Inexperienced - Can I jump into D300?

Raon,

The great thing about the D300 for someone in your situation is its compatibility with older lenses like the ones you've probably got for the FM3A. It allows you to pick up great glass cheap. To throw in a curve-ball... you could even opt for a used D200 at 50-60% the cost of a new D300. Backwards lens compatibility is still there and most creative controls are as well. The D300 is a better camera, for sure, with big strides on the autofocus, high ISO quality, in-camera .jpg processing, etc. But if learning the new technology is a big part of what you'll be doing for the next year or so, you may be better off saving ~$700-900 on the body. Then put ~$310 of that into an SB-800 and the rest carefully toward lenses as you see what you want most. Just a thought.

Bob

I recently made the jump from a P&S digital to a D300.

My last SLR was/is and OM-4T.

The D300 is an unbelievable camera. It is easy to start using right out of the box (although it took me a few minutes to figure out how to put the CF card in).

I takes 2-3 weeks and a good book to learn about all the possibilities.

Go for it, you will not be disappointed.

The d 300 wont be obsolete in 3 years. You can grow into it. Yes, having made the jump to a d200 2 years ago, there was a substantial learning curve. Bells and whistles I never had or dreamed of on my film camera. But that is only half the battle and half the creativity. Post processing is at least 50% more. I highly recommend Scott Kelby's on line training. At $19/month, its much more pleasant than dry computer books and he has more than cs3 or elements, there is landscape, studio shooting, shooting with flash and in depth digital processing for portraits, weddings etc.. I wish it was available when I started and cursed that photoshop path. Take a look, the first few lessons of each class are free. I made it a winter, rainy days project. It will take your photos to a whole new level.

A camera is only as complicated as you make it. If you're used to a manual film camera, realize you can use any digital SLR exactly as a film camera. You meter, set aperture and shutter speed, focus, click. done. The d300 will be a fine camera to learn and grow into. Of more concern is your statement that you don't like computers. If you're not willing to spend a lot of time in front of a computer, don't go digital. The camera is just the first step towards the creation of an image.

"The d 300 wont be obsolete in 3 years." Or as soon as the D400 is on the market.....

 

 

 

The original question: Unless you have plans to get into a new computer (i.e., one to three [or more] Gb of RAM, and a whole lot of hard drive space to store your images on, you might think good and long about starting with the D300.

You also may need to get a decent CF memory card reader for your computer.

 

 

 

Starting with something less costly (i.e., the D80 or the D60 body) may be a way to begin with your digital photography.

 

 

 

In the end, it is your money, so you have to decide.

If you are only going to shoot JPEG, I'm not sure why you are considering spending $1,800 for a camera. There are less expensive options that will do what you want, such as a used D200 for half the price. I highly doubt you would ever see the difference in image quality if only shooting JPEG.

 

 

Kent in SD

"I'm not that keen on computers"

 

If you don't know or, worse, don't like computers, I'd be much more worried about whether you really want to get into digital photography than what kind of digital camera you need or want. However, if you do overcome this fear or dislike, then the D300 is a truly great camera!

As far as the RAW versus digital debate there is no doubt you will save more shots if you learn to post process RAW files but since you are moving from film to digital, JPEG's will seem like a quantum leap from the film. I used to shoot nothing but slide film where the only way to land the perfect image was to nail the exposure. So if you have already figured out how to properly expose your images for film, you will quickly be able to make the transition to making good captures in digital and if you are not quite there with your film photography, the instant feedback you get with the digital format is a great way to learn. Buy the D300- try JPEG, RAW, or a combination of both - take as long as you need to learn and let us all know how its going along the way. But above all have fun.

Just remember that all your lens' will be cropped by the D300's smaller sensor. The metering works great as long as you input lens info but it can still be a bit of a pain to focus especially if you're primarily using MF lens'. I would suggest getting a katz eye focusing screen for the D300. The screen is a split screen with the crystal ring around it, just like the one you must have gotten used to in the FM3A.

