Looking to upgrade... Advice please

[EASmithV]

Hello fellow shooters,

I am currently using a Nikon D40X and while is still produces great images, it is inherently limited. I'm looking to upgrade to a D300 to gain more flexibility and easier shooting when using my old Manual Focus Lenses (AI'd), but for the price it's going for, I could get half a D700. Should I save and try to get a D700, or go with the D300? Cost is a very important factor here, but I'd like to see the consensus here... I looked into the D200, but I'm not sure if it's much better than the D40X.

Thanks!

 

[Pinholemaster]

the manual focus lenses would be easiler to work on an FX style camera, then a DX style. The D600, D700, D800, D3 series, or F4 would serve you well depending if you win the Mega-Millions.

Frankly, any camera other then the older D40 would be an improvement over the D40X.

 

[jd callow]

I use manual focus lenses on a D300 it works well, but would prefer an FX chip.

 

[CGW]

The D7000 is probably the best value DX body right now. No metering or focus issues with Ai/AiS/AFD lenses.It's nearing discontinuation and getting very affordable. The FX D600 is really a D7000 with an FX chip transplant--but is it really worth nearly 3x the price of the D7000? Depends on what type of shooting you're doing. Don't think a D300s or D700 is worth it unless you're getting a pretty one at a bargain price with a very low actuation count.

 

[Eric Rose]

I use all my old Nikkor glass on my D700 with outstanding results. Great camera.

 

[j-dogg]

I've been using manual-focus Nikkor pre-AI lenses with an adapter on a Canon 5D, with a focus screen from an FE2

No doubt, classic Nikkor glass is fantastic and still ranks right up there with modern AF primes

 

[Halka]

Wait wait, you used the focusing screen from an FE2 in your Canon 5D and your pictures were in focus?

 

[L Gebhardt]

Unless you need the better build or higher frame rate the d7000 has better image quality than the D300. But I would go for the D700. I think the Fx cameras are a better idea until Nikon starts releasing good DX primes. Since you have older MF lenses already it should be an easy choice.

 

[StoneNYC]

I wouldn't get a new camera at all...

I would focus on lenses, always put your money in the glass, that's your limitation... I've used a 40dx for a short time, and it's fine for any print up to 11x14 easy. Unless you're cropping it to hell.

The old Nikkor lenses might be pretty good, I'm a canon guy I don't know for sure (though I have a ton of Nikkor lenses from a neighbor, so that canon to Nikon mount interests me, but the back of the nikkor lenses are so small in comparison to the canon ones I can't believe the quality is better... So much compression... But I digress...).

Point is, get some nice Pro glass, not a new camera.


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Halka]

The problem is old MF glass works better on Canon EOS than modern midrange Nikons - OP's camera will outright refuse to meter with anything that doesn't have any electronics in it. That's also one of the reasons he's looking for an upgrade.

 

[CGW]

D200 bodies are getting very affordable now but don't expect great results over about ISO400. The combined pressures of the D7000, a possible new DX combined replacement for the D7000/D300s, and the sub-2 grand price of the D600 are driving down D300(s) prices. I'd wait to see what the upcoming CES and new models will do to used prices.

 

[StoneNYC]

The problem is old MF glass works better on Canon EOS than modern midrange Nikons - OP's camera will outright refuse to meter with anything that doesn't have any electronics in it. That's also one of the reasons he's looking for an upgrade.

So you're saying we should recommend he get a Canon then? hehe


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SafetyBob]

Since I have come to the party so late I will add my two cents.....I am in exactly the same place except I have a Nikon D60 so we are essentially talking about the same DX camera. Mine, which I bought used around a year old, still works great, takes great pictures.....everything is fine with the camera. Yes I have many good (only a hand full of "pro" glass) Nikon Ai and D lenses that I used with my film cameras.....I was looking at the D600 and if Rockwell is correct and there is a tinting issue with it, OK fine, D700. A used D700 is around 200 to 400 dollars of a new D600, do I really need FX when as pointed out a D7000 will use all those old Ai and Ais lenses? That's where I am going right now.

