Art and Photography

Is it wise to sell D300 and go 2 generations lower?

  • Last Updated:
  • Oct 19th, 2009 12:27 am
Tags:
None
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 21, 2007
4277 posts
71 upvotes
Winnipeg
I'm also in for selling the lense and keeping the body.

Also.. how much did it cost you to rent the sb600?? where did you rent it?
"An essential aspect of creativity is not being afraid to fail." -- Edward Land
My Flickr
Sr. Member
Nov 9, 2003
792 posts
66 upvotes
Toronto
Keep your D300. No one is going to pay $1500 for it and you'll just end up losing money if you do decide to sell it.

Sell the 24-70. $1700 can get you a lot of other gear. Either replace it with a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 as a good general purpose lens, or pair up an ultrawide (Sigma 10-20mm, Tokina 11-16mm or 12-24mm etc.) with a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8. Look for used, non-motor versions of these Tamrons. Check with the seller for any focus issues.

With the money left over from either of these choices, buy a SB-600.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 17, 2003
3042 posts
21 upvotes
Keep the D300 unless you really adore that lens. You won't get more than $1200 for the body used, and if you downgrade you'll miss the high-ISO performance for sure.

$1700 for the 24-70 will go quite far in other lenses.

Having said that, did you really find 24mm too long for weddings? I carry a 10-20 for fun at weddings, but bear in mind that unless your subject is right in the middle of the frame, things are going to be skewed (read: FAT LOOKING) at the edges when you get wider than that.
Deal Addict
Sep 3, 2005
2874 posts
498 upvotes
Vaughan
rubberband wrote:
Oct 16th, 2009 2:53 pm
Keep the D300 unless you really adore that lens. You won't get more than $1200 for the body used, and if you downgrade you'll miss the high-ISO performance for sure.
Yup, that's the most I'd pay for a used d300.
For Sale

Nothing at the moment
Sr. Member
Nov 9, 2003
792 posts
66 upvotes
Toronto
He said he found 24mm not wide enough for indoor, room and corridor shots which I can understand. It's the perfect length for a portrait lens but somewhat limited in the wide angle department when on a crop body.
Sr. Member
Dec 6, 2005
573 posts
66 upvotes
Nikon 18-200mm:
Use it for general walk-around and outdoor lens
$650

Nikon 50mm F1.8:
Use it for low light / razor sharp portraits:
$150

3rd party 10-20mm zoom:
Use it for the wide angle that you want. I believe Sigma or Tokina is the one that makes the highly regarded one for
~$650

Nikon SB600:
Because you like it.
$250

Added all together, you should be able to have this complete kit for the cost of what you can sell your one lens for... and it should cover most of the circumstances of what you'd want to shoot for, without having to bite the depreciation of selling a used body.

Best of luck!
Deal Guru
User avatar
Sep 7, 2006
13952 posts
87 upvotes
Kuala Lumpur, MY
didnt you have a 17-55 and 18-200?
[OP]
Deal Addict
Apr 7, 2008
4773 posts
40 upvotes
skyblue12 wrote:
Oct 18th, 2009 3:00 pm
didnt you have a 17-55 and 18-200?
Sold 18-200 because anything past 100mm was no use for me. Yes it was nice to have such a big range, but quality at 200mm was not satisfactory so I didn't even bother.

I had 17-55 for I think 4-5 days before exchanging it for 24-70...which does it's job very well but f/2.8 just gets me that far, and after I tried flash photography and was shocked at what it could do. It was night and day trying to do wedding (only hobby, not paid yet) with and without flash.
If 1 SB-900 flash did so much, I could just imagine creative and unique photos you could do with set of 2 or 3 (the other ones being SB-600 to save up) wirelessly from various angles.

And sorry didn't post in this thread for followup, but it wasn't for weddings that I found too tight. 24mm on 1.5x crop was decent. It was for city and night city shots that I lacked wide angle. I definetely could have had more keepers for wide angle landscape photography.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
May 25, 2009
7941 posts
1006 upvotes
Lulz wrote:
Oct 18th, 2009 3:19 pm
I had 17-55 for I think 4-5 days before exchanging it for 24-70...which does it's job very well but f/2.8 just gets me that far, and after I tried flash photography and was shocked at what it could do.
Bit confused by this, the 24-70 is also f/2.8. The 17-55 is the DX equivalent of the 24-70.
"God's in His heaven. All's right with the world." - Robert Browning (1812-1889)
Deal Fanatic
Apr 15, 2004
5264 posts
125 upvotes
Nepean
wa wut.

