D300 or.... ?

[Driver]

Could people take just as good a picture with a lower end camera, sure. But that's not all of it. It's part emotional, part fiscal and part technical. Didn't my first post mention some night shots and the second post (after the D80 suggestion) mention the HDMI output? Maybe I didn't give those 'likes' enough weight. I could've bought the D3 but at a premium price and considering it'll be superceded technology wise in a few years (as they all will), why? Maybe the other discussions I've had in between these posts, the 20 or so reviews I've read and the 5 or 6 experts I've discussed it with don't come across, but hey, it's the internet so it must ALL be true ehh? Anyway I bought what I will use and this is just tedious.

 

[compuwar]

Could people take just as good a picture with a lower end camera, sure. But that's not all of it. It's part emotional, part fiscal and part technical. Didn't my first post mention some night shots and the second post (after the D80 suggestion) mention the HDMI output? Maybe I

I *never* took issue with you wanting HDMI, it's the whole "grow into it" thing that I find bogus, which is why I asked for examples. Obviously, we're just going to have to disagree on that part, since you're unwilling to discuss it, let alone qualify or quantify it. Enjoy your camera.

 

[kallisti]

I wanted to just say a little bit about the "grow into" it thing. I don't think it is an entirely "bogus" argument.

In digital, I've owned a few point and shoots, a D70, a D80, and now a D300. I think there are some real image-quality differences between the D80 and the D300. The meter in the D300 seems to be more accurate and the autofocus seems to be a bit better. Noise seems to be better with the D300 at higher ISO. I love the saturation I can get with the D300 that isn't possible with a D80. I also like the active D-lighting. JPEGs straight out of the D300 usually require much less adjusting than those from the D80 (yes, I'm a heathen and usually shoot JPEG over Raw unless it's something really important).

Most of the time I can get similar results with either body. The biggest difference for me is that the D300 is easier to use. The menus on the D300 are a bit easier to navigate. The ability to make a custom menu (My Menu) and put the items in it which I tweak on a regular basis is a godsend. Less time fumbling through menus and submenus, more time shooting.

Being able to see the ISO in the viewfinder rather than having to check the top display. Yes, you can program the FUNC button on the D80 to do this, but it's nice to just have it there all the time with the D300.

The display is much nicer on the D300 and it's much easier to zoom in to check for sharpness.

Not wasting a dial with all the "idiot" shooting modes that I never use on the D80 and instead having the dials influence things that matter when I am shooting.

Why does all this make it a "better" body to grow into? Convenience matters for pros who make their living shooting, though arguably if you are using a D80 every day then you aren't likely to forget which menu a particular setting is buried within. For less serious photographers, or those starting out, you are less likely to be willing to dig through menus to tweak settings. If it is easy and straightforward to make adjustments to the camera then you are more likely to actually do so. Which means you experiment more and actually become more familiar with what the camera can do and how the various settings influence the final image.

This isn't to say that you can't accomplish this with a D80 (or even a D40). I just think the D300 makes it easier. I'm not going to touch the "lens vs body" argument. But I don't think it's fair to dismiss the D300 as a "learning" body. Assuming you can afford it of course.

To the OP:
I'd also seriously consider a 50mm f/1.8 (as pointed out by others in this thread). It's around a hundred bucks and is faster than any of the pro zooms. Very sharp to boot. It's a great all-around lens. It is fantastic in low light and is a good tool for learning the creative uses of aperture. The f/1.4 costs about 3 times as much, but is also a very nice lens (just not *quite* as big of a bargain).

 

[Digital Skunk]

I wanted to just say a little bit about the "grow into" it thing. I don't think it is an entirely "bogus" argument.

In digital, I've owned a few point and shoots, a D70, a D80, and now a D300. I think there are some real image-quality differences between the D80 and the D300. The meter in the D300 seems to be more accurate and the autofocus seems to be a bit better. Noise seems to be better with the D300 at higher ISO. I love the saturation I can get with the D300 that isn't possible with a D80. I also like the active D-lighting. JPEGs straight out of the D300 usually require much less adjusting than those from the D80 (yes, I'm a heathen and usually shoot JPEG over Raw unless it's something really important).

