# Big Decision!!



## lifeafter2am (Feb 11, 2008)

Ok.... so for those of you who don't know, I recently lost ALL of my equipment.  Long story short we were shooting some surfing promo shots for my buddies board company, and everything is now somewhere underwater near Palm Beach.  :cry:

BUT............. the good news is I had everything insured!  So, now I am waiting for the check, patiently (not really!!), and have come to a cross roads.  I have always been a Canon shooter, since I picked up a camera 10 years ago, but now, I have the option to change teams per se.  I am seriously impressed with the D300, and am contemplating switching to Nikon.  The ability to get 8fps, 12 mp and the +-5 EV is just amazing!

Tomorrow I am going to my local shop and going to shoot with it and make sure I even like the controls and all.  But, given I don't hate the controls and the feel of it, my questions are:

1) If you could either shoot a Canon 40D or a Nikon D300, which would you (if you were in the same situation as I am)?  

2) And to all you Nikon shooters out there: What is the equivalent to "L" glass in the Nikon system?  I heard it was the Nikkor branded lenses, is this true?

P.S. I don't care about re-learning a system or new controls, doesn't really bother me at all.


----------



## jstuedle (Feb 11, 2008)

Nikon brand glass can be had in Pro and consumer flavors with several Pro-sumer samples thrown in for good measure. Unlike Canon, Nikon does not label the pro glass "Luxury" or something equivalent like "snob class".  But look for features that would identify a pro lens, constant large aperture, "S" for silent wave focus motor, VR is = to IS in Canons lineup. ED  is "extra low dispersion" lens elements  and so on. Price is a good guide to lens quality. 

My wife got the D300 for Christmas and loves it. When she starts sleeping with it, I start looking for a mattress and blanket for the dog house. It's not a D3, but it's IQ is close enough.


----------



## Jeff Canes (Feb 11, 2008)

Both cameras will work fine. Why did you go with *Canon *before? Was there anything you were unhappy with the *Canon *? Have you tried both? 

Maybe you should get Nikonos IV, I was high bidder on one to night on ebay for just $95

PS get a diving case or bag


----------



## Jeff Canes (Feb 11, 2008)

jstuedle said:


> -- Nikon --label the pro glass ---"snob class" "S" --


:lmao:


----------



## lifeafter2am (Feb 11, 2008)

Jeff Canes said:


> Both cameras will work fine. Why did you go with Nikon before? Was there anything you were unhappy with the Nikon? Have you tried both?
> 
> Maybe you should get Nikonos IV, I was high bidder on one to night on ebay for just $95
> 
> PS get a diving case or bag


I just started with Canon, no particular reason, just the first camera I had and then stuck with it.  I really like Canon lenses, and have been spoiled with being able to afford "L" glass....... but I am just really impressed with the features and everything on the D300.  Its the first time that I have ever questioned the system I shoot..........but at least it came at a good time!  

I shot on a 30D before, and have used a friends 40D.  I am going to shoot the Nikon tomorrow, as I said, but I don't foresee really not liking it.  Of course, we shall see.  This question is kind of pre-empting me liking it and having to really make this decision. 

P.S. - I had an good waterproof bag, but that doesn't help when your transportation sinks. I usually shoot from shore, but wanted to try this, and it was working great... until we got hit!


----------



## Antithesis (Feb 11, 2008)

I think the d300 is a bit higher end then the 40D, but I don't know Canon's line-up all that well. I think it's closer to the 5D then the 40D because of full weather sealing. If I had the option to choose between a D300 and a 40D, there would be no question, it would be the D300. I've actually considered changing to Canon, so it's not about brand loyalty, I just think it's newer technology.

Also, from the few Canon's that I've used, I think I like Nikon's controls and ergonomics a little better. So that might be something to consider. I'd have them pull out both the 40D and the D300 for comparison. 

With Nikon lenses, the "gold-ring" lenses are considered their pro level glass. There are a few lower level lenses without gold-rings that are still widely used by both pro's and amateurs, but the gold-ring lenses either have brighter apertures or more specialized applications, and also cost a fortune (similar to L glass). You can't buy a new f2.8 zoom from Nikon without selling a kidney, so keep that in mind before you switch (I just recall seeing some non-L canon f2.8 zooms for like ~$500, which is unheard of for Nikon).

Edit: read an article on Nikons new LCD too (D300 and D3). I know it's a silly thing to base a purchase off of, but from what I hear it is pretty phenomenal. Like, you don't even have to zoom in to check focus anymore, and you can gauge your exposure just from looking at the picture and you don't have to check your histogram.


