Inexperienced - Can I jump into D300?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by ramon_pons|1, May 27, 2008.

  1. I've never used a digital camera (I'm not that keen on computers). I've been using
    Nikon's manual FM3A and Nikon manual lenses. Now I want to buy a digital
    camera and reading reviews looks like the D300 is the way to go. I'm just
    concerned that the complexity for someone with no experience will be too much.

    Question 1: Should I go for the D300 or it's too complex?
  2. Ramon... It might be complex but it is so much easier to learn than a film camera. Don't be afraid to try it. Remember you can try anything you want and you will see the result right away therefore you can keep adjusting and trying away right in the spot. That makes it so easy. On film you try something, go home, wait for the film, when you see the results you have already forgotten what you did.

    Also one important thing is to read the manual and if you can get a users guide like Thom Hagan's and that will help you a lot. Once you get the basic settings done in your camera all you gotta do is play with aperture, ISO and lighting. You will overcome it fast enough. My advice is just to go for it. But try to get a good lens to go with it but maybe you already have some since you are a Nikon shooter. Good luck, Rene'
  3. IF $$ not an issue for your, it would be a great choice. Don't worry about
    inexperience, you'll learn. And the D300 has Program Mode, Auto flash mode, and so
    forth, so that you can start taking great pictures even if you have never used a DSLR
    before. Then you can grow into it. Read the manual, experiment, take a digital
    photography class, hang out on, etc., etc.
  4. If you can afford a D300 then I recommend getting it. As long as you know about camera's then you will be able to start using the D300. You will just be learning about it as you go. I have a D200 and just shot jpeg's for a long time. If you have a decent computer just do some research on post processing software and trial download the software that looks good to you. You will be able to correct many things from a RAW file.
  5. You'll love it, and get many years of use from it. A couple weeks of digesting it, and you'll be in great shape. It's no more complex than many seemingly simpler cameras... it just allows you to work with many of its settings via controls on the exterior of the body (rather than pawing through menus).
  6. Just remember that it weighs much more than an FM3A. About 825 grams as against about 550 grams for the body and that doesn't even include include the battery.

    I guess you new that, but it was enough to put me off!
  7. It's not hard. The hardest part isn't the camera, but learning how to process the images in Photoshop etc. Even that isn't all that hard if you get a good book and work at it, just like everything else. You pretty much do need to budget for some computer stuff such as at least Photoshop Elements 6.0 and make sure you computer has enough memory to handle the files (1-2 gigs SDRAM or whatever.) Also don't forget your lenses will no longer perform the way they did on your film camera--they are subject to the 1.5x crop. For example, if you have a 20mm, it is now going to seem like a 30mm. If your widest lens is a 28mm, no will no longer have a wide angle lens. When I switched from digital to film I budgeted an extra $800 to cover all this "hidden" stuff. Most of that was lenses, of course. I ended up replacing all but one of my "film" lenses because I was getting some CA etc. on the digital, but I did that over time and sold off the old lenses as I went. All in all the switch was certainly worth it.

    Kent in SD
  8. I went from many years with film to a tryout point and shoot. Then a Nikon D200. The P&S was not a good bridge builder as they are no where near a DSLR which is like a real camera. Go for the real thing. The D300 can be worked in totally manual modes, aperture priority, shutter priority, or program. Turn it to one of these modes like you use with the other film cameras and just do it.

    I would not hurt as a confidence builder to have a roll of film digitized (put on a cd) and learn to work Photoshop Elements. That gets you over the computer hump cheaply. Elements sells for $100. GIMP is free. So is Picasa.

    With both things to learn, there will be a period where you constantly need to pick up new skills, but they are not that difficult. And you can always revert back to just take the picture, and let someone else finish it.

    The DSLR cameras are really not made to manual focus easily. I have no trouble. Others do. If you can focus using a plain matt area on your currrent camera, you will have no trouble. Autofocus is wonderful for many things, so consider a 16/85 Zoom.

    Ai lenses will work in manual mode and aperture priority.
  9. Quote "...(I'm not that keen on computers)..."
    If this is really the case, you will need to think seriously about the move from film to digital.

    With digital all that magical/mystical stuff between sending off your film to a lab and getting the photos back you will have to do yourself on a computer! (That is if you want to get the best out of the camera and shoot in RAW)

    Before you make the jump - and the D300 is a fantastic camera by the way - take into account the whole process from pressing the button to producing the print.

