niccoury

<p>The D300 is/and will be a great camera for a long while. Forget all these jokers saying it's old.</p>

<p>For all intents and purposes, it'll do fine for anyone. Many professionals use them everyday and don't complain.</p>

<p>Get the D300, a 17-35 f/2.8, 50 f/1.4 and a 80-200 and shoot away.</p>

<p>I shoot professionally with the D700 and a 70-200 is in my bag.</p>

<p>Granted I work for a newspaper, but I've never had any issue with corners. It's sharp, even at f/2.8 and it's been a great lens.</p>

<p><em>2. The D40 does not AF with the 50mm and, of course, can't zoom. AF is a big problem when shooting moving targets (kids that run very very very fast).</em><br>

Nikon recently released the 35mm f/1.8 DX, which is effectively a 50mm.</p>

<p>MJ is right. Motosports are wayyy more intense and awesome. Cars are alright too, but motorcycles have a whole other element to them.<br>

I think frozen shots have their place, depending on what you're doing. The extremely tight shots of motorcyclists around a sharp turn are always solid and also the wider shots to show a clean background. It all really depends.<br>

A friend of mine is one of the official photogs at Laguna and does nice work:<br>

http://www.dmtimaging.com/motorcycleracinggallery/index.html</p>

<p>Yeah, not even all the cred'd photogs get vests on the bigger races. It's wayy to busy as it is with everyone...<br>

Lex:<br>

My workflow is JPEG's for my art director at the paper. RAW files are a bit overkill, especially for the D700. If I'm shooting my D2H at high ISO (which is never anymore), I'll shoot RAW for noise concerns, but even my old D50 made super nice and clean, saturated JPEG's even at 1600.<br>

I think most newspaper prefer JPEG's for ease sake and 8gb of RAW files is A LOT. the glossy mags may like RAW better, but I can really only speculate on that...</p>

<p>Yeah, the who place was deadsville. There were only about a dozen credentials photogs shooting for various mags and one of the other local newspaper shooters I know.<br>

It was great. I had the run of the mill for prime shooting locales.</p>

<p>you guys should have looked me up:<br>

http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/archives/2009/2009-May-14/the-monterey-festival-of-speed-at-laguna-seca-brings-the-heat/1/@@index<br>

The guy in the pits was shooting with film M's.<br>

Don't complain about weight, I was carrying:<br>

Cameras: Nikon D2H, D700, F5<br>

Lenses: (all Nikkor)<br>

20-35 f/2.8<br>

28-70 f/2.8<br>

70-200 f/2.8<br>

600 f/4 (courtesy of NPS).</p>

<p>I use the 28-70 daily as a pro PJ on my D700 and it's flawless. 4mm isn't too bad when saving nearly $700, where one could almost buy a 17-35 f/2.8 for a tad more<br>

It's sharp, contrast-y and the build quality is fantastic and sturdy.</p>

<p>I used the 20-35 f/2.8D daily on my D700 as a full-time newspaper PJ. It's great. I'd prefer a little wider, but that's a whole other discussion.<br>

It's sharp, even at 2.8, contrast-y and built extremely well. It's fairly small too for being a WA. I got mine for a steal at $375.</p>

<p>The 17-55 is a DX lens, I hope he was referring to the 17-35 lens.</p>

<p>As a full-time news photog, I carry an old 20-35 f/2.8, 28-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 VR and a handful of primes.</p>

<p>If you're shooting a lot of daytime stuff, get a D2X or H. Both are stupid fast AF and great image quality. I shot my D2 camera's upwards of ISO 800 and both were great for newsprint.<br>

And the 80-200 should AF fast enough. You can get an AF-s 80-200 for around 900.<br>

~ n</p>

<p>Unless you're working for a newspaper or magazine or some other media org, please don't label "street photography" and "event photography" as photojournalism. It's not the same work. I work full-time as a newspaper photog and I'd consider the types of shooting you mentioned more documentary.</p>

<p>To answer your question about the lens, I used the 17-55 on a D2X and D200 for about a year and a half before getting a D700. It was my main lens with those cameras and performed flawlessly. It's also a great wedding lens and the mainstay wide angle for DX cameras. I felt it was a tad short at 55, but thats ok. Sharp, contrast-y and built well.</p>

<p>I agree with Lil Judd, get nice glass, you'll notice it more.</p>

<p>I'm a working newspaper photog and my lens set up on the D700 is all Nikkor f/2.8's: 20-35, 28-70, 70-200 and a handfull of primes.</p>

<p>The 20-35 is small, older gem. It's sharp and fair inexpensive and is super nice on the full frame. Hell, even getting a older Nikkor 35-70 f/2.8D, is a great choice too.</p>

<p>I love this lens. </p>

<p>I work professionally at PJ and I always keep it in my car. I use it mostly on my F100, but will pull it out on the D700 every so often. It's really sharp, even at f/5.6 and light. </p>

<p>I love my F100. Some of my clients prefer the look and feel of film. It AF's fast and is durable and stupid-cheap right now.</p>

<p>One thing to note is that if you use MF Nikkor lenses, you can only expose correctly using the little bar thing in the viewfinder as you get the "F-EE" message on top.</p>

<p>What a great camera.</p>

<p>I love my old 20-35 f/2.8D<br>

Sexy.</p>

<p>Another good choice would be the 20-35 f/2.8.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 is a digital gem, because it uses the center of the images only.</p>

<p>Thom Hogan likes it: http://www.bythom.com/1835lens.htm</p>