New D300 or better lenses

<p>What is the better course of action, buying better lenses for a D40X or investing instead in the D300. I am thinking of adding the 70-300 VR and the 16-85 VR. Your opinions would be helpful.</p>

<p>What is it about the D40x that you find limiting?</p>

<p>First you have to ask yourself honestly: what do I really need and why do I need a new camera? As a general rule: cameras come and go, but "investments" in lenses will often spark new creativity.</p>

<p>I have a D40X, a D300, and some fairly good lenses.</p>

<p>The D40X can take really good pictures. The D300 is a wonderful camera. But with either one the quality of your pictures is going to be limited by the quality of your lens. </p>

<p>Why don't you buy one nice new lens while you are making up your mind?</p>

<p>The viewfinder on the D300 is heaven compared to the D40X. That's one of the reasons.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The viewfinder on the D300 is heaven compared to the D40X. That's one of the reasons.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Neil, it sounds like there are a number of reasons behind your consideration. Could you list all the major reasons, say the top 3 or top 5? Without knowning what is insufficient among your current D40x and whatever lenses you have, it is next to impossible to provide any good suggestions.</p>

<p>Exactly which lenses do you currently have, and why are they insufficient so that you are also considering getting the 70-300 or 16-85?</p>

<p>So far there hasn't been ANY mention of what you use a camera/lenses to photo. That's the whole thing. Also, no clue as to what lens you already have. Most of the time, a lens will have a noticeable impact on image quality where a camera will not. Also, no way I see money spent on a camera as "investing." They drop in value very quickly. My strategy has been to limit the $$ I put into cameras and put more into lenses and lights. My Nikon D80 was purchased new for $800 and is now worth maybe $400. The Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR I bought around the same time for $1,100 is now worth $1,500. <br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>Buying a lens is an investment; buying a digital camera especially one that was released over a year ago is not. I would buy one lens and save the rest for an upgrade later. The D300 is the oldest digital camera produced my Nikon, I think that you would probably get much better, or at least a little better photos from a D40x and nice glass, than a D300 with nothing decent in front.<br>

Also, dont forget to buy FX lenses, DX will be dead not long from now.</p>

<p>Have you considered the 50mm 1.8 lens?</p>

<p>Hmm. I have the kit 18-55mm right now. The 70-300mm VR seems like a good idea and it's of course FX.</p>

<p>I have expensive Nikon f2.8 zooms and a D300, also a D80. For family outings and trips to places such as Disney, I finally wised up and started leaving the heavy stuff at home. I now use my D80, Nikons 18-55mm VR & 55-200mm VR. I'm very happy with the results. Still have no idea what you like to photo so I can't really suggest anything, but the Nikons 18-55mm VR + 55-20mm VR is a very useful one. So is the Nikon 16-85mm VR + 70-300mm VR combo. These two combos use the same filter size, something I like very much. Another great combo is the Tamron 18-50mm f2.8 and Nikon 70-300mm VR. If you photo a lot at night, that would be the one to get. If you do wilderness hikes, the first combo would be a great choice. If you want to do some wildlife photos in a park setting, the 70-300mm VR is hard to beat for the price. If you want to photo weddings, I'd suggest a different combo. It all depends on what you want to do. What you photo, where & how plus how much you want to spend determines what gear to buy. I don't have any specific info from you so I can't help much more than that.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>I think that usually you can benefit more from a better lens. However, there are some things that can help improve your photography between the 2 bodies depending on what you shoot. The D300 has better high ISO, faster fps, more dynamic range, better view finder, etc., but I notice more from better glass usually over the body upgrades. When I went from a digital rebel with L lenses to a D200 with a kit lens I was very disappointed in the image quality. Clearly the D200 was a better body but the L lenses I was using on the old Rebel were higher quality, which made sharper images. After I got better glass for my D200 I was happy. I did notice a big difference between my D200 and D700 but then again for what the D700 cost you should see a big difference. I usually buy a new body every couple of years, I will probably keep my current body much longer since I paid so much this time around. Usually you want to have your big investment in the lenses, because they will transfer to the next body. Today's great body will be next year old technology. In short if the the D40x is meeting your needs then spend the money on lenses. Lenses are rarely a bad investment. </p>

