Nikon D7000 or 300s?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by tiffany_davis|1, Dec 19, 2010.

  1. I am doing a dual internship with my local newspaper, and news station; and I also shoot for my school paper. My bosses recently discovered what I've been shooting with, and they have offered to purchase me a new camera. I've been shooting local news with a Nikon D3000, using the included kit lens and on occasion my 55-200mm non-VR lens. I'm not sure whether I should feel embarrassed, or proud. I've been doing this internship for two years (started with using a Nikon F2, been shooting with the D3000 since it was released) - and I've received nothing but compliments on my work, and most of it has been used. Anyway, I've been eyeing the D7000 and the 300s. I really don't care about the video mode. When I graduate next year, I've already been offered a full-time position, one of the bonuses is that I'll be provided with a professional camera. So this camera doesn't have to be "the best" if you know what I mean. Just something a little better than what I've been using. Between the two I'm eyeing, which do you think would fit my needs best? If you'd suggest something else, please let me know.
     
  2. I have both of those cameras and either will work fantastic. I think the D7000 does a few things better, like the high ISO performance and I could swear it focuses faster. The D300s offers better weather sealing and faster FPS. They are both very good and really would not consider them ''non'' pro. They are as good as you will ever get in APS-C
     
  3. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I don't think the D300/D300S' weather sealing is any better than the D7000's.
    We already have a number of threads on the D300S vs. D7000. The D300S gives you slightly better AF and faster frame rate. The D7000 has much newer technology.
    A lot of women prefer smaller cameras. The D7000 is definitely smaller. Unless you have very specific AF and frame rate requirements, e.g. you are shooting sports, or you prefer a larger camera, I would get a D7000 at this point.
     
  4. One of my biggest issues with my D3000, is that it feels too small in my hands. I really like the feeling of a D90 in my hand, so a larger camera isn't an issue for me. In fact, I'd welcome it.

    My only requirement is that it keep up with me, and that it can handle the different environments I go into. Where I live, the weather can change in an instant, and I've been fortunate enough to travel with our storm chasers as part of my assignments.
     
  5. I'ver been debating between the ISO capabilities of the D7000 and size and handling of the D300s. Here is sample of the size differences between the D7000, D300s (red) and D3000 (green).
    00Xskj-312873584.jpg
     
  6. Michael - the D300 couldn't possible be that much bigger than the D7000 could it?
     
  7. I was very careful to size all the images properly. I grabbed the images of each camera from the Nikon web site, then sized each image to actual size with Canvas X for Mac (which includes the functions of Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Powerpoint, CAD/Drafting and Web). I them hand outlined each camera so I could compare sizes like you see.
    According to the Nikon web site, the D7000 is 5.2"w x 4.1"h x 3.0"d, the D300s is 5.8"w 4.5"h 2.9"d, the D3000 is 5.0"w x 3.8"h x 2.5"d. I use D70s bodies, which are slightly bigger than the D7000 and when I hold a D300s, I definitely feel the difference. I would not want anything smaller than my D70s, but the D7000 ISO sure is alluring.
     
  8. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    The D90 and D7000 are very similar in size; the D7000 is a little taller.
    If Tiffany likes the feel of the D90 in her hands, the D7000 should feel similar and the controls are also similar. But the D7000 has a metal chessis and better weather sealing; therefore the D7000 is heavier than the D90. In turn, the D300/D300S is a bigger camera and therefore heavier than the D7000.
    I have both the D7000 and D300 (essentially identical to the D300S). I once borrowed a D90 and took some pictures of them side by side.
    00Xslb-312887784.jpg
     
  9. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    From the back. This image is wider than 700 pixels and will therefore appear as a link.
    00Xsld-312887984.jpg
     
  10. I have a D80 and a D300 and I never realized the D300 was that much bigger.
     
  11. The D7000 was a tad small for me, but the grip took care of that. With the grip it is by far my most comfortable DSLR. Feels very much like my K20D. Having said that the grip on my D300S really serves to balance the cam in my hand.
     
  12. The D7000 may have more pixels, but the D300s has finer resolution. For professional work I'd definitely get the D300s.
     
  13. The D7000 may have more pixels, but the D300s has finer resolution. For professional work I'd definitely get the D300s​
    Are you sure? I have been reading quite the very opposite.
     
