What d300s kit should I buy?

[left_ayyones]

<p>Budget: about $3500<br /> <br /> Kit picked out so far:<br /> <br /> * Nikon D300s (picked for overall ratings & weather sealage)<br /> * Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 DX VR<br /> * Nikon 35mm f1.8 DX<br /> * Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G FX VR<br /> <br /> * Nikon SB-600 flash<br /> * Nikon EN-EL3e battery<br /> * Nikon DSLR System Bag<br /> * Sandisk 16gb Extreme SD-HC (2 of them, 32bg total)<br /> * Thom Hogan's D300s guidebook<br /> <br /> All of this adds up to $3,361 on adorama, and I'll have 16-300mm focal lengths covered.<br /> <br /> <strong>Here are my questions:</strong><br /> <br /> 1) Anything I'm missing (or are these items good/bad ideas?) The only thing currently owned is a good tripod.<br /> <br /> 2) Is the 16-85 DX going to be wide enough at 16mm for most stuff, or is a wide angle zoom worth it?<br /> <br /> 3) Is the 70-300mm is FX format a decent lens? From the various reviews, it seems like the best long range zoom under $1000. Any experience?<br /> <br /> <strong>background</strong> in case you care<br /> <br /> This kit is a retirement gift for my dad, who's retiring this summer. However, his current best camera is a Minolta SLR from the 1970s, which, while nice at the time, is pretty outdated. He doesn't take many pictures anymore because of the cost of processing film, and instead, uses a cheap point-and-shoot digital camera for most stuff.<br /> <br /> Anyway, he's mentioned picking up photography again now that he's retired, and I wanted to help get him going, because he's definitely got some talent for it. From what I know, he did a lot of people pictures (hence the 35mm and 16-85) as well as wildlife (hence the 70-300).<br /> <br /> The $3,500 budget is not an enormous amount, but still a pretty good start. I'm also picking up a 27in iMac and a Canon Pixma Pro 9000 Mark II photo printer (the other half of my ~$6,000 total budget.)<br /> <br /> I am not much of a photographer myself (I own a -gasp!- Sony alpha 500, fast live view is awesome) so your thoughts are greatly appreciated!</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>That kit looks GREAT to me. If he decides he needs an ultra-wide, he can get himself a great new toy later.</p>

<p>But... since you have a Sony, why not consider getting him a Sony kit so you guys can borrow lenses back and forth? There's NOTHING wrong with Sony's excellent offerings (although I do, obviously, prefer Nikon).</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>This kit is a retirement gift for my dad, who's retiring this summer. However, his current best camera is a Minolta SLR from the 1970s, which, while nice at the time, is pretty outdated. He doesn't take many pictures anymore because of the cost of processing film, and instead, uses a cheap point-and-shoot digital camera for most stuff.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>IMO a D300S and the $3500 budget is way too much an overkill for that purpose. I would suggest either a D90 or D5000 plus a lens or two to get your dad started on photography again. $1000 or a bit more should be more than sufficient. If he is interested, get more lenses and accessories later on. The D300S is a complex camera. If your dad is not high-tech savvy, it may actually discourage him from photography.</p>

<p>If he is not already familiar with digital post processing, get him PhotoShop Elements or LightRoom. Learning "digital darkroom" techniques will be a big part of digital photography for him.</p>

<p>P.S. Do you live close to your father? If you two can go out and shoot once in a while, it may make sense to own the same brand of cameras as Peter suggests, especially if you have a decent Sony kit with a few lenses.</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>I should caution you that picking out a DSLR is very personal. I could never pick a camera for someone else due to fear that they would never use it. I understand this is a gift and you'd probably like it to be a surprise, but the best thing you could do is to have your dad go with you to a camera store and look at camera bodies together. </p>

