Used Nikon camera body under $500 for portraits (Page 3): Yes I was going to suggest a D300. Terrific camera. Perfect for the job in hand.

AndyGarcia

Yes I was going to suggest a D300. Terrific camera. Perfect for the job in hand.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Bruce Hudson wrote:

I have a Nikon D3300 and would like to trade up to a model better suited for studio portraits. Any recommendations for a used Nikon body under $500? I am primarily using a 50 mm F1.8 lens.
Thanks for any suggestions.
Bruce

If you need to buy a camera in that price range - the D700 is what I would get. You'll likely need to get a better lens, but without knowing what exactly you mean by portraits - that could be anything from what you already have to as long as 200mm.

Or, as others have suggested, keep using what you have, use some of the $500 budget to get lighting, props, backdrop(s), stands, light modifiers, reflectors, etc.

ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio

dat2ra wrote:

As I understood, the OP was looking for an additional body, not to ditch the one he has. Besides, I stated my experience with the D300, and it still takes great photos even if it is "only" 12MP and is no longer serviced. (By all means, STOP shooting "obsolete" film!!) So no, CHG, you don't get to be the arbitrator of who does and who doesn't get to be a Hogger. Just sayin'.

Actually the OP wanted to “trade up” from the D3300. In other words replace it. Most of us urged him to keep the D3300 and trade up to better lenses. I added a second body, a D90 and kept my D3400. Sensor can’t compare to the D3400 24mp but its 12mp sensor produces wonderful images and auto focuses the older lenses that have no in lens motors. Something the 3xxx and 5xxx series cannot do. Supposedly better dynamic range than the D300 (or at least they say) but can’t handle the higher ISOs like the D3300/D3400.

rfmaude41 Loc: Lancaster, Texas (DFW area)

"your existing 50 mm F1.8 lens becomes an "effective" 75mm f/2.8 optic"

Wrong: the field of view will be the same as a 75mm on a full frame, yes, but, the aperture WILL NOT CHANGE (remains at f/1.8).

sscnxy

Bruce Hudson wrote:

I have a Nikon D3300 and would like to trade up to a model better suited for studio portraits. Any recommendations for a used Nikon body under $500? I am primarily using a 50 mm F1.8 lens.
Thanks for any suggestions.
Bruce

Hello. One important feature your D3300 lacks is AutoFocus Fine Tuning. That feature comes only in the higher level Nikons. If you want tack sharp eyelashes, pupils, catchlights, etc in your portraits, the AF fine tuning has to be right on. Without that, you'll wonder why your images are always focusing in front (the nose, eg) or behind (the ear) when you aimed for the eye. That would drive any compulsive photographer with a critical eye nuts! Of course, if your current 50 mm F1.8 happens to be focusing right smack in the center already from the Nikon factory, then you don't need to fine tune at all. I'd wager the latter is not the case.
So do yourself a favor if you really want tack sharp portraits and get at least the D7000 level. They're in your price range now.

flyboy61 Loc: The Great American Desert

You have a very capable camera in your D 3300, but If you want another good, capable camera for not many $$, the Nikon D 90 is a good choice. A low shutter count D300s is also a good choice They will do anything you will need. Lighting/experience is King!

In my never-humble opinion, from personal experience, the focus fine tune feature on advanced cameras is nice, but largely unnecessary. Shooting wide open is o.k., and the de rigeur thing lately, but most cameras will focus "close enough"...and...experienced photogs know to stop down, and use enough DOF to overcome any slight misfocus. Most cameras made in the last...oh, say 20 years' focus will be close enough, so the old wives' tale of focus on the eye, and the nose or ear will be sharp does not apply very often, unless the cameras or lens has been "Bubba'd" or dropped.

ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio

flyboy61 wrote:

You have a very capable camera in your D 3300, but If you want another good, capable camera for not many $$, the Nikon D 90 is a good choice. A low shutter count D300s is also a good choice They will do anything you will need. Lighting/experience is King!

All good points. Love my D90 used as a second camera.

flyboy61 Loc: The Great American Desert

rfmaude41 wrote:

"your existing 50 mm F1.8 lens becomes an "effective" 75mm f/2.8 optic"

Wrong: the field of view will be the same as a 75mm on a full frame, yes, but, the aperture WILL NOT CHANGE (remains at f/1.8).

That is what I like about my 50 mm f/1.8 on my D 7100...a 75mm equivalent field of view with a f1.8 aperture. Great for portraits at 6-8 feet, or anything else! I once attended a Nikon demonstration where the salesman showed a photo of the "distortion" caused by using the 50 mm. He was selling the 85mm f/1.8 ( A marvelous lens!)

BUT! The supposed "distortion" of the 50 was mostly in his sales spiel. I couldn't see it.

ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio

flyboy61 wrote:

That is what I like about my 50 mm f/1.8 on my D 7... (show quote)

Mine is fine with me also. A cheap choice for a 1.8 prime.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

flyboy61 wrote:

That is what I like about my 50 mm f/1.8 on my D 7... (show quote)

It’s not specifically the lens that’s causing the distortion.
It’s perspective distortion caused by having to be closer to the subject to get the same size image with a shorter lens when compared to one of a longer focal length.
Happens with all lenses.

And as far as exposure goes, yes, it is an f/1.8 lens, but since it's shorter, you get about a stop more depth of field, roughly equivalent to a 2.8 at 75mm on a full-frame camera.
(an f/2 lens would be closer)

More on depth of field differences with equivalent lenses HERE.

sscnxy

flyboy61 wrote:

You have a very capable camera in your D 3300, but... (show quote)

Wow! I bet if you did test all your lenses with a good chart, you'd be surprised how far off center the AF point turns out to be in almost all of them. DOF can hide misfocus only to a point, but a good photographer who cares about tack sharpness at any particular chosen aperture would rather just work with a well tuned AF setting in his lenses. It's not difficult to do with a good, precise chart, adequate lighting, and a tripod. If you haven't tried it, I highly suggest you give it a go on a few different lenses. You might become a convert to this way of approaching precision.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If you're concerned about sharp images, you might assume it's the camera, or you might assume it's the photographer, considering the ideas presented here: How to obtain sharp images in digital photography