r._bond Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 <p>Would I be crazy if I jumped straight into the D300 without any experience with DSLRs (or photography for that matter). Everyone keeps saying the D300 is amazing, but I have been hesitant to purchase it b/c I am an absolute beginner (I wouldn't even call myself that), and it is a little more advanced. I was almost dead set on getting the D90, but just can't bring myself to do it. What do you think? <br> Thanks.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wade_thompson Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 <p>I wish I had done that.</p> <p>If you are series about photography and have been at it for many years, then if you buy a D200 like I did, you'll just want to upgrade.<br> That's my 2 cents worth.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 <p>Name a few good reasons why you want the D300 over the D90 - then we have a basis to decide about whether or not you are crazy. Also, what's your budget and what lenses do you intend to purchase. Would also help if you could indicate what you intend to shoot.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyinca Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 <p>Not crazy, It is all good and (help out the economy) as long as you have the extra cash and doesn't mind the small extra weight.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alvinyap Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 <p>How about getting the cheapest kit first - unless there is a specific need, any entry level camera + twin kit lens will be more than enough to get your teeth into exposure, af technique and composition etc. After you are certain you have outgrown it, sell it then get the D300/D90 later on.<br> Or used D200? They kick ass.<br> Alvin</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 <p>To the OP, you asked a similar question earlier this month: <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00UstM">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00UstM</a><br> I thought you already got some good answers back then.</p> <p>It won't make it more difficult to learn digital photography with a D300 than a D90. You shouldn't be using those "beginner" modes anyway. As long as you have budget for some good lenses, if you can afford a D300, go for it. I wouldn't sink most of the budget on a body with insufficient fund left for lenses and accessories.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r._bond Posted November 25, 2009 Author Share Posted November 25, 2009 <p>I am very hesitant to purchase an entry level camera with a kit lens. I plan on having my first DSLR for quite some time and cannot justify spending a good chunk of change now just to upgrade in a year to something twice to triple the cost. I would rather save up and splurge on a camera that will allow me to grow as a photographer and have the most up to date technology. I plan to shoot a little of everything for now until I find out what I like to shoot as I learn photography. I do not have a budget right now. I will save as long as I need to before making a purchase.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r._bond Posted November 25, 2009 Author Share Posted November 25, 2009 <p>Obviously I am torn, Shun. When I asked that question I was trying to choose between the D90 and D5000. This has been one tough decision! I just don't want to regret what I purchase. This will be a huge purchase for me. I have been saving up for a while, and will probably have to save up more if I do decide to go with a 300. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreas_manessinger Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 No, not crazy. Coming from a bridge cam, I jumped right into the D200, and it was a fantastic idea. I bought the Nikon 18-200 VR as a kit lens. Now I practically don't use that lens any more, but for more than a year it was my main lens, while I slowly acquired other lenses (mostly primes) and tried to find out what works for me and what not. In hindsight I would probably not recommend the 18-200 any more. I'd go for a Nikon 16-85 VR (don't have it, but people rave about it), probably coupled with a Nikon 70-300 VR (have it, it's great), or if you don't mind buying third-party lenses, the Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC (have it, nice lens) instead of the 16-85. It's faster, stabilized as well, but it will leave a small gap in your lineup. If you want only one lens initially, the 16-85 or 17-50 would give you the best value. If you are adventurous, you could even buy a single prime lens, e.g. the Nikon 35/1.8 or 50/1.8, and use only that lens for a while. This makes for a great and fast learning experience, because the fixed focal length forces you to think about what you want to frame, where you need to stand, etc. Be prepared though, that you will miss more opportunities than when using a zoom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary van schaick Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 <p>Go with the D90 and use the extra money for additional/better glass. You can get a kit lens for the D90 but you will probably want a 70-300, perhaps a 50mmF1.4 or 35mmF1.8, maybe the 17-55F2.8 at some time. If you are going for bird/wild life photography, you'll want the 80-400VR.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc_chang2 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 <p>I frequent the micro 3/4 web site at dpreview, and have read many posts from people who are "surprised" to see that these smaller cameras are as good if not "better than" their D300, D700, or Canon's counterparts. Many people declare the death to these dSLRs. After reading what lenses they use with these dSLR cameras and how they use them, my conclusion is that most of them simply bought too much of a camera to begin with. They never use truly high quality fast lens to see how these pro level cameras can AF silently and accurately in low light and track moving objects with ease. They also miss the opportunity to see how these lenses can produce almost 3D looking images b/c of the shallow DOF and contrast that they can produce. I thus also suggest to the OP that if you buy a D300, get a lens to match its capacity, if you can afford it. </p> <p>I decided to get the D90, which has the same sensor performance as the D300, because I like its more compact size, which makes it easier to travel with it with bigger lens. Furthermore you can get one now for just under $800, compared to the D300s which is still $1500. The D300s is the choice when you need to track fast moving objects, although the D90 is very good in doing so already for most people. Many people who I mentioned above got rid off their dSLR rig b/c they mostly sit there collecting dust due to the bulk and weight, which reduce interest in using them.