Buyers Remorse? D300s Bridge Therory

[gregogarrison]

<p>I was looking at the the D3s and the D700 as an upgrade for my D200. (it has close to 200,000 shutter releases) After to much back and forth, as I am cursed to do, I decided to purchase a D300s with a 17-35 f2.8 lens. My rationalization was that I would use the 300s as a bridge camera until Nikon released a upgrade for the D700/D3s. Then I could sell the 300s and move to an FX format and purchase another lens at that time.<br>

After using the 300s for a few shots. (Have to keep it under 200 shots if I want to return it) I no longer see the wisdom in my decision. First off the overexposure issue with the 300s is evident. Second my D200 takes warmer and more predictable pictures. Third, the difference in the two is not that striking. (Or maybe I just don't know how to coax the best out of the 300s) The fast lens produces good results on both cameras. And since I like the post production work flow (Lightroom, Nik add ons, PS CS5) I can generally tweak out the results I want. <br>

As far as what I shoot...Everything...under all conditions...I just love photography... It always provides me with peace and happiness. (Except when it involves money)<br>

Should I stick with the original plan? Was it a good plan in the first place? Should I just stop the indecisive whining? Or should I return the camera/lens and just wait to see what happens down the road? <br>

I yield to the wisdom of the forum.</p>

[Kent Shafer]

<p>Since what you really want is an FX camera, the D300s and 17-55 purchase won't satisfy your desire and will use up money that could go toward something that would. You should definitely return both. Then you can either buy an FX camera now or wait and see what the next generation looks like.</p>

[john_c16]

<p>I generally disagree with the 'bridge theory' of camera purchases. Buy what you need (or really really want) the first time, use it until it no longer meets your needs, then start looking again. If Nikon were very close ( say next month) to releasing new camera bodies I might consider waiting. Do you really think that a D700 or D3S upgrade will be <em>that</em> much better than they are right now? Think of the D70/D70s and the D300/D300s - the upgrades really didn't amount to much. Those two cameras (d700, d3s) will meet or exceed the requirements for 99.99999999999999999999999% of people even considering dropping that much cash on a camera. </p>

<p>Return the camera and lens and stick with your original plan. Or buy the 24-70 now because you know you'll want it when you move to FX. You're just wasting money and you'll sell the D300s at a loss anyway. You really ought to consider your budget, too. There is a $2850 difference between the D700 and the D3S at B&H.</p>

<p>Sorry if I sound pessimistic, but it has bugged me a lot recently with so many people asking "Should I get XXX camera or wait for Nikon to upgrade it?" or "When does the XXXX replacement come out? I want something better than the best camera on the market right now." With the current generation of camera bodies, you would see an improvement going from the D200 to the D3100 and save about $2000!</p>

 

[dbcooper]

<blockquote>

<p>My rationalization was that I would use the 300s as a bridge camera until Nikon released a upgrade for the D700/D3s.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What is it that you can't shoot with a D700, or more especially a D3s? If cost is a concern, you can bet their replacements will be more expensive. I'm pretty happy with my D700, and don't see a need to replace it for some time to come. If I had deeper pockets, I'd have a D3s instead. Be very aware that to coax the best out of an FX body, you'll need glass to match, and <em>that</em> can get expensive. If you go with FX, the 17-35 will work great. If you decide to stay with DX, the D7000 is the current hot ticket.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...the difference in the two is not that striking.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Precisely why I kept my D200 for DX, and skipped the D300/300s bodies entirely.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Second my D200 takes warmer and more predictable pictures.<br /> And since I like the post production work flow (Lightroom, Nik add ons, PS CS5) I can generally tweak out the results I want.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So which is it, the camera or the post? Or maybe that you're just more familiar and comfortable with your D200? If that's the case, I'd recommend the D700, if you can glass it up.</p>

[jgredline]

<p>First, I agree with Kent.</p>

<p>Secondly when you said<em><strong> ''First off the overexposure issue with the 300s is evident.'' </strong></em>is one of the things I like about the D300s. I like the idea of shooting at -.3 to -.7 EV as a starting point because I like the faster shutter speeds.</p>

<p>Third, if an FX camera is what <strong><em>you really want</em></strong>, No DX camera will ever be good enough to replace your D200.</p>

