What Nikon body to get?? - Honda Accord Forum : V6 Performance Accord Forums
Ribbon Banner

Go Back   Honda Accord Forum : V6 Performance Accord Forums > GENERAL DISCUSSION > RANDOM CHATTER > TECHNOLOGY CORNER > V6P PHOTOGRAPHY CLUB
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read Insurance
V6Performance.net is the premier Honda Accord Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 21st, 2009, 04:14 PM   #1
Moderator
 
00Accord4cyl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 3,436
What Nikon body to get??

OKKKK...so i have a big decision to make...i kinda want to move into photography as my source of income haha...I have just been applying to lots of business jobs involving my major and to be honest the more i try the more i think it would not fit me. I just do not think I can be the guy in the suit all day every day talking on my blackberry using random business terms i learned in class..


Well right now I have a Nikon D80, and i have had it for about 3-4 years. It has worked great, but i have come to the point where I really need an upgrade for a few reasons. Especially if i am going to try and do this for money. I have been reading up on Kenrockwell about Nikon reviews and it has helped a tad on my decision, but his site only seems to add more bodies to the decision. Every review seems to be a circular cycle pointing to another camera body to get haha.

Which body would be my best bet? I do not think I could(financial reasons)or would need to go all the way up to full frame except MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE a D700. Which is realistically still out of budget. The only other body worth considering then would be the D300 or D300s. The S has the video mode which would be awesome, and I have heard it is easier to use. BUT is it worth the extra 400 plus dollars?

I know some people would say switch to Canon, and i love their new 7D. But since I already have a few lenses I just do not want to make the switch. Plus I did not like the feel of the first Canon I shot.

Help me please. IF i can convince my family, as in grandparents and all, I may see if they could all just chip in and pay for part of it. Have that as my Christmas and B-day present. This would cut back my cost some, and give me more money towards optics.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
00Accord4cyl is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old October 21st, 2009, 09:10 PM   #2
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
Which lenses do you have again? And what sort of shooting do you think you'd want to get into? Like weddings? Formal portraiture / model shoots? Honestly it's pretty tough to make a living in photography these days. Business savvy is just as much if not more important than your actual photography skills believe it or not!
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 21st, 2009, 09:59 PM   #3
J35 6Spd
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 6,107
if a d300 or even d90 has the tools you need to make some money.. get one of those then see if you really need to upgrade to full frame or something with higher ISO later. the name of the game seems to be more about lenses so just get the body with features you need to get by for now.
Kschwiggy is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old October 21st, 2009, 10:52 PM   #4
Moderator
 
00Accord4cyl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 3,436
right now i just have kit 18-55, a sigma zoom, 50mm f1.8, 24mm f2.8...so none are really amazing..then i have the SB600..next purchase will probably be the 80-200 f2.8


yeah i hear ya on the tough part...i know i am not amazing at photography right now, but i have seen a huge improvement over the past year. It is really the only thing i enjoy doing daily minus bike riding. I would try and focus on doing senior portraits/weddings, that kinda stuff, but i think i would enjoy sporting more. But that would probably just be a side job because i am sure they could not make a living.

My mom works at a high school, and we know lots of families, so i could probably get my name out pretty quick for senior pictures and maybe even weddings since quite a few people my age are starting to get married. I have already had friends ask if me if I could do theirs. Maybe charge a cheaper rate just to get people to know me, and since my bills are low i could take the sacrifice. I have been talking to one of my friends who decided to skip college to do photography. He has been doing pretty good over the past few years, but he said it was miserable at the beginning since he was having to spend all his money getting better equipment.

I could handle the business side pretty easily since that is my background from college. This will probably just turn into a side hobby though, but I figured while i am trying to find a job I would enjoy I could at least do this.
00Accord4cyl is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 21st, 2009, 11:54 PM   #5
Destroyer of Tires
 
Doctor_X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: OC and IE California
Posts: 16,094
My D300 is pretty sweet, it would be an nice upgrade for you. Honestly I haven't had any complaints about mine since I've purchased it.



