To people who own the Nikon D300.....

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Hi Franklin. I'm a 70 year young man and I photographing in the last 45 years seriously, before that occasionally, Started 12-13 with a pinhole camera, developed my film and occasional enlargements. O.k. In the main-time I am an artist as well, mostly painting, but used to make my living as an electrical engineer. . . . So! . . . I'm a Nikon fan regardless the occasionally bad and irritating Canadian, "Mississauga Nikon Service". I own many cameras, and digital as well. Just a list of the latest digital; a D700, D300, and D40. I have all the reason, why I own a D40. And why not a D40X. I'm very well versed with technical details and known, the D40 is a fantastic camera able to do uniting what a 4 time the cost, or a 10 time the cost camera can do, for an amateur, or, even for an advanced amateur. The D40 basic kit lens, non VR is better then the VR version, because has an ED element in the lens. The only drawback with the D40 is, you loosing auto focus with older lens, non AF-S, because has no internal motor build into the camera. Not a big deal, I even using lenses with this camera witch is 30-45 years old and No AF, no AIS and producing beautiful images. I had with the camera an after-market battery holder, from eBay, very god, holding two set of batteries, and complementing the D40 perfectly specially for my bigger hand. I don't using the pop-up flash, "it is a useless garbage for me" even on a D300 or D700. I have a small SB-400 and with this little flashlight the camera is a beauty, enough for any room, or fill light. The camera has a higher ISO sensitivity as a D40x, and higher flash syncron-speed, 1/500, then any of the above cameras, witch is wonderful, when you using in outdoor, daylight as a fill in flash. I caring most of the time this little camera, for family, street photography and anything coming up. Even using when I'm out in the field for landscape and several of my images on the PN is made with this camera. I visited my friend last afternoon, they had a new baby, and the guy didn't believed the quality I produced for them, from them, and the baby. In your case, I would not buy an expensive new camera, and if you really wanted to upgrade ( this word is irrelevant) the D60 would be just perfect. You probably has all ready the 18-55 zoom. Witch is better then the 18-200, in this range. If you really want to upgrade with lenses, I would recommend the 50/1.8 for portrait, or a 35/1.8 for general available light photography, then for a longer range, a 55-200VR. And never get read of your D40. You always need a second camera, for many reason.</p><div></div>

[franklin_t]

<p>Hi guys,<br>

Thanks for your insights and positive critics! Much appreciated. Well I guess I should've added more details:<br>

* This month (May), the camera shop from which I plan to get the D300 is running a promotion for Nikon cameras and lenses, and is selling the D300 (brand new of course) for about US$ 1320, and I thought that's a pretty good deal for such an awesome camera!!<br>

* I'm interested in the D300 due to its faster focus, faster frame rate, better highlight, and more saturated colours.<br>

* My main use for the camera will mainly be for foreign travels, landscapes, and once in a while, portraits and some fast actions as well. But hey, we never know what suddenly could show up in front of us right? ;)<br>

* I just turned 17 in January, so I still live with my parents, and my "salary" (more like income) comes from the Internet, so I don't need to spend money to travel to work since I work from home, and my monthly expense is about $1000; $500 of which goes to an investment account (for my old days in the far far future, when I retire).<br>

* If I were to get the D300 + lenses, I'd pay the full amount, by cash, since I don't like having debts.<br>

* I don't have a car, and, believe it or not, no cellphone either.<br>

Hmm, that's about it for now....<br>

Thanks once again!</p>

 

[arthuryeo]

<p>Are u willing to pay for it?<br>

Willing does not mean irresponsible.<br>

Not willing also does not mean you can't afford it.<br>

The balance to make that decision depends on your situation.<br>

I think I can fully afford to buy a BMW M3 in this market but I am not willing to pay for it ... for various reasons.</p>

[miklosphoto]

<p>Get the D90, bottomline.<br>

It gives you the same image quality, has more features and you can get it for 899 with a very decent lens.</p>

