Serious? LOL !!

Welcome to the forum Jim22

Nikyvee ended up getting a D90.

And??? What's the end of the story?? I read it from beginning to end and I need to know. I'm also having a 300/700 dilemma, at least I have the 300 and I think I want the 700.. did you get one? Any good?

Uhhhhh.... Alphanikonrex, I think you are right. And I am learning hard toward the D700. I keep perusing all the stores and ads trying to find a "really good deal"...

AND, yesterday, some of the online stores started a deal where if you buy by 21 or 28 Nov, a D300s or D700 ALong with the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-... VR lens, you get an immediate $200 discount. That may just make my decision. Uh-oh, I STILL have to decide between the two bodies. But I'm liking it. Just gonna keep on watching. Nick V

You're dying to get the D700, aren't you? I don't think you'll change your mind. If that's what you want to do, then go ahead.

After all, does it matter? I remember for while after I got my D300 I kept on whacking myself in the head and saying I should have gotten a D90 with a new lens or flash or something. Well I ended up getting 3rd place in a competition with a photo I took with my D300. If I had a D90 and a new lens I would have been busy with that new lens and I probably would never would have gotten that image. But maybe I would have gotten a different winning one...

You see? You never know. That's why I officially say that it does not matter which camera you get.

So today I have been looking at all the photography (Nikon/Tamron/Tokina/Sigma) literature that I picked up at the Photo show yesterday.

As for picking the D300s versus the D700, I still keep waffling. However, I do keep looking at photos made with the D700 and just love them. I know, I know, it's the glass that makes the difference. But it isn't "just" the glass and I do like the D700.

So as this day has progressed, I have switched gears thinking that I would just go with the D700 right off the bat. I don't think that the difficulty of menus/settings is that different between the two of them. AND, while my little Canon SX10is is a point and shoot, it is a "premium" p&S; that means it has all kinds of controls and settings and in the typical Canon nonsensical presentation. Hence, I DO believe that I will be able to jump into either of the D700/D300s and still be a happy camper. I do have the time, and drive, to learn the camera, and I have some fellow photographer friends that I hang with so I have some nice support. Albeit, most of then are Canonites; but wth. So. I'm still waffling, but have a great time doing it. I am really convinced about my decision to go with the Nikon instead of the Canon, despite my friends urgings.

As for video? Ehh~ My little Canon has the video and I have yet to use it, so why do I need a fancy camera with video?

Now I am awaiting the Christmas specials/rebates. One of those may drive my final decision...
Nick V

Whew! I'm tired; just returned from my day's outing to the San Diego Photo Expo and want to report on my experience with Nikon cameras at the show. As you would expect, Nikon was out in force and had lots of cameras and lens to play with for a short while. I was able to literally have all three subject cameras in front of me at once: a D90, a D300s, and a D700. Yes, it was lots of fun.

It didn't take me long to determine that the D90 is a bit too small for my hands. While feeling better than some Canons, the D90 is smaller and just too closely configured to be really comfortable. The most comfortable was the D700; the D300s was really comfortable also. Importantly, I Really like the larger viewfinder on the D700. The viewfinders on the D90 and D300 are about the same, if not exactly the same. Workable, but not as good with my glasses. I am right eye dominant so I don't have a problem with lining my face up to the viewfinder.

I discussed camera bodies/lenses/my shooting/my experience/the weather/and MLB with the Nikon rep and left feeling that I will probably go with the D300s because of the better feel but lower price.

Because I KNOW that when the D700 is upgraded to whatever (D700x/D800/D900/?), I will be getting one.

In the meantime, I can get the D300s, play with the video a little bit, and acquire some lenses that will work on both the DX and FX bodies.

I was tempted to buy one of the "show specials" kits (they had one for each of the three cameras in question. However, with all of these kits, they had paired the body with a lens that I would not buy all by itself. Plus, you were buying in the kit, a tripod, a camera bag, a UV filter, and a circular polarizing filter, plus a few other diddly little gadgets. None of that stuff interested me. So even though they were not collecting state income tax (almost 9% in Calif), the show "deals" just weren't good enough for me. Too bad as I would have liked to benefit the local dealers that were the sponsoring vendors.