  14. i'd like to see some of your work!

    hehe
     
  15. i was very excited to get my very first fondle of the d7000 yesterday. I only just bought the d300s after having a minor brain frizzle, trying to make up my mind between the two. I previously had the d200. i by no means have big hands, and my initial thoughts were that the d7000 didn't quite fit as snugly in my hand. the second thing I noticed was with a much lighter body, the balance of weight is much more to the lens, and that was with quite a small lens. The thing is, sometimes you get used to what you use but it's only when you use it for extended periods you get to work out what really is better or worse for you, personally. I want both.
     
  16. bythom.com has a timely review comparing the two.
     
  17. one thing to keep in mind is that the d400 will almost certainly have the same battery/sensor as the d7000. so if your pro camera ends up being d400, you will be able to share batteries and possibly SD cards (assuming D400 keeps CF/SD dual slots).
    as a D300s owner, i will go so far to say that unless you shoot sports/action and know you need a bigger body, more durable build (full-mag-alloy as opposed to chassis) faster FPS and slightly better AF (though not better metering), you will probably be better off with the d7000. for PJ use, the d7000 has better video, and the extra half-stop of high-ISO is nice, too.
    the d300s is already an 'old' camera, though it still holds its own and updates the d300. it will be even older next year. the one gotcha on the d7000 is the buttons are a little cramped, but if you're coming from a d3000, it'll feel relatively expansive--at least until the d400/800 come out...
     
  18. I really wish that there was a place locally that sold Nikons. I mean, I do have a Best Buy locally, but they don't display these two models, though they carry them. I'd really like to hold them both, and get a feel for them.
    I rarely go with the sports guys, if I do, it's to capture the aftermath and mayhem.
    Most of my work has been covering bad weather (blizzards, ice storms, tornados), aftermath of tornados, car accidents, press conferences, candids, etc.
    I'm leaning towards the D300s, but the frugal part of me says to go with the D7000. Cheaper, newer technology. Even though I'm not paying for it, I'd like to have extra from my given budget to save for some good glass.
     
  19. I just finished shooting a philharmonic concert this evening in a church here in Los Angeles with my two D70s bodies. As so often happens, I kept accidentally pushing the preset dial off of A mode and lost a couple of shots each time. The fact that the D300s does not have a preset dial, and it has other dedicated buttons and all the other differences, makes me lean to it rather than the D7000. Actually, I think it's best for me to wait for the replacement (D400?) instead.
    With budget being a consideration, look for a factory refurb D300s, at Adorama I thinks it's $1270 with a factory 90 day warranty.
     
  20. If you wear glases and if you are using AF-ON button for activating autofocus beware! D7000 does not have AF-ON button. You can use AE-L/AF-L button instead but it is positioned more to the left, near the eye piece. I wear glases and my thumb touches glases whenever I try to activate autofocus on D7000. Try the camera before you buy it.
    Regards, Marko
     
  21. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Most of my work has been covering bad weather (blizzards, ice storms, tornados), aftermath of tornados, car accidents, press conferences, candids, etc.​
    For those subjects, there is little differences between the construction of the two cameras to worry about. The D7000's construction quality is similar to that on the D300/D300S and D700, i.e. very good but not quite as strong as the D2, D3 level. I unintentionally got to test that last month. I was shooting birds outside with my 500mm/f4 and it suddenly started raining. I protected my lens and the D7000 got fairly wet. I got back to the car and wiped the raindrops off; everything was fine.
    The D7000 has the bonus of having a very quiet shutter. When I first I got mine, I was wondering whehter the shutter had fired; I got used to that after a day or two. That may be handy at press conferences.
    If your local Best Buy does not have them around, I would imagine that there must be some D300 and D7000 around at your newspaper or college. (Not sure students have them, when I was in college, I had a Nikon FE.) If you have a strong preference about camera size, you should hold them yourself. If you can find some D200, D90, or D80, that may be good enough too. The D300/D300S is very similar in size as the D200. And the D7000 is just a tiny bit taller than the D80/D90.
     
  22. My question might seem a bit off-topic for this particular posting, however, I am finding that D7000 is temporarily unavailable for quite a long time at B&H. Curious if anyone has any insights on it ..
     
  23. Anand, That is one of the things many are wondering right now. I got lucky when I got mine, because some one who pre ordered one, changed his mind and I was lucky that Samy's in Pasadena had one. If you do find them, they will likely be in kit form as was mine. On craigs list they are selling for quite a bit more than what I paid for mine by various scalpers...''errrr'' I did not need the kit lens, but if I wanted the camera, that was part of the deal.
    I also noticed that new D300S are selling for less at B&H than what people are asking ON cRAIGS list.
     
