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

[josephbraun]

<p>If I was just an amateur photographer I wouldn't buy the D300. It is too pricey. I'd probably pick up a used Dslr which you can get at pretty reasonable prices, often with lenses!</p>

[petrana_batik]

<p>Franklin, if you need to ask that question, then you're about to overextend yourself. I'm going to be flamed for this, but for nearly all normal applications, upgrading to a D300 would not make a dent in your photography: 6-8 years ago, professionals migrating to DSLRs were bringing home a lot of earnings with the venerable D100 and Canon 30/60D, both inferior to your D40.. ask yourself WHY you really need this, and if you can improve your technique rather than come up with dangerous financial acrobatics to own something that might not provide any better results. Save your money, and invest in yourself, not in your next toy.</p>

[imagesbybrl]

<p>I agree with the mentality of saving for a rainy day first. People are into photography just like home theater systems for several reasons as a hobby. Some are into creating images, others are more interested in the gear. My old college professor quoted something he read once which has stuck with me ever since. He said "we start by loving the toy, we end by loving the art". Everyone starts with the fascination with the camera as a toy (well maybe not everyone, but I did). It's a symbol....a badge of honor, and many play the time honored game of mine is better than yours. But for some, its the images that captivate. It's higher ground and infinitely more rewarding. I'm not sure which ground you are on. If your ultimate fascination is with the toy, and since you are still young, and if you have a savings rate far exceeding the national avg. and you can afford the D300 by all means go for it. But if it's the images that grab you, then you have to ask yourself, for my type of photography, have I mastered the art of to the point that you have gotten all you can from the camera? If it's image quality you seek, I agree, use your money and buy the best optics you can afford. This will make the most difference in your images. I owned and used the Nikon FM2 for 22 years. I do everything manually, from exposure to focus. Every image I have ever taken was done manually, so when it came time to buy my first digital camera I went with the D40x. I spoke to a knowledgable rep. at the specialty camera store. They were use to custom printing my images, and when the salesman suggested the D200 (the hot camera at that time), the owner said to me, based on your type of photography the D40x will do just fine (and it was due to come out in a few months). It didn't have the bells and whistle's of the higher end Nikon line, but it fit what I needed it for. I wanted a small lightweight camera that felt good in my hands, light enough not to add too much poundage in my camera knapsack, and capable of good performance. I shoot manual mode exclusively, so the other features ranging from AF to Matrix metering did not matter. I continue to meter and focus myself. The camera had the ISO setting I use most (100). I'm not the best photographer out there, not even close. I admit there areas I can improve upon and the camera can continue to handle those situations as they come up just fine. How am I so sure of that? Because just a few years ago, the top of the line pro digital camera did not have all of the features and functions of todays beginers model, and the pros did just fine back then. If they were still able to shoot impressive pictures back then, then if I'm worth anything, I should be able to make excellent images now with the D40x. Just ask yourself honestly, why do I really need the new body? What group do I fall into, and make your decision based on that. I have known too many people who upgraded simply for love of the toy, for me not to ask you which group are you in?</p>

[bmm]

<p>This is a very bizarre discussion to me. Perhaps as an Aussie because of the taboo around so blatantly talking about income, but I think there is more.</p>

<p>The question surely is a simple one... how much will photography bring to your life? Then there is a subsidiary question which is what is the price point where you get the 'value equation' right - that is, you have good/flexible/etc enough tools to get what you want out of the hobby but you don't overstress yourself financially to the point where your net enjoyment is negative. Nina Myers own response above is a direct representation of this.</p>

<p>So its totally subjective. Some people might earn 10K a year but get so much out of this passtime that they can spend 5K of that on kit. Others might earn 200K a year but only want more limited things out of photography and may not see value in spending more than 2-3K. that is unless you're a pro with a business model, ROI equation etc which I'm assuming you aren't.</p>

<p>Bottom line is no-one can justify this decision but yourself. There's no magic equation which will make any of us approve or disapprove of your choice... Just do what the combination of your gut and your brain tells you and jump in. Its the best any of us can do in this life.</p>

[AndyMiller]

