Next Dslr for me

[Robert Brummitt]

Hello,
I know I might sound like a newbie but I would like your thoughts on this. I have been saving for a new Dslr. I currently work with a Fuji Pro S2 and at work a Nikon D200. So, I'm leaning towards Nikon. I have the D300 on my mind. Not the D300s model just the 300. I don't do video.
Anyways, any of you out there use the 300? Do you like it? What are it's bennies? What are it's faults? What is a fair price for a use one?
Any thoughts or suggestions would be great!
Thanks.

 

[JBrunner]

Hi Robert,

Several things to consider. If you don't have an investment in Nikon lenses, take a look at Canon as well. Contrary to the positions taken in the giant argument sure to ensue, one isn't any better than the other when taken as a whole. One may like one better though, so if you don't have a lens commitment it is good to examine both. Personally, I think ergonomics, not technical stuff is the chief deciding factor between the two. Things change so fast technically now that whatever you pick will be outmoded in 24 months or less. If you have a lens commitment, the choice is usually made. I tend not to go beyond the two (Canon, Nikon) because these brands have by far the most 3rd party accessories, used accessories, etc.

Not having Nikon lenses I can't comment on the D300 except to say that Nikon builds fine cameras. The Canon equivalent would probably be the 7d. I'd find a store and get my mitts on both, and see what felt better to me.

Just my opinion, YMMV.

 

[resummerfield]

I found the D300 very similar to the D200solid, well designed, and easy to use. I didn't see much difference in the image quality when going from the D200 to the D300, except in low light conditions. I would guess used prices are around 7-800.

The biggest improvement I noted was getting a D700 full frame modelthe larger viewfinder helps manual focusing, and the low light performance is much better.

 

[jd callow]

I chose Nikon simply because I understand how to use them. As Jbrunner stated they are both fine cameras. At the time I bought my camera I needed macro lenses. The canon lenses I felt were better, but I disliked/wasn't familiar with the camera controls so I bought the Nikon. Almost immediately after buying the Nikon camera nikon came out with two beautiful 105 and 60 macros that were on par w/ the Canon's.

You won't go wrong which ever one you pick.

 

[pschwart]

ergonomics, not technical stuff is the chief deciding factor

Certainly everyone has his/her own requirements for pixel count, lens availability, low light performance, size/weight, stabilization, yada yada, but I agree that ergonomics are key. I have a number of Canon film and digitaL SLRs including the EOS1, 10D and a 40D. The digital SLRs have the stopdown prevview button the the left side of the lens, an impossible location for me. The EOS1 put this right where it belongs , and switching between film and digital bodies is awkward. I'd consider another brand for this alone. It's not a bad strategy to rent a camera for a weekend to really get a feel for it before buying.

 

[JBrunner]

Certainly everyone has his/her own requirements for pixel count, lens availability, low light performance, size/weight, stabilization, yada yada, but I agree that ergonomics are key. I have a number of Canon film and digitaL SLRs including the EOS1, 10D and a 40D. The digital SLRs have the stopdown prevview button the the left side of the lens, an impossible location for me. The EOS1 put this right where it belongs , and switching between film and digital bodies is awkward. I'd consider another brand for this alone. It's not a bad strategy to rent a camera for a weekend to really get a feel for it before buying.

Yes you are correct, but that is usually addressed with the camera model, not brand. My point is that although technically they may leapfrog each other a bit, they both offer essentially the new model out as the next new model of the model down and so on, at least in a broad sense, and these days if you don't like it, just wait 15 minutes. For all intents and purposes a brand preference largely boils down to ergonomics, aesthetics, loyalty, or lenses.

 

[R Shaffer]

There are just so many good choices that for me it would be mostly dependent upon what I intend to use the camera for. I'm a nikon guy, nothing wrong with canon, I just don't know the line.
So if it were mostly something for travel & family picts the D7000 looks pretty hard to beat. Smaller, lightweight, but still with the chops to make a fine image.
If I was upgrading from my D200, which I love, and cost was no issue then it would be D700. The larger sensor with those big fat pixels, better dynamic range and no crop factor. It's their previous flagship D3 in a smaller package for $2k less.
If I had to quickly replace my D200, say stolen or broken, I would go with D300 in a heart beat, although if I could squeeze out more dollars in my budget then I'd upgrade to the D700.

 

[JBrunner]

I have too found the larger sensors to be significantly better. For instance, my 12mp D1s produces a clearly better image under the same conditions and processing as my new 18mp 7d. It's just not as big.

 

[R Shaffer]

I have too found the larger sensors to be significantly better. For instance, my 12mp D1s produces a clearly better image under the same conditions and processing as my new 18mp 7d. It's just not as big.

My experience as well. The improvement in image quality is significant and you can really really bend those pixels if you are so inclined.