<p>The D300s is a great camera. It's what I use, but I have been shooting Film and Digital SLRs for about 15 years now. My first was a hand-me down Canon AE-1. The differences between a new DSLR and that old AE-1 are astounding. I had to grow into my D300s, and am still figuring out all of the things I can do with it. I'm not sure if your dad needs such an elaborate camera.</p>

<p>You could save a pretty penny to put towards a different lens if you go with the D90. It has the same sensor/processor as the D300s in a smaller, lighter weight body with a much less complex AF system.</p>

<p>If your dad is just shooting casually, here's my recommended kit:<br>

D90 and 18-105 kit lens and a gift card for the rest. </p>

<p>Like I said, photography is very personal, and I couldn't tell you what is the best kit for anyone except me...(and mine's not done yet). Until you know how much your dad will shoot, and what he's going to shoot, it might just be a wast of money to throw together a $3500 kit. It might end up just sitting on a shelf.</p>

 

[richardsnow]

<p>I'll add that I would also consider the fact that you already shoot a Sony Alpha. Like others have said, having the same kit as your father would be handy if you ever wanted to share lenses.</p>

<p>RS</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>Go for it.</p>

<p>-Owen</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>Go for it.</p>

<p>-Owen</p>

[mightypir]

<p>sounds great! I use basically the same kit(but with a D300 and SB800)</p>

[left_ayyones]

<p>Some background: yeah, I do shoot Sony Alpha, but I think I will be switching camps to Nikon next year. The a500 is a great camera, and has great live view implementation, but it was an impulse purchase (we had just got a new puppy that day and I had no camera, having dropped my old point-and-shoot). It was also a lot cheaper than the D90, as it was on sale with the kit lens. But as I've been doing all the research on SLR cameras, I've realized that I probably should have just sprung for the D90.<br>

<br /> I don't live very close to my dad. He's pretty tech-savvy, and I know he would want a camera that is fast fast fast and weather sealed. Hence the d300s instead of the D90, which was a serious contender. It's a lot of money I suppose, but it's because of my dad being a good father that I put in the extra work that it took to put myself through college, slog though the certs, and get a good job that pays well. So the money is not much of a big deal.<br>

<br /> However, my dad is exceptionally frugal, and the only way anyone can get him anything nice is to spring it on him so he can't refuse! :-) I should also say that he pines for a DSLR but he doesn't want to spend any money on it. His dad (my grandfather) was an accomplished photographer in WWII as well, and photography is something that runs in the family, so I'm sure he'll appreciate it regardless.<br>

<br /> This is the instigator of the Sony Alpha purchase. The pictures I have of her during those first few weeks of puppyhood are worth the cost to change systems later.<br>

<br /> <img src="http://k-jet.org/img/other/freya3.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="500" /></p>

[andylynn]

<p>I agree with both Shun and Richard. A D300s kit is quite a lot of kit, with a feature set that most people won't fully take advantage of - and as the owner of some 70's Minolta gear and some newer Nikon gear, I can say that somebody who's used to the Minolta will find the D300s quite large and heavy. In Nikon land, the D90 is almost as capable as the D300s (for the more casual user it's exactly as capable) while costing $1000 less and weighing considerably less.</p>

<p>But since you've got a Sony, and the 500-series is in the same league as the D90 and D5000, why not get him an A550 with the 16-80 lens? Add a Minolta branded APO tele-beercan from Keh, maybe a prime lens, an F42 flash and a decent tripod and you're still under budget.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Why don't you like the A500? I have a D90 and it's very good but it's not magic. If you're experiencing buyer's remorse or a grass is greener effect I can tell you that the difference between those cameras is very little and you wouldn't improve your photos by switching.</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>I definitely recommend the 16-85mm and 35mm f 1.8 DX lens choices. I use them on my D 300s. You have heard the viewpoints on the D 90 vs the D 300s. Your dad should be happy with either one of them. If he ever decides to pursue something like action shooting--like birds in flight-- then get him the D 300s.</p>

<p>Joe Smith</p>

[kris-bochenek]