Don't worry, you're not a heathen for shooting JPEG. Most pro shooters i know and work with shoot JPEG unless they know for a fact it's going to professional output.

I have to agree with compuwar on this one. The comment "grow out of/into" is one that is thrown around a lot when people want to justify getting the latest and greatest gear. I am sorely upset with a lot of D300 owners right now, their images are still just as mediocre or bad as they were when they had their D70/D50/D80/D200 bodies. Their skills didn't change, and as they would put it, they didn't out grow their bodies.

The D300's IQ is great compared to the previous gen, but if you weren't able to get that kind of quality out of the previous gen then you were doing something wrong, and the D300 won't help you in any way other than doing the work for you.

The D80 is actually the only body Nikon has produced that meters just as accurately as the D200 and D2xs. It's actually spot on, more so then the D2hs. I have these bodies by the way, and if I don't need the speed then the D80 would go before the D2hs. Noise is better on the D300, yes, but if you can't shoot up to ISO 800 on a D2-- series without getting noticeable noise it's a problem with the shooter. Above 1000 and the camera's limitations come into play, I agree, but there are ways to compensate.

The saturation on the D80 JPEGs is about the same from my POV. I can't argue with that since it's my opinion, but the JPEGs rendered from the D80 and D50 are better than the ones I get from my D200/D2hs/D2xs, that's where that body was intended to perform well. RAWs on the other hand are the opposite.

When a beginner wants a D200/D300 to start and their reason is "I want a body I can grow into" it's just not a valid reason. If they want it because they want it then fine go and get one if you have the cash to blow. But as I told the 5D buyers that got cheap glass, that D300 is going to give you soft, mediocre images if you have a cheap kit lens on the front. And by kit lens I do mean the 18-70 DX and below.

Nikon makes 4 top notch pieces of glass, and once you shoot with them it's hard to consider anything else (in the DX line) as NOT a kit lens. The D80 and 17-55/70-200VR/18-200VR are quite good performers and yield IQ that will rival that of the D2xs. The only thing left out of the D80 is the 5 fps and autofocus speed. If you aren't shooting a lot of sports and getting paid for it then it's not that important.

Unless you have the cash of course.

 

[kallisti]

I have to agree with compuwar on this one. The comment "grow out of/into" is one that is thrown around a lot when people want to justify getting the latest and greatest gear. I am sorely upset with a lot of D300 owners right now, their images are still just as mediocre or bad as they were when they had their D70/D50/D80/D200 bodies. Their skills didn't change, and as they would put it, they didn't out grow their bodies.

Ultimately I can't argue with anything you said (aside from the saturation comment, VIVID +2 or +3 saturation on my D300 blows away anything I can get on my D80--not "vital" by any means and I can get somewhat similar results in Photoshop--but straight out of the camera I really think the D300 is amazing in this regard).

Taking good pictures has much more to do with good composition, good exposure, and good lighting than what gear you are using. I got some fantastic shots on my honeymoon in Greece using a digital point-and-shoot that blow people away. The first question is always: "what camera did you shoot it with?" which is always the wrong question. Up to a point, good images boil down to the basics as outlined above. If it's a poorly composed and exposed image it will suck, regardless of whether you are using a pinhole camera or the most expensive gear on the market. Compelling images are compelling for reasons that have nothing to do with how much money you spent on your gear. Good gear either makes things easier or allows you to do some creative things that you couldn't do otherwise. Even cheapo throw-away cameras can make some very nice images.

