Talk me out of a d300?
Hey there everybody,
So I've been using my D80 pretty heavily over the past year (not pro-heavy, mind you, but I've taken a good number of shots with it) and, except for an wide angle I'm about to purchase in Japan (the Tokina 11-16mm, if I can find it), I've just about finished my "d80 kit".
D80, the battery grip, Nikkor 18-55mm II, 55-200mm VR, 50mm f/1.4, and soon the Tokina.
I'm a student, so I don't have THAT much surplus income, but I get a decent bonus check (3kish) in the fall, and a smaller one in the spring - part of which goes towards living expenses and the like, but part of which I angle towards photography.
The D80's done me well, but with all the love flying around for the D300 I'm starting to get the urge to make a jump. I was originally just going to wait for an FX kit (something like the D700 sounds friendly), but 3/4 of my lenses would defeat the purpose of having an FX camera, and while I could maybe excuse the cost of the camera, I couldn't excuse the cost of the lenses.
I could rant on, but just curious for (another) set of opinions - haha, but this time, more in the opposite direction. Any thoughts?
Edit: Alternatively my photo-buddies are trying to talk me into a Canon instead, "Having both is great!" and all that. I think they just want someone to get a 40D or 5DmkII (whenever it exists) for them to toy with...
So I've been using my D80 pretty heavily over the past year (not pro-heavy, mind you, but I've taken a good number of shots with it) and, except for an wide angle I'm about to purchase in Japan (the Tokina 11-16mm, if I can find it), I've just about finished my "d80 kit".
D80, the battery grip, Nikkor 18-55mm II, 55-200mm VR, 50mm f/1.4, and soon the Tokina.
I'm a student, so I don't have THAT much surplus income, but I get a decent bonus check (3kish) in the fall, and a smaller one in the spring - part of which goes towards living expenses and the like, but part of which I angle towards photography.
The D80's done me well, but with all the love flying around for the D300 I'm starting to get the urge to make a jump. I was originally just going to wait for an FX kit (something like the D700 sounds friendly), but 3/4 of my lenses would defeat the purpose of having an FX camera, and while I could maybe excuse the cost of the camera, I couldn't excuse the cost of the lenses.
I could rant on, but just curious for (another) set of opinions - haha, but this time, more in the opposite direction. Any thoughts?
Edit: Alternatively my photo-buddies are trying to talk me into a Canon instead, "Having both is great!" and all that. I think they just want someone to get a 40D or 5DmkII (whenever it exists) for them to toy with...
0
Comments
Since I try to conserve money, and will probably be in medical school in a year (a long, money starved road), I'm trying to plan a bit for the future. The Tokina was going to be my last DX-only lens, but granted I've been running on assumptions.
Avoid DX? Or embrace it?
I forgot to mention the 18-135 D80 kit lens, but I plan on selling that.
It looks like things are moving towards full frame eventually but I can't see them going completely that way for a few years. My main question is to you, why do you need a D300? what are the features, making you interested in it?
Mostly IQ improvements, most especially in the metering, which I'm told and have read are significant over the D200, and thereby significant over the D80.
But alternatively I could:
1) Start shooting RAW on the D80
2) Learn to incorporate some measure of post-processing - and thereby largelyeliminate the primary reasons I started looking at the D300, metering/white balance/highlights/etc.
3) Focus more on exposure comp. with each shot (like I should be doing anyway), as well as adding in fill-flash and the like to reduce the times I would blow highlights or get discoloration
Basically pushing my time towards learning instead of compensating with a new body. Though it brings up a whole bag of tricks in which post-production implement to use (I'm leaning towards Aperture at the moment).
I'm probably very biased about this now, since all my photography has gone from SLRs to a Nikon point-and-shoot S600. Once you learn the fundamental principles about photograpy though You can trick a camera with less features to create the images you want.
I just think you will be better off getting glass and then upgrading. In a couple of years, the D300 will be cheaper like the D200 is now. Good glass doesn't depreciate like camera do.
Another thing to consider is getting the program called DXO. You can use a trial to see if it fits your needs. What it does is bring out detail in underexposed areas without blowing out highlights. It also corrects inherent flaws in the camera and lenses so it corrects noise and distortion issues automatically. The reason I bring this up is because the D300 does some of this in camera, but you can get some of the benefits with a program like DXO. It would be cheaper than getting a new camera. I have been using the program for a year and it also has more features like saturation, curves, etc that can be set and run in a batch process. I really like the program.
http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_optics_pro
Hello, I see your dilemna and it is worth thinking about it seriously...
From my side, being a user of the D300 (previously D70 then D200), I must say I just love this camera.
For me, one of the most interesting features is the CMOS sensor and it's low noise at high ISO. This makes the biggest difference if you really need the extra light (concerts, indoor sports, portraits in low light, danse performances,...). Also, it seems that I can use longer shutter speed than the D200 without blurred image (I don't know why really).
Of course, the huge viewfinder and huge screen are also a big advantage.
On the other hand, as someon suggested, a really good lens like the 17-55 2.8 or (for my tastes) the 85 1.4 makes a huge difference. The 70-200 2.8 is also supposed to be excellent.
So, it's really up to you, I think in both cases, it would be pretty exciting and give you again the full motivation!
Oh, a last option: some good lighting for starting studio-type of shoots: my advice is the Elinchrom Portalite, afordable, good quality and easy to transport!
If you want to check the picsc with the D300, 18-70, 85 and studio light, you can check my smugmug gallery:
www.yes-pictures.com
If you have any question and if I can be of any help, don't hesitate
I've actually entered that debate recently - I have a trial of Aperture I'm playing with now, and debating trying out Lightroom later. I have to get over my Apple fanboyism.
Just got a Tokina DX Wide-angle, so I'll be sticking with DX-frame for awhile. I don't have enough money to absorb buying most of a full-frame kit, and once full frame starts to become more the norm, all the expensive DX lenses will probably drop in price...
IMO, stay with your D80. I made the jump last year from D80 to D200 and I underestimated the amount of learning curve to the new camera. If I had it to do over again, I would have stayed with the D80 and spent the time I invested in the camera in myself. I'd have furthered my talent.
If I'm not mistaken, you're talking about a thousand dollars of difference to sell your D80 and buy a D300. Probably even worse if you sell the D80+grip and need to buy a D300+grip.
For me, that would be a 17-55mm 2.8, or a 105VR plus a SB800, or a 300 F4 or any number of other options. But it wouldn't be a D300.
I would say definitely go for the Tokina. It hasn't disappointed me yet. I don't think it's as sharp as my 50mm f/1.4, but the fact that I do find it comparable says something about the lens.
It's popular here in Japan as well (I'm here for about 10 weeks) - I managed to buy the last one I could find in Kyoto, which was actually a display model (which I'm hoping won't come back to bite me).
I'm currently leaning towards putting any money I find towards either Lightroom/Aperture (leaning towards Lightroom, as it's 99$ on discount), and probably a nice monitor to actually make all this worthwhile.
Thanks for the advice though.