Doctor_X is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 22nd, 2009, 12:49 AM   #6
Registered User
 
Aznboyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NorCal 408
Posts: 171
Honestly if I were you, I would sell all the lens and try to switch to Canon because I know a couple professional photographers and they are all using Canon, and they also told me that there are only a few professional photographers who use Nikon because they are hard to work with also the color is a little bit harsh compare to the Canon. I'm also thinking of switching to Canon, I have a D90 but it's just hard to work with in RAW. I had a Canon myself before the Nikon and I would say Canon is way easier to work with the RAW files.

Just my 2cents
Aznboyz is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 22nd, 2009, 03:17 AM   #7
Destroyer of Tires
 
Doctor_X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: OC and IE California
Posts: 16,094
wat.

That's a matter of opinion... Of all the Canon bodies I've used, my Nikon is far easier to navigate. I've used a Rebel XT, Rebel XTi, Rebel XSi, EOS10D, EOS20D, EOS30D, EOS40D, EOS50D, EOS5D, and EOS5D MKII...



Doctor_X is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 22nd, 2009, 08:58 AM   #8
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by 00Accord4cyl View Post
I have been talking to one of my friends who decided to skip college to do photography. He has been doing pretty good over the past few years, but he said it was miserable at the beginning since he was having to spend all his money getting better equipment.
Yeah your friend is right. Based on what you've got you'll definitely want more. The good news though is that in the grand scheme of things, the level of capital investment you need to get a decent photography business going is actually quite LOW. You can easily stay in the four-figure range for all your gear and have a pretty complete setup! Assuming you're doing weddings at $3k a pop, the investment will pay for itself pretty quickly. And in this economy, if you have the means to be your own employer and generate your own income (or supplement a not so great main job), more power to ya.

I think you're on the right track. An 80-200 f/2.8D should definitely be next. For event type work you're definitely going to want a fast mid-zoom lens that's sharp wide-open and also focuses super quickly. Used Nikon 17-55 is what you want, unless you plan to go full-frame in which case you might want to get a used 28-70/2.8 "Beast" lens instead. There's no reason you couldn't shoot a ton of stuff and get great photos just with those two lenses, and a 50mm. The rest is just luxury, personal style, etc.

Bodies, yeah you'll definitely want to upgrade the D80 at some point, but I'd do it after you get some lenses. On the D80 I found that if I really wanted to shoot fast and seriously, it just wouldn't operate the way I wanted it to and it ended up being a very cumbersome camera. For senior shoots and other slower moving stuff it'd be fine though. The D90 is a big improvement, but there's a whole lot of little things about the D200/300 level cameras that will make your life a ton easier if you're doing something nuts like a wedding since they operate faster and smarter. For now I'd look into at least a used D200 or possibly a used D300 if you could afford it, and later upgrade your D80 to a D90 perhaps. Don't dismiss a little D40 either as a secondary/backup. Believe it or not it's a very FAST operating camera which is exactly what you need for photojournalist type events. I've shot corporate events with my D200/70-200VR and D40/17-55 combo and it worked great. Would do equally well at weddings. High ISO is a stop better than the D80 too as far as screen quality, although print quality ends up being about the same if you're doing enlargements.

If you seriously want to get into photography business FULL-TIME to the point of being able to charge $3-5k for weddings, you'll need the very best equipment to compete with the other professionals who are charging that much also. That means a D700 or D3, and nice full-frame glass. When you're paying $3-5k these days they'll be expecting nice ceremony shots in a dark church at ISO 3200 to 6400. In the meantime start shooting anything and everything you can both to learn but also to start building a portfolio.

I'm going to start doing more professional work in the next year or two. I've had to turn away stuff actually, mainly because my two kids (2-1/2 and 8 months) have been draining every bit of energy out of me that I have, but next year and especially 2011 it'll be much better. I got another lead on a wedding yesterday (for 2011) and will probably follow up on it. A buddy and I might team up to shoot it together and split it 50/50. We've both shot weddings before, but neither one of us wants to shoot them solo. So wish me luck too!
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 22nd, 2009, 09:51 AM   #9
Moderator
 
00Accord4cyl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 3,436
Thanks for the info!!!! I just do not think I could make the switch to Canon. I have used a Rebel, and I know it is one of their base bodies but I hated the feeling of it.

