Nikon hemming and hawing

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Westside guy, Dec 13, 2007.

  1. Westside guy macrumors 601

    Westside guy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Location:
    The soggy side of the Pacific NW
    #1
    I've been going back and forth lately on what I want to do camera-wise. The D300 is obviously a great camera - but I'm beginning to think long-term that I really want a full-frame camera. Not the D3, though; it's just too big for my tastes.

    What I really want is a full-frame sensor in a D300-size body; and that's probably 2 years away. So, at the moment I'm mentally holding off on going for the D300. I say "mentally" because, obviously, from a practical standpoint I couldn't get one even if I wanted it. :D

    I reserve the right to change my mind in the near future though.

    I made up my mind on one thing, anyway - I just ordered the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8. Now the waiting on that begins... But I shoot a lot in this range on my D70 (and as I would on a full-frame sensor); and the thing is, even this old camera has proven itself capable of taking some really sharp pictures. What really low light stuff I shoot is generally on a tripod, so I don't mind waiting on the better high ISO performance; and regardless of what I do a year or two down the road, this lens will still be with me...

    Did I mention that I still might change my mind at some point? :p
     
  2. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #2
    I jumped from the D70 to the D300 and seriously, what little I've been able to play with it I'm in love. Lack of full frame...it doesn't seem to bother me all too much. In other words, buy it!
     
  3. yeroen macrumors 6502a

    yeroen

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Location:
    Cambridge, MA
    #3
    I own a D70 and recently rented a D300.

    Sad to say, but the D300 totally ruined my D70 for me. I loved the viewfinder. Big and bright, compared to which looking through the D70 is like peering down a dark tunnel; and I was surprised at how much easier my beloved AIS lenses were to use, not just because the D300 metered with them, but how much easier they were to focus in that big viewfinder. I also miss the contours and satisfying heft of the magnesium body.

    I'm in the same boat as you however. I'm debating whether to spend the $1800 on the new body or the 24-70 and wait and see if Nikon answers Canon's 5D (there's no way I'm going to justify $5K on the D3).
     
  4. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #4
    [Warning: Half-asleep rambling]

    If you believe the pundits, Nikon's next FF camera is going to be ~22MP and a lot more expensive than the D3. If that's true, then I wouldn't expect Nikon to do a 5D-alike body (though they've surprised me before) any time soon- as it'd eat into sales of whatever's next and the D3 and D300. Given the demand on the D3, they'd be pretty silly to waste all that R&D ROI on a cheaper FF camera. Personally, I think they'll hang the prosumer hat on the D3/D300 combo and the pro hat on the next-thing/D3/D300 combo. It's expensive to tool up for another large camera run in a segment that seems to be buying every new body you're making en-mass.

    If your D70 gets you the shots you want, then don't sweat it. However, I think the D70->D300 move is a good progression for most people looking to trade up to something with more headroom and move from the consumer bodies forward.
     
  5. Westside guy thread starter macrumors 601

    Westside guy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Location:
    The soggy side of the Pacific NW
    #5
    Of course, given that the D300 is heavily backordered, and given that I can't afford to throw $1800 hither and yon on a whim, especially since I just spent that amount on the 24-70mm lens... I've got some time to contemplate the pros and cons you folks are bringing up. :D
     
  6. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #6
    Just got a D300. Everything you can do with a camera is customizable. So crazy.

    The leap from your D70 to the D300 is so big that it's totally justifiable. ;) I wouldn't say that if you wanted to jump from a D80 to a D300. I'd probably ask you why you want to. In the case of the D300, I wouldn't. It is a hell of a lot better than anything I have ever used. I love the LCD. I didn't think I'd care about the LCD (and I'd rather check out photos on my computer), but now that I have it, I can totally see the usefulness of having a fantastic little LCD screen. It's clearer than my laptop and external LCD because of the high number of pixels per inch on the screen, so I definitely don't mind using it to get an initial impression on whether to keep a photo or not just by zooming into the photo via the little LCD.
     
  7. avincent52 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2007
    #7
    If you've got an investment in full frame lenses, then a full frame camera is a great leap forward. If not, it's a modest enhancement. But either way, it's going to be a couple of years before full frame comes to a prosumer price point or prices of used D3s fall to earth.
    FWIW, thanks to the D300 upgrade stampede, I bought a minty used D200, which saved me $900 I can put toward my D350 or whatever.
    And though I love my D200, I do find it strange that I get a live viewfinder on a $200 point and shoot, but not in a camera that retailed for almost twice as much.
    best
    Allen
     
  8. Martin C macrumors 6502a

    Martin C

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2006
    Location:
    New York City
    #8
    If you didn't have all your Nikon gear, I'd say wait for the next 5D revision.
     
  9. lil'homunculus macrumors regular

    lil'homunculus

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Location:
    vancouver, bc
  10. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #10
    You get a live view in the *viewfinder* of an SLR too. You don't (until recently on some models) get a live view on the LCD- that's because it's an SLR, and the light path goes off the mirror (to give the live viewfinder image) until you hit the shutter when the mirror moves out of the way and the shutter and media (film/sensor) are in the light path. Most dSLRs have mechanical shutters, so the shutter is in the light path until you actually take the exposure. "Live View" on an SLR requires the mirror to move out of the way, while a P&S generally only images off the sensor or has to deal with paralax (just like non-SLR, non-view cameras.) Now, move the mirror, open the sutter and constantly image off the sensor and you're going to have several effects - more lag time if you're using the shutter because it has to close, then open again at whatever value it's set for, more heat build-up on the larger sensor (I bet that effects MTBF,) more static build-up on the sensor , and more actuations of both the shutter and the mirror moving (MTBF again.)
     
  11. Westside guy thread starter macrumors 601

    Westside guy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Location:
    The soggy side of the Pacific NW
    #11
    I'm sure live view might have some limited utility, but right now I'm hard-pressed to think of why I should care about it. It seems like one of those "features" that got added mostly because some competitors are offering it.
     

Share This Page