[andrew_gale]

<p>Im not sure i understand. Do you make the 50 grand with a D40? Are you a photographer? If so, you probably should have gotten the D300 when it came out.<br>

or do you make 50k and just are wondering how much you should spend on gear? if thats the case, I certainly think that you are the only one who can decide that. Personally I would run the D40 into the ground, if you not making money, and photography is just for fun, then the D40 is just as good a toy as the D300. You probably just havea bad case of Nikon Aquisition Syndrome.</p>

[rustys pics]

<p>I've had a D70 for 5 years now. It still works. I have been tempted also, but money is tight these days so I would use D40.</p>

[bsd230]

<p>If you want the D300 and feel you shoot enough photography then go for it. I don't think that most people who buy D300 make a lot of money, they just really enjoy photography and want a quality camera. If you have the disposable income regardless of the salary then get it. If your deciding between making your mortgage payment or buying the camera then I would definitely pass. There are significant differences between the D40 and the D300. Depending on your lens collection you might get just as much benefit from buying a high quality lens instead. I was considering upgrading my D200 to the D700 but have decided to wait for the D300 replacement that will likely be out in the fall. I decided to buy a few lenses to satisfy my urge for new equipment. Another camera worth looking at simply for the price would be the D200 which is on sale at Best Buy for 599.99. At that price you could add a high end lens and have a great camera lens combo. Glass has a larger impact overall to image quality than the body does. I would take a D200 with high end glass over a D300 with budget glass.</p>

[joe_h3]

<p>to the original poster...<br>

Income levels are irrelevant really, all that should matter is how much $ you have left over after your expenses...i.e. "can I afford this?"<br>

Now with that said, I bought a D40 kit to get me started and underway in Feb of this year and then a month ago a used D300 popped up for less than $800 (including a lense and verticle battery grip too) so I jumped all over it and picked it up. I love the D300 and rarely pick up the D40 now.<br>

My suggestion to you is: if you really want it, and can justify it, get it. There are some good deals to be had right now if you just watch any used classifieds - you just have to patient but ready to pounce on them quick when they pop up.</p>

<p>my 2 cents...</p>

[bsd230]

<p>D200 with a Nikkor 17-55 2.8 gets my vote.<br /> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300490-USA/Nikon_2147_17_55mm_f_2_8G_ED_IF_AF_S.html<br /> http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7633313&st=D200&type=product&id=1130987191339<br /> D300 body only 1799.99<br /> D200-- 599.99 with 17-55 2.8-- 1,229.95 = 1829.94<br /> For $30 more you can have a very close performing D200 with a very high end glass 17-55, which will be far superior to a D300 kit lens.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>Why not wait until the D400 is launched? You could then get a nice deal on a used D300. I don't know when it will happen, but there's always a new model at some point.</p>

<p>I think the income question is irrelevent. We all have different demands placed on our $$$. I, for example, have two children who will start college in 7- 9 years. And I live in an expensive part of the country. I also carry no credit card debt - I'd rather save and buy when I can afford my toys.</p>

[Two23]

