I guess I'm a "Serious Hobbiest" now

PupatorPupator Registered Users Posts: 2,322 Major grins
edited April 10, 2012 in Cameras
I've added a second body. I'm thrilled with the release of the new camera bodies because it's flooding the market with great deals on used gear. I just picked up a D300 at a fantastic price. I'm looking forward to comparing it with my D7000 and figuring out which body is best in which situation. Any suggestions folks have in that regard would be appreciated.

:clap

Comments

  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited April 8, 2012
    Yep, I ain't letting go of my D300, even after I got a D700 a while ago. Great camera. Did you get a D300s? That's an even better option, since it has dual card slots, better low-light ISO performance, and video. I wish I could trade up my D300 for a D300s, but for now none of those features are really critical since it's still my "serious hobbyist" / backup body.

    I'm with you- I love how new cameras cause a market flood of older used gear. I'm looking forward to $1500 D700's by the end of this season. :-)


    =Matt=
    “My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
  • PupatorPupator Registered Users Posts: 2,322 Major grins
    edited April 8, 2012
    Nope. Got the plain-old D300. But I got it for <$500. I don't care about video, but the dual card-slots and better low-light would have been nice.

    I had seriously considered getting a D700, as I have seen a few around $1500, but I didn't want to put a bunch of money into new glass right now with one FF and one crop body.
  • cab.in.bostoncab.in.boston Registered Users Posts: 634 Major grins
    edited April 9, 2012
    Matthew Saville wrote: »
    ... a D300s? ... better low-light ISO performance

    Is that so? I haven't looked into any D300 v. D300s comparos, but I thought the sensors and processors were identical, and that the only changes were adding video and the SD slot. I didn't know there were any still performance improvements. What did they change?
    Father, husband, dog lover, engineer, Nikon shooter
    My site 365 Project
  • MLangtonMLangton Registered Users Posts: 140 Major grins
    edited April 9, 2012
    Pupator wrote: »
    Nope. Got the plain-old D300. But I got it for <$500.

    Ain't it awesome!

    I "thought" about selling my D300 for about 30 seconds when I ordered my new FX. Once I realized I'd essentially be giving the D300 away ($400 +/-), I just decided to keep it. Knowing that I'll have a dedicated vacation-walkaround-backup body, makes things a total game changer. The horizons are broadening.
    More photo, less shop.

    http://mlangton.smugmug.com
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited April 9, 2012
    cab.in.boston wrote: »
    Is that so? I haven't looked into any D300 v. D300s comparos, but I thought the sensors and processors were identical, and that the only changes were adding video and the SD slot. I didn't know there were any still performance improvements. What did they change?

    Both the D90 and the D300s have significant improvements in RAW and JPG noise performance, according to DXO Mark. (Unfortunately, it is in fact the D90 that has the greatest performance of the three, which is kind of a bummer. But, the D300 is still a huge leap forward compared to the pre-FX generation of cameras. (D2X, D200, etc.)

    =Matt=
    “My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
  • cab.in.bostoncab.in.boston Registered Users Posts: 634 Major grins
    edited April 9, 2012
    Matthew Saville wrote: »
    Both the D90 and the D300s have significant improvements in RAW and JPG noise performance, according to DXO Mark. (Unfortunately, it is in fact the D90 that has the greatest performance of the three, which is kind of a bummer. But, the D300 is still a huge leap forward compared to the pre-FX generation of cameras. (D2X, D200, etc.)

    =Matt=

    Interesting. I have a D90 and D300, but I've never attempted to do any comparisons. I've always assumed (and we know what happens there) that the sensors delivered the same performance, excepting the D300's 14-bit RAW and much better AF...
    Father, husband, dog lover, engineer, Nikon shooter
    My site 365 Project
  • ZerodogZerodog Registered Users Posts: 1,480 Major grins
    edited April 9, 2012
    I have 3 Nikon 12mpx cameras. The D3s, D700, and D300s. A lot of situations I still reach for the 300s. Good choice man! You will love the 300. For situations that you need lower light ability the 7000 will be king. But everything else I be you are loving that 300.
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited April 9, 2012
    are you sure
    ...you shouldn't have bought a lens instead? You only really need two bodies for paid photojournalism events like weddings where you only have one chance to get the shots. If you do enough of those per year, then it's worth it. If you only do a handful, you can always rent a 2nd body. If it's just a hobby, then I'd say you'd be better served by another lens. I suppose it might be nice to have, say, a 17-55 on one body and a 70-200 on the other for a family event (definitely not on a family outing in public), but imo there's always another lens on the wish list!
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • PupatorPupator Registered Users Posts: 2,322 Major grins
    edited April 9, 2012
    jmphotocraft wrote: »
    I suppose it might be nice to have, say, a 17-55 on one body and a 70-200 on the other for a family event (definitely not on a family outing in public), but imo there's always another lens on the wish list!

    There's no lens I want (especially for $500) more than I want the ability to do that. Not just at family functions but on trips I take with a non-profit organization. A second body is going to make things easier for me.

    Also, even when I'm just at home: one camera upstairs with the 35 f/1.8. One downstairs with the 17-50. Sounds nice to me.
  • DsrtVWDsrtVW Registered Users Posts: 1,991 Major grins
    edited April 9, 2012
    D300 better AF and buffer, makes for better action, wildlife, sports. D7000 better landscape, macro, portrait. better resolution.
    Like them both but I favor my D300 especailly when i am chasing wildlife
    Chris K. NANPA Member
    http://kadvantage.smugmug.com/
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited April 10, 2012
    Pupator wrote: »
    There's no lens I want (especially for $500) more than I want the ability to do that. Not just at family functions but on trips I take with a non-profit organization. A second body is going to make things easier for me.

    Also, even when I'm just at home: one camera upstairs with the 35 f/1.8. One downstairs with the 17-50. Sounds nice to me.

    Yep, that's how I used to roll. D300 with Sigma 50-150 2.8 DC, and D200 with Nikon 17-55 DX. Plus a 50 1.4. Perfect setup, and it all fit neatly in my SMALL Tenba messenger bag. Yeah, it clocked in at 20 LBS total, but it was worth it for any type of adventures of the action sort.

    Personally, I'd love to have a DX D400, the Sigma 50-150 2.8, then a D7000 and a 16-85 DX plus maybe the Tokina 11-16. That would be the ULTIMATE hobbyist setup. Throw in the new 85 1.8 AFS-G and the non-existent 24 f/1.8 DX, and you're set for anything...

    =Matt=
    “My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
  • ZerodogZerodog Registered Users Posts: 1,480 Major grins
    edited April 10, 2012
    Dx d400!!!!!
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited April 10, 2012
    Zerodog wrote: »
    Dx d400!!!!!

    Can you imagine, if they could squeeze 6-8 FPS out of a 24 megapixel DX sensor? OMG!!!!
    “My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
  • puzzledpaulpuzzledpaul Registered Users Posts: 1,621 Major grins
    edited April 10, 2012
    Not going to attempt to define a 'serious' hobbyist ...
    Imo the situation re > 1 body depends a lot on what your (photographic) interests are and a typical working environment.

    Having interesting (wider/closer etc) stuff happen when using a long lens, and it being difficult to change lenses ... is ... annoying :)

    pp
    Website

    Flickr
Sign In or Register to comment.