[photo5]

<p>I have owned the D300 since it was released in November, 2007. I <strong>do not believe there is an overexposure problem with the D300.</strong> I've never heard of it until now, actually. When I bought my D300, I worked at Corbis in the imaging lab here in Seattle, and had a professional workstation with a calibrated 21" Sony Artisan CRT monitor. I viewed thousands of my photos taken with the D300 on that monitor and never noticed a problem with overexposure.<br>

---<br>

So perhaps people who think the D300 has an overexposure problem aren't viewing their images on a calibrated monitor. I actually found the D200 had somewhat of an underexposure problem in certain lighting conditions (like dark grey overcast days) my testing of that camera. And the metering on the D80 could be put into a situation where it would grossly overexpose, by my testing up to 2 stops over in some cases, however for most situations the metering on the D80 was fine.<br>

---<br>

Metering for the D300 is going to be the same for the D700 and for the D3s, so you won't find any differences there. You will however get to use FX lenses with the two latter cameras, so when the replacement for the D700 comes out you'll be ready to go. Sounds like you have already made up your mind to return the D300s and buy the D3s or the D700. Of those two I'd buy the D3s by a mile, having owned the D700 and not being happy with it overall, I went back to the D300. Good luck.</p>

[gregogarrison]

<p>Thanks for the responses. <br>

Dave,<br>

Why weren't you happy with the D700?</p>

[Mike D]

<p>Digital cameras depreciate so quickly that the bridge theory may not be valid in this case. I use a D200, D300, and D700 and tend to agree with you that some of the newer DSLR bodies are not significantly better than the D200 in average field use. While the D300 is much better for sports and the D700 is much better for low light shooting, the D200 will hold its own in average conditions. I don't know what kind of shooting you do, but you should select the camera body that is must suitable for your style. Also, check out Thom Hogan's article about buying the best versus just good enough.</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"overexposure issue"</em> As the D200 tends to underexpose a bit, it is easy to get the impression that the D300 overexposes. You can easily correct for this condition by dialing in -.3 or -.7 exposure compensation.</p>

<p><em>"My D200 takes warmer and more predictable pictures"</em> Adjust your picture controls so the shots look warmer. Not sure what predictable means...</p>

<p><em>"Third, the difference in the two is not that striking</em>." This is very true, especially if you shoot RAW.</p>

<p>A D3S and/or d700 will give you better results but not so much at the lower ISOs Plus there are numerous added features. If you have the money for the FX these bodies, I would upgrade.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Dave,<br />Why weren't you happy with the D700?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because he no longer has one.</p>

<p>You can read this thread yourself about why Dave sold his D700 last year. Recall that the economy was in really bad sharp at that time: April 2009, and to a large degree still is. He even pointed out that he might buy another one later on when it would be more feasible financially. It sure didn't sound like Dave dislike the D700 at the time: <a href="00T0MK">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00T0MK</a></p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>As insurance against your worries of looming shutter failure, and like to shoot all sorts of things, the D300(s) is a great choice. If you find yourself working in poor light, it's certainly a notch better than the D200. If you find yourself shooting anything that moves, the D300's AF system is much superior.<br /><br />As for "warmer" or more predictable pictures? As a user of both the D200 and D300, I don't find that at all. The warmth part is completely under your control. Try shooting RAW, and use a free trial copy of Capture NX2 so that you can experiment after the fact with how in-camera settings would have impacted the output ... and once you get the D300 looking the way you like, change the camera's settings to suit your taste. As for predictability or over-exposure ... I find the D300's metering to be smarter than the D200's, and since I usually shoot 14-bit RAW, I find I've got more latitude to save highlights and shadows captured with the D300 than I do with the D200. <br /><br />As mentioned above, if this is really about FX, then nothing will make you happy. If this is about having something at hand in case your trusty D200 goes belly-up ... just buy a decent used D200 for a song, and put it on the shelf as insuance, and save up for that FX body you really want.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I have had a D300 for 3+ years since its introduction and last year I tested a D300S sample for the review on photo.net. I also have a D200. At least I am not aware of any exposure problems on the D300/D300S as well as "warmer" or less predictable pictures. All 3 are fine cameras although the D200 is quite old technology by now; in fact, the D300/D300S is a little old as well.</p>