----------



## lifeafter2am (Feb 12, 2008)

Well I went and held the D300 today and took some shots with it.......... very very solidly built!  I liked, so now I really have to make this decision!

Everything I have seen so far looks good.  The lenses and accessories are all about the same price, so I now have only found one problem.  Is there an adapter to use Canon glass on Nikons?  The only thing that Nikon doesn't offer is something like the Canon Macro Photo MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Manual Focus Lens.  I was really looking forward to pushing my Macro photography with this lens, so I would love to hear that either I am wrong and there is a lens like this, or that there is an adapter... please!


----------



## SpeedTrap (Feb 12, 2008)

Try 
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2177

Or


http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1987

It does not do the 5:1 but both are solid lenses


----------



## lifeafter2am (Feb 12, 2008)

SpeedTrap said:


> Try
> http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2177
> 
> Or
> ...



These are both 1:1 lenses.  That Canon goes from 1:1 to 5:1.  

I would shoot the 105mm f/2.8 macro for normal 1:1 reproduction.


----------



## Antithesis (Feb 12, 2008)

Don't macro tubes allow you to go to a larger reproduction ratio? I'm not sure as I haven't used them, but I thought that was their purpose. You could use them with the 105mm and have phenomenal IQ. 

If you don't mind MF lenses, check www.keh.com or check BH and look for Nikkor AIS lenses. They will meter with the modern cameras, they are just MF. You can find just about any f-stop/focal length combo you can imagine (any Nikkor from the last 20 years or so), I'm just not sure which ones would offer the 5:1 your looking for. I've never actually heard of something that magnifies that closely.


----------



## lifeafter2am (Feb 12, 2008)

Antithesis said:


> Don't macro tubes allow you to go to a larger reproduction ratio? I'm not sure as I haven't used them, but I thought that was their purpose. You could use them with the 105mm and have phenomenal IQ.
> 
> If you don't mind MF lenses, check www.keh.com or check BH and look for Nikkor AIS lenses. They will meter with the modern cameras, they are just MF. You can find just about any f-stop/focal length combo you can imagine (any Nikkor from the last 20 years or so), I'm just not sure which ones would offer the 5:1 your looking for. I've never actually heard of something that magnifies that closely.



The Canon one is a Manual Focus, and at that zoom size, I have heard is is fun to focus....lol.  I didn't think about extension tubes, that might work.

Do the high end Nikon lenses have FTM (Full Time Manual) focus like the Canons?


----------



## kundalini (Feb 12, 2008)

I was a Canon film user and was quite happy with the limited gear that I had - mind you, it wasn't too much and still have it.  I had always wanted to try out Nikon because, as far as I knew, Nikon was the gold standard back then.

When I went digital, I figured I might as well stay with Canon, several friends had 'em, I had a couple of lenses....just seemed natural.  That was the case during all my research.  Then I went to my local camera shop and actually hand-held compared the two (various levels) and the Nikon just felt so much better in my hand (particular with the upper level gear that I wasn't going with at the moment.....future reference).  That's what sold me and I have certainly bought into the system since then.

I am currently at the point to upgrade to the D300 (tomorrow, in fact) because I again put one in my hand and kick the tires on it.

My point is that you should do something similar in your position.  Test them both.  Both are quality gear and both have exceptional lenses and accessories.  What feels right for you?


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Feb 12, 2008)

Well, I'm a D300 user, so of course I'm gonna vote for the D300. And that's not because I'm biased, even though you could pose that argument against me, it's because the D300 feels so damn good to shoot with. It's seriously a blast to use. Everything about the D300 screams 'awesome'. The body is extremely solid, and it just melts into your hands, it's just so comfortable to shoot with. All the dials and controls are conveniently located and the thing is just built for speed really. The D300 is a low-light winner and it's great for shooting action. The screen on the D300 is seriously amazing, much better than any Canon screen I've seen. The only thing the 40D has on the D300 is the price. But, on a value basis, I'd say the D300 gives you more bang for your buck. 