<p>OK, now I have some info to work with. Your basic need is for a camera that is light, compact, versatile. You are making the classic beginner's mistake of putting primary importance on a camera, and less importance on lenses etc. Really, it's the lens that will determine what you can photo, when, and the image quality. You need to stop seeing photography as just a camera, and instead start seeing it as a SYSTEM where all the pieces work together to do what you want. Dumping most of your cash on a camera body and then buying lenses etc. with what's leftover will almost guarantee you won't be happy. Trust me on this one.<br />Here's what I think you need, given the info you provided. Will start with $2,000 as your spending limit. The $1,320 for D300 isn't that great of a deal. I bought a new one for $1040. At any rate, it's the wrong camera for you. I'll start with lenses, since they're more important. First, a Nikon 16-85mm VR. It's sharp & versatile, and compact. Price: $600. Next is a longer zoom. The Nikon 70-300mm VR will give you 50% more reach than a 200mm. Together with the 16-85mm you will have tremendous versatility. Note that both lenses take the 67mm filter, which is very nice. Price: $500. I've now spent about half your money on lenses. Next, I would want a flash if I did portraits. Lighting is CRITICAL. The Nikon SB-600 can be used off camera wireless and is great for travel portraits! Price: $200. I've now spent $1300 of your money and have $700 left. There's one more thing before I get to the camera though. A polarizer. Gotta have one for landscapes & travel. Essential. Price $30+. Now comes my camera recommendation. I've saved it for last since it's not as important as the other things I've listed. The Nikon D90 has the same sensor as the D300, and 90% of the same capability. Do you need D300 1/320 flash sync? No, you don't. The D90 is the BEST match for you. It's compact, rugged, and versatile. But, it's about $760 (Cameta Camera auctions on E Bay) which puts us about $100 over your $2,000 budget. You could sell the camera/lenses you have now and get that plus have enough for, TA DA, a Sigma 30mm f1.4, a better lens than the 35mm f1.8 or 50mm f1.8. Price: ~$260 (used, on E Bay.)<br />So there you go, a real camera SYSTEM that is very versatile and will do what you want. It's a much better allocation of money than what you put together, I think. This system will give noticeably better photos, for sure. If you want to cut some cost, go for the Nikon 18-55mm VR lens ($115 on E Bay Cameta Camera auctions.) It's a great lens and better than the 18-200mm for image quality. Downside is it takes 52mm filters though. I put a LOT of time & thought into this one, and I'm positive it's a better system than what you came up with. You will NOT see any difference at all between a photo made with D90 v. D300. You will see a difference in QUALITY of portraits made with an SB-600 off-camera flash though. Definitely. You're 17 and don't yet realize the importance of off camera flash for portraits, I'm thinking.<br />Kent in SD</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>Let me get this straight, You are 17. You live with your parents. You make $50,000.00 a year from the internet. Your total expenses are $500.00 per month and you save $500.00 per month. You have no car and no cell phone. So. Assuming that you are paying taxes on this money, here is your budget:</p>

<p>After tax income: $3750 per month. More if you are flying under the radar on taxes. </p>

<p>Investment: $1500.00 per month. (You would have to be very smart to make this decision but if you are making $50K per year from the bedroom of your parent's house you have something on the ball.)</p>

<p>Your "Expenses". $500.00 per month.</p>

<p>Get whatever camera you want. Get a D3 if you feel like it.</p>

<p>Get wonderful glass.</p>

<p>Eat Filet Mignon twice a week.</p>

<p>Buy a cell phone and call me to tell me how I can make $50,000.00 per year, part time, from my bedroom at someone else's house.</p>

<p> </p>

[anders_andersson2]

<p>I feel very irresonsible having bought a D300, which I did not really need, and which, in many ways, was above my budget. However, I also feel very happy with it, because it is a great camera. For casual walks, when I do not really intend to take any pictures, I often take my much lighter D40X, but ever so often, I realise that I should have taken the D300 instead for this or that shot that could not be taken with the D40X. One of the most obvious differences is 6 frames per second, which is great, when you take photos of birds, insects and other fast animals and for sport events and so on.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>On a second thought, By the D3X, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200/2.8 s, and you going to be happy ever after. 17 and making such an amount of money, and clear profit, you can afford it. And what a heck.</p>

[franklin_t]

<p>Hi Kent,<br>

Thanks VERY much for the detailed analysis!<br>

Well, I guess I didn't mention, that the lenses that I currently have are the 18-55mm (non VR), and the 55-200mm VR. I know that the 18-200mm certainly isn't the best when it comes to sharpness, and the reason why I said about it is just because it has such a very nice focal range, which means I wouldn't have to switch lenses too many times, which keeps my camera sensor clean. I'll definitely take the 16-85 and 70-300 into consideration, but I was wondering if you could suggest any other reasonable lens with such a broad focal length range like the 18-200?<br>