 

here is the link for the focusing screen: http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/cat--Nikon-DSLRs--cat_nikon.html

I owned an FM for about 26 years before buying a D200. The D300 wasn't available then, but the two cameras are roughly similar in their controls and settings.

<p>

One nice thing about the D300 is what it DOESN'T have. No modes with pictures of a flower, runner, portrait, or mountain. Unlike some lower-level cameras, the D300 never tries to hide the aperture and shutter speed decisions from you. In this respect, for a photographer who already knows about apertures and shutter speeds, the D300 is a simpler introduction to digital photography than a lower level camera.

<p>

You can put the D300 in "A" mode, slap an AI or AIS lens on it, and use it like you used your FM3A. Yes, there are other ways you can use it, and you should learn about them. but this is one way to start which shouldn't be too intimidating.

If money not an issue for your, you should get D3. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3.htm

"(I'm not that keen on computers)"

 

If you're not interested in doing post-production on your images with a computer you simply won't get the most out of a D300, or any DSLR. Look at a top-of-the-line compact camera instead, like a Canon G9 or a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ5.

<p style="padding-left:2em;"><em>Question 1: Should I go for the D300 or it's too complex?</em><p>

Should you go for the D300? Maybe. Maybe not. It's a personal decision. If the money isn't an issue, I'd vote yes. If the money is no matter at all, then the D3 is something to look at.

<p>

Is it too complex? No.As previously mentioned, there are default modes you can use.

First sorry for my "kitchen english" Iﾴm a fin.

Then...

Analogue cameras have something digital cams like D300 never will have.

The "click" experience. Without even looking at the shutter and aperture ring one

could feel what -say shutter speed is used.

So shooting fast with say F4 was much easier than with a digital camera.

When I wanted to change depth of field in manual mode -which pros use all the time-

I just turned the ring in lens couple of clicks and then same amount with shutter

speed ring to keep the exposure right.

 

One has always look at the tiny windows in Dslr to see the numbers.

If Your sight is not so good -like mine -3.0-- one must constantly put glasses on and

off. Frustrating.

Looking the screen makes people think that: "OK great picture, then by the

computer they see that it is underexposed and soft cause tiny --yes even 3 inch is

tiny- screen is totally different than large computer screen. So one has to wait to get

by computer to judge the images. Most of phortographers do not really understand

the histogram that can be seen on screen.

 

But if You know what you are doing You do not have to look at the screen at all. And

You learn photography much better way than experience and failure method which

slowly kills real ability to shoot the right way.

So Iﾴll say ( I teach photography and I`m also a professional press photographer)

that the real way to learn photography has gone to grave and people shoot

thousands of pictures and hope that there is one good example by accident.

 

I use D300 and D3 when working, sorry for that, but have to do it for the speed that

clients want to improve all the time...( why????? we all die anyway). But if one

wants really learn photography there is a super digital way.

Shoot film ( when You still can buy it) -buy a decent dedicated film scanner and full

version CS2 or CS3 photoshop.

Think, draw and shoot. Then learn to scan and take image to PS.

Thatﾴs the way learning works the absolutely best way among my students.

 

Must admit Iﾴm old 56 years meaning that Iﾴm conservative, but Iﾴll say that digital

photography has not improved the way we think and shoot pictures at all.On the

contrary, never have we seen so boring pictures that are mostly plagiates.

 

So moving to D300 just because it`s there wont make pictures any better.

Pictures are born in oneﾴs brains, not in the camera and poor screen.

All the power to you! Just set AF and other modes (I recommend aperture-priority) to ones, handy personally to you. Lerarn and practice... But D300+17-55/2.8 are much more expensive than FM3a+50mm. Yes... You are not obliged to buy Nikon, you can try Canon. Old manual lenses do not make so much sense with a superb AF camera. Those cameras are FASTER and you can afford LARGER PRINS (shot with professional lenses, of course), and more shots.

Sure, you can shoot JPEG and choose a image setting and ask the lab to print for you by handing over the memory card. You can get out of camera prints to any size you want.

 

Lab do not deal with RAW files. A few do if you pay them per hour or per 30mins to edit the files for you.

