I have Both Camera and the D300 Is better. But The ISO Goes to the D7000, But the D300 Is Overall better focusing. Etc.

I own the D300 and the D7000 and more than a few others. I use the D300 and The D7000 in the field a lot. Don't bother buying a D300. I won't sell mine, out of respect for what I have accomplished with it. Fact is new bodies and new technology have an edge. I sold a D700 I had as it wasn't being used as it had no video mode. I could have sold the D300 but as it had been in some awesome settings....I just won't sell it. But don't go buying a D300 to move UP when you have a D7000. I would buy a very highly rated lens for the D7000 Most of the vets here have already stated this. Good luck!

Don't buy a D300. Save your money and when you want to move to FX, get a D600. Its controls are very similar to the D7000. Meanwhile, as you buy more lenses give some thought to how they would work with a future FX body. Your 50mm is actually shooting at 75mm now. The 85mm 1.8D AF lens is a good choice for not much money and on an FX body it will about equal the angle of view you now get with your 50mm. I think you would like it for portraits with shallow depth of field. Nikon's old 60mm 2.8 macro AF lens could also be a consideration. Look at this thread for some ideas. http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=9682 I am in the process of adding more lenses to it. Next up is the 85mm 1.8D AF lens for portraits.

Leinadbc;

First, if you DO decide to buy a D 300, for heavens sake DON'T buy the older, 300 model; buy the newer 300s; but based on your question, (and I'm not necessarily trying to discourage you from buying a new camera), at this point in time, I would seriously advise you to A. keep on saving up your money, and in the meantime, keep learning more and more about photography !

Yes, the D 7000 IS newer technology than either one of the 300 series cameras; but for anyone trying to convince you that "the 300 has an "inferior" sensor, (as compared to the 7000,) and that a 300 has "worse performance" (because it has been around longer, indicates to me a serious lack of understanding and knowledge about Nikon cameras.

Nikons, (just like ALL complex electronic products), are "aimed" at different "markets"; the 7000, while being newer, is FAR from being "superior"; you're attempting to compare yesterday's $1,700 product, with today's $1,200 product; I can guarantee you, ANY manufacturer can put a lot more into ANY product that costs another $500 dollars ! And saying "there is virtually no difference .........is sheer nonsense !

But more to the point.......which is for your desire to "take better pictures"; unless you are worried about using your camera as a Videocam, I can flat out guarantee you that: in the hands of of knowledgeable photographers (with each camera), the guy with the D 7000 is going to have one heck of a time, trying to make "better" pictures with it, than an equally competent photographer will make with a D 300 or a D 300s ! ( Both are extremely capable bodies; yes, the 7000 produces larger files on the media; but that isn't always what "makes better pictures" !

You already have a very capable camera in your hands; but you have NOT begun to "master" it YET ! Until you do, keep learning; you sound to me like a very bright young man..........you just don't keep improving your skills as a photographer, by buying a newer camera every few years; you learn by "doing", and by making a few mistakes, then learning HOW to eliminate the mistakes. (And believe me, there are many reasons why the 300 series bodies sold for $ 500 more than the 7000 !

warprints said:
Agree with Tcole (and I do have a D300).

+1 I have a d300 as well.

The question of the 85mm would be a great choice. I love it on DX and FX. Does it auto-magically make photos better? No, but no lens does. It does have a different "look" (compression, shallower DOF) that I prefer over the 50mm on DX.

Classic prime kit has always been a mix of the 28/35/50/85/105 (FX equiv). DX has moved that a bit, but a 35mm 1.8, 50mm, 85mm, (50/75/125-fx) is a great kit to shoot for. I normally take the 35/50/85 and swap the 85 & 105 in and out for stuff. the 80-200 is great but I agree, it does get heavy quick and not easy to just "carry" around.

What they said.

Your question should have been I have a D7000, how should I invest some spare money I have, and the answer is: Invest your money in glass!

Agree with Tcole (and I do have a D300).