I definitely realise the importance of off-flash camera for portraits, and in fact I own an SB-800, which is quite amazing I think. One of the drawbacks of the D40 is that it can't function in the commander mode, which means that although I can trigger the SB-800 remotely, the TTL won't work, as I'm sure you know too. Now that Nikon no longer manufactures the SB-800, I guess I would have to get either the SU-800 or SB-900, or a camera that has the commander mode (and as I understand it, the D90 does, right?)<br>

Having seen many amazing pictures out there, I realised that having only 1 external flash is probably not sufficient, and I would need at least 2, in order to create reasonably stunning pictures no?<br>

If you go here:<br>

http://www.scottkelby.com/portfolio/<br>

and then click on "PEOPLE", you'll see that many of the lady photos there have very nice highlight, and I'm so eager to learn how to take pictures like that....I know Scott most likely used more than 1 off-camera flashes, and perhaps some beauty dishes and Alien Bees, and I just wonder where he positioned them =).<br>

Oops I digressed!</p>

[franklin_t]

<p>Rick,<br>

Actually I pay a lot more in taxes; and that's because I'm in Canada, where the tax brackets are higher than those in the US (I assume you're American?) But hey, I can't complain....we do get free health care here afterall! =) And I wouldn't fly under the radar....I'm honest!<br>

My income comes mainly from affiliate marketing....I create content-rich sites and promote other people's products and get commissioned....that's it! It's not part time though....far from it....sometimes I work up to 14 to 18 hours a day! But having no boss means I can do anything I want and vacation anytime I want...that's the beauty =).<br>

Lol @ the cellphone....hehe....there's a reason why I don't have one, and it's because I'm kind of paranoid, because I heard the wave that it generates can cause brain cancer..... =P</p>

[Two23]

<p>There aren't really any wide ratio zooms other than the 18-105mm VR, and the image quality isn't as good as the other options. And that's the problem with most of the wide ratio zooms--convenience at the expense of image quality. I still stick with the recommedation of 16-85mm VR + 70-300mm VR as those are quality lenses, compact, and give a 50% great focal range than the 18-200mm alone. You did not mention you had an SB-800 flash. I still recommend the SB-600 if you actually do already have the SB-800. You don't need two flash with commander mode. Something like a pair of Bogen Nano stands with a small umbrella and clamp would be useful, though. The D90 does have commander mode too. An SB-900 would be a waste of money.<br>

As for Canadian health care being "free," you are joking. You are paying out the wazoo for it. You are actually paying for other people's health care in addition to your own. Last time I was in Canada and needed to see a doctor for an infection emergency, I was told it would be a 6-9 hour wait. Instead, I went to a vet supply store and found antibiotics that would work and bought those. I sure don't want to have Canadian "health care" here, LOL!<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[franklin_t]

<p>Thanks Kent. So, sharp lenses (i.e: sharper than 18-55) that would meet my budget are probably only the 50mm, 35mm, and 16-85 then?<br>

By the way, where did you get the D300 for $1040 anyway?<br>

<br /> Yes, the SB-900 is indeed overpriced and I don't think I would get it either. But if I get the SB-600, won't I be limited since it can't be triggered remotely?<br /> (As for taxes, yes that's what I meant....we pay high amount here, which goes to the so called "free" health care, which isn't really free...hehehe. On behalf of Canada, I apologise that you were told to wait 6 to 9 hours though! That is ridiculous! It's not usually that long though. What city were you in?!)</p>

[wojtek_krzyzanowski]

<p>I am impressed, geat discussion. About nothing. As mentioned before, body qualities is secondary to your specific needs. First line matter are lenses. Second line matter are lenses. Third line matter are lenses. When you are totally happy with your lenses start thinking about body. Have fun, regards...</p>

[alton]