  24. For what it is worth, learning the D300 controls will make you more familiar with the D3? later on. I would go with the D300 for weather sealing and overall durability. It is heavier which will help balance the camera when you strap big glass on it.
    I use one for PJ work along with some other cameras and I love it.
     
  25. Yes, the D300s really is that much bigger...and I prefer it that way. One of the reasons I will not be purchasing the D7000 is it's size and the very narrow grip. The D7000 performs beautifully, focuses extremely fast, (in 3D mode, I think it's faster than the D300s, but there are fewer focus points to choose from), and is newer technology.
    If I were in your situation here's how I would weigh it:
    This camera is going to be used for the remainder of your internship and then you get a PRO model. Therefore there are two ways I would look at this.
    #1 Depending on the model they give you when you are a full-time employee, it may be in your best interest to start lugging a heavier camera now so that the camera you get won't feel like a ton of bricks.
    #2 Alternatively, if you get to keep the camera you're getting now, you may want a comfortable camera that you can use when you're not on the job. In this case I'd go to a local camera shop or big box store that carries both (good luck with finding a D300s in a big box store) so you can play with them and figure out which one you would purchase if it were your money being spent.
    This is how I would make my decision. I've already mentioned that I don't like the D7000 because of it's size...in particular the narrow grip...but it's you making the decision, not me.
    RS
     
  26. Tiffany, this is coming in late, but I'm going to say D7000 due mainly to the quality of the body.
    However you mentioned a couple of things that might also be address.
    Camera size, I'm a person who does like the weight of the camera in my hand and the body to extend down a bit. If it feels a bit small or light I would think of adding the additional battery pack that slings underneath that takes it's own, thank you nikon for having to buy a NEW battery style, battery (I guess to many people had the EL-4 for the D2,D3,D700)
    Now as for "never needing video" I'm sort of in the same boat in mind and deed, however I do weddings and portraits, while I could argue a pretty salient point against having to use video INSTEAD of stills during something in my field, you're PJ through and through. When it comes to needing a quick interview or some B footage, all you need is a good Lite Panel small light (less than 300) a good microphone.. and you have your own little interview station, get a gorilla pod to set up the camera and a good 35mm lens (one of the new ones if you can afford it) and you are really ready to rock, and do your own production. I'm sure everyone can tell you how to do your job, but the D7000 in your line of work is a real boon with the new processing power and capabilities of the d300s. Just remember if it's that hand feel for the larger body, remember the battery pack that Nikon sells for the camera..it attaches to the base and provides vertical buttons for when you shoot portrait.
    Good Luck.
     
  27. Unfortunately, I don't have the option of getting my hands on either camera. If you want to be involved with the school paper, you have to provide your own equipment. In the event that no one can get their hands on a DSLR - there is a Sony H9 to use.
    My camera is the best we have - and only I touch it. I have a hard time letting people touch my stuff, especially when they only use the Auto mode!
    I'd really like to have a heavier camera, because I want to get accustomed to carrying heavy equipment and I really need a better grip; but I suppose either one would be heavier than what I am using.
     
  28. i don't think there is a wrong or right choice here. both are great cameras and will be fine for PJ work. i would think the 1080p of the d7000 would be an advantage for video/multimedia, and the faster FPS of the d300s will be better for sports/action. the d300s will balance better with longer lenses, especially if you add the grip. but depending on your style, a smaller/lighter camera may be advantageous.
    actually, if i were you, i'd think about what lenses you will be using. if getting a d7000 means more $$ for better-than-kit-lens glass, that might be a deciding factor.
     