Would I LOVE to have a FX DSLR? You bet......do I really need one for just me pokin' around the yard taking pictures of the kids.....OK, "official" holiday and prom pictures.....do I have to have FX to get a good picture for all that? For me, nope......if I had the money I sure as heck would be farting around with a silly Nikon or Canon DSLR......think Phase One.....That's a digital camera.

For now, I will be looking at KEH and the "bay" for a good used D7000 and will be happy for many, many years.

Bob E.

 

[L Gebhardt]

Since I have come to the party so late I will add my two cents.....I am in exactly the same place except I have a Nikon D60 so we are essentially talking about the same DX camera. Mine, which I bought used around a year old, still works great, takes great pictures.....everything is fine with the camera. Yes I have many good (only a hand full of "pro" glass) Nikon Ai and D lenses that I used with my film cameras.....I was looking at the D600 and if Rockwell is correct and there is a tinting issue with it, OK fine, D700. A used D700 is around 200 to 400 dollars of a new D600, do I really need FX when as pointed out a D7000 will use all those old Ai and Ais lenses? That's where I am going right now.

Would I LOVE to have a FX DSLR? You bet......do I really need one for just me pokin' around the yard taking pictures of the kids.....OK, "official" holiday and prom pictures.....do I have to have FX to get a good picture for all that? For me, nope......if I had the money I sure as heck would be farting around with a silly Nikon or Canon DSLR......think Phase One.....That's a digital camera.

For now, I will be looking at KEH and the "bay" for a good used D7000 and will be happy for many, many years.

Bob E.

Rockwell is a blowhard and is making a whole lot of noise about nothing in my opinion. Rockwell may be right that there is a tinting issue with the D600 and D800, but it's only an issue if you only shoot JPG. There is no issue with the RAW files. I personally have never been happy with the color as it comes out of the camera 90% of the time. So I shoot RAW to let me tune things exactly as I want them. I don't know why a person who claims to be an "artist" would want to give up so much control (or worry about so many issues like color in the field).

I had a D7000 and thought it was a great camera. But the crop factor drove me crazy since there really isn't a decent set of prime lenses tuned for the cropped cameras. No decent 24mm and 85mm to 105mm equivalents. Certainly nothing in the 18 to 20mm range. The lack of a 24mm prime is what got me thinking of the switch to FX. I was going to get a D700, but then the D800 came out. I'm glad I made the switch as I can now use all those old AIS lens as they were intended (even if the D800E shows all their flaws at large print sizes). So think about how you shoot and see if you will be happy with the lens set you have available with the DX cameras.

In an ideal world I think DX could be the very useful sensor size, but the lack of prime lenses from Nikon really ruins it for me. Add in that DX lenses need to open an extra stop wider to give an equivalent rendering and you see that finding DX lenses that are equivalent to FX is hard. For example the 35mm f/1.8DX (on DX) has the same angle of view as the 50mm f/1.4 on FX. But actually is almost 2 stops behind it in terms of rendering shallow depth of field. This may not be important to you, but it does cut down your options. I find this to be less of an issue with longer lenses where I'm usually wishing for a bit more depth in FX. So if you primarily shoot long lenses then I think DX is usually better. But for the wides and normals it is lacking.

Sorry for the rambling answer.

 

[SafetyBob]

Thank you thank you thank you!!! This is exactly the reason why everyone should be at DPUG and APUG......"the" answer I was looking for.

I was shooting in RAW myself with my silly D60 and playing around in Lightroom and really bumping up my results, particularly when I tried it in earnest with some prom pictures I did. It was almost scary that I had that much control over my photos. I was able to bump my photos up so they were the best results I have EVER had. The .jpg thing was certainly easier to get out of the camera and into emails for family, but thanks for reminding me about RAW.

