File :-(, x, )
Anonymous !tsGpSwX8mo
Anyone here get a D300?
(Opinions?)

I plan on getting one and a Nikkor 35-70 in mid January.
(I don't have a zoom lens T_T)
>> Anonymous
zooms are shit
never get one
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
If you can get it cheap. Go for it i say.
>> Anonymous
I'll sell you my next turd for $5 + S&H
nahhh, handling is free
>> Anonymous
>>102885
nub I don't have the time or the money to be changing primes and the 24-70 f/2.8 is massive win

not op btw
>> Anonymous
>>102907
It takes almost no time to change lenses with a bayonet mount, and, say, a set of a 24mm, 28mm, 50mm, and 85mm lens will comes to less than a good, fast zoom, in the same set, like the 24-70/2.8 L.

B and H quotes the above prime set-up at $917.95, and the 24-70 at $949.

(And the primes will still be faster, and yes I'm aware this is a thread for Nikon, but Nikon doesn't conveniently designate its best lenses with a little letter.)
>> des
35-70 f/2.8 is one of the best zooms ever made and is cheap as hell, ffs, buy it.
>> Anonymous
>>102920
For a crop sensor, it's significantly less useful. 52.5-105?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>102919
>It takes almost no time to change lenses with a bayonet mount
1. "Almost no time" vs. "Actually no time" with the zoom. We deal with thousands of a second in photography. You can lose the perfect shot in almost no time.
2. It takes a lot more time than you're assuming when you factor in the time spent digging around in your bag for the lens you want. I can do a really quick change under laboratory conditions, but when I'm out in the world and have to dig through my bag, then juggle two lenses without a handy flat surface, the time adds up.
3. Remember to factor in the time to zoom with your feet if the precise framing you want falls at any of the lengths 24-28, 28-50, or 50-85 (exclusive).

When I'm photographing events, I often have my 50/1.8 on my camera. I can't tell you the number of times that I've missed a shot because something cool happened a little bit too close to me and I didn't have room to back up or time to switch to my 35/2.0 and vice versa.
>> Anonymous
>>102923
Dunno about OP, but I'm pretty gay for the 50mm length. I realize that most other people aren't so happy with it at the short end, though.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
Nikkor 35-70?
is that the 24-70 or the 28-70? or an older lens?
>> Anonymous
>>102966
It's an older lens, they discontinued it about ten years ago. In my opinion it's a pointless lens. Especially on a digital camera, it's about the most useless zoom range you could have. Plus the fact that it's huge and heavy and the zoom range is very short.

>>102942
Perhaps you just need more practice and a bit more organization in your bag. I shoot with all primes and haven't had problems like those in years.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>102974
I doubt that.

I just timed myself, with my camera on a nice sturdy flat surface and the lens right next to me. I clocked the swap from 50/1.4 to 35/2.0 on my Rebel at 8 seconds. That's 24 potential photographs missed right there.

Standing with the camera around my neck and digging through my bag for the lens brings it up to 9 seconds (or 27 potential shots missed).

I don't think I'm particularly slow at it, either, since I'm a big primeophile myself. I'd be curious to know how fast it takes you.

Nine seconds doesn't sound like much, but it's bad enough. Add in the time that it takes for you to realize "No, the lens I've got on my camera right now won't work for this shot, I need to swap" and it gets even worse.

So yeah, I love my 50/1.8 and 35/2.0, and they're definitely my go-to lenses whenever light is low (or when I need a razor-thin DoF), but if I have enough light to shoot at f/8, I'd much rather just leave my 18-55 IS on the camera.
>> Anonymous
>>102982

When you're switching lens on the go like that with the camera strapped around your neck. Do you just let it hang for a second there with the sensor out in the open while you're reaching for the new lens?
>> Anonymous
>>102982That's 24 potential photographs missed right there.

Give me a break. First off, you're not shooting continuously the whole time you're at an event. Second, there is no possible way you could produce 24 composed, properly exposed photos in 8 seconds. It's far more likely that you would miss the opportunity to take one photo. And in all likelihood, there will not be a good photo to be had every 8 seconds. Not to mention the fact that missing the occasional photo is part of life... You know people actually used to pause to change film every 36 frames?! My lord, how could they survive with all those missed shots!!

If you want to use zooms, great. There are some very good zoom lenses out there, just don't think it's impossible or even difficult to use primes instead. Believe it or not, the only real deciding factor between zooms and primes is personal preference. You can argue all the milliseconds you want, but in the end it's just contrived bs to support your personal preference.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>102985
No, of course not. It goes:
1. Unlatch, quarter turn the old lens
2. Unscrew rear cap of the new lens
3. Swap with all possible speed
4. Rescrew rear cap on old lens

>>102986
*Potential* pictures. And often when I find myself needing to switch lenses, it's 'cause something interesting's happening right then. Obviously I wouldn't actually shoot 24 pictures in that time, but there might have been one amazing shot in there that I would have taken if I'd had the right focal length for it available.

And yeah, people used to change film every 36 shots. They also used to change film every 12 shots when medium-format had the minimum acceptable quality, or every single shot with large format. They used to have to spend several minutes setting up each shot on their big-ass ground glass plate under a dark cloth before taking a several-minutes-long exposure in broad daylight to get anything usable. Technology has progressed. Sure, no matter what gear you have, you're going to occasionally miss a great shot, but you don't have to just lie down and accept that. "Oh well. I missed the shot 'cause I was changing lenses, but my great grandad would have been too busy smearing emulsion on his glass plate to have gotten it, so it's okay."