Nikon D300 + Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 ...You have one of the best cameras on the market, and one of the best 24-70 range lenses available and you want to sell it to get a low quality set of lenses, with wider range, and a canon rebel?

say wuuuut?
Why can't you just build on your extremely amazing fantastic orgasmic setup? Or why don't you try renting like the others have said... Rent what you think you need, and test the waters to see if you are all of a sudden more creative.
heatware available upon request
[OP]
Deal Addict
Apr 7, 2008
4773 posts
40 upvotes
bpopd wrote:
Oct 18th, 2009 7:16 pm
wa wut.

Nikon D300 + Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 ...You have one of the best cameras on the market, and one of the best 24-70 range lenses available and you want to sell it to get a low quality set of lenses, with wider range, and a canon rebel?
Well I don't want to go into lesser quality but have quantity. And renting costs a lot of money because it'ss not like I will need it for specific jobs or something. I just want to have ultra-wide angle (10-12mm on crop or 15-16 on FF), macro for bugs, and maybe lesser version of Nikon 24-70 (17-55 would work too) and flashes.
Renting all of it is not feasable for me. Sometimes I like landscapes, sometimes macro. Sure 24-70 is really nice, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have substitutes. And the only way to get the above mentioned gear is to sell 24-70 and/or body. Or like people here just said...only the lens. But I really would like to try full frame too, and the only way I could afford FF is if I go with Canon route with original 5D Mark I, whoch right now costs the same as D300.
Deal Fanatic
Apr 15, 2004
5264 posts
125 upvotes
Nepean
Lulz wrote:
Oct 18th, 2009 7:53 pm
Well I don't want to go into lesser quality but have quantity. And renting costs a lot of money because it'ss not like I will need it for specific jobs or something. I just want to have ultra-wide angle (10-12mm on crop or 15-16 on FF), macro for bugs, and maybe lesser version of Nikon 24-70 (17-55 would work too) and flashes.
Renting all of it is not feasable for me. Sometimes I like landscapes, sometimes macro. Sure 24-70 is really nice, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have substitutes. And the only way to get the above mentioned gear is to sell 24-70 and/or body. Or like people here just said...only the lens. But I really would like to try full frame too, and the only way I could afford FF is if I go with Canon route with original 5D Mark I, whoch right now costs the same as D300.

Thats ALOT of money to throw around to "try" FF.
heatware available upon request
Deal Expert
Mar 25, 2005
21281 posts
2104 upvotes
Sounds like there is a bit of gear'ism going on here.
Deal Addict
Jan 17, 2004
1508 posts
15 upvotes
Toronto
Lulz wrote:
Oct 18th, 2009 3:19 pm
And sorry didn't post in this thread for followup, but it wasn't for weddings that I found too tight. 24mm on 1.5x crop was decent. It was for city and night city shots that I lacked wide angle. I definetely could have had more keepers for wide angle landscape photography.
Your original post says you found the 24mm to be too tight for indoor shots. This makes me think you're either confused or dishonest about what you want or need.

If you're going to figure this out, or if anyone is going to be able to offer you useful advice, you first need to be honest about what you want from your system. If you just want to play - and there's nothing wrong with that - that's one thing. If you are doing it because you found yourself ill-equipped to shoot a wedding which is just a hobby for you know (implying you hope for this to change ?) that's another thing. If you really want to go full-frame no matter what, that's another thing again.

It doesn't matter what other people tell you matters or doesn't matter. This is not science, and all that matters is what you want. But you probably won't get there unless you know what you want first.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Sep 3, 2003
12068 posts
400 upvotes
Toronto
Kasakato wrote:
Oct 18th, 2009 8:52 pm
Sounds like there is a bit of gear'ism going on here.
:arrowu:
Deal with it.

Top