>> |
Anonymous
>>85422 Honestly, it looks to me that, all factors taken into account, the D300 is going to be the best DSLR ever made. It's definitely more than worth the extra cost over the 40D. Does the D300 have the 40D's feature where one can delay the return? Because that's the only thing I can think of that the 40D has that the D300 doesn't.
If you're strapped for cash and need a semipro body, you could always go for a used D200. You'll lose the full coverage viewfinder (which you'd also lose going for the 40D) and a few other features, but it's still a semipro body that'll mount the lens in question.
What body and lens(es) do you have now? You're talking about "sticking with Nikon," so it sounds like you might have some stuff you could sell to help out with this.
Also, saying you're missing these shots... are you missing them because they're far away, or are you missing them because they're things that inherently need a telephoto, like architectural details, wildlife, sports, etc? Because while sticking to a few (or even better, one) shorter focal length will mean you miss some shots, but it's better practice than almost anything else for photography, and you'll miss less shots over time and get better shots by doing so. Primes aren't just better because of the technical stuff; they're better because they force you to work in a way that tends to produce better photographs and gets you intimate with their particular focal length.
>>85434 105 is more than ninety. Also, it sounds like the OP shoots Nikon now, so 55*1.5 is only 82.5, not 88 as it is on a Canon 1.6x crop. 22.5mm of extra reach. Would you say there's no major difference in the FOV of a 50mm versus a 70 or 75, or a 70mm versus a 90?
|