NIKON D300 (Page 3): I upgraded from the D70s to a D300 & just recently (after retiring) to a D7100....I like the layout much better on the D300 over the D7100 & it produces great...

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

I upgraded from the D70s to a D300 & just recently (after retiring) to a D7100....I like the layout much better on the D300 over the D7100 & it produces great images. That said, I do like the D7100 as well for it's dynamic range, high ISO capabilities & several other features, but not so much for it's layout...I had been waiting for a D300s replacement that has never come...I don't shoot stock images, so I can't answer your question from that angle, but you can see images from both the D300 & the D7100 on my Flickr stream...Each image states the camera used...

Al Beatty Loc: Boise, Idaho

Hi raferrelljr,

My day-to-day, on-the-water DSLR is a Nikon D300 and it is still serving me very well for the magazine work I do. Some of the other UHHers have mentioned the D7000 and it also is a great camera and the price should be fairly reasonable now that the D7100 has come on the market. The only problem I have with some of the "newer" cameras is file size. The editors I work with tend to get a bit cranky if I fill up their e-mail inbox with huge files so I have to down size the pix before sending them to the publisher OR I can shoot with my 12MP D300 and just send the pix. New is not always better but darn some of those new cameras sure have some great features. Take care & ...

schuchmn

Here are a couple of links to articles on Thom Hogan's site. Thom is a long-time Nikon shooter (and definitely not a Nikon fan-boy) and I think his advice is sound here:

http://www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/camera-articles/the-reasons-to-buy-a-camera.html

http://www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/camera-articles/the-ultimate-camera-upgrade/

In fact, I think that anyone who gets the urge to upgrade should at least look over these articles. It could save you money better spent on other things.

Georgia Peddler Loc: Brunswick, GA

Isn't it odd that without the purchase of the absolute latest and greatest photographic machine just announced that there is just no way whatsoever to take a decent photo???
Whatever happened to photographic skills that are still relevant to the capture of an image?
Nikon (which I shoot and have for about 30 years) and Canon would have us believe that without the purchase of their newest creation photography is impossible - AND - - - a lot of folks believe it??!!!

Bozsik Loc: Orangevale, California

Georgia Peddler wrote:

Isn't it odd that without the purchase of the absolute latest and greatest photographic machine just announced that there is just no way whatsoever to take a decent photo???
Whatever happened to photographic skills that are still relevant to the capture of an image?
Nikon (which I shoot and have for about 30 years) and Canon would have us believe that without the purchase of their newest creation photography is impossible - AND - - - a lot of folks believe it??!!!

Nobody is questioning his ability to take a good photo. It is not what his question was about. He has the skill. He would like to make some money with it. Having better equipment to enhance his imagery is a very good idea.

There has been a great many changes in digital image quality in the past couple of years. Just saying "stick with the old equipment", in this case, would be the "odd" thing to do if he wants to sell the best images he can.

raferrelljr Loc: CHARLOTTE, NC

schuchmn wrote:

I made the switch to digital with the D70, passed ... (show quote)

Thanks, to everyone. I am also looking at a used D3 with only 2659 shutter activations for $1200.00. How does this play into the mix?

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

raferrelljr wrote:

Thanks, to everyone. I am also looking at a used D3 with only 2659 shutter activations for $1200.00. How does this play into the mix?

Sounds like a helluva deal. It's 12.3 megapixels but full frame. Released in 2007, I believe.

PhotoGenesis131 Loc: Michigan

I have had the D600 for a 6 months. Upgraded from D90. The 600 is a great camera. 6000 pictures, no oil or dust. If you can make the leap to a full frame and the FX lenses, I would recommend the D600. There are probably some great deals out there on the body or a kit.

arlissd

raferrelljr wrote:

Hello, fellow clickers, I have been using a Nikon D70 since the late 90's and want to upgrade and was thinking of the D300. I hope to eventually go to something like the D600 but for now the D300 would be a big step up. Thanks.

D610 approves on the D600.

Edmund Dworakowski

I have been shooting my D300s for 3 years. It's a fantastic camera and it takes fantastic images if you do your part. The pro body ergonomics and build quality will spoil you, if you have not owned or operated a professional camera. The only thing that makes me want to upgrade is that it does not measure up to today's High ISO standards. It works fime if you use a tripod, but I'd like the option of shooting hand held in poor light when my tripod or monopod is unavailable. If the D400 isn't comming soon, I'm going to have to go FX with a D800 or a Canon 5 MkIII.
If I was in your shoes and if you are not stuck on the Pro body, a used or reconditioned D7000 would be a great and less expensive option. D300s are still in Nikon's lineup at $1600 new and around $850 used. I still have my fingers crossed for a new D400 w/Sigma 18-35 f1.8...

Royalruler Loc: Rancho Cucamonga

I would go to the D610 now why wait, the D610 replaces the D600.

You will be surprised how fast you pick up the additional features.

Edmund Dworakowski

Think about the high cost od FX glass. There is no point in going FX without the proper lenses. A Great camera without GREAT GLASS is a very poor choise. When in doubt, SPEND YOUR MONEY ON THE BEST GLASS, CAMERAS ARE THE LESS IMPORTANT PART OF THE SET. GREAT GLASS IS EXPENSIVE !

raferrelljr wrote:

Thanks, to everyone. I am also looking at a used D3 with only 2659 shutter activations for $1200.00. How does this play into the mix?

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Edmund Dworakowski wrote:

Think about the high cost od FX glass. There is no point in going FX without the proper lenses. A Great camera without GREAT GLASS is a very poor choise. When in doubt, SPEND YOUR MONEY ON THE BEST GLASS, CAMERAS ARE THE LESS IMPORTANT PART OF THE SET. GREAT GLASS IS EXPENSIVE !

Yes. At the very least, research and price the lenses you will be wanting to purchase. I have only one that qualifies, so I'm sticking with my old D300 for now.....

rdgreenwood Loc: Kennett Square, Pennsylvania

I started to type in another "this is what I do, so it's also what you should do" comment but then changed my mind. My advice: go to a reputable camera store that has used cameras and get the feel for other cameras. Or, better yet, find a camera club, join it, and ask other people if you can look at their cameras. Get opinions from people in a context where you can immediately ask a follow-up question, see the work that comes out of the other cameras, and constantly remind yourself what you want to do with the new gear.

BTW, if you check my website http://www.photosbygreenwood.com you'll see images taken by a Nikon 8008, N90, D1, D200, D300S, and D800E, and Canon G-12. In the end, it's mostly about you, not the camera. Good luck.

schuchmn

JR1 wrote:

Old technology way surpassed by the D7000

Not necessarily. I have both and they both have their advantages.

The D300 is built better, has more direct controls, more options for bracketing and a higher frame rate and a bigger buffer for action shooting. And in my hands, at least, it handles better.

Are the images from the D7000 better? Maybe sometimes. (How's that for equivocation?). What I mean is that maybe the D7000 IQ is better, but you'll only see the difference sometimes.

We tend to forget that newer doesn't automatically guarantee better results. We all have to weigh the plusses and minuses of any piece of gear in light of what we shoot and how we shoot. There's no one-size-fits-all solution here.