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

[Lulz]

Hello folks.
I really wish I had listened to some of the great tips and suggestions given to me, but I learned the hard way.

The problem I am having is that I thought going D300 and 24-70 will cover what I need. It didn't. When I didn't have anything and was starting from scarcth I made a decision that I won't be needing anything except Nikon 24-70. I am not a sports shooter so anything past 100mm is no use to me. And I thought 24mm on crop would be good enough since I will only be doing portaits and people photography.

Well, I had my first wedding 2 weeks ago. It was my old friend's wedding who isn't rich and I was the only photographer there. It wasn't paid and it was in a remote village where owning even a basic 5MP camera means you are wealthy. Anyways, there I was, a foreinger with D300, 24-70, SB900 (rented to try it out as I have never tried flash) and battery grip (also rented to try out vertical release),
total value approximately of $4200 combined for body+lens+flash+grip

However one thing I understood is that I desperately needed wide angle and a flash. I absolutely craved for wide angle during tight corridor shots and room shots. Like I said above, I had a flash with me, but it was rental so I knew that I would have to say goodbye to it after I come back. So this left me in a dillema:

I can not afford any additional lenses like wide angle or even a lesser flash like SB600. My budget pretty much emptied when I purchased D300 and 24-70. I am really thinking of selling D300 with 24-70 and buying a used XTi/XSi/XS and set of lenses that include a fisheye (something I have wanted to get creative with), wideangle as I do a lot of landscape and 24mm on 1.5 crop just doesn't cut it for me and a macro lens.
Macro can wait as it's the least of interest to me but wide angle and flash and more important.

Please keep in mind that I am not jumping ships because Nikon doesn't do what I want. It does and it does the job perfectly fine. I just have different priorities and interests now than I did before when was purchasing the body and lens. Before I thought 24-70 would be my walkaround lens, but I was mistaken regardless of people telling me 24 on crop is too tight. Please steer me into the right direction because it's hard to part with such a beautiful body with gorgeous 3" LCD in favour of something that is several years old but I see no other way of getting wide angle and flash and macro unless I don't sell my current gear.

I am okay with using primes and changing lenses. I don't need anything past 100mm. I am okay with 3rd party lenses and I am okay with used stuff.

Am I wasting money by selling stuff I bought new? Or maybe I should just sell 24-70 and stay with Nikon? The only reason why I am going Canon is because lower end Nikons don't have the AF motor making old AF lenses useless for me. But Canon lower end bodies don't have such issues. Plus I get access to Canon lenses.

[frogger]

Why not just sell the 24-70mm and use the proceeds to buy 2 cheaper lenses.. such as the Sigma 10-20mm and a Sigma 24-70mm or Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 zoom lens. You may be able to get a sb600 as well and still add up to about the same as the 24-70mm is worth.

[Xeros]

Don't let one wedding discourage you, they are notoriously hard to shoot.

I say keep the gear and build upon it as you master nuances of the lens and body. Sure, you'll miss some creative shots that are outside of the bulk of photos you take, but remember, these shots don't make up what you normally shoot.

[lz7j]

Save, and build upon your system when your wallet allows. Another option would be is to sell your 24-70g and get a 17-55dx or a tamron 17-50.

You don't need to go crazy wide at weddings. I rarely shoot wider than 24mm on full-frame.

If you're going to jump ship and go Canon. Skip the croppers and go to a 5D + 24-70L + 580ex2. I'm sure you can make the switch without having to spend the cash.

[Borbor]

forget buying

start renting.

That'll get you through until you absolutely need to buy again when your budget allows.

I rented 2 lenses, a flash and a battery pack on top of all the stuff I already own when I shot the few weddings I had to shoot this past summer. Could I have bought them? Sure. Do I need to? No.

Save your money that way instead of jumping ship again and going to a different brand with basically the same kit. Next thing you know you're going to say a 10-22 3.5 is too slow and will once again kick yourself in the nuts.

[bigwilly03]

You got the wrong lens for a DX body for weddings. You should have gotten the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8. The 24-70mm would be fine for full frame.

[gotak]

You got the wrong lens for a DX body for weddings. You should have gotten the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8. The 24-70mm would be fine for full frame.

Yep. Plus you ran into the new to the hobby tendency to tread DSLRs like P&S by thinking you only need 1 lens. Major point for DSLR is to get the ability to switch lens.

Are you looking into the used market? You can get for example a Tamron 17-50 for 400 dollars and it should give you the wider angle you wanted. And you should be able to get a kit Nikon 18-55 for even cheaper? The canon ones goes for about 100-150 if you get it used. Although, take it from me that can make you want something even wider (as I am thikning about 10-22 now :P ).