    Who knows, you may begin to enjoy using a computer!
  10. Ramon, I don't know that you will really learn to use the camera fully in a couple weeks but you will learn enough to get by. This is a pretty complex camera so it will take time to learn the many setting options.
    There are also quite a few sources out there now for help.....

    The only one I have used is Thom Hogan's eBook, which I found to be pretty good but expensive. Nevertheless, you seem to have a good background with gear so the transition may be easier than you think.
  11. Sure... get the camera you will really enjoy learning and it does all start to come together the more you keep at it. The D300 is a great camera; it just takes some time to gain understanding about how the camera and the lenses acquire light and handle light. After the learning curve, you won't regret buying the camera at all. Adobe Lightroom will import raw files and it is probably a good idea to shoot in raw to enable working with the pictures to get 'em right. The CF card should be at least 4 gB preferably bigger for shooting raw.

    The photographers on this site are a great resource and super supportive so it's not like being totally on your own.
  12. I'm all for getting the more complicated camera - gives you something to grow into. If
    you're not that keen on computers, you should look into something like Aperture or
    Lightroom - you can get pretty good postprocessing with fewer clicks (and learning
    fewer concepts) than jumping into photoshop directly.

    Or shoot jpeg for awhile - that will force you to get exposure right in the camera. And
    then when you feel the need to do more elaborate post-processing, then you can move
    to raw processing after having some experience in digital under your belt.
  13. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Question 1: Should I go for the D300 or it's too complex?
    The only question is whether you, as a D300 owner, are willing to learn and have the patience to do so. There are aids out there such as the book by Thom Hogan as mentioned. It is going to take a lot more than a couple of hours to read it and understand the important stuffs.
  14. Thanks a lot for your answers, I'm surprised how many useful tips. It has been really rewarding (particularly today that my boss is away).

    I have bought an iMac because they are supposed to be easier to use. I have limited interest in postprocessing. Thus, based on Mark's comment I assume I should shoot jpeg instead of RAW. Would everybody agree?
  15. I went from an OM4 to a D300. It is complex, but you don't need to understand all its
    features straight away to get good pictures out of it. I'd set it up to work as far as
    possible like your film camera, and then learn additional features as you need them.

    Lower-end DSLRs are superficially easier to use for people who don't understand
    photography, but for an experienced film user the ease of accessing manual modes
    makes the D300 the ideal camera to start with.
  16. If you shoot RAW + JPEG FINE you have the ease of use of JPEG, plus the option of
    manipulating your RAW images if you need to later.

    D300s come bundled with Capture NX, Nikon's own RAW processing software (though
    the interface is a bit scary - personally I'm sticking to Aperture which is easier to
  17. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    If you shoot JPEG only, you are throwing away a lot of useful information at the time you capture the image. Whatever you throw away can never be recovered.

    A better alternative is to shoot RAW (NEF) + JPEG fine, and you have the best of both worlds at a slight expense of more memory space usage, but flash memory and disk space are dirty cheap in these days.

    You'll have the JPEG for immediate viewing, and should you get better with post-processing later on, you'll still have RAW files to playing around with in the future.
  18. Ramon,

    JPGs from the D300 are gorgeous. Unless you are shooting in difficult lighting conditions (white balance, high contrast, etc) JPGs should be just fine. I've gone all day shooting JPGs and never had any issues from this camera. It's a real gem and the best from Nikon to date in my opinion.
  19. Even though it adds steps I think you will be better off starting in RAW. You will have all the captured information available even if you just start with a batch converision to jpeg for simple viewing. I like Lightroom but decided to use Bibble lite instead. I downloaded a trial version of each.
  20. I agree with Kevan. If you aren't "keen" on computers any move to digital is going to be tough. And jumping directly to the D300--when you have absolutely no digital background, may not work. I would start out with a D40 or low end DSLR from any of the other makers, or even a point and shoot, learn the digital basics and then decide what yoy want to do and what kind of equipment you need.

    I know ex film photographers who have made the jump to digital, love it and have never looked back. But I also know some who absolutely hate anything to do with computers. And spending more money for a more sophisticated camera may very well make the transition more difficult rather than easier.
  21. Well if you have the iMac, it was delivered with iPhoto which is an organizing and EDITING program. All the way on the right on the bottom is and edit icon. Click on it and a fairly complete panel of options opens, exposure, contrast, noise reduction, sharpness.

    Don`t buy another thing until you exhaust this resource.
  22. Yes, If you can afford it, buy it. You can use it from beginners mode to expert.


  23. If you were competent with the manual camera, the D300 won't be all that difficult. You would already be familiar with aperture, shutter speed, iso/sensitivity and flash, etc. The big difference is moving to a camera that allows you to control those things or you can allow it to do so. And focus too! What's not to like?