<p>Since it's your money, you can spend it on anything you want. But I need to agree with Shun and say that D90 would be a better pick on top of that you can add some good glass like even Sigma 18-50 f2.8 or Tamron 17-50 f2.8 you could also pick a 70-200 f2.8 sigma for him and have enough money left for a tripod and flash. The final decision is yours we can only offer an opinion from our own experience.<br>

Cheers</p>

[left_ayyones]

<p>Thanks for the input so far everyone; definitely some issues here I hadn't thought about.<br>

<br /> The main issue I have with the a500 is that I have to shoot in RAW (much slower than JPEG) because the <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyalphadslra550/page27.asp">JPEG output has not been very reliable</a>. I wouldn't get one for my dad because a) if you leave everything on auto/jpeg, you don't get consistent / good results, and b) if you are serious and want to tinker with settings, there aren't that many to choose from.<br /> <br /> Maybe it is a bit of buyer's remorse; I kind of wish I had read some reviews before I purchased to see what the tradeoffs were. I think I would trade the fancy features like fast live view, tiltable screen, and face detection for consistent JPEG quality so that I could actually use the 5 fps and not have to shoot in RAW. That said it's not a <em>bad</em><em> </em>camera, it just that shooting in RAW tends to tick me off a bit (e.g. you're pressing the shutter trying to get the shot, but the camera is still writing your last RAW file so you miss it.)<br /> <br /> For my dad, I've looked at the Sony a550, Canon 7D, Pentax K7, Olympus E30, Nikon D90 and Nikon D300S. All good cameras, but the Nikons consistently got the best reviews across the board, and their lenses generally received better marks as well.<br /> <br /> So maybe the D90 is the better option? Maybe I'll just sell my a500 and get two D90s haha...</p>

[andylynn]

<p>For auto shooting and JPEG output, don't get the D300s. That's a pro grade camera intended for use in a more involved process. Yes, you get the faster AF and everything but the Nikon that really stands out in auto modes is the D5000.</p>

<p>Be aware that none of the cameras you mentioned live up to their potential when used in Auto and JPEG modes. You start in auto and move to modes that are user controlled (A and M are probably the most popular) - I think it took me about two days to make that transition when I got my first DSLR, and being a manual SLR user your father might not have the patience to let the camera run auto mode. (Last summer I handed my D90 to a manual SLR using friend to take a few shots, and the first thing he asked was how to turn off AF.) As for JPEG, it just doesn't give you enough to work with if you want to do some more serious editing or get the sharpest prints. I think if you yourself moved to shooting raw and getting some experience with a raw processing software you might find a lot more potential in your A500.</p>

[hans_janssen]

<p>I should not buy a Nikon bag, but something that doens't yell "expensive stuff inside".</p>

[left_ayyones]

<blockquote>

<p>I think if you yourself moved to shooting raw and getting some experience with a raw processing software you might find a lot more potential in your A500.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, that's exactly what has happened. Nearly all of the photos I take now with the a500 now are in RAW and then touched up later in Adobe Camera RAW. I guess what I mean is that I am looking for a camera that produces consistently high quality images in both JPEG and RAW modes. Knowing my dad, I expect him to set up every shot in A, M, S etc.; he's probably unlikely to use auto mode much.</p>

<p>For this level of camera, an experienced photographer should be able to produce JPEGs that need little (if any) post processing, right? The computer will probably have Aperture or Lightroom installed, so he'll be able to tinker with RAW files too if needed.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Well, none of the DSLRs out there perform as well in JPG as in raw, so I don't think changing to Nikon is the answer...</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>This whole RAW vs. JPEG thing is being blown way out of proportion. We need to give it a break already.</p>

<p>Properly exposed, a RAW image and a JPEG image will print the same. I know. I've tested this. Try it yourself. I shoot raw a lot of the time, but more often I shoot jpegs, and I'm totally happy with it. You can shoot both and you might find that only when you do something really artsy do you need the RAW for any purpose. A RAW image and an "identical" JPEG out of camera, with just a little post-processing, sharpening, color balance (as opposed to drastic stuff) can and will look identical in final output.</p>

