The D300 is one of the Nikons I will never sell. It has never failed me and has taken some of the best images I have ever shot. As I was way into large format photography for years it is very far from the most expensive camera I have used. Another rig I will never sell is the D90 and every day it accompanies me to job sites. The verdict is still out on my D7000 and for sure the video is superior to many DSLR cameras and I prefer it over our 12 movie cameras. Another nikon I will never sell is my F5 film camera. THe lens from the F5 though may well get heavily used if I get a D800, D600, etc. I owned a D700. I sold it. It was a very good still camera but I decided that I needed video. I found that my team always picked up the D300 or even D200 in preference to the D700. Still I rate the D700 as one of the best Nikons ever. The D300 is such a good camera that I personally doubt that the images in good lighting are not equal to the D700. I almost always use the D300 on ISO 640. Using a D300 on ISO 200 for me stopped after I did a batch of 20x30 prints at ISO 200, 400, 640, and 800. NO ONE could tell the difference. Only advantage I could ever see in the FX D700 was in VERY low light. Then the D700 was better. I myself keep on shooting but keep checking out NR more to see if a D400 might ever surface.
Is the D300 good enough..?
(43 posts) (20 voices)-
Posted 10 months ago #
-
I will start by freely admitting I do not have nearly as much experience as many people in this forum. I just recently picked up a D300 because of a few reasons. I think that for most people it makes very little sense to go from a D5100 to a D300. For many average users the D5100 sensor can trump so many features of the D300. For me personally however, I really wanted the D300 for several reasons, 1- I don't have much money to throw at camera gear. I found a really great bargain grade at KEH I couldn't pass up. 2- I just can't afford AF-S lenses. I have mostly been shooting wildlife and especially birds. The best long lens I could afford is a Tamron 200-500 that I found very cheap on craigslist. 3- I really wanted the best AF-system available in a DX camera. 4- I really wanted AF fine tune for my cheap Tamron. 5- I have a few non cpu lenses that I use once in awhile, and it is nice to have the D300 meter with them. I have no interest in video. I also have a D200 that is full spectrum converted and I absolutely love the handling of it, which made me really want the D300. If money wasn't an issue I would have went in a different direction...
So for most people I think glass is a better investment. So if you are unhappy with things (or lack of) on your D5100 than a different body might make sense. Think if you have very specific reasons why you want a D300 other than the experience. Of course this is just my humble opinion...
Posted 10 months ago # -
@coastalconn Sounds like you have a lot more experience than you give yourself credit for. I had a D200, foolishly sold it. Have D90 and D4 now. Am waiting for the D400. The simple fact is, the D300 will produce photos just like all the others with only one exception and that is the extremely hi ISO.
So often folks think the only way to get good photos is to have the best or newest equipment. My suspicions are your wildlife photos with your knowledge are quite nice. When one talks about AF fine tune, this is beyond most user's knowledge.
Show us some of your wildlife on PAD.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Thanks to all that responded since I resurrected this thread :)
I've now been asked to do a wedding, fortunately not solo as I'd be too worried about messing up on my own, towards the end of August - so I have a little prep. time.
I'm thinking about putting together a budget wedding starter kit for myself to get up and running with: my existing D5100 wearing the 35mm f1.8G and another, second hand D5100 body wearing either the 50mm f1.8G, 50mm 1.4G or the 85mm 1.8G, all of which I can probably stretch to money wise, although the 85mm might be a bit too long on DX. I'll take advise on that 2nd lens choice before I spend my magic beans.
I'll also have the Nikkor 10-24mm in the bag, just in case - but I feel that's more of a landscape lens - but I suppose you never know.
How does that sound to the more experienced members here on the NRF?
Posted 10 months ago # -
Good luck! Seems like shooting one with someone else would be the way to start off. Having no wedding shooting experience I think I would go for the 85 instead of the 50. Those two would give you a better choice between two lenses since there isn't much of a difference in the 35 and 50. Plus the 85 is great for portraits.
If I did this I was thinking I would shoot my 17-55 F2.8 and a second body with 105 F2.8. I would like the zoom for some flexibility and the prime for portrait and shots that need a little more range. I know the 70-200 is pretty popular for wedding, but the 80-200 AF-S might another option.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Good point, I guess the 50mm and 35mm focal points are quite close. Perhaps I should more seriously consider the 85mm 1.8G then.
I was just concerned as to the length of 85mm on a DX body being quite limiting in a wedding environment, being equivalent to what, a 135mm lens on an FX body in terms of angle of view?
