[JamesD]

lured by the video capabilities of the D90 and the good reports about the D300 from johnnybrown and jamesD i swallowed hard and got a D300s. I have a whole bunch of lenses that are alright / good, so might try to flog some and rationalise.

Good call, you will absolutely not regret it one bit....until you have a play with a D3/D3s/D3x, just don't touch them unless you are ready to buy one, it's the best way 

[Johnny Brown]

Oof! Good call Grimer, balls deep!

until you have a play with a D3/D3s/D3x

...and think 'shit this is massive, and for what?'. Handled a few and not remotely tempted.

[chummer]

Ooh! get you with the d300 Grimer, and all you had to do was swallow hard you say, you dirty boy.

If you're flogging any of your decent lenses give me a shout..

[JamesD]

Oof! Good call Grimer, balls deep!

until you have a play with a D3/D3s/D3x

...and think 'shit this is massive, and for what?'. Handled a few and not remotely tempted.
[/quote

I've had them on hire a few times for jobs here and there, image quality blows the D300 outta the water as far as I am concerned, at high ISO especially, plus D3X is necessary for some jobs that I do where large scale printing is required, also I always shoot my D300 with the grip on as I prefer the ergonomics like that, since I have masssssive hands!

[Johnny Brown]

D3x aside, my assessment was that image quality at base ISO is  identical. The big bodies aren't really practical for anyone who goes out to climb and photograph.

[JamesD]

D3x aside, my assessment was that image quality at base ISO is  identical. The big bodies aren't really practical for anyone who goes out to climb and photograph.

In terms of sharpness yes, but I would say you get slightly better dynamic range, and a cleaner file out of the D3, much less noise in the shadows/dark areas which can be an issue with the D300.... probably due to the bigger pixel pitch.
D3x I would say is much the same as the D3 just with a higher resolution, and apparently slightly less capable at higher ISO, although i've never shot it above ISO100 so can't comment on on it's usefulness in that respect.

[Johnny Brown]

Confident you could tell the files apart without looking at the exif?

[JamesD]

Between which two cameras and at which ISO?

[JamesD]

assuming all things are equal i'll give it a crack

[Johnny Brown]

D3, D300, ISO 200. I'm pretty sure you could tell/ guess something like 3/5ths of the time, but the general conclusion would be 'damn near identical'.

Anyway, we don't need this thread any more. Thinking of upgrading your camera? Read this.

[slackline]

Anyway, we don't need this thread any more. Thinking of upgrading your camera? Read this.

  Thats hilarious, good find.

It does however make the assumptions that everyone always wants bigger and better/have addictive personality traits.

[JamesD]

Ha! That's brilliant mate, and so true, I drool over the latest camera bodies.....true, but my money goes on lighting equipment and nice lenses, anytime I need something better than my good ol D300, I just hire it, it usually works out cheaper in the long run
Digital bodies go down in value so quickly it's a false economy unless you are getting a high enough volume of jobs to justify it within a very short time period, or you have money to burn etc etc.

[Tris]

Confident you could tell the files apart without looking at the exif?

Maybe JamesD is from the Matrix and can see the 'real' images? 

[JamesD]

You mean........you can see it too........ ???

There are agents everywhere, stay sharp 

[Johnny Brown]

Now just waiting on a good deal on a 16-85mm to get me started

Just stumbled on a good deal at Ffordes. Can't link direct - go Used equip> Nikon> AF lenses.

[chummer]

Cheers for the JB, 'tis indeed a good price for a dealer. I have just 'won' one off ebay in mint condition with UV filter for £275 which i pretty good although it's taken about 3 hours of my life watching various auctions waiting for the right one. The last one went for aroud £340 so it just goes to prove things ain't always cheaper on there, you gotta put the time in.

Anyway, we don't need this thread any more. Thinking of upgrading your camera? Read this.

I should've gone for the d300..

[Johnny Brown]

£275 is a bargain. Good effort, you won't be disappointed.

[chummer]

Just a follow up to the above...

Only had my d90 and lens for a couple of weeks and I am really enjoying getting to know it. I 100% recommend the 16-85mm (unless you can afford a d300 of course), it's the ideal one lens set up for me and the image quality is simply superb and surpasses what I expected, so cheers for that knowledge JB.  I used a friends 18-200 and there's definately a noticable difference at the extreme ends, even to my untrained eyes.
Also, got meself a 1.8 50mm prime second hand in mint condition for just over £50 which I also fully endorse as an affordable first prime, really, really nice to work with and it has stopped me getting too lazy with the zoom and it seems a bit faster. Just waiting to afford a 12-24 for the wider end which I'm already wishing I had and I'll be a very happy chappy.
Thanks again for all the advice and recommendations.

[chummer]

Just a follow up to the above...
 I 100% recommend the 16-85mm (unless you can afford a d300 of course),

Doh! I meant 'the 16-85mm with the d90..

[Johnny Brown]

 

10-20 or 10-24 might be worth considering as otherwise there is a lot of overlap with the 16-85. I take my 12-24 out a lot less now due to this, the quality is good though. I'm really hoping Nikon bring out some more decent DX primes, a 14mm/2.8 prime would be the answer for me. Something like a DX 120/2.8 would be nice too, I'd be much happier with one zoom and 3 or 4 primes.

[chummer]

Good point JB, I was going to buy Grimer's Tokina 12-24 at a good price but maybe I should wait until I can afford something like the Tokina 11-16/2.8...this seems to have good reviews...hmmmm.

[Tris]

I'm really hoping Nikon bring out some more decent DX primes, a 14mm/2.8 prime would be the answer for me.

Fuck yeah or even a 16mm prime (non-fishy wishy) - I would love that shit!!!

[dave]

We keep banging this drum, but its now over 10 years since DX cameras appeared and we've not seen a single small light DX prime of any flavour yet with the exception of the fisheye (and I don't count the 35mm as small). Part of me thinks its never going to happen now. I have a suspicion that Nikon sees it market of DX users as basically zoom users, and that they hope the more discerning (i.e. prime) user will step up to FX.

[cofe]

albeit not a nikon user, i'm not that fussed about decent primes, i want decent, Canon/Nikon crop format zooms, specifically a 50-150mm 2.8 from either manufacturer. I'm not interested in carrying round a bag full of primes, I want a quality zoom, and I'm reasonably 'discerning'.

market segregation is the reason it won't happen.

[Tris]

We keep banging this drum, but its now over 10 years since DX cameras appeared and we've not seen a single small light DX prime of any flavour yet

Maybe there's more chance of getting a small light FX body