So, I have decided to just continue to wait until the Christmas specials/rebates come along and see what happens. At that time I will probably buy the D300s, along with 2, maybe 3, nice lenses. In the meantime, I can drool and contemplate what lenses to buy.

Oh, I did attend four of the hour long seminars and really enjoyed and benefited from them. I sat through two put on by Nikon: one about use of speedlights and flash, and the other about different camera setups and lenses. Both seminars were great for me and I learned lots.

I'm tired now; off to bed. Yawn~ Nick V

Newfie, Nick said he's going to get the D700 replacement which may be even more a camera for the ages. Will anyone need anything more than a D700? Probably not. But some people could use more shots per second, a bigger buffer, dual card slots and higher resolution for macro and telephoto work (the pixel pitch of the D700 is the same as the old 6MP offerings from Nikon like the D100).
Would Nick be happy with the D700? Who wouldn't be? But I think what people are suggesting here is that it might be best to have a dx body to get back in the swing of things before upgrading to a camera that he can use for the rest of his life (by the way, Nick, what makes you so sure you've only go 10 years left?)
edit: fixed typo

I'd go for the D700. It really is a camera for the ages. It has remarkable performance and IQ. I try to keep my technology as current as possible and usually upgrade every two years or so but I really can't see how you could upgrade from the D700.In my opinion there is nothing currently in the market that outshines it for being an excellent multi-purpose camera. Will I upgrade? Eventually, but not for the next five years or so. Even then I believe that this camera will still be of a design and specification to be reckoned with.

God morning Jonny, Funny thing I am right eye dominant, but I still locked my focus selector, I was shooting a charity function and I did not notice for a few pictures that I had moved the spot one place to the right and I had centered people on that spot, I just tried to look with my left eye, and you are right my nose is hitting the selector. Odd how hard it is to look with the other eye

Pete

I think especially since you haven't used an SLR for a while I'd seriously consider a D90. It's not as big an investment and, like Pete says, will take identical shots for 95% of people. I have (edit: almost) two years' experience with the D300 and there's actually one annoying thing about it for me: I'm left-eye dominant so when I looked through the viewfinder my nose was always hitting the focus spot selector and moving it around unless I had it locked. The D90 is just enough smaller that I don't have that problem. Switching to a D90 I expected to have handling issues because I'd lose some of the D300's dedicated buttons (e.g., ISO, WB, QUAL), but it has turned out to be not an issue after I got used to the new locations. Nikon really hit a home run with the D90.

Edit: that's a thorough comparison, Adamz. Thanks. I just wanted to clarify one of Adamz's points for you, Nick. When he talks about compatibility issues with older lenses he's talking about the ancient manual focus lenses with no CPU contacts. What you lose with the D90 is metering capability since the D90 can't tell what aperture the lens is at and the D300s can. I had a 50 1.2 AI-S that had that issue, and if you know more or less what you're doing, digital saves the day because you can do guess and check metering--just take a picture where you think it should be exposed, check exposure on the LCD, and adjust and reshoot if you need to. The AF indicator will still light up to tell you when the subject is in focus (though I admit it's not a sure thing on either body especially with the thin depth of field of a lens like the 50 1.2 wide open).

nikyvee said:
Hmmmm....???? I guess I really need to rethink this. At least really give the D90 a closer look...and feel.

I do appreciate the input. Still taking my credit card to the Photo Expo this weekend.
I know, that's very dangerous ~
Nick V

By the time you read this you are properly back with your new Ca***, just kidding. No actually I hope you came back with the D300s, because I shoot with a D300, but I shoot mostly sports, a D90 with a grip could do most of what the D300s can do except for the Fps and slight slower focus tracking. I would take the Sigma 150-500 over the Sigma 50-500 and both have to be purchased in a store, you need to try them out on your camera, Sigma honestly have quality control problems(I think their workers are out drinking on weekends and you don't want to buy lenses made on Mondays)

BTW Gentoo is from San Diego also

Pete

Hmmmm....???? I guess I really need to rethink this. At least really give the D90 a closer look...and feel.