<p>I would say to "focus" on the glass. Brian's comments are quite applicable. Also when deciding on lenses think a little farther out in time to anticipate whether a move to or addition of a full-frame body might be in the cards.</p>

<p>Lens lens lens. Get the lens first and go out and photograph. The D40x is a very good body. When you think you have outgrown the D40x, then think about upgrading. But you sound like you want the lens now, so get it.</p>

<p>I do have the D40x and I am thinking about buying a new body. My main concerns about the D40x are:</p>

<p>-View finder: Very small, but D300 is not imensely bigger<br>

-Ergonomics: Small body, second control wheel and direc access butons. Body size, if you use small lenses, is specially anoying, although with zooms it is ok.<br>

-AF and AI/AIS: AF and metering, I have several manual and AF lenses...</p>

<p>Sometimes bodies offer you new things, in the case of the D40x you are very limited to AFS lenses and that, I think, that can be a reason for upgrading. With a D300 (or D200) you will have access to a new batch of lenses.</p>

<p>BUT, still, I think I could live with that!!! Sometimes I think about buying a wide angle zoom and keep the D40x. Lenses are fun...</p>

 

<p>Buy D90 for the same image quality as D300 and a (used) 70-300 VR. You get both higher IQ and a new lens for the price of D300 alone. Have fun.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also, dont forget to buy FX lenses, DX will be dead not long from now.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that the DX sensor will not be dead soon. The last DSLR camera to come out in fact is a DX sensor camera and if I am not mistaken the last new lens produced is a DX lens which is the 35mm f1.8. It sounds to me that the DX sensor is not dying but selling very well. But back to what a person should buy! I don't know as it depends on what you can afford, need and wish to have. Possibly if you toss out the 16-85 lens as it's not that much different then what you have then you can decide between the tele lens and the camera body.</p>

<p>Nikon themselves have made it very clear that DX will be around for years to come. There is absolutely no reason to believe the contrary is true, as Nikon has introduced quite a few new DX lenses and cameras as recently as this year. Please do not drag threads off a tangent to yet another "DX will soon be dead" useless debate.</p>

<p>I agree Shun and Ross, it is pretty clear they plan on keeping it around for a while considering they released new DX lenses this year. I think if anything as FX sensors become higher MP they will have a crop ability with the same MP as a DX sensor. I think DX sensor cameras will be a round for a long time though. They wouldn't be releasing new glass if they didn't think they would be around in a few years. I was surprised with 3 FX cameras that they didn't release more FX lenses this year.</p>

<p>That "DX will be dead soon" argument is really silly. Even if you worry about that, there will be a second hand DX market long enough to be able to sell lenses off for a decent price. If you need something today, don't consider the options that may be tomorrow, get what you need. Since OP considers D40x to D300 - both DX lenses - let's not worry about the 70-300VR being an FX lens. Simply not relevant.</p>

<p>The need for a longer lens - clear. That adds something to the photographic capabilities that neither feet nor D300 can add. The 70-300VR is a very sound choice. If budget gets under pressure, the 55-200VR is not bad either.<br />The 16-85VR is, in my view, a pretty amazing lens, but pricey. And realistically, the 18-55VR is not that bad a performer either. So the only thing you win with that upgrade would be 16 to 18 mm (the 55 to 70 part is not really vital, above that the 70-300 comes in play). The buildquality of the 16-85 is nicer, but the price is accordingly. Better to put that money into a real wide angle (tokina 12-24, Nikon 10-24 etc.).</p>