Oh, okay, I'll touch on this aspect of the D300 since I've seen it brought up a few times around here, the D300 has extremely small pixels. So, don't get a D300 if you don't plan on getting high-quality lenses to go with it, as you could get better results with a different camera and consumer lenses. I used a kit lens with my D300 for a few weeks before I stepped up my lenses, and I've got to say, if the D300's body hadn't blown me away, then I'd probably have been disappointed for those first few weeks. Any imperfection is picked up with the D300, sadly. But, if you're shooting with high-quality lenses, you won't have to worry. And I'm sure someone has touched on this already, but Nikon's equivalent to Canon's 'L' lenses are Nikon's gold lenses (lenses with a gold ring at the end), lenses like Nikon's 70-200mm VR, 14-24mm f/2.8 FX, you'll be able to see the gold ring when looking at their lens selection. 

So, in summation: If you will put good glass in front of the D300, then by all means, get it, you WILL NOT be disappointed.


----------



## lifeafter2am (Feb 12, 2008)

I have shot on both of them.  Honestly, if it was up to bodies alone, I would hands down shoot Nikon.  I am just stuck on Canon lenses and I guess I just need to get over that fact and make the switch.

Trenton: I will be getting only gold lenses with this.


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Feb 12, 2008)

lifeafter2am said:


> I have shot on both of them.  Honestly, if it was up to bodies alone, I would hands down shoot Nikon.  I am just stuck on Canon lenses and I guess I just need to get over that fact and make the switch.
> 
> Trenton: I will be getting only gold lenses with this.



Only gold lenses?! Whoa, buddy, get the D300 then :]

Don't let your lens collection lock you into a system, until you've bought only top-of-the-line lenses, then I'd say you're not completely locked into a system. And besides, you could sell your Canon lenses and at least get something back for them. Let us know what you decide on. Good luck with this decision, I know it's a tough one.


----------



## lifeafter2am (Feb 12, 2008)

Trenton Romulox said:


> Only gold lenses?! Whoa, buddy, get the D300 then :]
> 
> Don't let your lens collection lock you into a system, until you've bought only top-of-the-line lenses, then I'd say you're not completely locked into a system. And besides, you could sell your Canon lenses and at least get something back for them. Let us know what you decide on. Good luck with this decision, I know it's a tough one.



I lost EVERYTHING, so I don't have to sell anything.  Everything was insured, and I am now just waiting for a check.  I am probably going to end up getting the D300, it just seems more my speed of camera.  Plus all you D300 shooters are getting me excited!  lol.  :mrgreen:


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Feb 12, 2008)

lifeafter2am said:


> I lost EVERYTHING, so I don't have to sell anything.  Everything was insured, and I am now just waiting for a check.  I am probably going to end up getting the D300, it just seems more my speed of camera.  Plus all you D300 shooters are getting me excited!  lol.  :mrgreen:



I'm sorry to hear about your equipment man, but at least it was insured. A family in my town just lost their house and all their stuff (none of them were home when it happened) to a fire, and the insurance company is trying as hard as they can to not have to pay the family anything, damn shame. That's neither here nor there, so yeah, us D300 shooters are an elite group, or so I like to tell myself. I sort of bought mine on an impulse, to be honest, and it was a great impulse. Make sure to share the awesome images you'll take with it. :]


----------



## leila (Feb 12, 2008)

Found this: 
Make sure you know everything before you buy.  I think the Nikon would be a better choice, as this product is superior technology than the Canon D40.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+2]*Minor D300 Blunders 
*[/SIZE][/FONT]​ [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Ken Rockwell
The only blunders of the D300 are merely trivial annoyances. The hackers haven't discovered any vast-conspiracy-style flaws like the banding of the D200 or the blinking green lights of death of the D70. (Nikon fixed all those under warranty.) [/FONT]​ [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.) Auto ISO is still partially defective in manual exposure mode. It doesn't automatically deactivate when you go to manual exposure! You have to go to the menus to turn it off in manual exposure, otherwise the D300 tries its best to screw with your manual exposures. The D300 needs an additional menu option labeled "Deactivate Auto ISO during Manual Exposure?"[/FONT]​ [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2.) Continuous advance modes do not work with the built-in flash. That's right, every D300 is defective by design such that you only get one shot in the Cl or Ch modes with built-in flash! [/FONT]​ [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I didn't believe this when I read it on page 175 of my USA manual, but I kid you not: I only get one shot in C advance modes with built-in flash. It works OK with an SB-400, SB-600 or SB-800. A nice touch which doesn't quite make up for the built-in flash fiasco is that the in-finder bar graph now shows by how much the ambient light is underexposed when you get darker than the slowest flash sync speed. [/FONT]​ [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Nikon probably did this to prevent pros from melting the pop-up flash from overuse, but Nikon should have fortified the circuitry, not locked us out from using it. [/FONT]​ [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3.) The Fn button can only be programmed to do half of what it does on the D200. Specifically, on my D200 I have it set for flash exposure lock and hold, and to allow me to enter the focal length and speed of manual focus lenses for matrix metering. On the D300, I only can get one of those functions and have to trudge through menus to get the other function. [/FONT]​ [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]4.) Manual lens data now only can be entered though deep menus. Once entered (only 9 lenses maximum, and each setting on a zoom takes one memory) you might be able to select among them with the Fn button, but forget easy, instant direct adjustment as you change lenses as you can on the D200. The D300 is similar to the F6 (10 memories), but the F6 makes better use of the Fn button.[/FONT]​ [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]5.) Custom function e4, modeling flash, is still set ON by default. This can cause blindness since it fires off a long, unexpected burst of flash when you hit the depth-of-field button. The first thing I did on my D300 after I cranked the saturation all the way up was to set e4 to OFF. (page 298, USA manual.) [/FONT]​ [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]6.) I'm really reaching for this one, but the AF sensor indicator on the top LCD always shows the center sensor or group, regardless of which are actually selected. Press the "info" button and it displays correctly on the rear LCD. [/FONT]​ [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]7.) You know the D300 is an amateur camera because the annoying moron BEEP is ON by default. In the professional D3, the annoy-everyone beep is off by default.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d300.htm
 [/FONT]​