I do appreciate the input. Still taking my credit card to the Photo Expo this weekend.
I know, that's very dangerous ~
Nick V

ok, I've read the photo background threat, and now I'm even more convinced that d90 would be a better camera for You - but it's Your choice and money :)

nick - You shouldn't have any problems with d90 body, I have big hands and it feels nicely (I have d200 apart from d90, and it's little bit bigger but the handling is pretty much the same - in case of ergonomics of course). As for off-brand long telephotos, go for Sigma 50-500 aka Bigma, just get it from reputable dealer (Adorama, BH). If You buy d90 over d300 You will save enough to get this lens.
One more thing about each of this cameras, if You want to add long tele, You also need to add batterypack - makes the whole set up much easier to handle - as it balances better. And once You add battery pack the difference between d90 and d300 truly vanishes - both will fit You like a glove.

You wrote that You want a better camera than d90... well, as for me I cannot justify to spend twice the money on something that doesn't give me too much more. The main differences between this two cameras are:
- d300s is little bit faster - unless You are really a pro or You don't shoot using continuos mode You wouldn't feel the difference
- d300s has a double card functionality - same as above, and if You will not use the double card feature all the times than there is just a feature
- d300s can handle older lenses better than d90 - You don't have any old lenses, so I guess it's not an important factor
- d300s has better AF - it's important of course, but I shoot animals with my d90 most of the times and never had any problems with AF speed - if You use AF-S lenses and the central AF sensor You shouldn't feel the difference too much (at least I haven't when I played with d300)
- d90 has theme modes - might be handy for You if You want to focus on Your subject, don't know Your photo background
- d90 is much cheaper - for the price of d300 You can have d90+bigma :) or + d90+sigma 100-300/4 (great lens), did I mentioned that there's no IQ difference between pictures produced on d90 vs d300s - it's the same sensor

As for the kind of shooting that I do. I guess I should say that while I have many years of living under my belt, I am still pretty much a beginner with photography. Now, many decades ago, I did have and use a Nikon film slr. I even forget which model it was, but it was before autofocus. In fact, when my eyes went bad, that is when I dropped photography and really just getting back into it this past year.

I have really been enjoying all the types of photo opportunities that I have had this past year. They include just strolling street shooting, but also: surf shots, desert/mountain landscapes, fashion shows, public events/art auctions, zoos, macro shots of model cars and airplanes. I'm lovin it! Just want a better camera than the Canon SX10is (a point and shoot with manual controls) that I presently am using.

NIck V

Gads, you guys, Jonnyapple/Adamz/Jjreason/Alphanikonrex~~
So much to think about. D90 versus D300s? I guess I am leaning away from the D90 because of the smaller body. The larger body of the D300s does feel more comfortable. To be honest, I am not really familiar with the difference between the two other than how they feel. That is based on a couple of stops at photo stores and playing with each of them for a very few minutes. The larger body just fits my hands better. I seem to bump into buttons on the smaller bodies.

The idea of an underwater housing is definitely a great idea. I do have, and use, a small sony p&s with an underwater housing for taking surfing and boogy boarding photos in the water. Last year, before I had the housing, I saw a dog surfing contest and there was only one photographer with an UW housing out in the water. Of course, that photographer happened to be one of our local newspaper's best photographers-KC Alfred. This next year I will be out in the water with my own UW camera, although it won't be my Nikon. too much money for the housing and not enough courage from me to risk the camera. THAT is just pushing my envelope a bit too much. Your idea of the D90 and the UW housing is a good idea though.

But I Want a better camera than the D90. I think.... Still a bit of uncertainty.
Btw, I will keep this group informed of my choices and how I feel about them after the purchase. Thanks again for the replies. Nick V

How about a D90 and an underwater housing for it? Then you could take that out in a downpour and not worry about it, and also swim out and get right up in the surfers' way (no need for a telephoto).

