripod, memory cards etc, is going to suit you best, and take pride in having a great suite of tools at your disposal.

From your description of the kinds of photography you currently pursue, I would say the following:

1. Lots of indoor shots - social pictures judging by the questions regarding DSLR portability you raised later.

Here you need a good short range prime or zoom, and a great flash (SB600/800). In a typical indoor social situation, a D40 using bounce flash at ISO 200 and F8 will make the guy who brought his D300 but forgot his flash look like a complete idiot. Mr D40 will take a series of crisp, well-exposed and appealing shots with natural and flattering lighting, while Mr D300 will most likely alternate between struggling to tame tungsten-lit ISO3200 at F2.8 while keeping everyone in focus, or using in-camera flash to chronicle yet another 'who can look the most caucasian in an inexplicably dark room' championship indistinguishable from anything a decent P&S could produce.

2. Macro shots.

This is all about the lens. Tripod live view is great, but unless you're photographing moodily lit wristwatches for a living, it's a nicety you can live without, unlike the tripod . Mount up, then blaze away and pick the best later. Any DSLR body will give great results with the right lens.

3. Outdoor photography.

Here you're talking lenses (again), a good solid (and light) tripod for landscapes, a proper weatherproof bag to tote everything around in - again, your camera body isn't the star of the show.

The only D300 specific feature that would genuinely benefit you is the LCD. Even in a social situation it pays dividends: the ability to turn that great black brick around and show them exactly WHY you aren't using a P&S goes a long way toward defusing the 'look at the prat with the ostentatious camera' syndrome that typically attends such events. But the same can be achieved quite easily by having a less ostentatious camera and using it quickly and competently.

My advice is you get yourself a D40 or used D50, the best flash you can afford, the best lenses you can afford, learn about SLR photography, then look again at what's available and pick the pro-level body you know is right for your needs. Heck, you might decide it's the D3, and in that case, wouldn't you feel disappointed if you blew everything on a D300 now?

 

[munro harrap]

you are also welcome to look at a few D300 pics on http://www.flickr.com/photos/harrappeter

the first two will help you decide and explain the difficulties you may encounter.

Hope they help....

 

[munro harrap]

That pointed out the machine I have now is fine. They are in fact very easy to use. There are problems in that you will almost certainly find yourself buying old manual lenses (AI and AI-s work fine) on Ebay or instore.

Unless you are a low light freak the currrnt cheapest zoom -the 18-55mm is in fact as sharp as the 17-55mm f2.8 and does not flare. The 17-55mm flares horribly in baclit situations. Nikon are rumoured (see Ken Rockwell's site) etc to be about to announce a 16-80 f3-4 something zoom like the one that Zeiss make for Sony.

I hope it is true and solves what is a pressing problem because though the el cheapo kit zoom is super and there's now an IS version, it is all plastic and extremely fragile, and made more so on a solid metal body.

That said and sums done you will get the same quality minus 2MP dor the D40x with that lens!!!! And if they tell you no, well almost and you can improve results no end using the right cheap software -Elements 5 or 6 takes the free RAW plugins and works faster than NX, believe us!!

You might decide on film instead after a while since not even a 5D with super primes or the 14-24mm Nikkor on an adaptor can match film, anyone telling you otherwise means Hasselblad not small format like our cameras.

Its a very good machine, but so is the D200, or D80 at half the price