I think the best thing to do is not to stress about it now but start saving up for more lens. If you like this hobby enough you'll end up spending more on it. You'll lose money selling your stuff now. Best to built up slowly then to make rash decision and end up with even less.

[Kasakato]

See what you get for not listening to RFDers. :lol:

I would sell the 24-70 ad build up a cheaper lens set. As the others have mentioned, a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 plus perhaps a prime is a good place to start. You keep your preferred focal length, and can add a fast prime or two. There should also be room for an SB600.

[Lulz]

Does getting used 5D for $1200 or so make sense?
I could sell my D300 for approx $1500 (it has 3 year extended warranty and 5k shutter) which means I could use the $1500 for Canon 5D and a flash equivalent to SB600. Then, I will have $1800 from the 24-70 to get:

Walkaround
Ultra Wide Angle
Fisheye
And possibly macro...possible to do for $1800? (all used)

There's a guy on CL right now looking for mint D300 with extended warranty.

[gotak]

Does getting used 5D for $1200 or so make sense?
I could sell my D300 for approx $1500 (it has 3 year extended warranty and 5k shutter) which means I could use the $1500 for Canon 5D and a flash equivalent to SB600. Then, I will have $1800 from the 24-70 to get:

Walkaround
Ultra Wide Angle
Fisheye
And possibly macro...possible to do for $1800? (all used)

There's a guy on CL right now looking for mint D300 with extended warranty.

As a Canon user I'd never say no to someone wanting to ditch Nikon and come over to our side (kidding!!!). Seriously though couple of things:

1) 5D is full frame which means any lens you get automatically becomes "wider" than same focal length on the D300.

2) At the same time lens like the Tamron 17-50 will not work that well. It'll fit but it would not produce as good an image.

3) For 1800 you should be able to get at least 2 good lens for your Canon if you shop used. But! The same can be said for Nikon lens.

[frogger]

If I were going Canon 5D I'd be tempted to get the 24-105 F4 L as my walkaround thus negating a lot of the possible cost savings.

[sfu_engineer]

Are you going to be shooting weddings frequently? And for money? If not why not just keep the gear you have. Gear is $$$ and if you aren't making money through your photography you shouldn't splurge on $$$ gear.

The 5D is a very different beast compared to your D300. The image quality is fantastic but it is almost archaic to use compared to Nikons. Switching systems means you will be losing money and will end up with the same or lower gear. Your best bet is like what other RFD users have said and save up and get what you need in your current Nikon camera system.

Personally I would not pay $1500 for a used D300 camera even with warranty.

[Winkle]

I'm on the bandwagon of selling your 24-70 for cash to fund a couple of primes.

Sounds to me the only real issue is that the 24-70 is too long for your cropped body, and that you have no issues with the D300. Most stores that still has stock are selling the D300 for $1500-$1650 CDN... you're going to have a hard time selling yours for the same. 24-70 goes for a lot more used, I've seen $1700 on Craigslist which should be enough for 3 good primes or a prime and a zoom.

Secondly, if you want a flash but can't afford the SB900, I would recommend the much cheaper SB600 ($260 reg brand new but frequently goes on sale for $240 or less) which is also a very very capable flash.

[weedb0y]

You can always consider a Pentax that can take any lense made in the past century or so.

You can score manual focus primes for dirt cheap then.

[gotak]

If I were going Canon 5D I'd be tempted to get the 24-105 F4 L as my walkaround thus negating a lot of the possible cost savings.

24-105 I got for about 1k 2nd hand. He can get that and still have 700-800 left for another lens.

[faken]

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?

[Derringdo]

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.

[rubberband]

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.

[phuviano]

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.

[Derringdo]

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.

[xtracrispy123]

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!

[skyblue12]

didnt you have a 17-55 and 18-200?

[Lulz]

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.

[Winkle]

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.

[bpopd]

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.

[Lulz]

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.

[bpopd]

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.

[Kasakato]

Sounds like there is a bit of gear'ism going on here.

[NuggyBuggy]

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.

[KorruptioN]

Sounds like there is a bit of gear'ism going on here.

:arrowu:

[shoryukenz]

Get a D3s, 14-24 and the new 70-200 VR II and call it a night...




...Then debate on whether you want to switch to Canon tomorrow.

[tiijei]

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.

Did you just read my mind :twisted: I was thinking the same thing while I was reading this thread.

So are you going with a used Canon 5D+EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM?

How much are you letting the Nikon Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm f2.8G ED go for? :cheesygri

[skyblue12]

I've seen 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8 L's goin for 1 -1.2k lately wtf.....

[legendofxix]

Sell the D300, buy a D700.
Problem solved.