<p>Don't assume that anybody that wants a great "pro-sumer" camera like the D300s necessarily needs to always shoot raw and do tons of post-processing. Not always the case. There are some great great reasons to get a camera as good as the D300s and spit out jpegs, and not all those users would be the slightest bit happy with something like a D5000. So please stop saying that all serious photogs always shoot RAW or that anybody who doesn't shouldn't buy a D300s.</p>

[Kent Shafer]

<p>Your dad sounds a lot like I was a couple of years ago—an experienced film photographer from back in the day who took a couple of decades off. He will probably be thrilled with the D300S.</p>

<p>You are a heck of a son.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>That's not what I meant, but I do think that for auto mode shooting one is better off with the consumer camera. The consumer cameras are stronger on auto features, with the "scene type" dials. But if you're very concerned about the image quality and do find the difference between raw and JPG enough to be a reason to reject a camera (as the OP said) I don't think I'd be alone in saying it would be better to work on raw shooting instead, and that the payoff from switching cameras might not be worth it (because a Nikon isn't necessarily any better at making a JPG than a Sony) so spending some time working with raw would be worthwhile.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the d300/d300s is a great camera, but it's probably overkill. i cant imagine that your dad will be underwhelmed with a d90, which is also a great camera. it's your money, but you could either buy another d90 for yourself or add something like the 105 VR to the kit, which might be more useful in the long run than the advantages you'd (he'd) get from a d300. there's very little if any differences in IQ between the d300 and d90, and if you're not using pro-spec glass, do you really need a pro-spec body? if your kit was d300+17-55+70-200 that would be one thing.</p>

 

[pieterbastemeyer]

<p>Coming from analogue, the trip is enormous. I would say, save on the body, and invest in glass. <em>Best Buy</em> has an incredible offer for the D200 (I went from the F100 to this beautiful camera, and I like it tremendously):<br>

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Nikon+-+10.2-Megapixel+Digital+SLR+Camera+-+Black/9456803.p?id=1218107268800&skuId=9456803&st=d200&contract_desc=null<br>

It's about the same size and feel as your dad's Minolta, and he will feel comfortable with it.</p>

[left_ayyones]

<blockquote>

<p>if you're not using pro-spec glass, do you really need a pro-spec body? if your kit was d300+17-55+70-200 that would be one thing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Haha I know... I wish his computer was newer, then this wouldn't be an issue. However, it's almost 10 years old at this point, so it's definitely not going to cut it when it comes to editing a 10+ megapixel image. Otherwise, I would have the budget for nicer glass.</p>

<p>The other reason I <em>didn't </em>choose the expensive pro-level glass is because the d300s is a DX camera, and it has the same sensor as several other DX cameras in the Nikon lineup. I assumed that only a FX camera (D3-series etc.) is going to be have the resolution necessary to really see differences when using the pro-level glass. </p>

<p>Am I wrong? Am I going to see a noticeable difference when using the d300s (or D90 for that matter) with the mid-range glass I picked out (16-85mm at $630, 70-300mm at $530) versus the expensive stuff (17-55 / 70-200)?</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Left,</p>

<p>How big will your dad print or how tight will he crop? It's possible that you will get the very same results with a D300 and a 17-55 as with a D3000 and a 16-85 if not printing big. Not the only reason to buy a D300. The ergonomics of the D300 are excellent!</p>

<p>That said, the D90's ergonomics are very similar to my old D50, but the subtle and not-so-subtle differences are so huge for me that even if the image quality was the same, I think I'd still be pleased.</p>

<p>And Pieter, please be careful with your recommendations. Your link goes to the D3000, not the no-longer-available (and very dated compared to what's available now) D200, which Best Buy has been sold out of forever.</p>