----------



## lifeafter2am (Feb 12, 2008)

Yeah I read that review.  Trust me, I have scoured the internet before coming here.  Thank you though!


----------



## leila (Feb 12, 2008)

I'm looking into a Canon D40 as an upgrade from Rebel XT and I came across this article.  I thought of you...

*Nikon D300 vs Canon EOS 40D: A Hands-On Workout*

*Although the technology-showcase D300 ($1800) costs 50 percent more than the EOS 40D ($1200), American Photo contributor Jonathan Barkey found them to be more evenly matched than he expected.*

   By Jonathan Barkey, American Photo Contributor   
January 2008 




 
               Click photo to see 100% pixel comparisons of images shot with the Canon EOS 40D and the Nikon D300 digital SLRs.                                                While mid-priced DSLRs from competing manufacturers may excel in different ways, these semi-pro models from Canon and Nikon give you a winning combination of speed, image quality, extensive lens/accessory systems, and an upgrade path to their top-drawer professional brethren.
  Of course, pitting the two against each other isn't entirely fair, since the technology-showcase D300 ($1800), a junior version of Nikon's tour-de-force flagship D3, costs 50 percent more than the EOS 40D ($1200), which has evolved from humbler "prosumer" models. Still, we found them to be more evenly matched than we expected, based on our evaluations in the key areas detailed below.

Article:
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/5062/nikon-d300-vs-canon-eos-40d-a-hands-on-workout.html

Comparison Pictures:
http://www.popphoto.com/gallery.asp...ry_id=1359&page_number=1&seq=2&cnt=2&slide=on
sorry just changed, it was the wrong link


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Feb 12, 2008)

HAHA, I love this:
"7.) You know the D300 is an amateur camera because the annoying moron BEEP is ON by default. In the professional D3, the annoy-everyone beep is off by default." 

It's always good to judge a camera by its default audio settings. Was that review from Ken Rockwell or something?


----------



## lifeafter2am (Feb 12, 2008)

You weren't at Harmon Photo today were you?  There was a girl there looking to do the same thing.  lol.


----------



## lifeafter2am (Feb 12, 2008)

Trenton Romulox said:


> HAHA, I love this:
> "7.) You know the D300 is an amateur camera because the annoying moron BEEP is ON by default. In the professional D3, the annoy-everyone beep is off by default."
> 
> It's always good to judge a camera by its default audio settings. Was that review from Ken Rockwell or something?



Such an amatuer camera with all the "scene" shooting modes!  lol.


----------



## leila (Feb 12, 2008)

lifeafter2am said:


> You weren't at Harmon Photo today were you?  There was a girl there looking to do the same thing.  lol.



Nope.


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Feb 12, 2008)

lifeafter2am said:


> Such an amatuer camera with all the "scene" shooting modes!  lol.



The first thing I did when I opened the box was set the camera to manual mode. Haven't changed it back off 'M' since. 

If I were to categorize the D300, I'd say it's a semi-professional or professional backup camera. I love my D300, but it's not at the level the D3 is, but it's pretty close. The body is built as well as a professional body though, in my opinion, except the lack of vertical grip, but that's nothing the vertical grip (MB-D10) can't fix. I mean, even if the camera is categorized as prosumer (which I've yet to see the D300 labeled as), it's certainly more than capable of producing professional results, paired with good lenses and of course a good photographer. 