 

You can also plug a printer straight into the camera the D300 supports it if not mistaken and print.

 

If you are not keen on the computer, that is fine cos you can use JPEG and the high ISO and unlimited amount of film can be a good thing for digital. The cons is that how are you going to organise them if you are not keen on the computer? With a digital camera you do not have film to archive and store away. A digital camera just gives you prints if you choose not to use a computer. Sure, you can ask the lab to burn the files to a DVD or CD for you but how are you going to organise them? All its going to be like is CD1, CD2, .... CD10. You still need a computer. You still have to view them and when you do how are you going to browse them there is a whole load there ... I guess if you don't mind just open up in a file browser and view by thumbnails and go via that way and sort by date.

 

If you don't shoot lots, you can get 6x4 prints for every shot you do. If you do, then consider getting them burnt to a Photo CD that is compatible with the TV or get index card prints done.

Thanks for all your comments. Here are my conclusions (to date).

 

-Computers: I know how to use computers but I am not keen on them. Unfortunately I am stuck in front of a computer with four screens Monday to Friday for 10 hours (working in finance). Thus, the last thing I want to do is to sit in front of the computer in my spare time.

 

-Weight: I had a feel for the D300+lenses yesterday and it is more heavy than expected.

 

- JPEG vs RAW: I think that while I learn the JPEG will be good enough for me. Limited interest in postprocessing.

 

-Camera: Money is not an issue but I don't want to waste it. I have decided to buy the D80 on Friday. I will be shooting with this camera and with the FM3A to decide if digital is what I'm looking for. Frankly, all the comments related to the big amount of time required for postprocessing scared me a little.

 

-Last but not least, this forum is full of nice people giving frank opinions. THANKS

^ ah, D80, great choice. Coming from film, you're not overwhelmed with all the

technology that comes with the D300. And once you get used to that, you'll

appreciate all the advancements in fancier models.

 

I got a D40, which is a good camera, but lacks certain technology in newer models.

However, knowing its limitations, I know what to look for when I upgrade.

 

I think JPG is a great option for you. I don't normally say that, but since you came

from a film background, then you're likely to get accurate white balance and

exposure w/o post-process... Later though, after you're familiar with the camera,

start shooting in RAW to experiment. You'll be amazed at the amount of recovery

available =)

 

Great conclusion.

I went from a Nikon FM2's to a D80 - I found the menu structure in the d80 to be

easy to get a grip on and got productive very quickly with it, plus all my good nikon

glass works fine. I'm now with the d300, the menu is deeper and I'm still in the

process of thinking about what I'm doing - about twice as long as the d80 took to get

comfortable with using.

 

The d300 is great, truly love it.

 

As so many others have said the camera is only half the process, the 'digital

darkroom' is the rest of it - and as much money. I switched from PC to Mac in

November, and added Aperture 2.1 to my workflow last month - best choice I ever

made. Less time messing with Windows, more time just doing the work with

photography.

 

You've a lot of research ahead of you both in camera and digital darkroom and

computer platform, hang in there and you'll be rewarded. Mac's are easier to use

overall, I find it better designed now [OS software, not the pretty box] and my

workflow hums along. Go to the Adobe website and do some of the tutorials for

Photoshop, go to Apple and do some tutorials and watch some videos for Aperture -

eventually you'll want both.

 

good luck.

quote:"As so many others have said the camera is only half the process, the 'digital

darkroom' is the rest of it ."

-----------------

If we see photography as art and a way of expressing the ideas of a photographer

then the camera is only 5% of the whole thing, and PS is nothing.

As a pro I never talk about cameras with my fellow photographers. We talk about

pictures. Human brain is the main factor when producing pictures.

 

This scenario means that a real photographer takes captivating pictures with

disposable 5 Euros film camera and the one who cannot "see" at all can`t take them

with D300. This means that most of modern cameras are toys and hardware used

mostly by those who are not able to see and think visually but who like the bling of

knobs and joysticks.

May sound harsh...well look at the pictures from 1890 and later and think what

D300s etc have really made for photography, ---nothing new.

