D300, D300s or D700?

I love them all, however, I am not too sure about the pros and cons of the 3. Can someone help someone who is upgrading from a Nikon D60, please?

What do you shoot regularly?

Actually I would get glass first (lenses)... But anyway...

Avi B wrote:
What do you shoot regularly?

Actually I would get glass first (lenses)... But anyway...


Exactly, ask yourself what it is that your D60 doesn't do for you and go from there.

If you do not know why you would want an FX camera, I would suggest going with a D300s. Always invest in lenses.

you guys are so wise. Can't one just get a new camerabody because the money is burning in the pocket?

So go for the D300s, you will love it. Great improvement over the D60 and video to boot! Then you still have the urge to go FX! that's great because you can visit the camerashops again! Eventually you will have both.

Don't you just feel like a kid in a candyshop?

It's always a good idea to know what you can expect from an upgrade. If you can't name a few reasons why you need better equipment, you probably have too high expectations. In reality getting pro gear is not going to improve your photography, although it can help you take it more seriously in the long run. One advantage of owning the best gear is that you can no longer blame mediocre images on your equipment.

I moved from D50 to D300, with specific reasons in mind. I wanted RGB histogram, professional autofocus, and pixel density for wildlife. It's advisable to wait with the upgrade until you decide what you want to shoot regularly. A new lens, such as the inexpensive 35mm f/1.8, can potentially give you a bigger bang than a new camera.

My upgrade experience was very positive -- the D300 felt like nothing I'd ever seen before. All metal body, dedicated buttons, huge LCD, and a bright viewfinder (the D700 is even brighter). It was a major technological leap as well. At the same time, the added complexity was almost overwhelming in the beginning. I didn't mind it, in fact it made me want to learn more. Nevertheless, a pro camera assumes you know what you're doing.

FX lenses tend to be heavier and more expensive than DX. If you currently have many DX-only lenses, that's going to increase the cost of going FX even further. The D300 is a good choice when you need pixel density (wildlife, for example). The D300s adds video, an extra SD card slot, silent mode, among other smaller improvements. The D700 delivers cleaner images at higher ISO. You should research the differences between FX and DX.

All 3 cameras have the same autofocus sensor. That means it covers the better part of the image on a D300. That's very convenient, you can minimize the amount of focus and recompose steps. However, this also means each AF sensor covers a larger area, which sacrifices some of the precision. The D700 AF points are smaller, which allows more precise positioning, at the cost of being more concentrated on the central area.

I don't think a single post can possibly cover every difference. You have to tell us what your interests are.

R. Francois wrote:
you guys are so wise. Can't one just get a new camerabody because the money is burning in the pocket?

In such occasions, I always find that a flight to somewhere nice is a much better photographic "investment"! You can spend two weeks in India with flights for D700 money.

panos.v wrote:
R. Francois wrote:
you guys are so wise. Can't one just get a new camerabody because the money is burning in the pocket?

In such occasions, I always find that a flight to somewhere nice is a much better photographic "investment"! You can spend two weeks in India with flights for D700 money.

but you will encounter total agony with a D60 there!

R. Francois wrote:
panos.v wrote:
R. Francois wrote:
you guys are so wise. Can't one just get a new camerabody because the money is burning in the pocket?

In such occasions, I always find that a flight to somewhere nice is a much better photographic "investment"! You can spend two weeks in India with flights for D700 money.

but you will encounter total agony with a D60 there!



The agony will come when you eat the dodgy stuff from the street vendor!

Avi B wrote:
What do you shoot regularly?

Actually I would get glass first (lenses)... But anyway...

+10.

Skip the D700. Buying that when you have no first class lenses for it would be like buying a Porsche and then putting $20 tires on it. Buying an expensive camera rather than putting the money into more important things is the classic beginner's mistake. I pretty much would bet you'll see no difference in your photos between a D300 and what you have now. What lenses do you have? Those are crucial. It's the lens that decides what you can photo, where, and how. Do you have a decent tripod and head? Five hundred dollars right there. What photo software are you using? Software has become crucial. What does the D60 not do that you want it to? Cameras come and go. They are the least important thing, and are disposable. Good lenses and tripod you keep. My tripod has now seen five different camera bodies come and go. My tripod is actualy worth as much as my camera is. A year from now the tripod will be worth more than the camera, for sure.


