Anyone try a D300 yet?

[tomb18]

Also, what lens did you get with the body (or did you already have appropriate lenses to use)?

I was thinking about the 18-200; I do a fair amount of sports and wildlife, and a good all-in-one would be fantastic. But the review I read indicated more issues than I was willing to compromise on. I am thinking about getting a short zoom to start with and a longer one later.

Am I being too sensitive on the 18-200 review? Or should I follow my instincts, if not my bank account balance?

I really have not had a lot of time to use the camera yet. I only have around 700 shots on it so far, mostly in test modes.
If you are on a budget, then the best start would be a used 18-70 AF-S (around $200) which is an excellent quality general purpose lens (I still have mine and it will be the last one that I upgrade to a pro lens) and get a 70-300 AF-S VR which is around $550 new. This will give you the most bang for the buck.

[Underwater Mike]

Well, unlike the PC purchase, I can wait a bit until I get the camera. The lenses will prolly stay at the same price, but the body should drop a bit by JUN. The trip on which my wife is blowing all our savings is not until AUG, so buying in JUN will still leave me time to experiment.

[MaxxxRacer]

I really have not had a lot of time to use the camera yet. I only have around 700 shots on it so far, mostly in test modes.
If you are on a budget, then the best start would be a used 18-70 AF-S (around $200) which is an excellent quality general purpose lens (I still have mine and it will be the last one that I upgrade to a pro lens) and get a 70-300 AF-S VR which is around $550 new. This will give you the most bang for the buck.

409 shipped for the 70-300VR from a reputable seller..

http://www.us1photo.com/catalog/prod...7213d08c570d97


As to the price of the body dropping. I highly doubt it. Nikon has no reason to drop the price. The D300 will be selling like hotcakes for some time to come.

Soulburner, the D3 as you mentioned is the one that can do ISO 25000. The D300 cant come close to that, so its kind of a moot point.

[Underwater Mike]

Hmmm, that place has decent price on the body and 2 lenses: $2300 total. Still need a strobe and incidentals. Another $250 for that, so the total is a bit less than I'd expected.

[MaxxxRacer]

Hmmm, that place has decent price on the body and 2 lenses: $2300 total. Still need a strobe and incidentals. Another $250 for that, so the total is a bit less than I'd expected.

yup. That website has excellent prices. I will be purchasing my 70-300VR from them. It went down to 402 for a few days. Hopefully by July it will be down below 400.

[Soulburner]

Maxxx let me know what you think of that lens...it's either 70-200 or 70-300 for me. I hear it gets soft toward 300 but how bad can it be? Is there a lens comparison on the web somewhere?

[MaxxxRacer]

Maxxx let me know what you think of that lens...it's either 70-200 or 70-300 for me. I hear it gets soft toward 300 but how bad can it be? Is there a lens comparison on the web somewhere?

I have not seen a direct comparison. But they compared it to a 300mm F4 prime lens and the prime lens smacked it around (at 300) like a little schoolboy. But that is to be expected. The 70-200 wont be a sharp as a 200mm prime for the same reasons.

Essentially, unless you really want to pixel peep, use a 1.4x teleconverter, or do pro work that is going to get blown up large on a magazine, the 70-300 is plenty sharp.

From the looks of it, I wont be getting the lens until July, but I will try to see if I can get it sooner.

[dominick32]

This is more of a pepsi coke topic here. My own personal experience in Image Quality is that the D300 is superior to canon in the (under $2500) DSLR camera class right now. I have shot a D80, D200, Canon 5D hands on. The D300 is a relatively new Camera and Nikon hit the nail in the coffin with ISO, White Balance, IQ, features, speed and 51 focus points that actually work properly(especially for sports and car racing this camera is a must with a tripod). Continuous Ultra-Fine 12.3MP JPEG capability I have achieved 8 FPS, and using TIF or NEF raw continuous I have achieved a staggering 6 FPS at 25 MB raw data per shot. This camera kicks some serious hiney.

The D300 is a nice leap in tech for Nikon and IMO slightly better than Canons 5D. However, I have a personal friend that works in the Long Island office for Canon and says they are in the works with something that should blow away the D300. When that camera arrives I will try it out and consider selling my D300. My goal with DSLR is always IQ not speed or ISO capability. So, if Canon comes out with something better I may just have to get my hands on it.

In any event, I love my D300:

[MaxxxRacer]

Not to be a douce here, but if you are so concerned with quality, why in the world are you using the 18-200?? Sorry, I had to poke fun.

[dominick32]

Not to be a douce here, but if you are so concerned with quality, why in the world are you using the 18-200?? Sorry, I had to poke fun.

Since you have already managed to be a douche. I have three lenses a 105 macro a wide angle 18-200 vr (which is an ice hockey lens) great for high speed sports with multiple focus points and also a 70 - 300 Nikkor high power zoom. I had picked up a package special price on the 18-200mm VR that you see in the photo if purchased together with the D300.