  29. This is a wonderful discussion. The many fine points of both cameras have been throughly discussed. The age of digital here, and it is wonderful.
    I began shooting with Nikkormats and Nikon F's in the late '60ds, and at the time neither of mine had a winder or a motor drive. Neither had auto focus or auto metering -- the Ftn Nikon had match meter exposure, and so did the Nikkormat Ftn.
    Until the last few years, so much of this discussion would have seemed science fiction . . . completely futuristic.
    I am supremely happy with Nikon's digital cameras; I have used them, including a whole host of D300s (at least 10 now), for several years and find little fault with them at all, and the increased abilities of Nikon and other cameras are simply stunning.
    Frankly, though, you can take a Pulitzer-winning photo with a $50 film camera and lens bought on E-Bay.
    Just choose any old brand (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and so on) Single Lens Reflex of 40-year-old vintage, make sure its seals are working, pop in some film and away you go. They all had pretty darn good lenses standard.
    It's nice to get hung up on the relative niceties of this or that wonderful, really quite affordable digital camera from Nikon, but no matter what, they're all providing amazing results compared to what was available even a decade ago.
    Get what you choose, and be thankful there are so many wonderful features to choose from. Quite a few of these feature didn't exist even a short time ago, such as video and in the case of the D7000 full HD continuous auto-focus video at full 1080p.
    You sound like a dedicated shooter if you would shoot without pay for two years as an intern, and if a newspaper (they are perpetually broke these days) will buy you a camera, and you won't let anybody touch a certain camera if they use it in 'auto' mode, you sound like a potentially great employee. Congratulations on getting the rarest of jobs a photographer's job in an era of newspaper downsizing.
    It's important to remember that after you've mastered the learning curve with any camera, almost any modern camera will do the job and do it handily. Nikon makes wonderful cameras, and frankly I think almost any good, top-level photographer on this service could make world class photos with your present camera, making allowances of differences in frames per second and for the auto focus differences.
    While there are arguments of the advantages of 12 vs. 16 megapixels, many photojournalists still prize their D2h and D2Hs Nikons with their fat pixels, because they would shoot 8 frames per second, practically nonstop, and for newspaper work no one has made any serious claims that 4 megapixels was insufficient.
    If you're going to do magazine shooting, fine art, big blowups for exhibition, prints, etc., that's different, but 4 megapixels seems adequate for work you're aiming at.
    The D7000's limit, even with battery pack is six frames per second, whereas the D300s with battery pack, outfitted with either 'AA' batteries (which exhaust quickly) or the large and heavy EN-EL4 or EN-EL4a batteries in a battery booster (not the EN-El3e) and a $39 (list) holder, can boost the D300s fps rate to eight from six, and that might be important for sports, or even that occasional tornado.
    The D2Hs, according to a quick google.com search listed at $5,900 about seven years ago, so think of how 'futuristic' this whole discussion might have seemed in 2003. You can buy one now for $500, I just saw on the web.
    Frankly no matter how much one or the other 'feature' or 'personal characteristic' 'fits' with you, a digital photographer from 2003 would have viewed this whole discussion as very, very futuristic (even if predictable).
    The most important accessory you can get, is the eye behind the viewfinder, and the most important durability factor is the heart that drives that eye.
    You sound like you have both.
    With those, you're assured of great photos almost no matter what equipment you use.
    john
    John (Crosley)
     
  30. John, as a 46 year veteran in photography: thanks’ for putting this thread into prospective.
     
  31. Based on the inputs that D7000 can give max 6 FPS whereas D300s gives 8 FPS.
    In such cases, is it possibility to use the video mode and select single frame from the video shoot ? What is the editor that can be used for the video shot with D7000 ?
     
  32. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    is it possibility to use the video mode and select single frame from the video shoot ?​
    Yes you can, but even though you capture 1080p HD video on the D7000, each frame is 1920x1080, with JPEG basic quality. Moreover, when shooting video, the shutter speed is often on the slow side and each still frame will likely show some motion blur, which is not a problem and in fact may be desireable when you watch it as video. When you look at each frame as a still image, the quality may appear to be very poor.
    P.S. John Crosley's info on the D2Hs is quite off, but that is not really related to the OP's topic.
     
  33. John Crosley's information on the D2Hs is NOT off. He is quite correct that 4 MP is more than enough for a newspaper shooter. I publish D2Hs shots all of the time and have for years. It is also correct that it can be had for $500.00. I made that case earlier.
    For the newspaper shooter there are few cameras that are better. Add to the discussion that this $500.00 camera is so strong you can pound nails with it, so tight you can shoot in the rain and has the utterly indispensible convenience of voice annotation and I would like someone to make the case that either the D300 or D7000 could hold a candle to it for newspaper work. In fact. The lack of voice annotation is so inconvenient that I rarely use the D300s unless I am shooting in very low light. I prefer the D2H or sometimes the D2X. The D3x, while a fine camera is far to expensive for most news hacks.
    Until you have lost your notebook and rendered your entire shoot useless, or fumbled for a pen and paper in the rain or an angry crowd, you will never truly appreciate the convenience of voice memo.
    If I were her I would own a D2Hs. If for no other reason than the shear joy of using it.
     