Posted 10 months ago # -
Postman said:
Good point, I guess the 50mm and 35mm focal points are quite close. Perhaps I should more seriously consider the 85mm 1.8G then.I was just concerned as to the length of 85mm on a DX body being quite limiting in a wedding environment, being equivalent to what, a 135mm lens on an FX body in terms of angle of view?
I guess it depends on the venue the wedding is at, but 85 is a pretty good focal length for portraits. I shoot my 105 on DX and it works wonderful. Mike just posted some pictures of the 85 and 60 F2.8 in the favorite lens thread if you want to check those out. IMO the 85 would give you more range for those shots that you don't want to be in their face to get the shots...like during the ceremony. This is me just talking though as I don't have experience with it. Because of the focal length it also gives you good subject isolation...something you can't really do with the 35 and would still be kind of hard with the 50.
Posted 10 months ago # -
The more I think about what you've said I'm going for the 85mm 1.8G. Considering the price of the 50mm 1.8G though (less than £150 some places) I'll probably just get that too, so that's x3 1.8G primes and two D5100 bodies to share them. That 50mm seems a right steal at that price.
Thanks for your help.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Postman said:
The more I think about what you've said I'm going for the 85mm 1.8G. Considering the price of the 50mm 1.8G though (less than £150 some places) I'll probably just get that too, so that's x3 1.8G primes and two D5100 bodies to share them. That 50mm seems a right steal at that price.Thanks for your help.
Might also recommend looking through the PAD thread...lots of different lenses on there. I think all are capable, but it is just a matter of what is going to work best for you. I too have thought about picking up the 50 F1.8G just because it is so inexpensive...just haven't gotten around to it yet.
Posted 10 months ago # -
tcole1983 said:
Might also recommend looking through the PAD thread...lots of different lenses on there.Therein lies a problem - this is supposed to be a budget kit and that thread makes me want to spend so much money, month after month.
Having seen plenty of samples from the 85mm 1.4G, I almost have to have someone hide my wallet.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Postman said:
Therein lies a problem - this is supposed to be a budget kit and that thread makes me want to spend so much money, month after month.Having seen plenty of samples from the 85mm 1.4G, I almost have to have someone hide my wallet.
Lol...there are lots of the recent pictures with the 85 F1.8G. For the price and for those with a budget I don't think you can go wrong with any of the new 1.8G lenses. They all seem to perform about as well as the 1.4 lenses with 1/3 or less of the price. Until you start to make significant amounts of money or if you really want to spend the money I don't see any reason to get the F1.4 lenses for non-pro/working photogs..
Posted 10 months ago # -
I caved, I got both. All in all, by the end of the week I'll have a budget wedding kit of x2 D5100's, a trio of 1.8G lenses, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm and an SB-600 all for a little under £1,300.00. Not bad I don't think.
There's always a fairly healthy second hand market for them if it all goes horribly wrong!
Posted 10 months ago # -
Postman said:
I caved, I got both. All in all, by the end of the week I'll have a budget wedding kit of x2 D5100's, a trio of 1.8G lenses, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm and an SB-600 all for a little under £1,300.00. Not bad I don't think.There's always a fairly healthy second hand market for them if it all goes horribly wrong!
Good luck! Hope it goes well.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Just my two cents I think a 18-105vr would be a good addition. I love shooting primes, but many times at weddings, you don't always have the option to "move your feet" or to change lenses quick enough for the shot. Really depends on the venue and the ceremony. My preference is a 70-200 equiv and 35mm equiv lens for most of the shoots at weddings. Of course there are macro, wide, other ambient shots that I use other lenses for but vast majority of the time those are my main two.
Posted 10 months ago # -
I also have the first generation 18-200mm... and a big enough bag!
Posted 10 months ago # -
Postman said:
I caved, I got both. All in all, by the end of the week I'll have a budget wedding kit of x2 D5100's, a trio of 1.8G lenses, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm and an SB-600 all for a little under £1,300.00. Not bad I don't think.There's always a fairly healthy second hand market for them if it all goes horribly wrong!
Good choice. Let us know how it goes eh?
Posted 10 months ago # -
Postman said:
I also have the first generation 18-200mm... and a big enough bag!That with your "trio of 1.8G lenses, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm and an SB-600" you are good to go. I would keep the zoom on one body and swap primes on the other. When it's slow, you can swap & if you are caught in the middle, you have every focal length you need on the other body.
Just shoot RAW so you can monkey with the WB. Good Luck!
Posted 10 months ago # -
Thanks all!
Posted 10 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