Kevin, did you know a big difference even from going from the D200 to the D300? Also did you search for a used one or buy new? I know amazon always has used for sale, but I am so nervous about buying stuff like this used.

I have always thought about having a backup/secondary body and since my D80 has about 17K shutter actuations I could probably just keep it and put my 50mm on it. Or like you said just upgrade that to the D90. I will probably try and get the D300, and used would be nice. Right now I have the money to buy a new one, and I could get a nice lens, but do i really want to spend the majority of my money on this right now.

I actually could of shot a wedding already but I told them no because I was not at the point to where I felt confident about my photos. And this being a wedding I want to be 100% confident I can take the photos since I would be dealing with a newly wed woman haha. I might try and just help somebody else shoot a wedding for free so I can get the feeling of everything.

As far as flash equipment would the SB600 do fine also? All of the weddings I have been to the photography either had some sort of ring flash, or attachment to make the flash more external if that makes sense.
00Accord4cyl is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 22nd, 2009, 10:31 AM   #10
J35 6Spd
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 6,107
last wedding i was at the photographers just had a sb800/800 with a big cone diffuser on it and the pics came out good. ring flash might make nicer face shots though
Kschwiggy is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 22nd, 2009, 10:40 AM   #11
t|23v0|2 n00b t00n3|2
 
Trevendous03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 3,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aznboyz View Post
Honestly if I were you, I would sell all the lens and try to switch to Canon because I know a couple professional photographers and they are all using Canon, and they also told me that there are only a few professional photographers who use Nikon because they are hard to work with also the color is a little bit harsh compare to the Canon. I'm also thinking of switching to Canon, I have a D90 but it's just hard to work with in RAW. I had a Canon myself before the Nikon and I would say Canon is way easier to work with the RAW files.

Just my 2cents
Ummmm... a lot of pros use Nikon too. I know some wedding photographers who do, and these Canon-user wedding photogs who make $700/hr shooting weddings told me they have been in the business 15 years and they started out with Nikon. They like Nikon better but had to switch to Canon because of less expensive bodies.

Pro fashion photographers most of the time use Hasselblad or Phase One cameras haha but we all know those cost way more than we even want to ponder.

BTW, Eric, get the D300S (don't settle for the older D300 if you're gonna be getting that body type)... the newer the body, the better.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Slammed Club Member #56 (Stage I) | "I like a quiet life, you know me."
DSLR Info | Nikon D700 | Nikkor 16-35 f/4 | Nikkor 35 f/2 | Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8
Nikkor 50 f/1.4G | Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 | Nikkor 105 VR Micro | AlienBees
Trevendous03 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 22nd, 2009, 11:30 AM   #12
(つ◕‿◕)つ*.★.*.★.* .★.
 
Red02AccordV6_2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,498
it's not really about the brand of the camera, it's more about what's easiest for you. I personally can't stand Canon ergonomics. They do have some nice bodies and lenses but Nikons just feel better in my hand and their menu systems are more clear. I love my d300 and don't plan on upgrade anytime soon. For it's price, i think it's a really good all-around camera in terms of speed, high ISO, features, ruggedness etc. The only downside is it can be a bit big and bulky at times. I wish I still had by old d40x body for times when I don't want to carry my D300. My suggestion is definitely keep your d80 as a backup or for times when you want a smaller camera or when you're shooting in a shady area.

As far as D300 or D300s, the revisions aren't enough to warrant the price difference IMO. You won't see a difference in photos taken with a d300 vs a d300s. I'm almost certain. You're better off spending the difference on accessories that'll make a noticeable difference in your photos like softboxes, umbrellas, gels, stands, etc.
Red02AccordV6_2 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 22nd, 2009, 11:45 AM   #13
Moderator
 
00Accord4cyl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 3,436
Yeah one huge reason I want the upgrade is the High ISO capability. With my D80 I do not like putting the ISO up to even 500. Even with that small of an increase I can tell a huge rise in how grainy the photos are. But with the newer bodies can't you go up to the thousands and still be fine? Seemed like I read somewhere that the D300 and D700 perform good up to even 3600.

