So, I'm still toying with the idea of a D300 for my D70, BUT:

Is there any/much point in a D300 with the more basic Nikon lenses? I have the 18-70 that came with my D70, and have just bought the 70-300VR lens too.

However, most of the reviews I've read mention using better quality glass, and start with the 17-55 F2.8.

Any thoughts?

Alcazar

The 17-55 2.8 is a lovely piece of kit. But you'll still get reasonable results with the glass you have. The 70-300VR is certainly very good quality. Don't know about the other one but the shots you've posted here haven't looked too bad.

You will see a difference with pro glass, obviously, but it's something you can move up to bit by bit.

E-Bay is your friend here :)

SB

I chopped my 70-200 F2.8 AFS VR in for a 70-300 VR Mainly due to the weight. I miss not having F2.8 but do struggle sometimes to see much of a quality difference TBH. I use the 18-70 and 70-300, and they perform great on my D200.

I went from a D70s to a D200 recently. I was all set on the D300 but in the end the £400 price difference swung it for me. Not bothered with live view, 2 extra MP, bigger screen and better AF as the D200 is a BIG step up in performance & handling.

I have the 18-70 and 70-300VR lenses on my D80.... both perfrom fantastic :D

I took all these image on the same day.

Heres my 18-70, still nice and sunny.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v208/frayz55/Heli/DSC_0019.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v208/frayz55/Heli/DSC_0077.jpg

Swap to the 70-300 in the evening and losing the light... as a better photographer i feel these could greatly be improved upon, but im a proper novice and feel these didnt come out too sad.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v208/frayz55/Heli/DSC_0163.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v208/frayz55/Heli/DSC_0273.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v208/frayz55/Heli/DSC_0339.jpg

Those photos are nice, but my point is that the lenses I've got are, (I think), designed to work well with the D70 upwards. The D300 is a whole different beast, with a different larger CMOS sensor and 12.3MP.

So should I, if I buy one, be looking at new lenses too?

Alcazar

In my opinion you're best to get good lenses first which will serve you well for a long time. You will see the benefit on a D70 which still is a good camera. Buying a DSLR nowadays is like buying a computer so whatever you buy will be superceded within a few months. There will be a D400 along before you know it.

I know nothing about Nikon as I'm a Canon user but in my opinion, buy decent glass (lenses) before upgrading a camera.

How about going into a store and seeing if they can lend you a body and or lens and doing some tests in store. Or maybe even hire them for the weekend? Hireacamera.com - Home - camera hire, camcorder hire, hdv hire, lens hire (http://www.hireacamera.com). I've checked and they stock both the D300 and 17-55mm f2.8.

Their delivery and collection service is great.

Darren

So, I'm still toying with the idea of a D300 for my D70, BUT:

Is there any/much point in a D300 with the more basic Nikon lenses? I have the 18-70 that came with my D70, and have just bought the 70-300VR lens too.

However, most of the reviews I've read mention using better quality glass, and start with the 17-55 F2.8.

Any thoughts?

Alcazar

I use that lens which came with my D70 all the time on my D2X and I've lost count of the number of front covers/spreads and even posters that I've supplied to magazines around the world while using it.....

Some people like to claim that one dslr is pretty much the same as any other and it's lenses that make all the difference, but I disagree! :p

You might notice the difference in quality of the lenses when you are shooting wide-open, but when stopped down the differences will be minimal. Contrast and colour might also be better with more expensive lenses, but post-processing makes more of a difference IMO.

The D300 is light years ahead of the D70, by all means buy one and use it to make the most of the lenses you already have. You'll know when the lenses become the limiting factor; then you can upgrade them as well.

p.s. this isn't aimed at anyone specifically, just a general observation, but does anyone else dislike the terms 'glass' and 'pro' when referring to lenses. It just sounds a bit elitist to me! ;)

Following on from what Daryl has said, my colleague who covers the SBK rounds with me has just changed from a D2H last season to a D300. That raised a few eyebrows as he's gone from a "professional" camera to a top end consumer camera. But the difference in picture quality is astonishing.

Same guy, same types of pictures, just a better camera.

Sorry, should have mentioned this before but it only just dawned on me as I was going through the current crop of images he's just ftp'd over from Assen...

SB

PS - I also think the term "glass" is, perhaps not elitist but certainly a bit cliquey. I'll try not to use it again ;)

PPS "Pro" is OK though as it's describing a target market sector and there isn't really anything better to use...