<p>Hi there, I have suffered from Nikon Acquisition Syndrome for 45 years. I am now a pensioner. Forgetting countless film bodies, I have owned a D70, D2h, D2x, D100, D200, D300, D3 and D700. Through trading around I now have the D100 which is converted to IR, the D3 and D700. My Nikkors go from 10.5 mm up to 1000 mm f11, and include exotics like 24 PCE, 70-180 micro, 105 DC etc. Lesson - Concentrate on the glass, Bodies come and go. Get what you need for the job, and you may claim it for a business expense?? I have no intention of upgrading bodies in the foreseeable future - for the first time, what I have does what I want.</p>

[justinweiss]

<p>In a way, the old saying "If you have to ask, you can't afford it" applies here too. If the price of a camera is causing you to worry about the adequacy of your personal finances, it's safe to conclude that you cannot truly afford it. By "truly", I mean you cannot buy the camera without worrying whether spending that much money will cause problems in your life.</p>

<p>Even if you can technically "afford" the camera, you will not enjoy your purchase if you are constantly worried about being able to pay your bills as a result. Heck, there's a lot of things I can technically "afford" but I don't buy because I'm not comfortable blowing that much cash on them.</p>

<p>My advice is to enjoy the gear you have for now. If you really, really want a new camera, then put aside a reasonable amount of cash out of each paycheck -- little enough that it doesn't affect the rest of your personal finances -- and save up for it. When you reach your goal, you'll truly be able to afford the camera you want.</p>

[mark_gonda]

<p>If you are 17 and are making ~$50K/yr, and investing half of your monthly expenses, I'd say you're doing pretty good and probably ahead of your peers. That said, $50K/yr works out to about $4200/month. So where is the other $3200? Surely your fixed costs are not nearly that high doing internet business.</p>

<p>At the end of the day, if you want the camera, and have means to pay for it, go get it. Soon, you will move out of your parents home and maybe go to college. Whole lot more expenses coming your way (car, insurance, rent, food, social life...). There will be other temptations as well along the way also. Personally, like someone already mentioned, believe this is a value judgement that only you can make... though sounds like your are looking for support to justify your urge.</p>

<p>So go help the local economy and get it done and don't think about it too much or look back! Its just a camera and in the big scheme of things, you won't even notice the cost in 6 moths (or much less). I realize this sounds terribly bad advise but it really is not. And even if it is in the end, there is a lesson learned for the next time. If it doesn't work out, you'll definitely remember it the next time something tempts you....</p>

<p>Cheers </p>

[bsd230]

<p>If money is not an issue then I would get a D700 or D3, depending on what kind of shooting you mainly do. Of course you can do pretty much anything with the D3, except fit it in your pocket.</p>

[mt4x4]

<p>The D200 at Best Buy for $599 is still an amazing deal. Depending on what you need, it might be a better option if you are on a budget.<br /> <br /> The biggest advantages the D300 has over the D200 IMO are lower noise at higher isos, frame rate, live view, and faster card write speeds. Aside from these advantages, the D200 is a very capable camera, and at about $1100 less than a D300, I would say the D200 is a bargain.<br /> <br /> I'll second Dan, if money isn't an issue...and you don't need the extra 1.5x crop factor, the D700 is just amazing. Bright view-finder, super low noise, great for wide angle, etc. After getting to use a D700 for a couple of days, I want one..bad..but not bad enough to justify the price tag.</p>

[jennifer_spencer]

<p>I too decline the income question. But I was torn between the D80 & the D200 a couple of years back. </p>

<p>The reason I bought the D200 instead of the D80 was the F-mount lens compatibility. When I started getting serious about photography, I saved a lot of money by purchasing good-quality, older F mount, mostly manual-focus lenses. They work with my F100 (used) film camera. I only have one lens that I bought brand new. As a result of working with those inexpensive but wonderful lenses, I have come to love them. This includes one Zeiss 50mm 1.4 prime lens that is fantastic. If you have older Nikon lenses, or don't mind buying used, you might factor it into your decision. It is not hard to select the "non CPU data lens" in the menu, because the camera has a database of possible lenses. It takes about 5 seconds to tell it about an old lens when you attach it.</p>