But to be honest, even though the video feature is not great on the D300s. I kinda think I would enjoy having that capability. I know Rockwell dogs the video feature, but I have always wanted video at certain events I am shooting stills at. Such as Mtn Bike events.

I found an 80-200 F2.8 for 500 bucks few days ago but it was an older model. So i passed because after reading reviews it has a really slow AF motor. So i guess i need to just wait till i can find a newer one with the tripod mount and faster focusing.

Got a few pms on a local forum site over the past week though about taking photos of their cars. I need to come up with a good rate.
00Accord4cyl is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 22nd, 2009, 12:00 PM   #14
Destroyer of Tires
 
Doctor_X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: OC and IE California
Posts: 16,094
I did notice quite a big difference between a D200 and D300, but I never owned a D200 so yeah haha. I have played with a few though. I bought mine new but it was through a vendor accommodation from when I was working at Circuit City. I got my camera for $1459 after tax and shipping - and this was when the camera's retail price was $1700 or $1800! You can probably find them for the price I got mine for in today's money quite easily. Honestly though I think it was a great investment for me. I have no regrets in buying it, the camera is great.

Now I need glass and strobes. Hopefully with my new job I'll be able to afford tose things!



Doctor_X is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 22nd, 2009, 12:41 PM   #15
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by 00Accord4cyl View Post
Yeah one huge reason I want the upgrade is the High ISO capability. With my D80 I do not like putting the ISO up to even 500. Even with that small of an increase I can tell a huge rise in how grainy the photos are. But with the newer bodies can't you go up to the thousands and still be fine? Seemed like I read somewhere that the D300 and D700 perform good up to even 3600.
"It depends".

First on the D80 and D200, you NEED to turn the High ISO NR to OFF for best results. It kicks in at only ISO 400 and compared to RAW it's very easily noticeable how mushy things get at 400 and above. If you're KR doing landscapes and are capturing scenes, colors, and tones more than details his recommendation to leave it at default (Normal) is fine. But for people work where you want facial details to remain crisp, it's best to turn it OFF and do any NR work later in post where you have more control over it. With good lighting and exposure, I've gotten perfectly good results out of my D200 at ISO 800 to 1600, but it definitely likes 100-400 the best. The D40 I can shoot at ISO 800 all day long and it still looks great. Vs the D300, I've never shot with one, but I've seen Ken's comparisons and other comparisons that have looked about the same and I've never liked how the D300 smudges too many details out at higher ISOs. If you compare the two on DxOMark.com you'll see that they're more similar than different. Signal-to-Noise ratio is identical, for example. The biggest difference is that the D300 gives you a half to a full stop better dynamic range. At ISO 1600 it won't capture any more detail or look any crisper than the D200 will, but will have a bit more range and look a little nicer. Playing with D200 files in post, you can make them look practically identical to the D300 from what I've seen. Since I want to keep details crisp at high ISO though, my limit on the D300 would be the same 1600 limit that I have for the D200 and D40, so I haven't felt it's a huge upgrade strictly on the ISO front. It certainly excels elsewhere like the AF system, better battery life, new Expeed image processing and adjustments, etc. The D90 is a bit better than the D300 and "supposedly" the D300s has the updated D90's sensor and might be the one to get, but it's still only a stop improvement for $1800?? I'd rather keep my D200 for when I need the features and capability and get a D90 at half the price of a D300s if I need a little better ISO sensitivity. Or just go all out and get a D700 which is unquestionably "no excuses" better. I'm most interested in a D400 at this point, which will have a next generation DX sensor design with potentially as good performance in the 1600-6400 range as today's full-frame cameras do. If you look back on previous generation full-frame offerings from Canon, today's half-frame DSLRs are as good or better than those. Technology improvements eventually trickle down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 00Accord4cyl View Post
I found an 80-200 F2.8 for 500 bucks few days ago but it was an older model. So i passed because after reading reviews it has a really slow AF motor. So i guess i need to just wait till i can find a newer one with the tripod mount and faster focusing.
You'll get an improvement in AF speed with screwdriven lenses once you jump up to a D200/D300 or higher level body just because they have beefier AF motors in them. The older 80-200 push-pull zoom is supposedly pretty slow either way. The newer and current 2-ring 80-200 is supposed to be better. If you can find one, the discontinued AF-S 80-200 (non VR) is very zippy for around $1000-1200 used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 00Accord4cyl View Post
Got a few pms on a local forum site over the past week though about taking photos of their cars. I need to come up with a good rate.
You should be good to go with what you already have for car shots. Tripod and an ML-L3. Great car shots (for me) are about interesting perspectives, lighting, backgrounds, and even photoshop ability with creative vignettes and other effects. I love my Nikon 14mm f/2.8D lens for this, because it's still reasonably wide on DX but allows you to get literally right on top of something like a feature or logo on the car and exaggerate perspective.
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 22nd, 2009, 12:56 PM   #16
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
Nikon vs Canon