[Underwater Mike]

Since I'm not buying for a while yet, maybe I'll hear more about the new Canon you mention. But, once I get a camera, I will prolly hang onto it for a while -- especially if I invest in a few different lenses. My normal camera for non-snapshots is a Canon A-1 from 1979, so I tend to stick with what works unless there is a dramatic improvement.

Totally off-topic components for my new build will be here by FRI. Hurray for credit cards!

[MaxxxRacer]

Since you have already managed to be a douche. I have three lenses a 105 macro a wide angle 18-200 vr (which is an ice hockey lens) great for high speed sports with multiple focus points and also a 70 - 300 Nikkor high power zoom. I had picked up a package special price on the 18-200mm VR that you see in the photo if purchased together with the D300.

DOH! I know how to spell douche, but I type too fast while at work.. lol.

I'm surprised that there is enough light for shooting hockey with the 18-200. Everywhere I have read, says that the 70-200VR is THE indoor sports lens. Granted, the people who say this can actually afford one, so poo on them.

Lastly, how do you like the 70-300VR. I honestly cant say I have heard much bad about it, but its always good to hear from someone who has had the lens for a while.

[Underwater Mike]

Okay, so it's JUN, and even though I don't really have the money, I'm ready to pull the trigger on the D300. Other than the earlier lens suggestions (16-85 and 70-300, both VR), does anyone have last-minute advice? Anything new waiting in the wings that I should know about? Any reservations with the D300 that have arisen in the last couple months?

Thanks a ton for all the help.

[MaxxxRacer]

I have a D300 now and love it. Just buy it. Only thing I can say is to get a SB-600 ASAP!

[Soulburner]

I have a big gripe about the 16-85 VR - it is utterly overpriced for what it is. A great lens optically, but $650? Nikon is only kidding themselves, the lens is worth maybe $399 at the most. Now if it were f/2.8 constant aperture, sure, but it isn't...

I would take the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for $409 any day hands down. You will really come to appreciate the constant aperture that does not change with focal length. Just keep in mind the two versions. new version.

70-300 VR is an excellent choice, must have for wildlife.

[Underwater Mike]

I was wondering about the price, but I've been out of the market for so long that I didn't know what a competitive price was. It seems like OEM glass still commands a price premium, though. I'll hunt for some reviews on the Tamron lens. All I've ever owned is Canon.

BTW, having never used a VR lens, I assume that its benefit is less at shorter focal lengths?

[MaxxxRacer]

VR is a benefit at shorter focal lenghts only in dim light photography. So really, its not that useful. on the 70-300 it is essential. That lens is near pointless without it.

Having read some reviews of that Tamron lens, I think it is the way to go. Its cheaper than the 16-85 and offers much better flexibility. the 16-85 jumps up its F stop REALLY fast compared to the 18-55 and 18-70 so it needs the VR to keep up, whereas the Tamron is a constant F2.8 so you dont have to worry as much about camera shake and there is no fix for motion blur with a slow lens. Only the fast F2.8's can stop action in poor lighting conditions. Your only fast option from nikon is the pro 17-55 which is 1200 dollars. Its an awesome lens, but overpriced IMO.

[Nate P.]

One would think the 5D is better than the D300 because of the FF sensor... interesting find!

[MaxxxRacer]

One would think the 5D is better than the D300 because of the FF sensor... interesting find!

Pure image quality, discounting CA (because the D300 autocorrects for CA) the 5D smokes the D300 because of the FF sensor.

Ken rockwell tested this. he took the 5D, D3 and D300 and compared them with pro glass at F8 looking at the center of the photo. the 5D was noticeably sharper.

The big difference, the D300 and D3 smoke the 5D for usability in a profesional environment. You dont see photojournalists or paparazzi using 5D's. They use 1D's and D3's, or the older versions of said cameras.

[Soulburner]

Image sharpness does not come from the camera body...it comes from the lens...if there is a difference in sharpness or softness from the RAW image, it is because they autofocused differently.

Did he test them with manual focus?

[MaxxxRacer]

no, manaul focus.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/sharpness-1.htm

sharpness has to do with both the lens and the camera. Remember, that the image from the sensor is interpolated, it doesnt see things the way we do. Because of this, a poorly designed camera can make a sharp lens look soft.

[Underwater Mike]

Guys, I've Googled a few reviews of the Tamron lens, and they seem mixed. Some rave about it, some have issues. Got any links to good reviews that you can post?

[Soulburner]

Check the dates of the reviews and posts. The lens had QC issues from the start, and it was a hit or miss. The barrel wobbled, the AF was noisy, and it tended to front or back-focus making images appear soft when in reality the lens is one of the sharpest around.

Now, there is a revision of the lens with these issues resolved. The focus is dead-on in every one of my shots, the lens is completey solid, and it has a new AF/MF switch which is very welcome. It's definetely a winner in my book - 90% of the Nikon 17-55 for only 35% of the price.

[Underwater Mike]

Soulburner, do you have any shots you can post?