I still think you should consider the D90 and a lens as others have suggested. And if you're keeping the first body when you buy the D700 replacement, I wouldn't buy the D700 now just because DX offers an advantage in resolution (you can think of it as a cropped D3x sensor because they have the same resolution--the D3x just has twice the area). I don't think the D300s has much better video capability than the D90, either.

Adamz, I think I was the one you should have been arguing with, not warprints. And you're right that for portraits it's a toss-up between the extra resolution of a D90/D300 or the better low light performance of a D700.

If you are seeking superb image sharpness then you might wanna get a camera with AF fine tuning. I know some people are picky when it comes to AF and at 16X20 you might be able to see a slight AF error. Despite how great Nikon is, there can be consistent back/front focus errors in certain lens/camera combinations.

Here's an important question: Why do you like the D300S over the D90? Because if you can afford to get the D300S now with some lens, if you get the D90 you'll be able to get some 2 lenses!

Adamz - I think I wasn't very clear in my post - i certainly didn't mean to list all those things as better for 1.5 crop - I was really just saying a lot depends on which of those he does most.

Wow, thank you ALL for such good advice. I truly have benefited from it already. First, let me answer some of your questions.
Noxin's point about IQ is what is driving my urge to buy the D700. But does this mean the IQ of the D300s isn't "that" good? Of course not.

Ted2001: I have "played" with both cameras. In fact, it is my own personal preference for the "feel" of the Nikon cameras that led me to decide to buy Nikon instead of Canon. (About 2/3s of the folks in my photographic "neighborhood" use Canon's.) But the Nikons fit my clumsy hands better. The weight is not a problem for either. While I am currently trying to print 8/10's, I hope to improve my skills such that I would be able to have good 16/20's size prints eventually. I AM seeking image perfection/sharpness when it is at all possible. (I am always seeking a good time shooting. :) I would like simplicity when it comes to controls--that is sort of moved me towards the Nikons versus the Canons.

Adamz: Good lens suggestions and that relates to what I shoot. Living in San Diego, CA, I frequently have the chance to shoot surfers and do look forward to a nice long telephoto. I can't afford the Really nice ones; hence, that is driving part of me to get the D300s and take advantage of the DX lens effect. Along with that, we have some nice birds that I would like to shoot. (Ok, I am retired and I have plenty of time on my hands...for about 10 years or so anyway. So I can shoot almost anytime.) So I do want to have a 500mm lens at some point. (I will have to buy one of the non-Nikon lens to achieve that long a lens. I just can't afford, or justify to my wife, spending $5,000 for a camera lens. Shush, don't tell her how much all the lens will cost combined...

But I CAN afford to buy the D300s and in a year or two a D800 or whatever. And some lens. Hey, I'm spending my children's inheritance NOW!

Warprints: I would be keeping either the D300s or the D700, when I get the D800whatever.

After reading your all's suggestions so far, I am leaning toward get the D300s because I would kind of like the video capability, albeit not so great, but would also like the longer pull with lens with the D300s.

In any case, I am going to be considered a little peculiar by my local shooter/friends, not getting a Canon, but that's ok. Btw, we have a very nice group of local photographers (both amateur and pros) in our Sandy Eggo area. And some nice get togethers via the local San Diego "meetups" online groups. I'm lucky to have such nice and helpful friends. Both in person and on line, including you guys. thanks

I'm still "listening" if there are any other comments. I do tend to agonize over my photographic purchases, My wife kindly listens to all my thoughts, but at this point, she does just wish I would buy something!!!

I think the D700 also has the advantage of better high ISO quality.

Have you looked at the cameras in person? How large do you plan on making your enlargements? Are you seeking image perfection or a good time shooting? What feature set are you looking for?

I shoot some of the same things you are talking about (and am probably about your age) and I am extremely happy with DX format and a D90 for almost everything. The one thing my D90 won't do is work as well with the 85/2.8 PC-E and other less modern Nikon lenses of which I own several. I don't want the larger size of the D700 and associated lenses, plus the lack of an FX lens to match my 16-85 makes staying DX easier.