There is only so much words can say about the D300, you've really just gotta get some good shooting time for it all to really sink in.


----------



## kundalini (Feb 12, 2008)

It seems that *liela* is a die-hard Canon user judging by the two posts put up.  The first read like there were unresolved issues from that individual and I havent read the links on liela because I could care less.  Pretty much as I could care less of your decision because whatever you decide is due to your own research, testing and personal convictions.  The camera you finally decide to hold is inconsequential to me.  I just hope that whatever your decision, your are at one with the camera.  I can empathize your position and will say that this Nikon shooter is quite willing to have a day out, regardless of the badge on your camera.


----------



## lifeafter2am (Feb 12, 2008)

I am about 99% sure that I am going to pick up the D300!  I agree that it seems like more of a semi-professional than the 40D does.  I would definitely be picking up the grip, mostly because I want the 8fps.


----------



## lifeafter2am (Feb 12, 2008)

kundalini said:


> It seems that *liela* is a die-hard Canon user judging by the two posts put up.  The first read like there were unresolved issues from that individual and I havent read the links on liela because I could care less.  Pretty much as I could care less of your decision because whatever you decide is due to your own research, testing and personal convictions.  The camera you finally decide to hold is inconsequential to me.  I just hope that whatever your decision, your are at one with the camera.  I can empathize your position and will say that this Nikon shooter is quite willing to have a day out, regardless of the badge on your camera.



Well thank you!  You in Florida or just flying here to shoot?


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Feb 12, 2008)

lifeafter2am said:


> I am about 99% sure that I am going to pick up the D300!  I agree that it seems like more of a semi-professional than the 40D does.  I would definitely be picking up the grip, mostly because I want the 8fps.



Yeah, I've shot some hockey since getting my grip for the D300, and I've gotta tell you, 6fps was great, but 8fps is ridiculous. Next game I'll shoot in JPEG basic just to see how great of a burst I can score. 

Oh, and I see that that the list of 7 things was in fact from Ken Rockwell...go figure. I mean, I use that guy's site for reference now and again, but he always whines about the most trivial things. His photography isn't even that good. Not that mine is good either, but I'm not a professional, nor someone who has been shooting for very long HAHA. I also don't speak as if I know everything. Or maybe I do, but at least I don't have a website for it HAHA.


----------



## lifeafter2am (Feb 12, 2008)

LOL!!  

Yeah, that list did seem kind of trivial.  
Now my stupid check just needs to hurry up and get here!


----------



## leila (Feb 12, 2008)

kundalini said:


> It seems that *liela* is a die-hard Canon user judging by the two posts put up.  The first read like there were unresolved issues from that individual and I havent read the links on liela because I could care less.  Pretty much as I could care less of your decision because whatever you decide is due to your own research, testing and personal convictions.  The camera you finally decide to hold is inconsequential to me.  I just hope that whatever your decision, your are at one with the camera.  I can empathize your position and will say that this Nikon shooter is quite willing to have a day out, regardless of the badge on your camera.




LOL 
I was just trying to help.  I am not actually "die-hard". I was considering changing as well.  The D300 is out of my price range.  It looks pretty appetizing.   My signature is just kinda a joke cause i think it's silly to sit around naming each lens i have.  Sarcasm can't really be sensed in text though.


----------



## kundalini (Feb 12, 2008)

Oh, I'd have to fly in, but that's not an issue.  Been to Orlando a few times already but only once for Disney World/Land can't keep them separate.  If only I had a Super Bowl ring I would know for sure where I was going.


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Feb 12, 2008)

lifeafter2am said:


> LOL!!
> 
> Yeah, that list did seem kind of trivial.
> Now my stupid check just needs to hurry up and get here!



If anyone needs 'moron beeps' or whatever, it's Ken Rockwell HAHA. 

'Eh, *wipes away tear*, I'm Ken Rockwell and a camera that beeps at the wrong times can't possibly take good shots, or maybe it's just that I suck at photography and only have one creative bone in my body and it's already in use, thinking of new ways to complain about meaningless things.'


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Feb 12, 2008)

kundalini said:


> Oh, I'd have to fly in, but that's not an issue.  Been to Orlando a few times already but only once for Disney World/Land can't keep them separate.  If only I had a Super Bowl ring I would know for sure where I was going.



