Check out Underwater Photography Forum section of our forum.
At crossroad again - Nikon or Canon
Aug 15, 2013 03:47:18 #
lighthouse wrote:
Yes there is.
70-200mm F/2.8 (buy the best one you can afford)
$2000 plus for a brand new latest version.
70-200mm F/2.8 (buy the best one you can afford)
$2000 plus for a brand new latest version.
I'm with Lighthouse on this lens too. Incredibly versatile in its usage possibilities and with low light capability for your ice rink shots. A favourite of most pros and many amateurs. But don't just think Nikon. The Sigma equivalent has many recommendations on this site and is cheaper than the Nikon. Picture quality at our level is indistiguishable from the Nikon, but I'm quite content with my results.
See MT Shooter's comments about Sigma 70-200 in this current topic thread - http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-140541-1.html
There is also the third f1.8 prime lens to consider - the Nikkor AF-S 85mm f1.8G - giving an equivalent field of view on your D300 to 128mm, a "short telephoto" with a fast aperture. Again it carries high recommendations, but a higher price tag too !
Aug 19, 2013 00:04:46 #
shagbat
Loc: London
lighthouse wrote:
What lenses do you have?
Anyone who is disapointed with a Nikon D300 should seriously consider giving up photography.
I have a D800 and a D7100, possibly the best cameras of their type, that old D300 is magnificent.
Aug 19, 2013 20:37:45 #
Anyone who tells someone to seriously consider giving up photography in a photography forum, should seriously give up attempts at helping people in forums (which he/she can hide behind).
Aug 20, 2013 09:10:24 #
Bugfan
Loc: Toronto, Canada
When I bought my Nikon D200 I was terribly disappointed. That camera took worse pictures than the D70s I was replacing. But the disappointment was only temporary. I eventually came to realize that I had bought a high end camera that no longer would think for me.
Quality was now dependent on how I configured my camera to meet my needs. Once I figured out how to do that I was in heaven, the images were awesome. I would suggest the same thing for the D300 you have. Take the time to understand it's configuration capabilities and I bet you'll get better shots.
In terms of upgrading, first of all the D7100 is an APSC sensor (a DX). It's the D600, the D700 and the D800 that are 35mm FX sensors.
Next, depending on how skilled you are, the D700 might be the better deal. I have a D800 among other bodies and it cost me some grief. The resolution is so fine it captures even things like lens imperfections and fine dust. Today that camera gives me awesome images but it was a steep learning curve. Be aware too that the FX cameras also don't think for you, if you want optimal results you have to learn how to configure them.
As to Canon versus Nikon, from a quality point of view there is no difference. Both makers build mediocre cheap stuff for people who can't afford the best, and both build and sell awesome technology that will get you award winning images. Each also has something the other doesn't have, that's competition after all. But each always catches up to the other eventually.
Yes you can switch to Canon if you like but your image quality will not improve, their cameras at the high end also need to be configured just like the Nikons.
Finally, in my film days in the seventies I had a professional Canon SLR and a consumer body too. I had about a dozen different lenses too, all Canon. And I was generally happy. Then towards the end of the seventies they went to autofocus and obsoleted everything I had. When I complained they just told me to buy it all again. When I asked for an adaptor so that I could continue to use my lenses I was told there is none available. And when I finally wanted to go digital I wrote them to ask if my lenses would fit the digital cameras. They never bothered to reply, I learned elsewhere that they don't work.
Since I had to start over I switched to Nikon and I've never regretted the move. I have four Nikon bodies including a D3 and the D800. Over the years I've occasionally found a Nikon lens at a garage sale and to my delight each time the lens mounted on my cameras and worked perfectly. I learned quickly that Nikon tends to protect their client's investments in technology. Regardless of what changes come along, I am confident that my Nikon cameras will continue to work in all cases. I have never thought of Canon since.
Now perhaps Canon has learned its lessons or perhaps not. Personally I don't want to take the risk, it's just too expensive to replace everything I have yet again. So I'll stick with Nikon.
Add to that, I do know Canon users but their images aren't any better than my own. Both brands create the same images and both brands produce equally high quality products. Switching to Canon isn't going to solve the camera configuring problem and it's not going to improve the quality of your images. The only thing the switch will do is make you wonder if and when Canon will obsolete it's technology once again forcing you to buy it all over again.
I hope that helps a little. Good Luck!
Quality was now dependent on how I configured my camera to meet my needs. Once I figured out how to do that I was in heaven, the images were awesome. I would suggest the same thing for the D300 you have. Take the time to understand it's configuration capabilities and I bet you'll get better shots.
In terms of upgrading, first of all the D7100 is an APSC sensor (a DX). It's the D600, the D700 and the D800 that are 35mm FX sensors.
Next, depending on how skilled you are, the D700 might be the better deal. I have a D800 among other bodies and it cost me some grief. The resolution is so fine it captures even things like lens imperfections and fine dust. Today that camera gives me awesome images but it was a steep learning curve. Be aware too that the FX cameras also don't think for you, if you want optimal results you have to learn how to configure them.
As to Canon versus Nikon, from a quality point of view there is no difference. Both makers build mediocre cheap stuff for people who can't afford the best, and both build and sell awesome technology that will get you award winning images. Each also has something the other doesn't have, that's competition after all. But each always catches up to the other eventually.
Yes you can switch to Canon if you like but your image quality will not improve, their cameras at the high end also need to be configured just like the Nikons.
Finally, in my film days in the seventies I had a professional Canon SLR and a consumer body too. I had about a dozen different lenses too, all Canon. And I was generally happy. Then towards the end of the seventies they went to autofocus and obsoleted everything I had. When I complained they just told me to buy it all again. When I asked for an adaptor so that I could continue to use my lenses I was told there is none available. And when I finally wanted to go digital I wrote them to ask if my lenses would fit the digital cameras. They never bothered to reply, I learned elsewhere that they don't work.