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_henry1 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 <p>My advice is that you can't go wrong with either of these cameras. They are both capable of taking great photographs that will produce prints of A3+ with ease. The best camera is the one you have with you so get out there and buy something ! I know what it is like to endlessly ponder a decision, especially when money is involved, but both these cameras give you all the control you need to learn.<br> Personally - I would say go for the D90 and use the rest of the money for lenses - make sure you get a prime lens with a wide aperture. Go for a 50mm f1.8 - they are cheap, light and sharp. In my (non photographically trained) opinion it is the best way to learn about depth of field and focus.<br> While I was writing this I remember something Roger Hicks wrote in Amateur Photographer (UK) a few weeks ago - here is a link to it :<br> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/backfromfront/The_Final_Frame__Roger_Hicks_backfromfront_290831.html<br> Enjoy learning,<br> Marc</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 <p>looking past learning curve, which will be significant but not impenetrable, this question kind of comes down to overall budget. D300 is a fantastic camera, but if the difference between that and a d90 in terms of price meant i was starting with a kit lens vs. a 2.8 zoom (or other 'better glass'), i'd probably go for the d90. you dont really lose much with the d90 vs. a d300 if you're not shooting sports and/or a professional PJ.</p> <p>one thing about the d300 is, it is a heavy camera. that alone could result in more shelf time as opposed to more field time, especially if you also get the 17-55 or a similarly heavy lens. the lighter weight of the d90 makes it better for casual use. OTOH, the mag-alloy build of the d300 is very reassuring, and it's definitely a body which can give you many years of faithful service. if you do go with the d300, at the least, you'll want a fast prime like the 35/1.8 for those times when you want to go lighter, in addition to a good zoom. i'd recommend skipping the 18-xx and 18-xxx kit lenses altogether and starting with the 16-85, 17-50 or 17-55, maybe with the 55-200 VR for tele and the aforementioned 35/1.8. remember, it's not just about the body, it's also about the lenses, so put at least as much thought into lens strategy.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
les_ens Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 <p>For $2600 I got my D90, 2 lense, 1 SB600, 1 Lowepro 190 shoulder bag, 1 lowepro 200 beltpack, a good sturdy tripod and a Lexar pro 8 gig SD card and cleaning supplies. If I bought the D300 I would have only been able to buy 1 maybe 2 lense and a card for that. That was including all the taxes too, I also got a window mount tripod too as I do catch some wildlife shots in my travels but don't wanna get out of my car in case I spook the wild life. I would've loved the D300, but I got more for my money by stepping down to the D90. The D90 takes awesome pics and I hike a lot too so the little less wieght is nice. I am very happy with it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 <p>To R. Bond: Do you shoot sports, wildlife, action to take advantage of the D300S' 7 to 8 frames/second and advanced AF? Do you need Nikon's best AF for a lot of indoor, low-light focusing?</p> <p>If so, get the D300/D300S. If not, the D90 is fine. Frequently it doesn't help to think too much. Just get a D90 and start shooting.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liljuddakalilknyttphotogra Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 <p>I had bought a D70 but no ever opened the box. Found out about the D200. Tested it - bought it immediately & returned the D70 not even taken out of the box. Very happy I did.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven_s4 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 <p>R. Bond,<br> You seem to be looking at this decision the way I did when I wanted to buy a DSLR. I spent two years saving and deciding... I played with all sorts of cameras in that time: XT, XS, XSi, 40D, 50D, 5D, D40, D80, D90, D200, D300, D700, D3, and after researching and talking to lots of people, tried out a D70. I was willing to wait and save up my money so I make a good decision, and buy something that will last me a long time. Which sounds just like you wrote above.</p> <p>My decision did not come easy, but I decided to buy a D70s, of all things. After handling all those bodies, I decided Nikon's suited me better, and the body had to be bigger than an XSi or a D40. I also chose Nikon for the lens line-up, and the costs associated to the lenses I wanted. Before I chose the body, I chose the lenses. After adding up the total cost, it came out to be $4000 just in the lenses. My budget for all of it was about $1000 to $2000 depending on the body I decided to get.</p> <p>A lot of people thought I was taking the saying of "putting more money in the lenses than the body" too far, but I am happy I did. I ended up buying everything used, and I still have money to buy lenses that I haven't got yet. (mostly because I can't decide... lol). Here's a break-down of what I spent:<br />$310 - D70s body, used from eBay (only 6K shutter clicks, so they say... But it looks brand new. Came with original box and contents, book, & spare batt)<br />$250 - 18-105mm lens, used from CL (just a cheap zoom to cover the wide-tele range, to help decide on primes)<br />$95 - 50mm f1.8 prime lens, used from CL<br />$225 - SB600 flash, new from Pro Photo Supply<br />$100 - LowPro camera bag, new from Shutterbug<br />$15 - ML-L3 remote, new from Amazon<br />$50 - x3 SanDisk Ultra II 2GB CF cards<br> $1045 - Total cost<br> I am still able to slowly add lenses, flashes/lighting, good tripod, etc, to my collection. For now, I am happy with my system. The D70s does have it's limitations though... No manual focus is impossible with the