Kent in SD

Wow, so many responses! Thank you guys! I'll answer a few of the questions I remember seeing;

I am mainly an "Outdoor Photographer," I have done Two wedding shoots and a couple car shows. But Wildlife and Nature are my biggest draws.

I have been looking at lenses and I keep finding ones that don't work with the D60. It doesn't have the internal motor so I HAVE to use AF-S lenses if I want auto. It is limiting my search a lot. This would be one of my Main reasons for switching bodies.

I also am looking for the ruggedness of the body (D60, none). I like the idea of the Mag-Alloy body and I have been wanting to upgrade to that for a while now.

I was also kind of looking for a cheap upgrade... (not finding any ) I have been looking at the D300 and the D300s for a long time now. As soon as the D300 came out I wanted one, then the D300s came and it's MSRP is $100 cheaper? I still am having trouble figuring that one out.

I have 2 lenses; Nikon 18-55 mm VR and Nikon 70-200 mm.

As for Software and Photo editing, I am using my MacBook, Aperture 2, CS: Educator's Edition (upgrading to CS4 soon)

As for the tripod, I have a Manfrotto 190XB with a mini ballhead.

It's kind of funny but looking at this It's making me want to get the D300 more and more. I guess now what's the diff between the D300 and D300s?

Thank you!

If I were you I'd get the 300 f/4 af-s and a 1.4x converter for your wildlife shots before I got a D300.

90 5.0 wrote:
If I were you I'd get the 300 f/4 af-s and a 1.4x converter for your wildlife shots before I got a D300.

Would that work with the D60's auto focus though?

A D200 may also be a really cheap way to get into the more professional bodies. Very similar to a D300 in size & function. So what if you don't have the megapixels or a 3" LCD screen. 3" is still too small. It also allows you to afford a 12-24 or a Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 which you will surely get more use out of than the camera body.

I understand wanting to use non AF-S lenses I wanted to do the same to skimp out on some glass costs. However, almost all of my lenses today are AF-S, all of Nikon's best current glass is AF-S. Granted you can get older stuff that works great but from what I have seen the only lenses that are non AF-S that are worth owning over the AF-S lenses are Manual Focus. Manual Focus lenses work on your D60.

I made these same mistakes when I first started. It ended up costing me a lot more because I all of a sudden had this Amazing camera and only 1 amazing lens. I was never happy with any of my mediocre lenses. after that I started the buy, sell, upgrade path from there. Looking back and seeing how much it cost me in money & learning curve, I should have just bought great glass and got great results from the camera I had and knew.

Eventually the need for the better camera will come. When you have a need that can't be met with what you have and are ready for the seriously steep learning curve of a professional body then take the plunge.

If you are set on getting a body and don't like the idea of a $450 D200 go for the D300 or D300s. The D700 has more disadvantages that advantages for your style in my opinion.

Well, the sub 100mm primes are in need of update to AFS... But the rest of it is right.

I would pick up a AFS 300 f/4 with 1.4TC for your wildlife.

I totally agree with the idea of buying 300mm f4 + TC-14E. You honestly don't have the lenses for wildlife now, and that's the priority. Lenses are almost always the priority. Your little 190 tripod is OK for the lenses you currently have, but will not do the job with a heavier 300mm f4. You're almost certainly using a cheap head on the tripod, too. Save yourself a TON of frustration and buy a used tripod, one that can hold at least 10-12 pound load. The important thing is the tripod head. Buy one that takes Arca-Swiss style quick release, as those are the standard. Yes, the QR plates are worth $40 each. Look at the quality ballheads from Markins, Really Right Stuff, AcraTech, Kirk. Yes, these will cost a few hundred dollars. Yes, you will be thinking, "What good will a ballhead do?" My answer is that if you use one of these for just one hour, you will keep it for the rest of your life and never be without it. For wildlife, it's the single most crucial piece of gear. At least, if you want photos that are sharp. Tripod, you could get by with a used Bogen 3021, although they are heavy. A 3011 might work. Maybe. A carbon fiber would be lighter and more resistant to vibrations. Brands to look at are Velbon, Bogen, Slik, maybe a few others. Consider this: I'm a very cheap Midwestern guy who will spend months thinking purchases over. My tripod/head (Gitzo 1325/AcraTech Ultimate ballhead) are maybe worth more than my camera (D300.) If you start to really get into wildlife photography, you WILL end up with a decent tripod/ballhead. Save yourself aggravation and money and just buy a decent one to start with.