Since I had to start over I switched to Nikon and I've never regretted the move. I have four Nikon bodies including a D3 and the D800. Over the years I've occasionally found a Nikon lens at a garage sale and to my delight each time the lens mounted on my cameras and worked perfectly. I learned quickly that Nikon tends to protect their client's investments in technology. Regardless of what changes come along, I am confident that my Nikon cameras will continue to work in all cases. I have never thought of Canon since.
Now perhaps Canon has learned its lessons or perhaps not. Personally I don't want to take the risk, it's just too expensive to replace everything I have yet again. So I'll stick with Nikon.
Add to that, I do know Canon users but their images aren't any better than my own. Both brands create the same images and both brands produce equally high quality products. Switching to Canon isn't going to solve the camera configuring problem and it's not going to improve the quality of your images. The only thing the switch will do is make you wonder if and when Canon will obsolete it's technology once again forcing you to buy it all over again.
I hope that helps a little. Good Luck!
Aug 20, 2013 21:45:52 #
This was a great storytelling response to my inquiry. Thank you! I received really good advice through this forum and I greatly appreciate it. I think I will hold onto my D300 for now and invest in a couple of new/better lenses. I just bought the 50mm f1.8. I would like to buy good telephoto, 70-200mm, but the price tag is so high; I'll need to hold off for a bit. I would also like a macro lens. Any suggestions there would be helpful too.
Aug 21, 2013 07:10:39 #
Bugfan
Loc: Toronto, Canada
Be careful about the word "good". Yes the 70-200 f2.8 is an amazing lens, I have one. It focusses incredibly fast, it is razor sharp, it operates well in low light too. But ... it's also large and heavy and a wee bit expensive.
In addition, many people can't tell the difference between a good lens and an average lens. I do events sometimes and rather then constantly change lenses between my 24-70 and my 70-200 I will use Nikon's 28-300 instead. That lens is not what I'd call "good", it's simply a practical lens that allows me to flip between wide angle and telephoto instantly without having to change lenses and it saves me a lot of weight too. This allows me to capture expressions and moods that would be lost if I'm constantly changing lenses.
When the pictures are edited I get nothing but rave reviews, no one seems aware that I didn't use an optimal lens to take them with.
When I need razor sharp images consistently or have other professional needs I will use that 70-200, there's none better. But for many things I find the 28-300 more practical. So I have that one too.
The trick is to decide what you're going to use the lens for and whether the additional weight and cost are justifiable based on who is going to get and judge the later pictures. Think about this carefully, it may save you a lot of weight and money.
In terms of a macro lens, I have three. I have the 60 mm, an old style lens with an aperture ring that also uses the focus motor in the camera. I use this one on my bellows because that's the only way these days that you can adjust an aperture when using a bellows. There is no electrical connection between the camera and the lens making this the solution. But ... I use this lens only for bellows work. I don't use it for general macro photography. You'd have to go way too close to capture life size things like insects.
My favourite lens is my f2.8 105 mm macro. This lens gives me a reasonable working distance often a good twelve inches. What's really nice too is that it has a built in image stabilizer which enables me to do a lot of stuff hand held and still get a good depth of field. This turned into my favourite lens and is the one I usually recommend to most people.
Nikon also has a 200 mm F4 macro lens. I love this lens because I can be well back from my subject but it has no stabilizer and it uses the focus motor in the camera so it's rather slow to focus. I use this one when I can't get close to my subject, the rest of the time I reach for my 105mm one instead.
Those are a few things to think about.
Good Luck.
In addition, many people can't tell the difference between a good lens and an average lens. I do events sometimes and rather then constantly change lenses between my 24-70 and my 70-200 I will use Nikon's 28-300 instead. That lens is not what I'd call "good", it's simply a practical lens that allows me to flip between wide angle and telephoto instantly without having to change lenses and it saves me a lot of weight too. This allows me to capture expressions and moods that would be lost if I'm constantly changing lenses.
When the pictures are edited I get nothing but rave reviews, no one seems aware that I didn't use an optimal lens to take them with.
When I need razor sharp images consistently or have other professional needs I will use that 70-200, there's none better. But for many things I find the 28-300 more practical. So I have that one too.
The trick is to decide what you're going to use the lens for and whether the additional weight and cost are justifiable based on who is going to get and judge the later pictures. Think about this carefully, it may save you a lot of weight and money.
In terms of a macro lens, I have three. I have the 60 mm, an old style lens with an aperture ring that also uses the focus motor in the camera. I use this one on my bellows because that's the only way these days that you can adjust an aperture when using a bellows. There is no electrical connection between the camera and the lens making this the solution. But ... I use this lens only for bellows work. I don't use it for general macro photography. You'd have to go way too close to capture life size things like insects.
My favourite lens is my f2.8 105 mm macro. This lens gives me a reasonable working distance often a good twelve inches. What's really nice too is that it has a built in image stabilizer which enables me to do a lot of stuff hand held and still get a good depth of field. This turned into my favourite lens and is the one I usually recommend to most people.
Nikon also has a 200 mm F4 macro lens. I love this lens because I can be well back from my subject but it has no stabilizer and it uses the focus motor in the camera so it's rather slow to focus. I use this one when I can't get close to my subject, the rest of the time I reach for my 105mm one instead.
Those are a few things to think about.
Good Luck.
Aug 21, 2013 21:10:09 #
One under rated Nikon DX lens is the 18-70. Can be found rather cheap for the quality you get.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Commercial and Industrial Photography section of our forum.