Skip a generation?

[leslie_cheung]

>>>Why does it bother you that someone else can afford a very good camera and you

can't?

 

You need to relax and not worry so much about what other people do or how they spend

their money.<<<

 

I agree unless they ask stupid questions without even consulting the manual or post ugly

out of focus pics and demand why the their 5k camera can't take good photos...

[tri-x1]

I look at the D300 this way. We don't go on gambling weekends to nearby Nevada. I don't golf. I don't play tennis. I don't drive the newest car. Photography is my only vice. It's been that way for about 50 years. Once a year we go on a trip to somewhere we have never been before and probably will never visit again. I want to make sure I get good photos.

 

It took me a long time to warm up to DSLRs for the reasons mentioned already: quick obsolescence, high cost. But when you look at a 16x20 print from you DSLR that is sharper with less grain that any 35mm film photo you've shot in the previous half century, the price of the camera doesn't seem so bad.

[russ_konrad]

Agreed Leslie.... that's what the acronym <b>RTFM</b> is for in this and other forums!

[niccoury]

Leslie -

 

That's mostly what is it, when they post questions that are how to use it and what not. Read

the f'ing book on your camera to learn how to turn it on.

[kenesmith1]

One of the better forum threads. Mostly its about our love for gadgets and the true magic of picture taking. Each expresses their passion & priorities differently. I eat my sandwiches, limit how much I spend on travel, clothes, cars, etc...Yeah, I go out here and there...travel a bit... but, I love taking my camera on a planned weekend hike, or event. Then hand out the framed shots and calendars for gifts. Picture taking is fun and I just upgraded from D70 to D300...what I am seeing coming from that new camera is confirming my decision.

[dave_weber1]

I've still got two 6 mega-pixel cameras and am perfectly happy with them. With the right software and computer skills, I can make very nice enlargements up to 16 inches by 20 inches (and pano's to 12 by 36).

 

I don't believe the larger mega-pixel bodies will produce much better ink jet prints than I'm making right now. Until printers catch up to these new mega-pixel cameras I think you're paying a premium for more pixels that you really don't need.

[hash]

I still have my D70 from 2004. I have used it in the desert and in the rain - well drizzle anyway. I still have my pet peeves with it that it has only 5 AF points, AF-C and focus tracking are useless, high ISO grain. But it still gives me good pitures. The bad ones are still my fault.

 

I will use it till it breaks, or till a D300 becomes really affordable. The D80 or the D200 never really tempted me but the D300 does.

[russ_konrad]

<b>"I've still got two 6 mega-pixel cameras and am perfectly happy with them. With the right software and computer skills, I can make very nice enlargements up to 16 inches by 20 inches (and pano's to 12 by 36).

<p>

I don't believe the larger mega-pixel bodies will produce much better ink jet prints than I'm making right now. Until printers catch up to these new mega-pixel cameras I think you're paying a premium for more pixels that you really don't need."</b>

<p>

You're missing the main point of more megapixels - the ability to crop a picture and STILL get a great 16 x 20 print. If you are the perfect distance from your subject and with the perfect lens - then 6 megapixels will work fine.

<p>

But if you need to crop and print a portion of that image - you will soon realize the limitations of using only 6 megapixels compared to 10 or 12 megapixels.

[juanjo_viagran]

"You're missing the main point of more megapixels - the ability to crop a picture and STILL get a great 16 x 20 print."

 

 

I rather have the ability of frame right.. ;)

[tri-x1]

My only problem with folks with no photo background getting D3s to shoot kids' soccer it that it is a waste of a d@mn fine camera. (Of course using a D3 to shoot ANY soccer game is a waste of resources IMHO :))I would just hope that a person spending that sort of money would devote some time to learning how to use it properly.

[mark_dalrymple1]

Who's to say the Parent with the D3 at the soccer game hasn't devoted some time to learn

how to use it properly? "oh, you're taking pictures of your cats with a D3 automatically

makes you a poser with too much money and no sense" I'm sure if Ansel Adams was still

with us, and had a D3, he could make some awesome kitty pictures and soccer mom

tableaux.