<p>Both the D700 and D3S will likely be replaced in 2011, which begins in fewer than 10 days. If you buy one of those, will you have buyers remorse in a few months? I am afraid that only you yourself can decide.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the bottom line i think is that you have a d200 with 200k actuations, so a replacement was overdue.</p>

<p>the d300s is a fine camera, nothing wrong with it, no overexposure issues. it's a lot better at high-ISO than a d200. and has better AF.</p>

<p>i don't really see the problem here. if you were happy with a d200, you should be happier with a d300s.</p>

<p>stop whining and start taking pictures.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>In my experience, I`d say I noticed a higher jump from the D200 to the D300 than from the D300 to the D700.</p>

<p>If you have a steamlined economy, buy now and sold later, and consider the loss as somekind of rental (here the loss could be around 30-40% in one year).<br /> Looks like the awaited updates will be available next year; if that`s true, it could happen e.g. in july (as it was with the D700) or maybe in november (if I recall it correctly for the D3). The D3 was released before the D700... it could happen again with the D4 (or D3SMkII... ).<br /> To your question... if you are absolutely convinced that you want FX and specially if you are willing to pay the price (camera + 24-70, it means $4500+), I`d wait.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I think the logic in "bridging" the time gap with a D300S and 17-55 was flawed to begin with. I hope you at least purchased used - because if you didn't, then you'd be loosing some money when you finally decide to sell both. For arguments sake, let's assume you paid around $2800 for both - you can reasonably assume to get about $2000 when you decide to sell it - maybe $2200. Had you purchased a D700 and, let's say a 24-70 for a total of $4000, you'd be keeping the 24-70 and if you decided to sell the D700 when the successor is released, you can reasonably assume to loose at most as much as selling the D300 and 17-55. In the meantime, you'd be shooting with FX that you desire and not with DX. So, return the camera and lens and get the D700 and whatever lens you desire with it; financially and emotionally, you'd be better off.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Dieter: Unless he made a typo, he's talking about the 17-<strong><em>35</em></strong>/2.8, which is a full-frame lens, and will work well on a later FX.</p>

[vitor]

<p>Gregory<br>

That was a very bad plan.</p>

[gregogarrison]

<p>I do love this forum. The responses are always direct and helpful. </p>

<p>Update: RMA issued. Current plan is to coax the trusty D200 through another season and stash cash for future FX upgrade. Lesson learned.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Dieter: Unless he made a typo, he's talking about the 17-<strong><em>35</em></strong>/2.8, which is a full-frame lens, and will work well on a later FX.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Matt, you are correct - I got confused by Kent mentioning the 17-55.<br /> Edit: I had typed a long response here but when I posted it, I saw that Gregory already made up his mind to return the D300 and keep using the D200 - good decision IMO. Even if the D200 were to fail, a replacement camera can be had immediately at any time.</p>

[Kent Shafer]

<p>Oops—sorry for the 17-35/55 mistake.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>It seems to me that you "settled" in this case, which I would not have done. What are you going to do with your "bridge" when the body you are looking for comes along?</p>

[rossb]

<p> Just send it back and shoot the D200 for a while until the next round of upgrades comes around and buy one of those guys. That bridge theory sounds cool. My wife would give me the fish eye on that one. </p>

[photo5]

<p>Gregory, ultimately the D700 image quality wasn't as good as the D300 at ISO 200. That is the main reason I sold the camera. Other reasons are (compared to D300), lower battery life, only 90% viewfinder coverage which caused a lot of objects to show up in the image that weren't there in the viewfinder, and finally size. The D700 is a very chunky heavy beast. The D300 has better handling for small hands, which I guess I have. And I like DX because the lenses are smaller and lighter than FX.<br>