  34. Well, it's been decided between my bosses and my co-workers that I'll be getting the D300s. They all agree that it will get me prepared (weight wise) for my future camera. The news station uses the Nikon D3X.
    The reason why I am not worried about the video feature is because I don't do videos. The way it works for me is I always travel with a reporter, and/or a cameraman. I simply take photos. They don't have me do anything with recording - because I'm deaf.
    I have an eidetic memory, so that makes up for my lack of hearing. Though I do still take down notes.

    Now I am stuck on deciding what glass I want. Any suggestions in that department?
     
  35. These lenses are what I chose for event, portrait, street photography (I tend to go for the best of the less expensive lenses); Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC (vibration control does help, about $650), Sigma APO 50-150 f/2.8 HSM (wish it had optical stabilization, about $750). I always use two matching camera bodies with these lenses to cover the equivalent of the long standing pro focal length of 24-200mm (Tamron = 25.5-75, Sigma = 75-225).
    On the side I have the original Tokina 12-24 f/4 (for less needed wide angle, built like a tank, new version has focus motor, about $500), just got a Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 for well lit sports (on a monopod, about $900), and the Tamron 60mm f/2 Macro (for portraits and macros, about $400).
    I'm sure many will suggest fast prime lenses (not a zoom) like the 35, 50mm and 85 f/1.8 (or 1.4, expensive), but for the kind of work your talking about, a zoom will be more useful and need lens changes less often.
     
  36. Off Subject: Tiffany, I was just looking at the App Store for an ASL application for my iPhone. I learned finger spelling many years ago, and now with a deaf classmate on the high school reunion committee that I head, I thought I would bone up on it and learn more.
    00XtIY-313331584.jpg
     
  37. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    John Crosley's information on the D2Hs is NOT off.​
    Lee, when I said John Crosley is off, you can take that to the bank. First of all, it was the D2H that was introduced in July 2003, not the D2Hs. The original price was around $3300, not $5900. To be blunt, the original D2H was a disaster. In just over a year, Nikon dumped all of them in a firesale at $2000 at the end of 2004 and quickly replaced it with the D2Hs in early 2005, still 4MP and still around $3500 or so. But at that time Canon totally dominated Nikon among news/sports photographers.
    Perhaps 4MP is sufficient for newspaper work, but somehow Tiffany's newspaper uses a 24MP D3X. Go figure.
     
  38. What focal lengths do you currently like to shoot at? For your type of work, I would suggest a Nikon f/2.8 zoom or two that covers your desired range (and budget). And, give some consideration for a few fast primes if need be. At the least, make sure you have a "plastic fantastic" 50mm f/1.8 in your kit. They cost next to nothing, take up almost no room in a bag, and are reasonably sharp when stopped down a bit. Its like an emergency lens " insurance policy" in your bag.
    All the best,
    --Ken
     
  39. I see what you mean. I was thinking about using the camera in the field not the historical data. You are correct. Canon was ascendent at the time but so much of the camera choice for an organization revolved around existing equipment that I don't know many organizations that changed from Nikon to Canon. When you have a workroom full of fast glass it is hard to dump it all for a few features. In the area where I work there is only one news operation that shot and continues to shoot Canon. Nikon was behind a bit but I think not dominated by Canon.
    It is curious that they would want to use a 24 mp camera for sure. Her workflow will be a challenge unless she dials-down a bunch. Her workflow is going to be fun. If she shoots raw or 14 bit and throws in a jpeg for good measure she will be working with over 30 MB files. Even if she dials down to JPEG fine she would be handling about 7 MB files. What a pain in the behind. With the largest files she will be shooting at just under 2FPS though she could again dial her camera down and get the FPS up to 7 but what is the point of carrying such an expensive piece of equipment if you are not going to use its capabilities? She would be far better off with a D300 and grip as far as workflow is concerned. She had better hope her organization is not using old computers or she will spend many extra hours at the computer trying to sort through her work. As for storing it.......
    I suppose it is hard for any photographer to turn down such a beautiful camera as the D3x. It is truly a great camera and on a very rare occasion she might use some of its more advanced features including those massive files. My point is that if we assume a limited budget of some kind she needs to look at the whole package. If spending the $8K on the body means, for example, that she doesn't not have a 70-200 AFS Vr and 24 - 70 F2.8 lens then she would be making a very bad spending choice.
    There are people for whom the most expensive camera is beyond a waste. It can be the wrong tool for the job. Sure she can dial up DX in the camera but then her 24 - 70 becomes a 36 - 105 and she will have to carry another wider lens to get wide enough for many of her stories for example. An awful lot of decision about which camera to carry as a PJ is convenience. Two bodies and two lenses on your person is ideal. For short assignments it does not matter much but for long events these things can get pretty heavy. And there are situations where you do not want to be seen carrying a ton of gear.
    And Shun I have been a working newspaper and magazine photojournalist for a very long time. You can take that to the bank.
     