Just borrow Randy Moss'.

Oh wait...


----------



## lifeafter2am (Feb 12, 2008)

Trenton Romulox said:


> If anyone needs 'moron beeps' or whatever, it's Ken Rockwell HAHA.
> 
> 'Eh, *wipes away tear*, I'm Ken Rockwell and a camera that beeps at the wrong times can't possibly take good shots, or maybe it's just that I suck at photography and only have one creative bone in my body and it's already in use, thinking of new ways to complain about meaningless things.'



I have no clue who he is, so I take it at face value anyway.


----------



## leila (Feb 12, 2008)

Trenton Romulox said:


> If anyone needs 'moron beeps' or whatever, it's Ken Rockwell HAHA.
> 
> 'Eh, *wipes away tear*, I'm Ken Rockwell and a camera that beeps at the wrong times can't possibly take good shots, or maybe it's just that I suck at photography and only have one creative bone in my body and it's already in use, thinking of new ways to complain about meaningless things.'




lmao


----------



## kundalini (Feb 12, 2008)

Damn, I just put it together.  *liela* and *lifeafter2am*, you two should get together for a shoot and post up photos of sweet Orlando for the rest of us to view.  C'mon, whatcha waitin' on.


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Feb 12, 2008)

lifeafter2am said:


> I have no clue who he is, so I take it at face value anyway.



Don't use his face though, the only thing that's valuable for is scaring small children and turning girls into lesbians. And I don't need help turning girls into lesbians, I've got that under control on my own.


----------



## lifeafter2am (Feb 12, 2008)

kundalini said:


> Damn, I just put it together.  *liela* and *lifeafter2am*, you two should get together for a shoot and post up photos of sweet Orlando for the rest of us to view.  C'mon, whatcha waitin' on.



My insurance check!  lol.



			
				Trenton Romulox said:
			
		

> Don't use his face though, the only thing that's valuable for is scaring small children and turning girls into lesbians. And I don't need help turning girls into lesbians, I've got that under control on my own.



LMAO!!!


----------



## kundalini (Feb 12, 2008)

Trenton Romulox said:


> And I don't need help turning girls into lesbians, I've got that under control on my own.


 
I think I have turned a few myself over the years  :lmao:............not that theré's anything wrong with that.


----------



## Antithesis (Feb 13, 2008)

Trenton Romulox said:


> 'Eh, *wipes away tear*, I'm Ken Rockwell and a camera that beeps at the wrong times can't possibly take good shots, or maybe it's just that I suck at photography and only have one creative bone in my body and it's already in use, thinking of new ways to complain about meaningless things.'



LOL, that got me pretty good. Ken Rockwell is a toolbox.

But yeah, I think you'll be more than happy with the d300. Nikon's bodies are built extremely well, even there lower end stuff.


----------



## MissMia (Feb 13, 2008)

Trenton Romulox said:


> Just borrow Randy Moss'.
> 
> Oh wait...


 


Trenton Romulox said:


> If anyone needs 'moron beeps' or whatever, it's Ken Rockwell HAHA.
> 
> 'Eh, *wipes away tear*, I'm Ken Rockwell and a camera that beeps at the wrong times can't possibly take good shots, or maybe it's just that I suck at photography and only have one creative bone in my body and it's already in use, thinking of new ways to complain about meaningless things.'


 


Trenton Romulox said:


> Don't use his face though, the only thing that's valuable for is scaring small children and turning girls into lesbians. And I don't need help turning girls into lesbians, I've got that under control on my own.


 


kundalini said:


> I think I have turned a few myself over the years :lmao:............not that theré's anything wrong with that.


 
You guys were on a roll tonight! 

D300 has my vote.


----------



## Antithesis (Feb 13, 2008)

lifeafter2am said:


> The Canon one is a Manual Focus, and at that zoom size, I have heard is is fun to focus....lol.  I didn't think about extension tubes, that might work.
> 
> Do the high end Nikon lenses have FTM (Full Time Manual) focus like the Canons?



Well yeah, the older Nikon lenses are definetely full time manual. I think they have a series of lenses that allow you to autofocus and then turn the focus ring to adjust while it's still in the same focusing mode. I don't see how having a full MF lens is advantageous compared to a lens that can autofocus and manual focus at the flip of a switch.