 

And yes, I own a D3, and so far the cats and "amateur" things have been its main use so

far (hey, I've got a day job). I've also studied with Howard Bond and can wield a 4x5 view

camera. So I totally fail to see your point.

[Peter_in_PA]

I'd argue that the parent with the D3 shooting soccer has spent a lot of money on

something that will give them NO better results for what they are doing than a d300. It

will, however, perhaps give them intense pleasure and there's nothing "wrong" with it. If

they were sold the D3 by a guy who smelled money when they walked in the door... I have

an issue with that salesman, but if they just wanted the best... so what...

 

I make music in my job, and because I use my instruments professionally, I buy

(comparably) very expensive guitars. We're talking 2000, 3000, or 4000 dollar guitars (at

retail). If I were not doing this professionally, I would probably not buy the 3000 and 4000

dollar guitars, but I would probably stick with the 2000 dollar guitars (or less... much less),

because even though I can get 90% of the way there with a guitar costing 25% as much

(some would argue 95% or even 100% of the way there) I want the extra "oomph".

 

So, if it makes you happy, even though you could do just as well with the D300, and you

can afford 5 grand for just the body... as they say... go with God!

[russ_konrad]

I find it very humorous that some people feel that they should be the judge of how someone else spends their money.

 

IMHO it is a sign of insecurity with their own income level or a rather juvenile jealousy that they can't afford one for themselves.

[aaron l]

I'm using a D200 and I've got 50k shots. That's 1389 rolls of film at $14/ea (velvia/100VS roll + processing) = $19,400. I could have bought a new car. And, I haven't even considered scanning the film in which takes literally forever.

 

I'd have 100 3" 3-ring binders to hold all those slides. That would take up 25 linear feet of shelf space. I can't access them from anywhere unless they're digital, I can't share them with friends and family and I can't send samples for sales without great effort. Time lapse with -roll- film is impossible. I get hours of covered time lapse hi-def 1080i/p video right out of my D200.

 

My D200 blows away my D70. I've used the D300 & D3 and they blow away my D200. In the pro/prosumer realm, Nikon is very good at giving you a lot of bang for your buck per generation, unlike Canon who gives smaller tidbits per generation. Non-ergonomic 5D with 3fps anyone? For what I do, it's a no-brainer. For you, a total waste of money. Thank goodness for options and choices.

[lahuasteca]

My decision, made yesterday morning, after D60 was announced:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00OBya

 

I'm sticking with my D70s and film cameras until what I really want (FX in D300-size body)

comes out. I just don't feel good about plunking down $1,000-2,000 every two years for

an incremental upgrade for something I really don't want.

 

I have a lot of legacy lenses and really want a camera in which they retain they're original

focal length perspective. Re. - saving my limited $$$$ for an affordable FX, and for that

I'll feel good about a $2000-2500 purchase!

[sampson]

I think we are near maturity of this market, compare it with any other consumer electronic devices, there will always be the new baddest rendition, but how many people are upgrading computers with every new Intel chip release? or for you Canon users, AMD chips ;)

 

At some point, even rich noobs are going to realize they don't need to spend $8000 every 2 years.

 

Me, I'll wait as many generations as I can, that way when I do upgrade, the camera will start taking award winning photos on its own...

[josephwalsh]

Back in the old days (I'm not saying good old days, just old)

a 10 year old Nikkormat with a 105 and loaded with Tri-X gave the same quality negative as a new F4 with the same lens and film. The body was simply a film holder/viewfinder/shutter/lens mount. People bought a good body and kept using it for years---decades--- with no sense of deprivation or goading incentive to "upgrade." (I still have my black non-metered F)

 

Today, however, the digital body is an integral and important link in the visual chain and it matters which generation body we use.

 

And whereas a Canon user might easily skip one (or two) iterations since they seem to bring out a new camera every month, Nikon is slower and, to my mind, far more significant. There are BIG differences.

Whether those differences add up to four figures of $ is an individual decision.

 

The D100 to 200 was a huge jump in performance in many areas. However, I'll continue using my D200 until the D400 comes along.