  40. The photographers at the newspaper use the D700. It's the news station that uses the D3X.
    I'll be at the news station. Don't worry, Lee. The computers I've been working on (as well as the rest of the guys) are all brand new iMacs.
    This is where my eidetic memory helps. If I see a shot I like or want to use, I remember it - and then it's easier to sort through all of my work.
    When the time comes and they upgrade me to the D3X, I'll have my choice in an array of lenses.
    Right now, I just want something to appease my bosses, and get the other PJ's off my back a little.
     
  41. Shun Cheung,
    Whether one uses a 24 megapixel camera or not, many newspaper photojournalists have raved for years about the D2Hs for its merits as a photojournalist's camera.
    The price information, even if wrong, appeared to come from a Nikon archive web site. If wrong, it is not intentionally so, but it may be you are quoting 'street' price and my source (believe to be a Nikon archived source) may have been full list. If I am wrong, thanks for the correction.
    At 6 megapixels the D70 produced at lower ISOs some extremely good photos, and at 4 megapixels, photojournalists have raved over the D2Hs. Whether or not you agree, the claim that others use higher resolution cameras for newspaper work may just allow them to crop good images from bad ones and still get decent quality crops. Newspaper reproduction is notoriously low quality, except in certain Sunday Magazines. Of course new dslrs have wonderful new features (see below) and produce better yield (also see below).
    I knew one newspaper photographer who shot sports using a Rolleiflex. She got huge 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 images, with flash, then cropped tiny little action images from them, and the images she cropped out were pretty good.
    I abhorred her shooting technique and (we'll call her Marilyn) I thought was a horible photographer, but good in the darkroom as a tech or image salvager. Frankly she didn't know the first thing about shooting other than to get a proper flash exposure and to point the camera, but she held a photographer's slot on a pretty good newspaper where the publisher only wanted output and didn't care how it came about.
    Other photographers snickered at her skills, but her photos often appeared on front pages or front sports pages and weren't bad at all. She'd totally fail with a single lens reflex camera unless it were 24 mp and she could crop like crazy if she were shooting today.
    It's wonderful to have 24 megapixels, though 12 mp has been a 'sweet spot' for a long time, and there have been few complaints, unless one wants to blow up and supersize or make lots of small crops.
    I LOVE great and wonderful new equipment. I use it almost exclusively. I am not some nostalgic old fart who just loves the good old days; I would love to have a bag full of Nikon D3s and D3Xs and maybe a few D7000s for backup plus my trusty D300s.
    To heck with the old days; they weren't that good.
    As to prices, the $500 price came off of a recent listing 'for sale' and appears well grounded. As to the other, I am always happy to defer to someone with better knowledge; I can always make an error, but never intentionally so. The high price quoted seemed to be from a reliable primary source, not some fly-by-night secondary source, but then sometimes interpreting sources can get tricky on the Internet, and I always welcome corrections.
    The point is to get accurate information; even the best writers have editors to ensure that their writing is on point and their best. Thank you for challenging the price figure; it will cause others not to take what is written as Gospel, though I do research before I write.
    As to the suitability of the D2Hs, I repeated the opinions of others whom I have known and trusted, and similar opinions have been voiced by photojournalists on threads on this site as well.
    I am not wedded to the idea that the D2Hs is a supergreat camera, but it does have numerous photojournalist aficionados. (Witness the supporting comment above!) Its supporters often are highly vocal as well. (That camera is NOT suited for Tiffany 's proposed dual use, in any case, but was mentioned in a certain context only to help make a point which I believe to be valid.
    I do know that the more features and the better features incorporated into a modern dslr, the higher my 'yield' of good, usable photos from any particular photo session, and that is a definite PLUS in favor of newer cameras, particularly the newer autofocus systems and especially the sophistication of Nikon focus tracking these days. Same with high iso sensors.
    I love native 14 bit depth capture of the D700, etc., and the tonalities one can work with, with no loss of shooting speed, versus, say the D300 which slowed considerably when shooting 14-bit vs. 12-bit.
    That being said, a great camera in the hands of a beginner can take great photos if one looks at image quality only, but it's 'the eye' that makes the photos in the end, and if push came to shove, I'd put my money on a photographer with experience and 'the eye' no matter what camera he/she chose, over someone with less experience and without 'the eye'.
    Does that make sense?
    It sounds like Tiffany has 'the eye', which sometimes people seem to be born with and may be a special gift.
    I'd bet that from her choice, she cannot make a 'bad' choice from the two, but one only slightly less better or slightly more better (good English, hunh?)
    with respect,
    john
    John (Crosley)
     