No. What makes you think an older body with worse performance would give you better pictures? It is older DX technology with a worse sensor. Other then the FPS, 51 point AF and maybe a better constructed body I don't think the D300 offers anything over the D7000. If you want to shoot the 85 then just get that and use it on your D7000. The only reason I believe anyone would get the D300 over a D7000 is if you were shooting in the elements all the time and you were shooting sports or moving subjects in good light and needed the weather sealing and FPS.

I do not believe the D300 will give you better photos than the D7000.

Upgrading to a full frame camera may/could/might/will. ;- )

Hello, I am a young photographer. I own a Nikon D7000 that I got for one of my pictures, I also have a 50mm 1.4D and an old 80-200mm 2.8D, I like to take portraits most of the time with the 50mm and love shallow DOF. I was wondering if a D300 with an 85mm would really give me better pictures? I would keep the D7000 with the 80-200 for music shows for the extra crop ( Don't want to use the 80-200 for portraits as it's too heavy ). I don't really mind the body features, just want my pictures to look nice and I have a little extra cash to invest in photography :)

tcole1983 said:
I will add my second piece of advice...when in doubt buy the Nikon ;)

IMO working distance on the 105 is good enough for all but the most skitterish bugs.

Yes, I do agree with that.

I had fun with a jumping spider yesterday- he wouldn't stop moving! Pretty cool little guy.

I have no idea why, but spiders seem to love my garden. I'm on the lookout for praying mantises though.

The Zeiss doesn't have autofocus (obviously) which is a big turn off for many because of the price. Manual focus is better for macro shots but the Nikon 105 is much more convenient because of VR and AF-S. The Zeiss is a great lens but the 105 keeps up very well and for the price there is no comparing the two.

With 105 and higher focal ranges you need to move back further from the subject to get more in the frame. Some macro shooters want to get up close but still have a "wider view" of their subject.

Hey all,

Looks like the OP never chimed back in, and that was a long time ago anywho... Not too specific as to what kind of macro, what kind of portraiture (as others already brought up)...

I can't believe the Zeiss 100/2 Makro hasn't been mentioned. This and the Nikon 105/2.8 macro are (IMHO) the only two that realistically fit the bill of both macro and portraiture. Again, it really depends on the the type of shooting/subjects.

A short focal length just isn't my thing for macro, I prefer at least 120mm equiv, I appreciate my bokina 90/2.5 macro on DX. I love the 85/1.4 for portraits, on both FX and DX. My 135/2 DC is pretty cool, but macro ain't its thing w/ such a long min focal distance- tubes or close-up filter or whatever, still. And oftentimes, it is crazy close-up for portaits on DX.

But due to background compression (a huge factor for creamy bokeh), the 100mm length is a good betweener IMHO for macro and portraits. And the Zeiss 100 is a beauty. But it is MF only, no stabilization. The Nikon 105 has VR which is VERY useful for some macro work to keep lower ISO when stopping down (as another mentioned).

Very different tools, somewhat different results. But both the Zeiss 100/2 Makro and the Nikon 105/2.8 VR micro are clear winners IMHO.

Cheers.
- david

tcole1983 said:
I will add my second piece of advice...when in doubt buy the Nikon ;)

Amen!

I will add my second piece of advice...when in doubt buy the Nikon ;)

IMO working distance on the 105 is good enough for all but the most skitterish bugs.

vancwa said:
NSX - I was talking about the Tamron 90, not the Nikon 105 VR. I've used both of these lenses, they are both great. I ended up buying the Tamron because it seems every bit as sharp and less than half as expensive. Very light and tossable. For me at least the AF seems a little more decisive on the Tamron than the Nikon, a little less hunting around. If VR is important to you, by all means stick with the Nikon. I do like Nikon's AFS focus override system better than Tamron's clunky AF/MF switching. And if you want to shoot bugs, I don't don't think either of those are great because of too short of working distance. Either the Tamron 180, the Sigma 150, or the Nikon 200 macro is probably a better lens selection.

Oh, I see. I was just saying that using MF for me worked better than allowing the lens to hunt around for focus. Perhaps the camera body I was using had a little more issue with focusing than the lens was.