Ramon,<br>

<br>

In your shoes, I wouldn't get the D80. I would go either cheaper (the D60) or better

(the D300). Here's why:<br>

<br>

The D300 has some significant real-world advantages over the D80. Among

them:<br>

<br>

Fully compatible with Nikon manual focus AI NIKKOR lenses<br>

Superior noise reduction<br>

Superior weather-sealing<br>

Superior viewfinder (100% coverage vs. 95% coverage)<br>

Superior autofocus performance<br>

A self-cleaning ultrasonic sensor unit<br>

<br>

If you already have fine manual Nikkor lenses, why would you want to buy a DSLR

body that cannot take full advantage of them?<br>

<br>

I've owned a Nikon D70, D200, and now a D300. I can personally attest that the

self-cleaning ultrasonic sensor unit in the D300 does work well in preventing dust

and other particles (including the fine metal shavings from your lens mount) from

sticking to the digital sensor and ruining your photos because of "dust spots". This

is a BIG advantage, especially for someone who would prefer not to go into

Photoshop (or Photoshop Elements) to "clone out" the dust spots on their digital

images.<br>

<br>

If you should outdoor, the weather-sealing is very helpful in inclement weather.<br>

<br>

And once you shoot using a 100% viewfinder, you really won't want to go back to

anything less.<br>

<br>

And because of its superior noise-reduction, you can use a D300 at a much higher

ISO than a D80 and still get high quality images.<br>

<br>

But if you found the D300 to be too heavy for your liking, then I think it would be

better to save your money and get a D60 because the D60 has these advantages

over a D80:<br>

<br>

A built-in dust reduction system<br>

Better noise reduction and better high-ISO performance<br>

More advanced Active D-lighting than the D80<br>

Lower price<br>

<br>

But three *negatives* of a D60 compared to the D80 are:<br>

<br>

A penta-mirror viewfinder instead of a penta-prism viewfinder<br>

A crippled RAW+JPEG mode<br>

Slower autofocus performance<br>

<br>

And of course with the D60 (like the D80) you will not be able to use the camera's

built-in exposure meter with your manual Nikon lenses that your already own. But for

an introductory DSLR camera to get you feet wet in digital photography, the D60 has

all what you need (including aperture-priority and manual exposure modes) at less

cost than the D80 and with the most up-to-date digital technology. (The D80 is

getting a bit long in-tooth technology-wise. It's design is almost two-years old.)<br>

<br>

So if you don't want to buy the D300 because it's too heavy, get the D60 instead.

(But I would really recommend that you stick with your original choice and get the

D300.)<br>

<br>

Don't sweat post processing. You don't need to post process everything. Many people "edit" and their first step is deleting all the ones they don't want to store or ever deal with. Or, depending on the program, they rank them and then sort by rankings and only deal with the top few. You don't need to do anything to view them, just "open" jpgs. With RAWS, after saving from the card to the computer, importing them to a conversion program or editor, depending on program and camera file type, just opening the folder or file in the program will convert it and display it.

 

If you don't delete or lose the originals, especially using RAW, then you can't hurt anything permanently. If using jpg, you need to save using new names as the jpg compression system keeps compressing when you save (opening and closing doesn't recompress). So say the file name when transferred from card to computer is DSC000123.jpg. If you tweak it some, save it as DSC000123a.jpg. The original is not changed. Even with jpgs, except for a few processes in editing, you can "undo" the changes until you "save." If you save to a new name, you can always re-open the original and start over. Some viewers will make permanent changes when rotating jpgs to portrait, be carefull with that. I shoot everything RAW these days so don't recall which ones do that to jpgs.

<p>Peter you just made my heart jump a little when I read this:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>(including the fine metal shavings from your lens mount)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Does this really happen? Maybe I don't need to worry as much since 2/3 of my lenses are plastic mounts and I think the lens will wear first... but still... aaah!<br>

Ramon, this is a good point:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you should outdoor, the weather-sealing is very helpful in inclement weather.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There will come a time (believe me) that you will want pictures of falling snow, and pictures of raindrops in puddles.</p>