I use the Nikon D70 and would like to upgrade to the D300 but on the other hand I could use a replacement for my old Nikkor 75-300mm zoom lens. So what would you do and if you go for a new lens which one ?
Depends. The 75-300mm is not a very good lens and if you shoot in this range most of the time it, upgrading to the 70-200mm 2.8VR + teleconverter would be a improvement. If on the other hand, you use the 18-70mm which I presume you bought with the D70, the D300 would be a huge step forward in terms of noise control, build and resolution. If you're planning on prints 24x16 inches I would definitely get the D300.
Camera bodies come and go, but a good quality lens is nearly forever.
Image quality will be noticeably improved with a good quality lens on an older camera body, as opposed to putting a mediocre lens on a new body.
Upgrading to the D300 would indeed be improvement on noise control, the 12 mp would allow me to make bigger prints and also give me the possibility of cropping if necessary without loosing to much printing quality. I do use the 18-70mm DX which came with the D70 for landscape and indoor shooting. Another thought is that Nikon probably will in due time only produce cameras with the bigger CCD so I couldn't use my 18-70mm on it (see D700) while maybe the D300 will be the last Nikon with the crop factor. As you both say the 75-300mm isn't a very sharp lens. If I buy a new lens I will have to wait on the D300 if I buy the camera I will have to wait for a new lens but most lenses will still work on the D300 in the future. What do you think ?
Jos, normally I tell clients to upgrade the glass. With the D70, you can in some cases make prints up to 20x30. I made prints that large with a Canon 10D (same Mp count), and they were wonderful. That also depends partly on glass, because you can make larger prints from captures with sharper glass.
And you'd definitely improve your IQ by upgrading glass. The slow focusing but very sharp Nikon 80-400 VR would be an affordable choice that would give you a nice big bump in IQ. And sharper glass will allow you to crop and still come out with a sharp print. Even if you put your current 75-300 on the D300 you wouldn't get images any sharper than you're getting in the D70.
That being said, the leap to the D300 is a big improvement in almost all ways. I have a couple excursion clients who shoot them, and they are great bodies with lots of excellent features. If it were me, I'd upgrade the body and save like mad to upgrade your tele zoom as fast as possible so you have a lens that allows the new body to live up to its potential. Putting the 75-300 on the D300 is like putting cheap bad tires on a sportscar.
Another thought is that Nikon probably will in due time only produce cameras with the bigger CCD so I couldn't use my 18-70mm on it (see D700) while maybe the D300 will be the last Nikon with the crop factor.
Based on everything I've read, I highly doubt this would be true any time in the predictable future (5-10 years). Crop factors have become pretty ingrained, and for a lot of people there's no reason to go to a larger sensor/larger camera/larger glass. I don't think it should be a factor in your decision here Jos. Now if you yourself want to go to a full frame camera, that could be a consideration.
Posted by Kah Kit Yoong on July 10, 2008 at 10:32 AM
There is no way Nikon would phase out the cropped sensor in the near future. Full frame is too expensive to put into their entry level D-SLR line-up.
Neither Nikon nor Canon will phase out the crop sensor, IMO, for the same reason mentioned above. With the advent of the D700, Nikon is just phasing it out in its prosumer line.
At the moment I would go for the glass unless your camera needs to be replaced for mechanical reasons.
Nikon has just released the FF D-700 and it is my understanding the release of a FF D3X has been delayed until September. Even if neither of these cameras appeal to you or fit your budget as they come on to the market they will force down the price of existing cameras.
Personally, I'm waiting for September-October to see what prices do before contemplating a camera upgrade.
Last post was interesting. I am also shooting with a D70 and was thinking about the D300 but planned on waiting until next year. My wife and I are thinking about planning a trip to Italy for our 25th. Only thing is the value of the dollar vs. Euro is in the toilet!
I think cropped sensors are great for bird photography!!! Need I say any more.
Now as for the D300 I don't know what you are shooting (subject wise) but I have found that the D300 is best at 400 ISO it will indeed shoot upto 800 very well but the IQ on my D2Xs at 200 is much better IMHO.
I love the D300 and that's my birding body. For macro, landscape and everything I still very much love my D2Xs.
Bear in mind that this is just my own thoughs and style!