Bresson talked about capturing "Le moment decesif", not "Un des moments decesif en cinquante ou vingt secondes". Anything that can give me an extra edge to grab that perfect hundredth of a second is welcome.
>> Anonymous
>>102985
What else are you going to do? Change lenses inside a cleanroom?

Clean the sensor later if you need to.

>>102942

1a. If it's wider, you can just crop.
1b. As far as I'm concerned, one chooses a lens- any lens- for the look it gives. Most zoom lenses give a pretty generic look, with some (usually expensive) exceptions. By picking the specific focal length and specific look you want in advance, one adds a little bit of extra punch to an otherwise great image.
1c. Sticking to one focal length (almost impossible with most zooms, usually either too wide and too long) trains one to work better. At the focal length one gets intimate with, over time he can mentally compose before he even lays his hand on his camera.

2. Just carry one or two, seriously.

3. Practice, and the very way it forces you not to be sloppy about composition (Oh, I'll just zoom in) is the biggest advantage of sticking at one focal length.

I'm not so much of a primefag as I am a stick-at-one-focal-length-you-know-you'll-become-a-better-photographer-and-get-better-photographs-in
-the-long-run-fag. I'd buy instantly something like the Tri-Elmar (the old 28-35-50 one; ultrawide lenses have never held much interest for me) if it came out for an SLR, but not so much for not having to change lenses as having the flexibility for travel and walking around of three without having to carry three.

But whoever said that it's all personal preference is right.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>103008
Heh. I actually have done significant prime-swapping on sandy and very windy beaches. You can't actually see the result of that until I stop down to f/22 or so, though...
>> Anonymous
>>102991

Do you have more than 2 hands? How exactly do you keep the old lens attached while opening the rear cap of the new lens when you're standing with no surface to put your things?
>> Anonymous
>>103023
Just keep the rear caps a bit loose then you can twist them off pretty easily.
>> Anonymous
>>103025

Fine, but you still expose your sensor when you're switching the lenses and while you're screwing it to the camera, the old lens is out in the open.
>> Anonymous
>>103027
Yes, so you just have to put it on at extrem speed
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>103023
If you turn it to just past the point where it clicks on, it comes off easily with one hand but still has quite a few degrees of rotation before it would fall off.

Then just twist off the rear cap, swap, and put the rear cap back on. It's really not that hard. Sensor's exposed for less than a second. Rear element of the lens is exposed for a bit longer, but not really more so than it would be if you were doing it on a nice flat surface, and if you keep it pointed downwards there's not too much danger of dust floating up into it.
>> Anonymous
>>103030

Enjoy your dusty sensor.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>103031
How does this give any more chance of dust than any other way of swapping lenses?

And the dust on my sensor is only visible at all at f/22, and is really only a problem in normal shots over f/32. Unless I'm shooting a blank white wall. Like yesterday:>>102694
>> Anonymous
>>103027
>>103030
HAY GUYS
The sensor IS NOT FUCKING EXPOSED when you change the lenses because the shutter is CLOSED. Just some amount of dust enters the mirror box and MAY somehow end up on the sensor later.
>> Anonymous
>>103036w
Dust and dust isn't so much what I would be worried about at the beach. I grew up around boats and the sort of thing a lot, and something one learns very quickly that way is that electronics and salt (in the air) do not mix well. Anyone who worries about dust or sand on their sensor, unless they're the sort to shoot landscapes stopped down almost all the way, is really anal.

I'd do whatever with an all-manual film camera.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>103041
Good thing I was doing it on a beach on a Great Lake, then.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Freaky paranoids. Who cares about dust?

My sensor looks like shit. I don't get any worse pictures because of it. But I bet I've gotten a lot of pictures I otherwise wouldn't have gotten, if I had insisted changing my lenses only in a clean room.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D80Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern958Focal Length (35mm Equiv)183 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:10:05 22:08:06White Point Chromaticity0.3Exposure Time3 secF-Numberf/16.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceTungstenFlashNo FlashFocal Length122.00 mmComment(c) Antti HakkarainenColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height685RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastHardSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
>>102840
back to the original question: i have one and love it. if you think you need it, then go for it. its awesome.
>> Anonymous
The D300 is about as good as it gets, so yeah, might as well get one.
>> Anonymous
It's always about what you need.

I'm using d300 with 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 zoom most of the time... 2nd lens in my bag is 12-24 f/4 for some "action" shots... I have 0 primes and I don't miss them, but then, I only shoot outside during day, so I don't need fast lenses, and since I don't do portraits I don't need fancy primes with DC either.

As for the camera itself, I can't say anything bad about it. It does the job well, and it was worth the money. But after few weeks, I realized I use none of it's new features (like, why the fuck should I care if it's 9 or 51 points - not to mention that old 9 point mode works better for me, or about hdmi output when I'm on a beach.. or what the fuck expeed image processing means) and d200 would do the job too. I don't regret buying it because it IS great (and certainly better than d70 I used for work before), but in my conditions it is nothing revolutionary compared to older model.

And for those dust-tards... cleaning service IS cheap.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>103203

It just means it's got features you don't need.

Remember it's designed as a semi pro, the AF 51 is obviously catered towards sports shooters.

I do agree with you on the primes, if you don't need it. There's no point having them. I rarely shoot with the 28mm and 50mm these days, i just enjoy having the 17-55mm on pretty much all the time. Except of course when i DO need a lighter load. I forget how heavy the 17-55mm is until i try a prime or anything that's not a pro telelphoto.