About to buy the D300

[christopher_kalan]

<p>All, I am about to pull the trigger on the D300. My question is, is there anything in the near future that should make me wait?<br>

Also, I am planning on spending about $2500 on the body and lenses. Any combos that people would suggest? I do landscape and basic family/vacation stuff.<br>

Thanks!</p>

[howard_m]

<p>if you have no lenses, I think the 18-200 is a great all-purpose walk-around lens</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Will the D300 your first (D)SLR? Personally, I never regarded it a "starter" body. Just too many options and in many ways too advanced. A D90 can be much nicer to get started on. For the uses you indicate, the extra capabilities of the D300 are not especially needed, and that means spending more on a body that you should. Keeping the total budget in mind: try to free up as much as you can for lenses, since they are more important to the end result than the body.<br>

Anyway, just to ponder on before biting the bullet on the D300. The D90 is as good for most uses, and quite a bit cheaper.</p>

<p>Lenses... The mentioned 18-200 is a nice allrounder, but with your budget you can get better. I'd consider the 16-85VR, 70-300VR and 35 f/1.8, a SB600 flash a nice allround kit that will not disappoint easily.<br>

Maybe add the 50 f/1.8 for portraits, or if you find portraits really important the 85 f/1.8 instead.<br>

For landscapes, a ultra-wide angle may be valuable. The Nikon 10-24 looks good, but a tad expensive. Tokina 12-24 and Sigma 10-20 are the usual suspects here.<br>

Other alternatives:<br>

Instead of the 16-85VR, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (I do not have it, but too many praise it to neglect). Less range, more speed.<br>

Instead of 70-300VR.... Well, the next best thing is a big jump up to the 80-200 f/2.8, Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and such. Heavy and far more expensive lenses. So it seems clear which one to get. Unless the really long reach is not that important, in which case the Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 or Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 may be good to consider.<br>

Instead of the 35 f/1.8, the Sigma 30 f/1.4. More expensive and larger, but faster.<br>

And not to forget: something like the Sto-Fen Omnibounce for the SB600.</p>

[Michael R Freeman]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"... is there anything in the near future that should make me wait?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The future is already here with respect to the D300 ... a.k.a the D300<strong>s</strong> .</p>

<p>Presuming you do indeed plan on pulling the trigger on the now discontinued D300, if there is nothing in the <a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25464/D300S.html#Key%20Features">features of the D300s</a> that you feel are a "must have" compared to the <a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25432/D300.html#Key%20Features">features of the D300</a> , then there is really no reason to wait for the next "new and improved" model.</p>

[anthony_bez]

<p>Buy the camera!</p>

<p>Lenses are impossible to recommend... My first purchase would be a 50mm f1.4 AF-S based on my use but your needs will be different.</p>

[christopher_kalan]

<p>I currently have an F100 so this is not totally new to me.<br>

Thanks for all the suggestions!</p>

[anthony_bez]

<blockquote>

<p>I currently have an F100 so this is not totally new to me.<br />Thanks for all the suggestions!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What is your favourite lens on your F-100?</p>

[rick_helmke1]

Ninety percent of everything I shoot can be covered with a 17-55/2.8 and an 80-200/2.8. Big and heavy but with superb image quality, you can pick these up used for a decent price and be set for many years. Rick H.

[Kent Shafer]

<p>I would recommend getting the very best quality normal zoom to start—either the 24-70 (my favorite) or 17-55 depending on your preference. If doing so requires substituting a D90 for the D300, so be it. If the budget won't permit adding a 70-200 or 80-200 f/2.8 for now, consider the excellent manual focus 200mm f/4 AIS for less than $200 used. If you add one of the XX-200 f/2.8 zooms later, the 200mm f/4 will still be useful for when you want to travel light.</p>

[james_meketa]

<p>The D300 is a superb camera up to ISO 800 - you will love it! Get the best glass you can afford. I have two cherry-picked 16-85s that work great. My 70-200 VR is also fantastic on this body. The 35mm f1.8 should be great, although you may have to try several. The 17-55 is also very good, but many have focus issues. The 18-200 is very soft compared to the others.</p>

[robertbody]

<p>D300 is a nice camera, I would get it for $1400 refurbished from Adorama.<br /> D300s is $1800 new.<br /> You need to say more about which lenses you already have, but if your previous camera was F100 and you don't have 17-35mm or 18-35mm, probably 17-55mm DX would be the lens to get, which is around $1000, so that would be it for your budget. The combo of the lens + D300 is a "matched" combo. 18-200 + D300 I would not consider matched.<br /> I had D300 for a year, D200 before then and F100 before then. If you want to spend time and wait for the right light, and get better in the process then D300 is what you should get. If you want to save weight and money and get close enough, then D90 might be a better choice, especially if 18-200mm lens appeals to you. 10 years ago I had 28-105mm lens and I thought that was a large range, and in the past 3 years I have been with a 17-35mm f/2.8 + 50mm f/1.8+ 105mm macro f/2.8 combo which gives me the tools I want to have, and I would never consider 18-200mm lens for my purposes, because of quality and f/stop and other issues.</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>If you have an F100, you may well find anything less than the D300/D300s a bit of a 'downgrade' (in terms of AF, etc.). Hard to suggest a lens without knowing what you already have. I'd suggest not buying an f/2.8 zoom before trying one out for handling - these are huge, heavy lenses. You'll probably want a general purpose zoom of some description - consider the 16-85 or one of the 18-x zooms (18-70, 18-200 etc.) if you decide against the 'big guns'.</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>If you need it now, buy it now. There will always be rumours about ned cameras, and if you wait too long, you will miss some photo opportunities. If you need the video capabilities of the D300s, maybe you should wait, but then again, you may take advantage of lower potential D300.prices. I'd "invest" more in lenses.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Do you have any photo software? Budget for that also. I recommend Photoshop Elements v7.0 if you are just starting. Lenses are the key to just about all photography, I've come to think. For landscapes, you will also want a good tripod & head. Budget $300-$500 for that if you don't already have a decent one. Lenses. You speak in very general terms so it's difficult to recommend anything here. The Nikon 16-85mm VR paired with a Nikon 70-300mm VR, plus a Sigma 30mm f1.4 would give you high quality and lots of flexibility. I'd also highly recommend you buy two SB-600 flash or one SB-900 flash if you like to take people pictures. Honestly, for what you're doing, a D90 would be a better choice. I went from an F100 to a D80, then bought a D300. I find that for family outings I always take the more compact and lighter D80 and leave the D300 home. You will see no difference in image quality between D90 and D300. It uses the same sensor. Remember that the camera is the LEAST important thing in general photography. <br>

Kent in SD</p>

[christopher_kalan]

<p>I think I am going to go with the D300s and the 16-85mm VR to start with. That seems like a good lense to start with for learning the camera etc....</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>I am sure you will be happy with your decision. Congratulations. Remember to post many pictures here at photo.net</p>

[john_newell2]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Ninety percent of everything I shoot can be covered with a 17-55/2.8 and an 80-200/2.8. Big and heavy but with superb image quality, you can pick these up used for a decent price and be set for many years. Rick H.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My experience is the same. </p>