Canon is leading the market right now in video capability (theirs is superior), megapixels (they have more), and equipment pricing (lots of their bodies and lenses are cheaper than the Nikon equivalents). Canon also has a nicer and cheaper prime lineup than Nikon does if you shoot sports. Nikon still doesn't have fast-focusing 100-200mm fast primes like Canon does, and the super-telephotos are both more available, and a lot cheaper, sometimes significantly so.

Nikon is leading the market right now in high ISO shooting (theirs is superior to Canon), AF performance and consistency (Canon has had LOTS of well-publicized issues in the past few years), and product quality (Nikon products do cost more, but the quality is just plain better IMHO). If high ISO or AF performance is key to you getting results then Nikon is the clear answer right now. My biggest reason for sticking with Nikon is still simply ergonomic issues and a lot of the "smart" functionality built into the Nikon bodies that Canon still lacks. Nikon bodies just "work" and do what you need them to with far less fuss and screwing around than the Canons.

Nikon and Canon are both intentionally staggering their product lineup so that they don't have to directly compete with each other so that they can avoid pricing wars. Compare the Nikon D700 and Canon 5D Mark II and both have clear and distinctive advantages and disadvantages compared to each other. There's no clear winner, so it just depends on what your priorities are. Photojournalism and sports as long as you can stomach the price, Nikon wins. Landscapes or video, Canon. The 5D-II is said to work GREAT for video with manual focus Nikkor lenses, since you can mount those lenses to the Canon bodies with an adpater. Manual focus is preferred for video shooting anyways, and the old Nikkor lenses are great. Funny how the Canon guys can mount Nikkor MF lenses to their EOS mount, but can't mount their own MF FD-series lenses without issues.

Anyhow, both are good systems. I'll probably eventually acquire some Canon gear so that I can benefit from the advantages of both systems, but no $$$$ at the moment.
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 22nd, 2009, 01:03 PM   #17
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
Oh, a 50mm f/1.4G and 85mm f/1.4D combined would be a better investment than a D300s IMHO. I can shoot my daughter running around the park in the last fading light of the day, and with a fast focusing f/1.4 lens I never need more than ISO 400, 800 tops. Same with film. When it comes down to it and you're in a dark church during the ceremony trying to get by with as little ISO or shutter speed as you dare, f/1.4 vs f/1.8 is a BIG difference. The faster and better glass you have, the less high ISO will matter.
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 22nd, 2009, 03:55 PM   #18
t|23v0|2 n00b t00n3|2
 
Trevendous03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 3,572
Nice writeup... I also wanna get that 85mm f/1.4D, but no money. Nikon D80 with a superb lens will outperform a D300 with a cheap lens. Really, the newer/more expensive bodies, as Steve said, offer many more AF points, which can be extremely critical to getting the right focus... 51 AF points on the D300S. Also, the newer bodies do have much better ISO capabilities (less noise in high-ISO situations) as Steve noted. Canons boast higher ISO sensitivity on each price level, however, at ISO 3200 and below, Nikons at the similar price levels have much less noise. I have shot with my D90 at ISO 6400 without noise reduction and noticed very little noise, just some in dark areas, where photoshop can be used to burn those areas anyway.