  42. john. it appears tiffany's choice has already been made.
    and the d300s isn't slightly less or more better, it's a case of apples and oranges as either body can be viewed as more or less, depending on how you view them.
    in any event, shooting PJ stuff, i quickly learned to nail exposures in jpeg mode simply because you dont always have time to go through hundreds of RAW images on deadline. the most important part of this is getting WB right, since that's what you would be adjusting the most in RAW.
    as for 4mp vs. 12 or 24, well...4mb is sufficient for web viewing, but for print or printing, larger is better. agree 12mp is a sweet spot--especially for DX as larger may outresolve certain lenses--and it seems D3x might be overkill for PJ work.
    on to lenses: mike kohan has some good advice on glass, i've owned or currently own many of his picks: tamron 17-50, tokina 12-24, sigma 50-150. nikon 17-55 of course has better build and is slightly faster to focus, also more expensive and heavier.70-200 VR is the best if you can swing it, but the 50-150 is about as fast to focus (though more jittery in AF-C) and has pretty darn good optics in a lighter package. for the price it shouldn't be as close to the 70-200 II as it is, but then again, no VR.
    personally, i find for event shooting it's nice not to be weighted down too much. sometimes i forgo the FX camera and pro lens and just take a DX body and compact zoom for this reason. but on a d300s, you can balance bigger lenses if you have to. i would definitely get the grip option, not just for the faster fps, but also because you can extend battery life.
     
  43. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Guys, Tiffany's original question was whether she should get a D7000 or D300S for newspaper work today, in December 2010.
    Now she has decided, along with her bosses, on a D300S, her next question is about lenses. So please focus your answer on the suitable lenses for a D300S. The camera body part is done, regardless of whether you personally agree with that choice or not.
     
  44. This seems to be an unanswerable question. Tif said:
    When the time comes and they upgrade me to the D3X, I'll have my choice in an array of lenses.​
    So what to do? How do you advise lenses that, it would appear, she only has to use for a year and then has the treasure chest opened to her?
    So is money no object? If so then I would advise, as a minimum the 70-200 AFS VR II and the Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S. She might add the 50mm F1.4 just to have that middle spot handled. She has not mentioned flash either. If she does not have one she will need at least one SB-900. How can you cover news conferences and other events without a good flash?
    So there is a nice kit to "tide her over":
    D300s
    70-200 AFS VRII Nikkor
    17-35 AFS F2.8 Nikkor
    50mm F1.4 nikkor
    SB-900 Nikon Speedlight
    There you go Tiffany. Pony up the $5686.90 and you can squeak by until next year when you will have some REAL equipment;)
    If money IS an object then let us know what the budget is and we can take a real stab at it.
     
  45. My budget is only $3,500.
    I do have one flash, it's a SB-600 Nikon Speedlight. So far, it has served me well.
     
  46. Tiffany, I'd look at lenses from Sigma or Tamron instead of Nikon, to save some money. The SB-600 is a pretty small flash, not great for group photos, etc.
     
  47. I use an SB-600 for group shots and it works very well (I actually have three for remote setups as well).
     
  48. Ok. Here goes.
    You need a standard fast zoom.
    Tamron SP AF 17-50 f/2.8 XR Di-II VC
    This lens gets you fast for not too much money and will be fine as a backup for your D300s when you get the new camera. It has VC (VR) and is pretty sharp. Well made and 1/3 the price of the Nikkor. $549.00 (after $100.00 rebate)
    Then the indispensible lens for a PJ:
    NIKKOR 80-200 F/2.8D
    Tack sharp. Built like a tank. Marvelous portrait lens too. Short of the $2500.00 70-200 VRII perhaps maybe the best zoom lens Nikon makes. (Some say optically the best.) I have the VR and I keep this one and still use it periodically. $1099.00
    Because you have money left over:
    Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Very fast and pretty sharp wide open (for the rare times you will use it wide open). Silent. Nice Bokeh. You can carry it in your pocket and it (along with the 80-200) will make the transition to full frame in a year. $449.00
    You can get by with the SB-600. It is almost as powerful as the SB-800, recycles quicker and the batteries last longer.
    So there is a pretty good PJ kit. With the camera it comes to $3532.90 from B & H after the rebate.
    You have been getting by with far less for sometime now. You will be stunned at the possibilities the 80-200 will open for you. You may well use it more than the 17-50. You will probably not use the 50mm f/1.4 though the fixed-focus fanboys on this site will insist it is the only good lens in this kit. (They will not, for the most part, be working PJs.) You could save money buying used but you will not get better lenses for the same price.
    Enjoy.
     