I'm expecting my new Canon 40D in the mail today. I'm going digital from using a Nikon N80. I debated whether to stick with Nikon because I have Nikon lenses, but after reading many reviews of lenses (including the lenses I have now) I learned a great deal about barreling, pincushioning, etc. I realized that I have very average lenses and the things I don't like about my photos are due to the lenses. So after much consideration I'm taking up Canon with a high quality L lens 17-40, which in the future can also be used on full frame if it comes to that. The analogy I like to use is cameras and lenses are like old stereo systems, the sound is only as good as your speakers. In case of digital cameras the body does matter in some cases based on sensor size and MP count, but I've read again and again that a 2-3 MP difference isn't that much unless you go to a full frame sensor. The reviews of the 75-300 as stated above aren't good, and I don't think it's even made anymore. I have the NIkon 70-300 ED which is a little better, but not high quality. If you're trying to avoid buying a new camera, then I'd try upgrading the lens, but if you really want all the gimmicks that are on a D300 then go for it, but a high end camera like that is going to show it's real potential only with a high quality lens. That's what I learned...it's a big step to upgrade considering cost and all, but if you want quality a good lens I think is the first step.
Good luck!
Posted by Basil Greber on July 10, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Before spending my last dime (well, not all that bad, but close ) for a D300, I shot a D100. I know that many people say that good glass will last forever, and make better photographs, and, and... and it's true. Most of the time.
However, the D300 does not only deliver higher MP counts. I wouldn't upgrade for that. But it also delivers mirror delay and lock up modes (even the best lens is soft when there's vibration on the tripod), it delivers excellent high-ISO performance (a good solid two stops better than my D100, at least, and I guess the D70 is imilar), it has an excellent AF module, an excellent viewfinder for more accurate manual focus, you can use live view to shoot exceedingly precisely if you work on a tripod, and you have much faster frame rates (6 or 8 fps). So, does the D300 improve your photographs? You can bet on that. Does it improve them more than the latest XY-ABC/2.8 AF-S G ED N VR zoom lens? I don't know. But it's a great camera, and I'd buy it again.
Maybe, if your budget is constrained, you can wait for the D90 (or whatever they like to call the D80 successor) and see which features are still available with that body. So, maybe you could in the end get a D90 and a 70-300 AF-S VR, thus upgrading both the lens and the body (or if you can stretch for a 70-200 VR or a 300/4 AF-S, even better).
I'm a Canon user not Nikon, but I have recently become a convert. Go with the lens first, you can't go wrong. You can always upgrade the body but it won't do any good if you glass isn't good enough to handle it.
Hi,
I have just made a simular call, a D300 or a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lens, the lens won! My rationale, I have a D200, and in a very short space of time their will be a D400/500/600...etc. But quality glass will always stand the test of time.
Posted by Kent Staubus on July 10, 2008 at 8:46 PM
I took the middle path. The Nikon D70 was replaced by the D80, and it in turn is due for replacement this year, hopefully in two months (D90?) This camera will have most of the same components as the D300 at 2/3 the cost. That will leave you with maybe $900 to buy a Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 lens. I too put money on lenses first. They do the work.
Hi Jos, I had the D80 myself and just upgrated to the D300 and I don't regret it. It's absolutely a great camera. The image quality is better,new features you are going to love. Go for it ,if you can and then start saving for a new lens.
Thanks for all the input. You people make my life really difficult so I will let all your suggestions spin around in my poor head until my brain is cooking and see what will come out of it I sure will let you know what it will be camera or lens !
Thanks again !
Hi Jos,
Here is my 2 cents worth of opinion.
I would first upgrade my camera but not for a D300. I would seriously consider a used D200 that sells for around $500. Since you mainly shoot flowers and landscapes, I don't see where you would need high ISO performance. Other than 2 more MPs, the D300 has little over the D200. The D200 is a great camera as long as you don't have to shoot above ISO-320. You can have all the best lens available but you still need a decent camera to get the most out of those lens. That is part of the problem with DSLRs, seems they are coming out with bigger and better models every year. I've been shooting with my D200 for two years and have no plans on upgrading to the D300. I kept my D100 for 4 years and plan on keeping my D300 at least for the same amount of time if not longer.
I was in similar situation last year and I choose to upgrade to D300 as D300 is just head and shoulder above D70 - just no comparison. It will vastly improve your photos if you learn how to use them. But again, a good lens is a good lens on the all cameras - so it's a hard choice. But right now, DSLR technology is evolving and in 2-3 years, the cameras are really way better than their earlier versions. While lens technology is somewhat on a flatter curve - it happens in many other industries. So if you buy a good lens, it will serve you longer. D300 may need to be upgraded in another 3 years (my guess) or so - but waiting for another 3 years is not a solution either. That's why I bought D300 and very happy with my choice for now
Discussion
20 repliesThanks for your thoughts !