Second thing of importance is your lens. The Nikon 300mm f4 is an AFS lens and will certainly work on your D60. The lens is excellent. Many pro's carry & use it. Add a TC-14E (plentiful on eBay) and you have some serious glass. You will be stunned at just how big an improvement in image quality you will get just from this.

Third thing of importance is camera body. Yes, it is last. I would just keep using the D60 for now. You wonder about camera durability? Consider this. A D60 body costs $585 new, probably under $500 used. You could just throw it away and buy another one and have spent less money than a new D300. At one time I was more into wildlife photos (after all, I live in South Dakota.) I had professional tripod with Wimberly sidekick, Nikon 500mm f4 AFS lens, and used a Nikon N80 camera on it. Cheap film camera, cost about $200. Excellent image quality from that combo. If you still have money leftover from buying quality ballhead, decent tripod, and the 300mm/TC-14E, then buy a D200. Does everything the D300 does except one stop less high ISO. Remember, just a few years ago the D200 was the "hot" camera everyone had to have, and it was $1,500. Buy a used one from eBay, KEH, and spend the $900 you saved on a tripod/head. Ten years from now you'll still have the tripod and it will likely still be worth about what you paid for it. Ten years from now the camera will be worth twenty bucks and be buried in a closet somewhere.

I really agree with Dionysis, above. He sounds like he's been all through this before, too. When you put big $$ into camera bodies and then skimp on tripods, lenses, you end up having to later buy a tripod that's actually solid enough for big lenses, and you end up having to sell the cheaper lens and buy a quality one too. This will all end up costing you more in the long run. All the while, the value of the "hot" camera you put your money into is dropping like a rock.


Kent in SD

Kent, you have no idea how many tripods I purchased before getting my bogen 3221 & acratech v2 then again maybe you do. I wish it was the first purchase I made. By the way my wife also agrees with me after funding a bunch of crap that I lost money on reselling / thowing away.

markpetersonii wrote:
90 5.0 wrote:
If I were you I'd get the 300 f/4 af-s and a 1.4x converter for your wildlife shots before I got a D300.

Would that work with the D60's auto focus though?

Absolutely

300mm is the basement for wildlife the 1.4x makes it a little more livable.

I shoot a D80 and I guarantee I will own that combo or the new version 80-400vr if it ever comes before I buy another body. My 70-300 is at 300 99.99% of the time and a converter on it just makes it to slow at the twilight hours for the most part.

Pretty much everyone agree's the 300 f/4 af-s and a 1.4x is the first thing a wildlife shooter should pick up.

You're not going to like this, but nature photographer Thom Hogan has an article about how to improve your shots:
http://www.bythom.com/rightpixels.htm

Support and lenses are first on his list, and a new camera is dead last.

Here's the worst case scenario. You start with a fairly reasonable camera with cheap lenses and no support. You notice that you can't always handhold it, so you get a shaky tripod. Then you realize you want better photos, and spend all your money on a professional body, which still takes the same pictures (although it feels awesome in the hand). You realize that your support doesn't work and you upgrade a level. Now your lenses are not long and sharp enough for wildlife, so you invest. At this point you learn that your tripod can no longer support the beefy telephoto glass. You end up buying everything many times, and in the wrong order, which costs even more.

Of course you can't go wrong with a D200 or D300(s), if you insist. Eventually you'll get it, but it's no substitute for a wildlife lens. And without a sturdy support you won't get the best sharpness out of a long and heavy telephoto. I know it doesn't sound fun to spend $1000 on support, but that'd actually outlast every other gadget you'll buy in the next 20 years. Lenses will hold value pretty well, too, so in an emergency you can sell those. The camera will be worth nothing, though.

You asked about the D300s. It adds video, 7 fps, a second SD card slot, quiet shutter mode (which isn't completely silent), dedicated live view, info buttons and a center button to the multi-selector (I hate the one-piece center selector on the D300). Just read any news release for a complete list.