In particular, I had never considered that RAW is RAW and that any "color shift" was a result of camera processing for .jpg and was not an inherent problem with the camera itself. I can't tell you how much I was excited when the D600 was announced and further that the price although large was not crazy like the D3S or something along that road.

I so want to play with my favorite old Ai lenses so bad with a real DSLR and not have to go through the added work of developing, scanning and all the rest. Don't get me wrong, I love my FA, FE, F4S, and my F5........I will play with them when I have the time to devote to them. For 99% of the time, the just plain easy of DSLR is just wonderful and brought me back into photography more than playing with film.....

Wow, so now I really do need to ask myself D7000 or D600........

Bob E.

 

[L Gebhardt]

The .jpg thing was certainly easier to get out of the camera and into emails for family, but thanks for reminding me about RAW.

Try using Adobe Lightroom. I think you'll find that once you start importing photos into it, that even Raw photos are easy to manage. There are simple exports for the web and email, and you can define your own parameters. Any edits you make to the images will be applied to the exported images. LR makes shooting Raw as simple as JPG, but with more flexibility. There's a free trial for LR at Adobe's site as well, so you can try it with no risk.

 

[SafetyBob]

I have and use Lightroom 3.6 right now and once I got the hang of it, which didn't take very long, it was incredibly powerful. I will expand my knowledge a bit and see if I can figure out web and email exports as all I did was have it go right into Photoshop inorder for last minute touchup, then I would print on the old dye-sub Kodak.

Bob E.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

go for the D600 or D700 if you can affor it. full frame has benefits for wide-angle and leaxes room to crop.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Stone is right;put your money into the glassnot the bodybut if you invest into FXglass get an FXbody too.D700 and D800are both well worth the money.Hey ;it's only once evry few years; right?

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone is right;put your money into the glassnot the bodybut if you invest into FXglass get an FXbody too.D700 and D800are both well worth the money.Hey ;it's only once evry few years; right?

At some point you stop worrying about the body or the lens... And start focussing on the image.

I haven't bought a new 35mm lens or body since 2009. I just made this today.... No crop, no light but the sun... No photoshop, very little if any adjustments to the original image out of camera.



Sorry about the censorship but I can't recall if this forum is friendly to this stuff and just smarter to be careful.

Sure I used expensive Canon equipment to create this because it's what I use because I shoot in harsh conditions and need the extra heartiness of a pro model, but I could have made this with a camera and lens that cost $300 combined.total.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

At some point you stop worrying about the body or the lens... And start focussing on the image..

Mabebut, for some of us,the journy is more important than the destination.I'm in photography because, I loveto play with all the fancy equipmentThe final image is just my excuse to buy all this great equipmentandnot my prime concern;just want to have funin this life.

 

[StoneNYC]

Mabebut, for some of us,the journy is more important than the destination.I'm in photography because, I loveto play with all the fancy equipmentThe final image is just my excuse to buy all this great equipmentandnot my prime concern;just want to have funin this life.

Says the man who's published a bunch of books and creates beautiful images

 

[Pioneer]

Think about it! What a great excuse for buying new equipment!

"Dear, oh Dear. I am getting ready to write a book and I am going to need..."

Not trying to pick on you Ralph. I have enjoyed your work, written and photographic.

 

[StoneNYC]

Think about it! What a great excuse for buying new equipment!

"Dear, oh Dear. I am getting ready to write a book and I am going to need..."

Not trying to pick on you Ralph. I have enjoyed your work, written and photographic.

Haha!!!!

So true, I better go write a book to justify buying all this stuff I want

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I enjoy all the fancy photographic equipment.it's wonderful and often thepinicleof mechanical and electronic achievements;I islike theconversation killers such as'it's all about the image';no it's not;It's all about the toysbecause, notoys ,no joys!Get all the toys you want,eventully they will help you to make great imagesbecause;they keep the passion fueled.if it's aALL ABOUT THE IMAGE.I would go and buy some.the real good once have been taken already.You can't compete with the hall of famersin photography anymore.they set tthe bar too high.