    To some extent, it's like driving a car. When you learn to drive, you stick with simple thing first. No one tells you get a stick shift stripper with an AM radio and no air conditioning because a good sound system and climate control has too many features for a beginner to learn. You may not start driving on the freeways but you don't usually start with a car that can't handle the freeways. And when you rent a car or get a new one, it does take some time to find all the different buttons and controls over again.

    RAW versus jpg isn't the mystery it used to be. The camera does the conversion or you download the files and then import to a conversion program. Either way, you need to know how to tell the camera to do the initial adjustments, or you do them in the converter. Once you get past that, anything like cropping, cloning, straightening, etc., is something you'd do either way. It was a bigger deal when memory was expensive and file sizes were harder to deal with. Cameras and computers are faster so the differences are less significant.

    Just take it in small chunks and don't try to master everything at once.
  24. What kind of pictures will you be taking?
    How often will you use your camera?
    What purpose will you use your camera for? Nature, landscapes, people??

    If you haven't used a digital camera and you're not comfortable with computers, you need to think real hard about the jump from a older film camera to a semi-professional digital camera like a D300.

    I have a tiny Casio point and shoot camera that takes excellent pictures. I have a larger Canon A700 digital point and shoot camera that takes excellent pictures also. Either of these is enough for my of friends, family and vacations.

    In December I bought a Nikon D40X. It's a super camera and has the ability to take excellent pictures but it takes skill to pry out the best photo's.
    There is a STEEP learning curve for these good digital cameras and I think you need to be prepared to invest a lot of time to get to learn how to use them.
    Initially I was extremely frustrated with my D40X because it required more work to get the same kind of shots I was getting out of my point and shoots.
    I'm beginning to feel more comfortable with it and am happy with the output but it took a while to get to that point.

    So what did I do??????????
    I went out and compounded my potential for frustration by getting a D300 last month :)

    I love the D300!!!! (still have and love the D40X)
    It is far more complex than the D40X but it allows me so much more flexibility to grow into.

    So, finally, in conclusion, If you have the money to afford a D300 and if you have the time to devote to learn how to properly use it and you have the passion to explore its capabilities, then, by all means go for it.

    If not, get a good point and shoot and don't look back.


    P.S. - Keep in mind that you'll also need to spend a multiple of the $cost for the camera body in lenses and accoutrement's to wrestle all the benefits out of a modern digital SLR.
  25. If you know enough about photography to use a manual film SLR effectively you will
    work out pretty soon how to use a D300, and you will find a lower-end DSLR
    frustrating and limiting.

    It's not hard to apply knowledge from film to the D300. I didn't try to read the 400
    page manual all at once - instead I looked up how to set up the camera to work as
    near as possible to my old film cameras: aperture priority, single point autofocus,
    spot metering, half press on the shutter button locks exposure and focus. Once I
    was happy with that I started experimenting with other features and modes.

    Finally, I strongly agree with Ronald's point about iPhoto: it may be all you need, and
    it's much more user-friendly than Photoshop.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. "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.
  31. 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
  32. hbs


    "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!
  33. 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.
  34. 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:
  35. 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.
    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.
    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.
  36. If money not an issue for your, you should get D3.
  37. "(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.
  38. Question 1: Should I go for the D300 or it's too complex?
    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.
    Is it too complex? No.As previously mentioned, there are default modes you can use.
  39. First sorry for my "kitchen english" Iᄡm a fin.
    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.
  40. 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.
  41. 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.
  42. 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
  43. ^ 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.
  44. 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

    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.
  45. 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.
  46. Ramon,<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>
    The D300 has some significant real-world advantages over the D80. Among
    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>
    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>
    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
    If you should outdoor, the weather-sealing is very helpful in inclement weather.<br>
    And once you shoot using a 100% viewfinder, you really won't want to go back to
    anything less.<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>
    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>
    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>
    But three *negatives* of a D60 compared to the D80 are:<br>
    A penta-mirror viewfinder instead of a penta-prism viewfinder<br>
    A crippled RAW+JPEG mode<br>
    Slower autofocus performance<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>
    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
  47. 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.
  48. Peter you just made my heart jump a little when I read this:
    (including the fine metal shavings from your lens mount)​
    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!
    Ramon, this is a good point:
    If you should outdoor, the weather-sealing is very helpful in inclement weather.​
    There will come a time (believe me) that you will want pictures of falling snow, and pictures of raindrops in puddles.

Share This Page