<p>Looks like you have 1,000 answers now. I switched from many years of Canon to the Nikon D300 to get some of the features Canon lacks. If you read "David D. Busch's Nikon D300" book it will suggest the 16-85mm as one of the options for a starter lens. That's what I got. He also points out some inexpensive lenses from Nikon that are also sharp. His top three choices, though, cost $1,600, $1,700, and $1,900 respectively. Looks like you WILL be getting the 70-200 f/2.8 at some point in your life because of how remarkable it is. Adorama really tried to push the 18-200mm over the phone, but the Ritz guy said in person that while he bought it for his son, he would suggest it for people who are "picky." And "picky" means anyone who is really struggling towards professional results, not just a proud parent wanting baby pictures who believes somehow that clicking a D300 will produce magical results. Busch can warn you about lenses that may fall short of quality results. It's in the back third of his book.</p>

[neil_califano]

<p>I bought the D40X, but I like to D300 pics better. The viewfinder is significantly higher quality on the D300. Of course, it is a lot heavier. </p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>Not such a strange question. On an RF forum a similar question was posed to owners of the Leica M8. It was someting about being a Dentist. You know that old joke?</p>

<p>Funny reading about the Canadian health care system we all seem to want here in the US. My daughter had an accident in the Canadian Rockies while we were on vacation and I figured we'll try out the "free" health care (hehe). Well the balance on my credit card freely ran up with charges! Service was good though so no complaints.</p>

<p>Anyway Franklin, I have a friend who shoots weddings with a D200 and keeps a D40 around his neck. He uses the cameras like a cowboy using two six shooters. I can't tell which images are from which camera. </p>

<p>Franklin DON"T DISCOUNT the 50 1.8D. I bought one for myself after my other daughter took my old one for her film photography class. Take a look at some wide open shots I made with it recently. Bear in mind these shots are with grainy ISO 1600 film, and hand held.<br>

<a href=" Interior</a><br>

<a href=" Wire</a></p>

[tveck]

In february I had my D50 upgraded to a D90. I had have a very long thinking if buying a D300 or D80 instead. The differences are not so big between the camera's. Th D300 is more study and more AF points( both I didn't really need), the D80 is cheaper with about the same performance. The improvement of the D90 against the D50 is worth the money for me, but I am still in doubt if the D80 would have made me as much satisfied. The main advantage of all these camera's is that you can use almost any (older) lenses, I got some good ones secondhand and much cheaper then new ones.

[Two23]

<p>SB-600. You need to read up on NIkon CLS. Yes, the SB-600 can indeed be fired remotely. Why would I suggest you buy it for off-camera flash if you couldn't? I know flash. I have 10 SB flash and 4 White Lightnings. Nights shots with flash on a BIG scale is what I do. I own the Nikon 50mm f1.8, and am just not that impressed. For a hundred bucks it's OK. For a small light lens, it's OK. The Sigma 30mm f1.4 is much better. I tried the Nikon 35mm f1.8G and was unimpressed--too much CA. Why do you think you need BOTH a 35mm and a 50mm? Sounds like wasted money and overlap to me. I got the D300 for $1040 from Cameta Camera E Bay auctions last fall. I am very patient and picked off a deal. I need the 1/320 flash sync. As for what city I was in when I tried to see a doctor, I was east of Revelstoke BC somewhere. Only one of the towns there even had a doctor, and the wait was going to be most of a day. So, I diagnosed myself (I have a degree in medical science) and my wife (hospital pharmacist) dosed the antibiotics I found at a vet supply store. Problem solved, no time lost.<br>

@Wojtek<br>

Normally I agree that lenses are what it's all about, but when you start getting into portraits, lights & modifiers will trump lenses. It's lighting that makes a portrait look "pro" or not.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

 

[lesterphoto]

<p>My income not important, I'm a victim of NAS!<br>

It's not if you can afford the camera, can you afford the accessories!<br>

I have: 30mm f1.4, 50 1.4, 85 f1.4, 17-55 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 ed-if vr, sb600, sb800. All this fits inside a Think Tank Airport Antidote</p><div></div>