I'm not saying I hated my D700, it is a great camera for those who can tolerate its shortcomings. I particularly enjoyed using it with my manual focus Nikkor primes, in which it really excelled. And shooting at high ISO of course is a major plus too. But most of my photography happens at ISO 200, so high ISO (for me) was not a great selling point.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>IMHO, the D300/300s are MUCH better cameras than the D200. Perhaps you just aren't used to all of that dynamic range and have mistaken it for overexposure. Perhaps you need to experiment with/tweak the optimization presets (I think Nikon calls it Picture Control now) until it reminds you of the D200's "look." Perhaps you need to shoot some images at ISO 1600 and compare them to the noise fest that is high ISO on the D200. Perhaps you should shoot in RAW and let your post-processing create the "warmer and more predictable look" that your eyes crave.</p>

<p>You might want to return the 17-35. I don't think it's a good choice for DX cameras.</p>

[leericks]

<p>HMMM. Assuming that you bought your D200 the instant it was released, you take, on average, over 10 frames a day. That is some serious shooting for a non-professional photographer. If you shoot primarily on the weekends you are really banging them out. </p>

<p>You can do whatever you want of course and have chosen to return a very good camera. It does not overexpose nor is it tonally different from your D200. There should be little observable differences between the two cameras unless you are pushing the edges of their capabilities. A case could have been made for trading your D200 or selling it before the shutter fails but that could be a very long time. </p>

<p>You want full frame. Got it. In order to do that you have to have the glass. That is the bottom line. Without it...... You also are concerned about money. You said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I just love photography... It always provides me with peace and happiness. (Except when it involves money)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hardly the words of a 'money is no object' guy. Right? So can we take the D3 off the table? it costs $2850.00 more than the D700 and does not return the investment for you. The D3s is a professional camera. It is built like a tank for sure but the additional feature-set it would offer you would probably not justify the additional money. If you were shooting 300-500 frames a day in lousy weather maybe you could justify it but, if, as you say, money is an issue, then it is not the camera for you. Besides. The D700 is tough enough and there is no photo quality difference between the two. So you can either buy the D3s body or you can buy a D700 with the 24-70 AFS G ED, the 80-200 F/2.8d and a SB-700 flash with enough left to put quality filters on your new lenses for the same price. Which sounds better to you? And with this combination you will have a lovely camera and wonderful glass. What more could anyone ask for?</p>

<p>So why did your "bridge" camera plan fail? Because you walked right past the only camera that might have made sense. The D7000. If you could get one it would not only be a wash (or perhaps a bit improved) over the D300s, but as a new model would retain more of its resale value. And no matter what comes, you will need a backup camera. What's wrong with one that is the latest technology? </p>

<p>There are three fundimental problems with these threads.<br>

First we don't set a budget with our questions. If money were no object you would have bought a D3s long ago and had a D3X for a backup. Your care would be loaded down with top shelf glass and you would not be asking us for advice. So what is the budget today? That should be integral to the discussion.</p>

<p>The second problem is to clearly articulate what one intends to do with the camera. Is carrying a lightweight yet fairly capable camera on vacation the deal or are we going to shoot ballet dancers from the balcony?<br>

Third and in my opinion the most importatant question is, what do you really want. I wear a rolex watch. It was too expensive, tells time poorly compared to a quartz watch, costs $600.00 every couple of years for cleaning and adjusting and everyone who sees it thinks it is a fake. But I like it. I like how it is made. I like the look. I sometimes like the statement it makes. For some people cameras are the same. I have a friend who just bought a D3X. He may use it once or twice a month. He loves the feel of it and he appreciates owning what is arguably the best Digital SLR out there. He owns nothing but the best glass too. He is a died in the wool gearhead aand fairly good amateur photographer. There is no way he can justify needing the camera but the money is not an issue to him and he really wanted it. Who is to say he is wrong for buying it? (He did borrow my D300 to take on vacation because of the weight and the fact that I loaned him an 18-200 to go with it but there you have it.) </p>

<p>One thing is certainly clear. The differences between cameras as far as picture quality is concerned really only appears as we push their capabilities. And the fact is that we rarely do that. So my conclusion is that you should load up the MasterCard, get the d700 and nice glass and get to using it. As to what Nikon might do tomorrow? Who cares? So you can shoot your new D3XsMarkIIDModB at 25,200 Iso and 20 frames per second in zero gravity. Let me know the next time you need to do that. The real question is, do you need to exceed the capabilities of a D300 or D700 now? If not the for God's sake get your beautiful new D700 and go have as much fun as you have obviously been having for years. </p>