tiny viewfinder. And the LCD screen on the back is not big enough, nor accurate enough to check how well a picture came out. But I can live with that for the next couple of years. In about 2 years or so, I hope to have set enough money aside to upgrade to the "D400." By that time I should have a solid system. Without a system that suits you the D300/"D400" would be limited, and you wouldn't be able to photograph everything that you want... That's why I couldn't justify a $2k purchase, and not have anything left over for a system. </p> <p>Don't take me wrong, I'm not trying to sell you on a D70s, but I am just trying to point out that you need to consider all the other things you need. My camera body was less than 1/3 the cost of everything so far, and 1/10 when I add some more lenses to it. I'm not sure of your budget, but set a price, "build" your "ideal" <strong>system</strong> on an Excel Spreadsheat, and see what the total comes to. If you are under or over, look at a different body... The lenses and other gear is more important for me.</p> <p>And if you are truely new to photography, you may not even know what lenses you need/want, or other gear. I had an idea, due to all the different bodies I played with over the two years, but after buying my body and those two lenses, and a lot of playing with them, I realized what I really wanted, and my 'ideal' system changed.</p> <p>At this point, I don't think I can help you any more than I already have... <br />In order for us to help you decide, or tell you what you want, you need to tell us exactly what you plan to photograph.... If you strictly want a comparison of the D90 and D300, the D300 is better. If you want to know if the D300 is worth it, well you tell us what you need from the D300 that the D90 doesn't have.</p> <p>Good luck!<br />-Steve</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wogears Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 <p>Lil Judd: If you never used the D70, why are you happy that you got the D200? I have both, and they are excellent cameras.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enrique_r. Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 <p>I would get the D90 if you're not shooting sports & spend the xtra $$$ on lens. That said I am buying the D300s or D700 ( still thinking if I should go FX) come Feb or March & keeping the D90 as a 2nd body.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_huizenga Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 <p> When I made the digital switch, both the D50 and D200 had just come out. I've had quite a bit of film time, but knew zip about digital. I bought the D50, and I've felt it was a very wise move for me. The menus and options were much simpler, so I feel I had an easier time learning the basics. After 2 years, I upgraded to the D300. Love it, and I had a better understanding of digital by the time I got it. ( My Dad snapped up the D50. He didn't want to pay big money for a camera, and I can still use it as a second body when I need to.)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wouter Willemse Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 <p>There is nothing wrong with the "program modes" to learn what does what. Yes, once you get the basics, they're no longer needed, but in the learning curve, I would rather have them than not.<br> I do think the D300 does add extra learning curve. The D300 with it gazillion options can be a rather confusing machine, and while it may be fun for some to set up a memory preset for optimum AF performance, as a starter and complete novice, a lot of these options will add absolutely nothing and only detract. No need to learn driving in a Ferrari.</p> <p>So, I'm with all those who said: a D90 and spend some more on lenses.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossb Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 <p> Purchase an entry level camera and build on your kit over months and years to come like most of us have done. If you have a wheelbarrow full of money and are busting to spend it then go buy a D300s. Be forwarned that a body and a lens will not make a happy snapper. You will need a camera bag, more lenses, flash gear, tripod and accessories. Don't forget photoshop, computer and you will also want to color calibrate your monitor, then you need an external hard drive to back up your files. It's a long list for photography. If that does not sound good then get an entry level camera and just have fun snapping away at stuff or people. Let the hobby grow over years to come as I suggested to start with.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartMoxham Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 <p>Personaly I would pick up a used cheap DSLR with a kit lens like a D70s/D80 or even a D40/D60 just to get started with and then start to save up up for a better body and lenses based on my own experience. That old camera then becomes a spare, a back up or a light weight option. After using that DSLR for sometime you may decide that you want something even smaller or at least you would have a better idea of what you need for the photography that you enjoy doing. These days I feel I would rather have a Panasonic GF1 with a 20mm 1.7 pancake lens rather than a large DSLR with a 2.8 zoom.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two23 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 <p>My first DSLR was a D80, and I now have a D300. I don't see any real difference in operation between the two. I sense you are a newbie? If so, put the bulk of your money into lenses. Buy as cheap a camera as what will do the job. I get the impression you are obsessing about cameras too much here. It's the lenses that will determine what and how you can photo.<br> Kent in SD</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer_arment1 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 <p>Either camera would probably make you very happy and with a good lens give you the potential for making good images. There is another thing you might want to consider in making your purchase and that is which camera feels best in your hand. I have large hands and the D90 just feels too light in my hands while the D300 is more comfortable. I think the added weight while not much helps give it better balance for me. My wife, on the other hand, is much more comfrtable with the D90.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now