----------



## Alex_B (Feb 13, 2008)

Huh ... who is this Rockwell-dude? :lmao:


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Feb 13, 2008)

Alex_B said:


> Huh ... who is this Rockwell-dude? :lmao:



He's this guy that has a website, Kenrockwell.com, and he thinks he's the all holy God of photography. And the best part of it, his actual photography sucks. He's similar to Bjorn Rorslett, except Bjorn isn't a douche.

Edit: I'm sure Ken will see this thread sometime, I'm 98% sure he Googles his name every morning when he wakes up. Unless the guy is nocturnal, which wouldn't shock me.


----------



## Viperjet (Feb 13, 2008)

Personally, I like Canon better, overall.  But I'm not a fan of the 40D controls. (I don't care for the wheel thingy, which is nice for going thru pictures, but not navigating thru the menus).  Generally, it seems like Nikon menus are more extensive.  

However, I love the 40D's life view function...awesome.


----------



## Antithesis (Feb 13, 2008)

Viperjet said:


> Personally, I like Canon better, overall.  But I'm not a fan of the 40D controls. (I don't care for the wheel thingy, which is nice for going thru pictures, but not navigating thru the menus).  Generally, it seems like Nikon menus are more extensive.
> 
> However, I love the 40D's life view function...awesome.



I think the D300 has live-view. Can any of the d300 owners verify this?


----------



## Alex_B (Feb 13, 2008)

Trenton Romulox said:


> He's this guy that has a website, Kenrockwell.com, and he thinks he's the all holy God of photography. And the best part of it, his actual photography sucks. He's similar to Bjorn Rorslett, except Bjorn isn't a douche.
> 
> Edit: I'm sure Ken will see this thread sometime, I'm 98% sure he Googles his name every morning when he wakes up. Unless the guy is nocturnal, which wouldn't shock me.



Errm, that was more a rhetorical question of mine


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Feb 13, 2008)

Alex_B said:


> Errm, that was more a rhetorical question of mine



HAHA, I feared as much. But I figured I'd try and be a comedian anyways. The part of me that wasn't hugged as a small child feels the need to do that a lot.


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Feb 13, 2008)

Antithesis said:


> I think the D300 has live-view. Can any of the d300 owners verify this?



The Nikon D300 does have live-view. Two settings for it too, tripod and hand-held. I've only used it hand-held, and it works pretty well. I wouldn't use it unless I had to though, I'm a viewfinder guy.


----------



## lifeafter2am (Feb 13, 2008)

Antithesis said:


> Well yeah, the older Nikon lenses are definetely full time manual. I think they have a series of lenses that allow you to autofocus and then turn the focus ring to adjust while it's still in the same focusing mode. I don't see how having a full MF lens is advantageous compared to a lens that can autofocus and manual focus at the flip of a switch.



The full time manual is the ability to let the lens autofocus, and then, without having to "flip the switch" you can turn the focus ring and fine-tune the focus.  Its not a big deal if they don't, I was just curious.



			
				Trenton Romulox said:
			
		

> He's this guy that has a website, Kenrockwell.com, and he thinks he's the all holy God of photography. And the best part of it, his actual photography sucks. He's similar to Bjorn Rorslett, except Bjorn isn't a douche.
> 
> * Edit: I'm sure Ken will see this thread sometime, I'm 98% sure he Googles his name every morning when he wakes up. Unless the guy is nocturnal, which wouldn't shock me.*



LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Feb 13, 2008)

I'm serious too. I really bet he Googles his name. 

'Ah, the sun is finally down, time to wake up...let's see here *pushes half-eaten rat off of keyboard* I'll save that for later. *Goes to Google and types 'Ken Rockwell'* Let's see, there's my site, I don't need to check that, I already know it's amazing. What is this...The Photo Forum...*reads this thread*...Well, I didn't want to fly to Maine to eat anyone again this year, but Stephen King was sure delicious, I guess I'll go see this Trenton Romulox character. *hops on broomstick*'


----------



## lifeafter2am (Feb 13, 2008)

LOLOLOL!!!!!

Did you ever see the South Park episode about World of Warcraft.  I now imagine Ken Rockwell as the character that they are all fighting..... sitting there in his room.

This guy:


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Feb 13, 2008)

HAHA. I did see that episode, and you're absolutely right. Wow, spot on. If that guy were a hundred pounds lighter, that'd be Ken Rockwell. 

http://kenrockwell.com/trips/2008-01-tim/images/D3R_0352-edit.jpg

Guy in green is Ken. $5 says he checked out the girl in the gray to his left, our right.