I know you won't switch systems, so I guess your choices are... get a professional lens or upgrade the body or get 10 MF lenses.

If it were me: Keep the D80 and get a pro lens and a couple MF lenses then wait for Nikon to come out with an even better body later on.
Trevendous03 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 22nd, 2009, 04:17 PM   #19
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevendous03 View Post
I have shot with my D90 at ISO 6400 without noise reduction and noticed very little noise, just some in dark areas, where photoshop can be used to burn those areas anyway.
there might not be much noise, but there's also not a whole lot of fine details leftover by then either. The full frame cameras also don't show much noise, but now you still retain the fine details, and also more range.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/iso-...index.htm#6400


GO D40!
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 22nd, 2009, 04:43 PM   #20
Moderator
 
00Accord4cyl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 3,436
^^^That amazes me how different each one of those cameras are. Everything from color, detail, to noise differs among each camera.

I would def like to have better glass. So maybe like Trevor stated I should just get that now. I could probably upgrade to a D90 easily, and get some better glass at the same time. The ISO performance just bugs me so much on my D80, and from what I have read the D90 has amazing high ISO capability, and for 900 new that is not bad. Seems like buying the D300 just would not be worth it right now especially since it is an older body. Every article I read on it says it is a great camera but outdated. I just do not know if I could wait for the D400 to come out. But maybe by then I could afford a full frame haha.

I am happy with both of my primes even if they are not top of hte line. I just need a telephoto BADLY. I have a Sigma 100-300mm and it is horrible. I thought it was decent until I decided to rent the 70-200 and I found out how poorly it performs haha. Maybe i should just get that lens...haha dreaming....
00Accord4cyl is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 22nd, 2009, 05:15 PM   #21
4.0L
 
VietNinjaJ30A1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Austin, TEXAS
Posts: 9,440
I think a good move for you right now would be a D300. If you're not ready to (or think you don't need to) go FX...stick with the D300. Get the S if the dual memory cards and video mode appeal to you, but I'm with Kevin on this one...I have no complaints about my D300. The only complaint I could muster would be high ISO noise...but that's only when I compare it to something else like the D700 or D3.

As far as navigating the camera's interface and dialing in settings...I'd pick my old D50, old D80, and D300 over my roommate's 5D MK2. The Canon dials are placed oddly (IMO) and they seem to be "backward" without a way to change that.

On the other hand...Canon lenses across the board are cheaper than their Nikon counterparts (I've noticed). I think the last time I checked, the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS-L new was the price of the Nikon's equivalent used.

Disregarding the fact that I have all this Nikon equipment already...the next camera body I get will be a Nikon. Unless Canon comes out with one that can wash my clothes for me while I shoot.
VietNinjaJ30A1 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 22nd, 2009, 05:56 PM   #22
Moderator
 
00Accord4cyl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 3,436
On Rockwell's site...just one opinion but it does seem like other places have said the same thing about the D90 being just as good but the fraction of the cost.
Quote:
I wouldn't buy a D300 today. The newer D90 does the same things, but better, for less money and with less weight. I'd get a D40 or D90 and be happy, and/or save my money for the D700 instead. The technical image quality of the D90 is indistinguishable from the D300 for color, sharpness, and noise.

The Nikon D300 was Nikon's most popular camera with serious amateur photographers in 2008, however the D90 just came out in Fall 2008 and works better for less money and less weight.

The D300 is over a year older than the D90, and in digital camera years, that's equivalent to being 25 years older.