 

[Robert Brummitt]

OK, Thanks for the information. I have one nikon lens and it's a cheapie. But it's sharp.
If I was to try a Canon, which one? I'm looking for something similar to Nikon's d200 or better 300 series.
I use a d200 at work and like how it feel in my hands but sometimes my fat fingers move the shutter or aperture dials on the right hand side of the camera.
Does Canon have the same design?
R

 

[Paul Sorensen]

I have to concur about Jason and Rob's statements regarding sensor size. In fact, I think that once you get up to the 10 - 12 MP range, there is little point in going to a larger resolution unless you want to make really tight crops or very large enlargements. The battle of resolution reminds me of stereos in the 70s and 80s and watts per channel or computers and the megahertz comparisons a few years ago. It makes relatively little difference to the final product but by squeezing in more pixels, the manufacturers are compromising noise and low light performance. I think in most cases, you will gladly trade off a little resolution for less noise and faster ISO.

As for Canons, they have a large dial on the back that can be controlled by the thumb in addition to the dial near the shutter button. I am not a huge fan of the layout, but I did kind of get used to it. I think you really need to play around with one to know how it will feel to you.

 

[Paul Sorensen]

One more thing, the Canon 40D, 50D or 7D Canons are pretty much in the same general category as the D200 and D300 Nikons.

 

[ajmiller]

Forget the 40D especially second hand.....

I find the 7D ergonomically as near to a Nikon as can be but you need one in the hand. Rental departments usually have older cameras around you can try out.

 

[jd callow]

I bought a 12mp (d300) as it would make an 8x10/12 or full page image with little or no resolution modification. When they came out with a full frame 12mp (d700) a few months later I was a bit bummed as I prefer the 35mm to lens relationship, but I'm still good with what I have.

 

[pschwart]

The 40D is the sweet spot in the Canon APS-C offerings. You can pay more for the 7D or 50D which pack more pixels onto the same sensor or add video, but they won't give you a higher quality image. I got a used 40D in excellent condition to replace an aging 10D and I have never been sorry.

Forget the 40D especially second hand.....

I find the 7D ergonomically as near to a Nikon as can be but you need one in the hand. Rental departments usually have older cameras around you can try out.

 

[OldBikerPete]

I have a Canon 7D and I am happy with it. I had a Canon 20D for 5 years before that and I was happy with that, too.

However I'd like to throw a spanner in your works and suggest you have a look at the Pentax range of DSLR's also.

They have build quality, good lenses and Image Stabilisation built into the body.

 

[pschwart]

I have a Pentax too. It's worth owning one just to be able to use the pancake lenses. Stabilization in the body is a big plus, especially if you have a collection of old Pentax lenses.

I have a Canon 7D and I am happy with it. I had a Canon 20D for 5 years before that and I was happy with that, too.

However I'd like to throw a spanner in your works and suggest you have a look at the Pentax range of DSLR's also.

They have build quality, good lenses and Image Stabilisation built into the body.

 

[Robert Brummitt]

Ok, the D700 is interesting. I have a friend who works with the D3 but I don't have the wallet for that machine and it's heavy.
Someone says look into Canon. What is the equivalent?

 

[jd callow]

Just to muddy the waters the Sony α900 and a850 are excellent cameras, and they use Rokker (Minolta auto focus) lenses which are very under rated and less expensive on the used market. They are very competitively priced and have image stabilization built into the bodies.

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs...0151&langId=-1&categoryId=8198552921644770499

FWIW Sony and Nikon often share sensors.

 

[JBrunner]

Just to muddy the waters the Sony α900 and a850 are excellent cameras, and they use Rokker (Minolta auto focus) lenses which are very under rated and less expensive on the used market. They are very competitively priced and have image stabilization built into the bodies.

All DSLR | Sony | Sony Style USA

FWIW Sony and Nikon often share sensors.

I have looked longingly at some of the other brands. Because I use my cameras professionally and because the profession isn't lucrative enough for me to own every camera that scratches an itch (almost every one does). I have stuck to one of the two "biggies" basically because almost every thing you could imagine is available for them include super niche third party stuff. I'm not knocking any camera. As a matter of fact I wish I could own them all.

 

[jd callow]

My first serious 35mm was a Minolta and it was a damn nice camera so I have a warm spot for them. Meanwhile, I agree that some things are only available to the bigger named cameras and if your specialization requires it there is no choice. If it is an occasional need... As a friend once told me: Borrow what you do not own; Rent what you cannot borrow; and when all else fails buy. It is too easy to work for equipment and not for food when doing photography.

 

[JBrunner]

My dad told me something about renting if it flys, floats, er... nevermind...

 

[JS 2011]

dpreview.com

 

[jd callow]

Dpreview is good. Talking to people you know and trust is better and renting is best. I like Ken Rockwell's site better than dpreview as it tends to be more entertaining.

 

[Paul Sorensen]

Ok, the D700 is interesting. I have a friend who works with the D3 but I don't have the wallet for that machine and it's heavy.
Someone says look into Canon. What is the equivalent?

The closest Canon to a D700 is the 5D MkII. As far as resolution goes, the 5D is actually closer to a D700, but the D700 is much newer and has some serious advantages, most notably low light performance. The 5DII has a 21MP sensor as opposed to the 12MP for the D700 and original 5D.