  49. Look back at your photos and see what focal lengths you use most and then decide. If you have ever needed wider than what you currently use take a look at the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8.The Tamron 17-50mm is a good lens as is the 80-200mm f2.8 Nikon for something longer.
    I would skip the 50mm F1.4. For the price of the 50mm F1.4 you could buy both the 50mm F1.8 and 35mm dx F1.8 for low light. The 50mm F1.8 does a decent job for portraits on a DX body.
    Consider adding a second sb-600 to your kit. Having the D300 with the built in commander mode opens up a whole new world of easily moving your flashes off camera.
    Dave
     
  50. With a $3500 budget I went to B&H and this is what I came up with.
    Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X 116 Pro DX Autofocus Lens for Nikon $599
    Nikon Zoom Super Wide Angle AF 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S $1359.95
    Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED Lens $1099.95
    Nikon Normal AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Autofocus Lens $119.95
    Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX Lens $192.95
    For a total of 3371.80
    Dave
     
  51. lee, you forgot filters. and Cf cards.
    i'd at least get a couple of Tiffen UV filters for the glass--helps preserve resale value.
    is that $3500 including camera? or $3500 for glass?
    ok, can't resist:
    d300s: $1450.
    extra battery: $35.
    op/tech strap: $20.
    2x8g sandisk extreme CF: $103.
    8x eneloop AAs (for flash): $20.
    mb-d10 grip: $242.
    total: $1870
    now, the glass:
    • tamron 17-50/2.8: $450
    plus
    • tamron 70-200: $700 (hey, we're not shooting action here)
    • nikon 35/1.8: $200
    • nikon 50/1.8: $120
    or
    • nikon 80-200 AF-D: $1100.
    or
    • sigma 50-150/2.8 ($750, much less used)
    • nikon 35/1.8: $200
    • nikon 50/1.8: $120
    total: $1470/$1550/$1520
    that leaves enough for UV filters for all lenses, a CP for the telezoom, or a bag.
    if you have $3500 for lenses:
    • nikon 17-55/2.8:$1300
    • nikon 70-200VR II: $2150
    total: $3450
    you could also opt for the tamron and another lens, like the 11-16/2.8 ultrawide ($600), over the 17-55.
     
  52. $3,500 is my limit for camera and glass.

    Thank you all so much!
     
  53. Threads like this one is one of the many reasons I love photo.net. BTW, I have made great 12 x 18 prints from a Canon A95 (5 megs) and even from a Fuji A602 (3 megs extrapolated to 6). A photo after all is a visual impression; high rez is best left to the NRO, an org I worked for in the era where you couldn't say those letters out loud outside of a vault.
    I have to chuckle when I hear that the D300 is old technology. The entire lifetime of realistic digital to date is shorter than the production run of the Nikon F.
     
  54. I would start with the D300s and Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 for 2850.00 after the instant 300 off. After that a 50mm F1.8. That would leave you with about ~500 to buy what lens you feel will best meat your needs.
    Dave
     
  55. What about a D700?
    One of the guys I work with has one that he never uses, and he's offered to sell it to me.
    Apparently his wife bought it for him as a gift, and because he's so spoiled by his D3X - he never bothered to even open the box.
     
  56. I want to thank you all for your advice. It really helped me out.

    I ended up getting a D7000, with a battery grip. A Nikon 35mm f/1.8, Nikon 50mm f/1.8 and the 18-105 that came with the D7000. So far I am in LOVE with the 35mm, and 50mm. I haven't taken them off of either of my cameras.

    I am still planning on getting the 24-70mm f/2.8, and the 70-200mm.

    I figured that since my bosses were paying - I'd take the opportunity to show them that I can make responsible decisions (budget wise) when it comes to equipment - and not use the full budget. So far, it's paying off.
    I don't want to take advantage of them like one of my co-workers did. He's the reason why they all use D3X's - even he realizes now that it's overkill for the work he does.
     

Share This Page