File :-(, x, )
Nikon D30 D40 Anonymous
Nikon D30 or D40:
I don't -need- either of them
I can afford either of them
I am new to photography
I'll be taking
Touristy shots; city scape, old ass buildings, and the such
Some landscapes
I -really- like the live view finder (LCD display of the D30)
Really the only reason why I'm considering the D30
wastes battery power and so on but I wanted the option
I couldn't find if the D40 offers this
This'll be my first non-point'n'shoot camera
>> Anonymous
Nikon D30 or D40:
-I don't -need- either of them
-I can afford either of them
-I am new to photography
-I'll be taking
--Touristy shots; city scape, old ass buildings, and the such
--Some landscapes
-I -really- like the live view finder (LCD display of the D30)
--Really the only reason why I'm considering the D30
--wastes battery power and so on but I wanted the option
--I couldn't find if the D40 offers this
-This'll be my first non-point'n'shoot camera

formatting.
>> Anonymous
pro tip

get a sony a300 as live view with it will be infinitely better on it than with the d300

and you won't pay double the price for a camera you don't need
>> Anonymous
live view will also be nice if you get into using your computer to shoot your camera remotely with software. like if you wana do some time lapse wtuff etc..

live view is the only thing I wish I had on my Canon XTI, once my wish i had list gets big enough I will upgrade camera bodys, til then I'm happy.

Also, i know with my XTI i can turn the display off, you can probably do something like that with the Nikon, if battery drain of the LDC is something that concerns you
>> Anonymous
What the fuck is a Nikon D30?

protip: get a Canon 40D and an extra lens.
>> protip Anonymous
nikon doesn't have a 'd30'


... sounds like you need should invest in a bridge cam
>> Anonymous
So you want a dSLR but aren't that serious about photography and you like live view? Canon 450D
>> Anonymous
PROTIP.
OP obviously meant the D300. after all it is in his pic..
>> Anonymous
>>217648I'll look at this, the moving LCD displays on the sony's are nice, something to snap off on accident

>>217654I did mean the D300, sry 'bout the confusion

>>217653Really wanted live view for when I wanna auto point and shot. I think ISO changes and stuff show up on the live view(?)

>>217657I had wanted something I can get newer/better/different lenses for. Maybe play with a fish eye lense (as seen on Home Movies)

>>217658Yeah, not really serious business, that's why I am hesitant on getting the D300. I'll look at the canon.


~Thanks you~
>> sage sage
>>217675

I did it wrong O|¯|_
>> Anonymous
dear OP.

You will not need live view for any normal photography, unless you are going to crawl around on the ground, where you cant see the viewfinder. Also Live view is a toal ass to activate on the d300.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>217675
>ISO changes and stuff show up on the live view(?)

If the reason you want live view is so you can easily see your settings and change them while shooting, the viewfinder displays all those in a well organized manner. Live view on dSLR's right now is just a gimmick to net people who want to move from P&S's into their entry level dSLR's. It's best use is for extreme angles where you can't see through the viewfinder which doesn't work on the current dSLR's with live view because of the lack of a rotating screen though it makes great for tethered shooting (where the camera is connected and controlled by a computer) which I doubt you'll be using too often.

Plus, live view fosters the bad habit of shooting with the camera held away from your face which brings about motion blur from hand shake and tired arms for holding such a heavy piece of equipment.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
*Myth* If I have a DSLR, I will take better pictures.

Seriously, man - if your biggest draw to the D300 is the live view, you'd probably do far better to look at the somewhat more high end point and shoots. The Canon Powershot S5 IS is a LOT of camera for a point and shoot, and the SX100 is nothing to scoff at, either.

This is coming from a Nikon guy.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>217747
>If I have a DSLR, I CAN take better pictures.

Fixed for truth. a dSLR won't improve your composition / content but it will help your technical side. I'm still saving up for a D50 and have to deal with a Canon A550 and can only take nice photos in bright daylight and it's already with CHDK but manual controls and RAW can't push my ISO over 800 and still have usable levels of noise and minimal motion blur. The small sensor and f/2.6 is also incapable of delicious bokeh other than at a macro level and the cheap elements fringe like fuck and give bloody barrel distortion at the wide end and only f/5.6 at the tele end which is only like 85mm equiv.

High end P&S's are really just glorified regular P&S's, not watered down dSLR's. Pic related, have some painful ISO 800 noise.
>> Anonymous
>>217748I'm still saving up for a D50

lolwut
>> Anonymous
lolol,
should i get a d300? + I'm new to photography = buy the d300 + kill youself + give camera to me.

protip: you want a high end P&S not a DSLR. get yourself a canon G9 that will hold you for quite a while, allow you to build technical skill and advance quite a bit. then when your good 'n' ready get yourself a DSLR.

I've been shooting for two years now on my D50 and am just now thinking about upgrading to a D300 - there is so much more to a high end DSLR that it would be a waste for a beginner to get one
>> Anonymous
OP, get a D300. There's no reason to have inferior gear just because you're starting out. Ten years from now your D300 will still be giving good service and you won't have to reinvest in a higher-end camera later on.

A D300 can be just as simple to use as a camera phone if you want it to be, really. But it can also go beyond that and do more.

>>217748
>but it will help your technical side

Which barely matters.

>ISO over 800 and still have usable levels of noise

A subjective take.

>The small sensor and f/2.6 is also incapable of delicious bokeh other than at a macro level

Again, for you. For me and others, lots of depth of field is good. F/2.8 or thereabouts on one of these is all the shallow depth of field I really ever want. I like background.

>and the cheap elements fringe like fuck and give bloody barrel distortion at the wide end and only f/5.6 at the tele end

This is a real problem in your camera, then, but it doesn't damn the class as a whole. Also, the CAs and distortion are correctable in post, and how often do you need the far end?
>> Anonymous
>>217777

>which is only like 85mm equiv.

Which is all you really need for most of the photography most people do. F/5.6 focused close for a headshot *will* blur the background on one of these, and 85mm is a good portrait length. Otherwise, not much use for most people. "If your pictures aren't good enough" etc. etc. Jog your lens in a little past the distortion to a normal focal length and get your ass into the action.

I use a small sensor bridge camera almost exclusively. I've shot with top-of-the-line gear before, and it's nice, sure, but for what I do and my style this is perfect: small size, silent shutter, I always have enough depth of field, I appreciate the full-coverage EVF, and it doesn't cover my face up or get in my way when I'm moving through a crowd. The particular model I have (Panasonic FZ8) I never notice any distortion- technically it has some, but it's not noticable- and I only get CA's wide open on the very far tele end I next to never use, and then only when shooting towards the sun.

The noise doesn't bother me; it's not noticable at 100 or 200, noticable but inoffensive at 400, and just fine at 800. You do realize people have shot with slow films and gotten good results? The example I've thrown out is David Alan Harvey, who shot his "Cuba" book on ISO 50 film, with a fastest lens of f/1.4. That means the fastest shutter speed he could get was the same as f/2.8, ISO 200. It's a matter of learning to not be a bitch and work with the equipment to get good results.

It doesn't work for you because of some of the particular flaws of your camera and an intense allergy to noise, but don't write off a whole class of cameras just because you don't like them.