My argument for the D300 isn't that it *magically* makes all images better. Rather it makes it easier to achieve good images ASSUMING YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING and are willing to learn from your successes and failures. If you don't have a good eye and understand the basics of photography, then you will still make mediocre images. The camera is a tool, it's not a creative force. But the options a "better" body provides can make the learning curve easier and ultimately improve your images. Options give you the chance to systematically learn what works and what doesn't in a given shooting environment. "Better" bodies ideally make it easier and faster to play with the options available. When vital elements are buried in menus and submenus, they aren't likely to be experimented with. For many shooting situations (casual, vacation, etc) I can achieve decent results with a point-and-shoot. But it requires that I REALLY understand the point-and-shoot (what terminology does that camera maker use, which menu is it hidden within?). Once you overcome the initial setup of the D300, it's easier to access some of the key controls. This makes it superior in my eyes, aside from any image quality concerns, and makes it ultimately easier to "grow into."

It's not a question of whether the D300 can make better images compared to a D80. It's how easy is it to obtain the same result. Once you overcome the initial learning curve, I think the D300 is much easier to work with and tweak on a shot-by-shot basis than the D80. Ultimately I think that can contribute to an easier time learning the art of taking good pictures. Are the improvements worth the much higher price tag? That's a different discussion.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Ultimately I can't argue with anything you said (aside from the saturation comment, VIVID +2 or +3 saturation on my D300 blows away anything I can get on my D80.

WOW! I say JPEGs right out of the D300 that are vivid as hell, setting it to +2 or +3 would hurt my eyes. I agree if those are the settings. The standard D80 JPEGs blow my D200 Vivid JPEGs out of the water.

My argument for the D300 isn't that it *magically* makes all images better. Rather it makes it easier to achieve good images ASSUMING YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

Can't argue with that. And yes, there is a difference between growing into a camera, and "out growing" them. I still haven't "out grown" my Dakota RZ200 that I learned the basics on. I don't have any lenses for it since I gave them all away, but I would shoot with it every once in a while until I find a good used F6 to grab.

(1)It's not a question of whether the D300 can make better images compared to a D80. It's how easy is it to obtain the same result. Once you overcome the initial learning curve, (2)I think the D300 is much easier to work with and tweak on a shot-by-shot basis than the D80.

I agree, and that's the most basic reason for the advancements that have come out of 35 mm SLRs and digital ones. It's about making it easier for me to concentrate on the shot, and not the camera's limitations (like ISO 1000+ on the D200/D2xs).

The second part is a true to some, but a stretch for me. I find that the perfect bodies are the simple ones that don't have too many limitations. The D80 is a KILLER body to me, because it's as simple and as professional as it gets. It's like Nikon took the D200 and shaved off all the MUCK.

I pick it up, turn it on, and start shooting on any one of the PSMA settings and I am good to go all the way up to ISO 800. I don't have to worry about much with it. The D2hs is a selfish body, that commands my attention every step of the way.

 

[Driver]

I'd also seriously consider a 50mm f/1.8 (as pointed out by others in this thread). It's around a hundred bucks and is faster than any of the pro zooms. Very sharp to boot. It's a great all-around lens. It is fantastic in low light and is a good tool for learning the creative uses of aperture. The f/1.4 costs about 3 times as much, but is also a very nice lens (just not *quite* as big of a bargain).

I'm looking at the AF-S Zoom-NIKKOR 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED ($1500) or a similar prime in that range. Kind of liking the look of the AF NIKKOR 24mm f/2.8D ($280 ish) but have yet to do ANY research on lenses in this area. All my info is 20 years out of date and applys strictly to old film cameras. I have a 50mm on my old X700 SLR and it always felt a little limiting in crowds. Will likely not spring for one for a month or so as I need to get up to speed on the menus and systems of the D300 first when it gets here.

 

[compuwar]

Kind of liking the look of the AF NIKKOR 24mm f/2.8D ($280 ish) but have yet to do ANY research on lenses in this area. .

IMO, you can do better with lots of lenses from Nikon or Sigma. The discontinued 20-35mm zoom is a lot better at 24mm than the 24mm, and that's not a really modern zoom.

My 24mm's been on the shelf for 2 years, and will probably stay there. I'd probably consider something like the Sigma 30mm if you can get a good sample if you're not looking for that exact angle of view.