If shooting RAW what matters in camera selection?

[chris_werner]

I'm trying to sort through making a choice of a Nikon DSLR, and I'm getting myself turned around. I've never

used a DSLR enough to get intimately familiar with them, but have shot film SLRs my whole life.

 

On one end I'm taken by the D300 and it's obviously full capabilities; at the same time, I'm concerned by it's

weight. Conversely, I'm attracted by the D60's small size (I would have it with me more); but concerned about

loss of control of settings. And then in the middle, is the D80; I'm left wondering would I feel vexed by

whatever it's supposed near term replacement would offer; but I'm not sure what would vex me.

 

I'm a slow methodical shooter, most comfortable shooting aperture priority, perfectly OK with focusing manually;

in fact I like to have ready control over the settings and not have the camera do the thinking for me. I want

the information in an understandable format, but I want to make the decision (at least most of the time) - for

example, I'd be more comfortable setting white balance in Kelvin than in some scale I can't relate to. I'm

passable at Photoshop, not a newbie, but far from an expert (my experience is from CCD astrophotography).

 

So when I look at a camera, I'm looking at the accessibility/control of the settings, size/weight/ergonomics, and

basic image quality. I get what it means that the D300 has a 14 bit RAW versus 12 bit for the other two, and I

get that it's dynamic range is about a stop better, but beyond that I'm getting stuck at what if anything to look

for.

 

So I guess my question is twofold: 1. What should I be looking at to compare the quality of the RAW output from

different cameras? and 2. What are the control / accessibility frustrations that might be hard for me to

anticipate, or that can be particularly vexing?

 

Make that threefold - how much of this is about lessening the time in the digital darkroom, and if so, what

drives that?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Chris.

[ronald_moravec1]

If you expect it to perform like a film camera, then a D80 or D300 is necessary. I like my D40 , but only as a back up to my D200 or as a lightweight hike camera. I have made beautiful close up flowers with a Leica lens. Leica bellows, Leica/Nikon adapter. I get a dead meter, so it is like a rangefinder with bellows, done it for years.

 

None of these are great cameras for manual focus, but I do it regularly. It just is not the same as the old machines with a split image. You can buy a Katz Eye split.

 

The menue driven controls on the D40 doesn,t bother me a whole lot. I set the iso, white bal and shoot pics and do not change everything for every shot.

 

I started with the D200, but to do it again I would get a D700 right off the bat. Use the prime Nikkors

you have without worrying about crop factors and buying special wide angles.

 

No Nikkors? Get a 24,35,50, 85 135, 200 right away. Estimate $1000. 35 50 105 to save money.

 

Do not get any DX format lenses as they will work in a crop mode only on FX.

 

Just want to get your toe wet, then a D60? Then you will want to upgrade from there some day.

When you look at prints 8x10 or maybe 11x14 from a D60, they will very acceptable. Many of mine are nicer than film.

 

The only thing I really miss is my darkroom. I would like an enlarger that takes electronic files. Maybe someday.

[studor13]

If you have MF Nikkors then the only real serious answer is D300 (or D200) or higher.

 

Now that I've seen just how good the old lenses are on the D300, I won't be bothering to use them again on my D70.

 

And FWIW, I even prefer manual focusing on it over the FE2, which although has a brighter and bigger view finder, the little green dot on the D300 is incredibly accurate, and I'm not just talking about the center point.

[Kent Shafer]

Chris,

 

I bought a D40x (similar to D60) as a first DSLR after years of manual film shooting. Sort of did it on impulse without

proper reserach first. I found the D40x very frustrating and after only two months traded it for a D300. The D40x's

image quality was great, but I was disappointed by the following: tiny viewfinder; no top LED so settings visible only

in viewfinder (did I mention it's tiny?); no mirror lockup; no way to use a cable release (just a finicky wireless remote);

and need to use menus for commonly-changed settings.

 

I'm very happy with the D300. While one could wish for a larger viewfinder, the live view feature is great for methodical

work on a tripod.

 

Good luck.

 

Kent

[joe_a2]

Chris.... What Nikon lenses do you have that you enjoy on 35mm film? What's your real budget?

[chris_werner]

Guys,

 

Thanks for the feedback. I actually just got back in from seeing the D80 and D300 in hand for the first time.

The D80 is definitely a nice size, but the D300 wasn't a big as I had feared. I still need to noodle the size a bit.

 

@ Joe. I don't currently have any lenses, but I basically shoot primes, mostly normal (50 in FX), followed by

wide (28) and some short telephoto (~90). Regardless of the body, I'll start off with a 35mm prime (so normal

for DX) with maybe one other lens (perhaps a 60mm macro), and wait for more until I'm proficient with those.

 

In terms of budget, it's a little vague, but I'm not willing to go $3k on a body (more than my personal tolerance

for an item vulnerable to rapid technological obsolescence), so while Ronald's sense is something that very much

speaks to me as well, I'm not going to consider the D700 at this time. And while the cost difference between the

D80 and the D300 is meaningful, it doesn't tip my budget to the point where I'm bothered.

 

Nobody's mentioned size. Am I being oversensitive to the larger size of the D300? Does it just not bother you

at all when using it?

 

Chris.

[joe_a2]

Chris.... Don't be afraid to spend less. I've found people are quick to recommend $3000 cameras and $1700 lenses. But lots of great digital images were made before the D300 came along.

 

If your budget allows the higher end, I'd actually go with a new D200 based on what you've said. At $1000 brand new at reputable places like B&H it's hard to beat and versus the D300 it leaves money for your macro lens (consider the 105mm AF-D Micro non-VR over the 60mm to gain working distance).

 

The other possibility is something like a D70 or D70s. They offer the external controls much like the D80, and you can pick them up for $300. Get a D70s, the 35mm f/2 and a 105mm Micro, and play play play. When the "D90" comes out, sell the D70s for about what you paid and move up to that or a D200/300 if it suits you. You might find the D70s works just fine for you and your shooting style.