<p>If I bought the D80, it would have meant buying all new or at least different lenses. That would have cost me a lot of money in the long run. Instead, I bought the more expensive D200 and I can use it with all my existing lenses. In the end, that saved me money.</p>

[bmm]

<p>Just one point of correction (or perhaps enquiry if I've missed something)... I have the D80 and can mount all lenses no problems going way back.</p>

<p>So both D80 and D200 (and D90 and D300 and above) take all F-mount lenses. Of the current models, its only D40/D60/D5000 that don't.</p>

<p>And to be clear even that doesn't mean they don't accept F-mount lenses. To my knowledge all it means is that they don't auto-focus with them, as they don't have the focus motor and screw in the body.</p>

<p>Please corect me if I'm wrong someone but I don't think I am as this to me is one of the most critical functional differentiators in the Nikon line-up and was the reason for my own DSLR entry point being D80 and not below.</p>

[cmulcahy]

<p>I'm skeptical of the prices people say they are paying for the D300....just over $1000? Where the heck can you find a D300 USA model - BRAND NEW for around $1000? B&H, Adorama, and all the other big internet stores can't touch those prices. Expect to pay around $1500-1700 for a new D300. <br>

As for the 18-200mm lens. I would never put that lens on a D300. A 16-85 is a nice lens. I'd also seriously consider faster lenses.....like the 17-50mm 2.8 Tamron and the 80-200mm 2.8 Nikon. Prime lenses are nice to have if you appreciate them. The 50mm 1.4 and the Sigma 30mmm 1.4 are great lenses. </p>

<p>Frankly if I had that kind of disposable income I'd be getting a D700 which blows away the D300 in terms of low light performance and wide angle use.</p>

[reichard]

<p>What a great thread! I don't even know what I earn anymore; My tax return is at least two inches thick, three businesses, one wife, six cats, two birds, one dog and two parents!<br>

I was able to afford a d300 with little adieu, but ah, no credit cards and no mortgage payments and both Harley's are paid off :^)<br>

I justified the price of the d300 as follows: I wanted a Nikon F5 and a digital camera. My brother has a dozen Nikon bodies, lots of glass, and, well, I bought the D300. Almost bought a Canon Rebel XSi for much less, but alas, I would have to buy all my own glass!<br>

The d300 fits well into my amateur shooting and is distinctly different from my Mamiya 7 and 645. But do heavily consider the price for glass and consider the body secondary.</p>

[richard_cochran]

<p><em>Just one point of correction (or perhaps enquiry if I've missed something)... I have the D80 and can mount all lenses no problems going way back.</em></p>

 

<p><em>...</em><br>

<em>Please corect me if I'm wrong someone but I don't think I am as this to me is one of the most critical functional differentiators in the Nikon line-up and was the reason for my own DSLR entry point being D80 and not below.</em></p>

<p>There's another difference that's important if you've got manual focus AI lenses (available very cheap these days). The D200/D300 and above have an AI meter coupling, allowing manual focus lenses to meter, display aperture in the viewfinder, record aperture in EXIF data, and support autoexposure (aperture priority). </p>

<p>The D80 and below don't have this ability, and won't meter at all with lenses that lack CPU contacts.</p>

<p>This may not be a huge issue, depending on your stable of lenses. For occasional use, chimping and viewing the histogram may be a reasonable substitute for a meter. But full support of AI lenses is what drove me to the D200.</p>

 

[Two23]

<p>Chad--<br>

I paid $1040 for a D300 in the box from Cameta Auctions on E Bay last October. USA model. You want a photo of the receipt or something, LOL? As for the D700 "blowing away" the D300, I don't see the difference as that dramatic in the photos I've examined first hand. I'd give D700 a one stop advantage on ISO. The problem with buying a D700 is that to really justify it, you also need to spend at least twice as much more than it cost to get the quality lenses to support it. I'm not at all willing to buy older, cheaper lenses for lower lens performance just to have the current fancy camera. One thing is certain, the price of the D700 will come down. I can then buy a refurb from Cameta Auctions or somewhere AND have first class state of art lenses. I will not compromise my selection of lenses.<br>

Kent in SD</p>