<p>So, apart from the viewfinder, what is wrong with the D40x? And why the D300 as a next stop? The D90 and D5000 deliver the same image quality. What specific quality of the D300 are you looking for that the others cannot deliver?<br />I have a D300, coming from a D50 and D80. Only now, after owning/using it for more than a year, I feel I'm getting the real hang of the D300. It's a lot of camera to learn. Leave it at defaults, and it delivers; but then you're just as well off as you are with a D90. Keep this a bit in mind when looking for a next body - as wonderful as the D300 is, it may be more than you need.</p>

<p>Get the glass. Good glass is an investment (almost everyone I have bought in the last four years is now MORE EXPENSIVE.) DSLRs lose value fairly quickly.</p>

<p>Either. Both. Win-win. You can definitely capture better images with a D300 under some conditions. I up-graded to a D300 and like it.</p>

<p>You guys are right, it was silly of me to say that DX as a whole is a lost cause.<br>

I do have to say, however, that many say that film is dead. Honestly, it depends on the context. I shoot film, but i sometimes agree, in terms of amature/consumer photography or wedding or sports it is dead. Likewise, from someone buying a D300, They probably wont be using DX for as long as thier lenses will/should last. If your serious enough to be using a D300 and buying new lenses, you will probably want to get a FX camera within two or three upgrades, or maybe even in your next. A lens should last as long as three cameras, unless you abuse it to no end. Therefore, I dont think that it is unreasonable for me to suggest FX lenses. However, it was silly for me to say DX will be dead shortly, my initial thought inspired a inaccurate prediction.<br>

Also, i never meant to start the "how long till all cameras are FX debate" my suggestion was solely for the OP's consideration, and was not intended to anger anyone.</p>

<p>Thanks for the great posts! I'll opt for the 70-300mm VR lens for now.</p>

<p>Sorry Andrew, you continue to provide some very bad advices here.</p>

<p>Just take me as an example. I bought a D300 the first week it was available and then I added a D700 last year. However, I continue to use DX a lot as well as DX lenses, and I will also continue to upgrade my DX bodies. The assumption that most people will eventually move to FX and use FX exclusively is, at least in my opinion, wrong.</p>

<p>Morever, the very reason that Nikon had to introduce DX lenses was simply that a lot of lenses designed for FX don't work well on DX. For example, most people agree that the 24-70mm/f2.8 doesn't work well on DX because 24mm is not all that wide on DX. It makes little sense to get lenses that don't work well with your current camera and you may get stuck in that situation for several years.</p>

<p>Finally, lens technologies will continue to improve. Two years ago some people decided to buy FX lenses to be "future proof" and they oped for the 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S. All of a sudden Nikon introduced the 24-70 and their "future proof" lens became out of date before they had a chance to use it on the appropriate body.</p>

<p>My suggestion is to buy lenses that meet your current needs, not some uncertain future. Should you change format some time down the road, there are many avenues to sell the lenses you no longer need, but at least those lenses will work well now. With eBay, Craig's List, photo.net Classifieds, etc. etc., it has never been easier to sell (and buy) used camera equipment.</p>

<p>Shun, You also assume that Nikon said that they would continue to support DX that the meant in high level cameras. I cant say I have more knowledge or info about this than you, and I probably have a lot less. But I cant imagine that they could do so much for a D300 series camera after the ?D400? Many will want more MP, but at a certain point your limited by how many you want to swash onto a DX sized sensor. Some will want better low light, some more dynamic range. As far as I know, many of the marketing points of a high end camera could be limited by sensor size. The exceptions are things like burst speed and AF speed and AF points and metering.<br>

You are right when you say one can resell, thats a good point that I didnt really think about.<br>

The other thing is while some FX lenses are not so good on DX, many perform better on DX. Because they only use the center of the projected image circle, you get cleaner corners, typically with less fall-off. Of course, using a lens designed for the specific camera is also going to improve your results.<br>

Ultimately I guess it is down to the OP and anyone else trying to choose bodys or lenses. DX offers some things, FX offers others. Choose what will help you be a better photographer based on your style and how you think you will expand your camera bag in the future.</p>