Ideally I would use the Nikkor 200mm, but price is a major deciding factor, of course. :D

NSX - I was talking about the Tamron 90, not the Nikon 105 VR. I've used both of these lenses, they are both great. I ended up buying the Tamron because it seems every bit as sharp and less than half as expensive. Very light and tossable. For me at least the AF seems a little more decisive on the Tamron than the Nikon, a little less hunting around. If VR is important to you, by all means stick with the Nikon. I do like Nikon's AFS focus override system better than Tamron's clunky AF/MF switching. And if you want to shoot bugs, I don't don't think either of those are great because of too short of working distance. Either the Tamron 180, the Sigma 150, or the Nikon 200 macro is probably a better lens selection.

vancwa said:
"I heard the auto focus is very slow on the tamron."

Not as fast as a newer/faster AFS lens. It's actually fine, expecially if you use the focus limiter and don't try to AF from 3" to infinity all the time. Sports might be an issue, but portraits and macro (what I use it for) are inconsequential because they are static subjects.

Interesting that you note that- the AF on the 105 VR slows quite a bit for close focusing- perhaps because the D40's AF is a little bad. I usually let it AF then switch it to MF and move in and out to get the right plane of focus. It's a bit of a trial and error, but I think it's better than trusting the D40's AF system. For long distance shots, like portraiture and such, the AF is bang on though. VR helps a bit in macro handheld shooting too. I don't see a tripod as a very useful help for bug shots because they move around way too much. Flowers maybe, and if it's windy it still won't help you freeze motion of the petals.

"I heard the auto focus is very slow on the tamron."

Not as fast as a newer/faster AFS lens. It's actually fine, expecially if you use the focus limiter and don't try to AF from 3" to infinity all the time. Sports might be an issue, but portraits and macro (what I use it for) are inconsequential because they are static subjects.

vancwa said:
One vote for the Tamron 90 f/2.8 and works on both FX and DX. A great macro, and a fine portrait lens with a better working distance than a 60mm.

I heard the auto focus is very slow on the tamron.

One vote for the Tamron 90 f/2.8 and works on both FX and DX. A great macro, and a fine portrait lens with a better working distance than a 60mm.

Mike Gunter said:
Hi,

My 60mm is certainly made of metal; it's a heavy mother.

It was serviced by Nikon last year and works fine. It was bought in the late 80's or early 90's, but works just fine as a portrait lens. I've thought about updating it, but don't much see the point. I think it would be worth getting the 105mm for the VR. The contrast is terrific.

My best,

Mike

The 105mm isn't light either. :D

I agree, VR is another selling point of that lens. If I need to stop down a little bit more, the VR helps a bit without bumping ISO up too much.

tcole1983 said:
It looks like it is, but the build quality is much better on the 105. Maybe it just felt light or something when I tried them out, but the build on the 60 and 85 micro compared to say the 18-200 where the 105 compared to like the 70-200.

Haven't held a 60mm 2.8, but it seemed like a focal length too close to my 35mm, which is another reason why I didn't get the 60mm.

PB PM said:
The 60mm F2.8G is made of metal, but it doesn't have anywhere near as much glass as the lenses you mentioned, which is why it is so light.

That would make sense too.

The 60mm F2.8G is made of metal, but it doesn't have anywhere near as much glass as the lenses you mentioned, which is why it is so light.

NSXType-R said:
I thought the 60mm was partly metal? I had thought about the 60mm, but when I found out that the working distance was smaller, it made a difference in my decision to get the 105mm. I don't regret getting the 105mm either.

It looks like it is, but the build quality is much better on the 105. Maybe it just felt light or something when I tried them out, but the build on the 60 and 85 micro compared to say the 18-200 where the 105 compared to like the 70-200.

NSXType-R said:
I thought the 60mm was partly metal? I had thought about the 60mm, but when I found out that the working distance was smaller, it made a difference in my decision to get the 105mm. I don't regret getting the 105mm either.

Hi,

My 60mm is certainly made of metal; it's a heavy mother.

It was serviced by Nikon last year and works fine. It was bought in the late 80's or early 90's, but works just fine as a portrait lens. I've thought about updating it, but don't much see the point. I think it would be worth getting the 105mm for the VR. The contrast is terrific.

My best,

Mike