The D300 offers is faster frame rates for sports and more weight to carry around, but if you're a serious sports shooter, you should have a D3 instead.
00Accord4cyl is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 22nd, 2009, 07:24 PM   #23
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
This is where you have to qualify where the advice is coming from, and compare how you might use your camera vs how they might use it. Ken is a landscape and scenic photographer with one set of demands, and you're talking about doing weddings which is something totally different. There's more to cameras than image quality. For serious PJ work or doing weddings I would much rather have a D300s, D300, or heck even a D200 over the D90. Change that to Ken's style of photography and I totally agree with him to get the D90, but I don't think you're going to be doing what he's doing. I've done corporate gigs, sporting events, and weddings, and a D200/300 level body is definitely what you want. Anybody that says the D300 is "outdated" is FOS and just trying to sell you more or newer cameras. The D300's AF system still blows the D90 right out of the water (and the D200's still beats the pants off the D90 here too), it'll still operate a ton faster than a D90 will, it's weather sealed and far more durable, and it still has all of the advanced smarts and functionality that the D200/300/s level cameras have that make a huge difference in PJ type work that the D80/90 level cameras lack. Serious PJ/wedding type work demands a serious camera, and as nice as it is the D90 just isn't it IMHO. I can start going into specifics if you want. I'm not joking but I'd even prefer a D40 for PJ or wedding work, with a serious lens of course. I have "issues" with the D80/90 level cameras for this sort of stuff, but for more casual slower paced shooting like what Trevor is doing or Ken Rockwell does it's perfectly fine.
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 22nd, 2009, 07:35 PM   #24
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by VietNinjaJ30A1 View Post
On the other hand...Canon lenses across the board are cheaper than their Nikon counterparts (I've noticed). I think the last time I checked, the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS-L new was the price of the Nikon's equivalent used.
It's also not as sharp of a lens. The 70-200 f/4L also has a whole lot of sample variability, and that's an L lens?? I also hear an awful lot about various QC issues with different Canon bodies and lenses, AF not being consistent, front elements falling out of lenses, etc. They're cheaper though, yes.
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 22nd, 2009, 09:05 PM   #25
Pedal damn it
 
whoagorgeous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Little Saigon Lol
Posts: 3,913
Send a message via AIM to whoagorgeous
Canon



my opinion should be taken lightly, Canon or Nikon, have fun.
whoagorgeous is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 23rd, 2009, 07:16 AM   #26
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056


Great shot! Very creative!
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 23rd, 2009, 07:29 AM   #27
Registered User
 
Raymond's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 1,330
Send a message via AIM to Raymond
I'd say the D300 would be a great choice. Buddy has one and I love it, and I'm a Canon user.
Raymond is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 23rd, 2009, 08:19 AM   #28
4.0L
 
VietNinjaJ30A1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Austin, TEXAS
Posts: 9,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteVTEC View Post
It's also not as sharp of a lens. The 70-200 f/4L also has a whole lot of sample variability, and that's an L lens?? I also hear an awful lot about various QC issues with different Canon bodies and lenses, AF not being consistent, front elements falling out of lenses, etc. They're cheaper though, yes.
That is true. When my friend got his 5D MK2, the first one died within 2 days. The shutter motor just stopped working. He had to take it back and get a replacement.

I would say that the AF may be faster on the 5D, but as far as the continuous focus, my D300 can lock focus a bit better.

I don't have a 70-200mm f/2.8 for my Nikon to do a side by side comparison...anyone wanna lend me theirs?
VietNinjaJ30A1 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 23rd, 2009, 10:33 AM   #29
Moderator
 
00Accord4cyl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 3,436
^^^lensrentals.com would lend you theirs for 135 bucks haha

I guess the thing that is keeping me from getting the D300 is with my luck right when I buy it a newer model will come out that is better and the same price. But I guess that would not matter 2 much. I have been able to survive with the really old D80. So no matter how old the D300 is, it is still a huge improvement. Would KEH.com be a good place to buy it used? I found a D300 last night for around 1300 used. But new is not much more.
00Accord4cyl is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 23rd, 2009, 11:40 AM   #30
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
Something newer has already come out - the D300s! It's already "obsolete" so you're safe, LOL. I'm not expecting a D400 anytime soon. That'll probably come out along with a D4, and I don't think that's expected until 2011?

KEH is pretty safe. You could probably do better on price on eBay or FredMiranda though, but more random sellers and possibly no return policy. KEH if you don't like it just send it on back.
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply


Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Honda Accord Forum : V6 Performance Accord Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Chapter
Choose your AV6 Chapter Location
Ride
What do you drive?
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On