Image quality will be noticeably improved with a good quality lens on an older camera body, as opposed to putting a mediocre lens on a new body.
Upgrading to the D300 would indeed be improvement on noise control, the 12 mp would allow me to make bigger prints and also give me the possibility of cropping if necessary without loosing to much printing quality. I do use the 18-70mm DX which came with the D70 for landscape and indoor shooting. Another thought is that Nikon probably will in due time only produce cameras with the bigger CCD so I couldn't use my 18-70mm on it (see D700) while maybe the D300 will be the last Nikon with the crop factor. As you both say the 75-300mm isn't a very sharp lens. If I buy a new lens I will have to wait on the D300 if I buy the camera I will have to wait for a new lens but most lenses will still work on the D300 in the future. What do you think ?
And you'd definitely improve your IQ by upgrading glass. The slow focusing but very sharp Nikon 80-400 VR would be an affordable choice that would give you a nice big bump in IQ. And sharper glass will allow you to crop and still come out with a sharp print. Even if you put your current 75-300 on the D300 you wouldn't get images any sharper than you're getting in the D70.
That being said, the leap to the D300 is a big improvement in almost all ways. I have a couple excursion clients who shoot them, and they are great bodies with lots of excellent features. If it were me, I'd upgrade the body and save like mad to upgrade your tele zoom as fast as possible so you have a lens that allows the new body to live up to its potential. Putting the 75-300 on the D300 is like putting cheap bad tires on a sportscar.
Based on everything I've read, I highly doubt this would be true any time in the predictable future (5-10 years). Crop factors have become pretty ingrained, and for a lot of people there's no reason to go to a larger sensor/larger camera/larger glass. I don't think it should be a factor in your decision here Jos. Now if you yourself want to go to a full frame camera, that could be a consideration.
At the moment I would go for the glass unless your camera needs to be replaced for mechanical reasons.
Nikon has just released the FF D-700 and it is my understanding the release of a FF D3X has been delayed until September. Even if neither of these cameras appeal to you or fit your budget as they come on to the market they will force down the price of existing cameras.
Personally, I'm waiting for September-October to see what prices do before contemplating a camera upgrade.
I think cropped sensors are great for bird photography!!! Need I say any more.
Now as for the D300 I don't know what you are shooting (subject wise) but I have found that the D300 is best at 400 ISO it will indeed shoot upto 800 very well but the IQ on my D2Xs at 200 is much better IMHO.
I love the D300 and that's my birding body. For macro, landscape and everything I still very much love my D2Xs.
Bear in mind that this is just my own thoughs and style!
Good luck!
However, the D300 does not only deliver higher MP counts. I wouldn't upgrade for that. But it also delivers mirror delay and lock up modes (even the best lens is soft when there's vibration on the tripod), it delivers excellent high-ISO performance (a good solid two stops better than my D100, at least, and I guess the D70 is imilar), it has an excellent AF module, an excellent viewfinder for more accurate manual focus, you can use live view to shoot exceedingly precisely if you work on a tripod, and you have much faster frame rates (6 or 8 fps). So, does the D300 improve your photographs? You can bet on that. Does it improve them more than the latest XY-ABC/2.8 AF-S G ED N VR zoom lens? I don't know. But it's a great camera, and I'd buy it again.
Maybe, if your budget is constrained, you can wait for the D90 (or whatever they like to call the D80 successor) and see which features are still available with that body. So, maybe you could in the end get a D90 and a 70-300 AF-S VR, thus upgrading both the lens and the body (or if you can stretch for a 70-200 VR or a 300/4 AF-S, even better).
BG
I have just made a simular call, a D300 or a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lens, the lens won! My rationale, I have a D200, and in a very short space of time their will be a D400/500/600...etc. But quality glass will always stand the test of time.
Dave
Kent in SD
Thanks again !
Here is my 2 cents worth of opinion.
I would first upgrade my camera but not for a D300. I would seriously consider a used D200 that sells for around $500. Since you mainly shoot flowers and landscapes, I don't see where you would need high ISO performance. Other than 2 more MPs, the D300 has little over the D200. The D200 is a great camera as long as you don't have to shoot above ISO-320. You can have all the best lens available but you still need a decent camera to get the most out of those lens. That is part of the problem with DSLRs, seems they are coming out with bigger and better models every year. I've been shooting with my D200 for two years and have no plans on upgrading to the D300. I kept my D100 for 4 years and plan on keeping my D300 at least for the same amount of time if not longer.
Ronnie