leewoolery wrote:
Why get rid of the D300? What other Nikon lenses to you own?
Why not invest in some sharp Nikkor zooms such as the VR 70-200?
Color accuracy or image quality differences between Canon and Nikon shouldn't be an issue for a yearbook.
Much success,
Lee Woolery
Speedshot Photo
I am getting a Canon body because I have 24x7 access to $10,000 in lenses... pretty much every L-series lens. Why would I get a 70-200 VR for $1700 when I could have the 70-200 2.8 IS, the 300 2.8 IS and the 400 2.8 for free?
I'm pretty much sold on the 1d mark 2, now to find one.
I'm kinda surprised you didn't like the 40D? It's a lot of camera for the money, and it is a nice upgrade over the 20/30D. I think you should try one and give it chance, it's a pretty good one camera solution. It may be cheap enough (used) that you could keep your D300?
Scott T wrote:
I'm kinda surprised you didn't like the 40D? It's a lot of camera for the money, and it is a nice upgrade over the 20/30D. I think you should try one and give it chance, it's a pretty good one camera solution. It may be cheap enough (used) that you could keep your D300?
It is cheap enough that I might keep both but I've been using it all week (the 40d we already have) and it has left me incredibly unimpressed. Used mostly with the 24-105 f/4 IS and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and I'm getting dull, blurry images... I suspect the 24-105 has a front focusing problem but still. I would love to like it, I really liked the 30d but for some reason the files just are very unappealing. Shooting JPG only, yes I know the cardinal sin but that's how we do it. Sharpening at the halfway mark, saturation up 1 and the rest left at default on the standard color mode.
I'll see if I can download some of the pics I've demonstrated, but I'm almost 100% sure its not technique because frankly I'm getting better pics with the original Rebels (not even xt ).
Taylor Barrett wrote:
... Shooting JPG only, yes I know the cardinal sin but that's how we do it. Sharpening at the halfway mark, saturation up 1 and the rest left at default on the standard color mode.
I'll see if I can download some of the pics I've demonstrated, but I'm almost 100% sure its not technique because frankly I'm getting better pics with the original Rebels (not even xt ).
that's one of the strengths of the 40d to me, the jpg's from the camera are great. I shot a lot of jpg + raw on a recent trip, the jpegs were good enough I didn't need to post process the raw files. May be an issue with the camera? Have you tried one of the Canon picture styles?
A lot of critical (perhaps hyper critical ) photographers are very pleased with the IQ from the 40D.
Yes, which is why I was so shocked. I can't imagine how a newer camera, that is extremely well liked, could be worse than its older predecessor. I may try to get my hands on another 40d to see if somethings amiss. Still, the call of the 1D is strong
Taylor Barrett wrote:
I am getting a Canon body because I have 24x7 access to $10,000 in lenses... pretty much every L-series lens. Why would I get a 70-200 VR for $1700 when I could have the 70-200 2.8 IS, the 300 2.8 IS and the 400 2.8 for free?
I'm pretty much sold on the 1d mark 2, now to find one.
Well...now that's a different story when you say you have access to an EF 300 f/2.8 and EF400 f/2.8, I'd go with the Mark II...no question....and find the D300 a good home.
That was my train of thought as well When the year is over and I no longer can use the gear, I'm sure there will be a different world - D400 (or ) and Canon 60d will probably be in the pipeline.
edit - after I wrote that, I realized that if you switch the position of the d's in both, they become the opposite vendor's cameras (400d and d60). They're running out of numbers!
).
) and Canon 60d will probably be in the pipeline.