I'll give someone a pat on the back if they can tell me whose birthday party that was. Hint, it's not Ken or the girl, even though they both felt the need to infiltrate the front of the shot.


----------



## lifeafter2am (Feb 13, 2008)

Trenton Romulox said:


> HAHA. I did see that episode, and you're absolutely right. Wow, spot on. If that guy were a hundred pounds lighter, that'd be Ken Rockwell.
> 
> http://kenrockwell.com/trips/2008-01-tim/images/D3R_0352-edit.jpg
> 
> ...


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!  He looks like a tool!


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Feb 13, 2008)

I'm convinced I'm gonna get an email from him and it's gonna be either one of two things: a death threat, or an email asking me to take all of my posts about him off the website. Oh, it could be an email from his greasy lawyer suing me for slander or something.


----------



## lifeafter2am (Feb 13, 2008)

You would totally have to post it!  Then start an anti-Ken Rockwell protest!


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Feb 13, 2008)

I want to start an anti-Ken Rockwell protest anyways HAHA. In a way, I already have in this thread. I mean, I've been bashing him off and on for about the last forty posts or so. HAHA.


----------



## lifeafter2am (Feb 13, 2008)

Well he is the professional.... I mean come on... a beep is ON by default?!?!?!?!?!

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Feb 13, 2008)

HAHA, curse those 'moron beeps.' He was probably just pissed because there was too much dog blood on his hands for him to get through the menus to turn it off.


----------



## lifeafter2am (Feb 13, 2008)

LOL!!

Have you set up the custom menus on your D300 yet?


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Feb 13, 2008)

lifeafter2am said:


> LOL!!
> 
> Have you set up the custom menus on your D300 yet?



I've done some of them, yeah. Mostly just for using the built-in flash as a commander.


----------



## lifeafter2am (Feb 13, 2008)

Trenton Romulox said:


> I've done some of them, yeah. Mostly just for using the built-in flash as a commander.



Well, how easy is it to switch between 12 bit and 14 bit files?


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Feb 13, 2008)

lifeafter2am said:


> Well, how easy is it to switch between 12 bit and 14 bit files?



I think it's just a matter of hitting the menu button and then going into the camera menu and then selecting 12 or 14 bit. It's not very complicated.


----------



## lifeafter2am (Feb 13, 2008)

Trenton Romulox said:


> I think it's just a matter of hitting the menu button and then going into the camera menu and then selecting 12 or 14 bit. It's not very complicated.



Yeah, I just downloaded the manual.  Sweet!  Come on insurance check!


----------



## kundalini (Feb 13, 2008)

It took a while to find it, but look at *this thread* and click on the link in lostprophets reply #3.


lifeafter2am, just a little tease. Hope your check arrives soon.


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Feb 13, 2008)

That's almost cruel Kundalini, almost. 

HAHA. 

I remember snapping a photo of my D300 box on the way home from the local shoppe. It was a poor quality shot with my phone at night. But damn, gotta love those box shots, eh?


----------



## lifeafter2am (Feb 13, 2008)

kundalini said:


> It took a while to find it, but look at *this thread* and click on the link in lostprophets reply #3.


LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!  That is an awesome link!



kundalini said:


> lifeafter2am, just a little tease. Hope your check arrives soon.



Me too!!!!  I can't wait to take some pics of mine when I get my check!


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Feb 13, 2008)

HAHA. That link is awesome. I hate Ken Rockwell so f****** much. He is seriously like the anti-photographer to me. His musings are so ridiculous sometimes. F***, I hate Ken Rockwell.


----------



## lifeafter2am (Feb 13, 2008)

Really?  Tell me your true feelings!


:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Feb 13, 2008)

lifeafter2am said:


> Really?  Tell me your true feelings!
> 
> 
> :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:



Oh...true feelings? My true feelings for the legendary sucessor to the likes of Ansel Adams, Mr. Ken Rockwell? Or King Rockwell as I prefer to call him...

I love him. I'd carry his children. I'd die for him.


----------



## lifeafter2am (Feb 13, 2008)

You NEVER cease to crack me up!


----------



## MarcusM (Feb 13, 2008)

lol...wow, that's funny, because just the other day I came across a thread I think on dpreview.com where someone was bashing Rockwell. Up till then I've never heard of the guy...

This internet-based cult hatred for him is funny and curious...

I must learn more about this Ken Rockwell! :lmao:

haha...I just saw on his site that he recommends the Nikon D40. Not that I think that's a bad camera, it's just that I've heard so much D40-bashing here lately!


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Feb 13, 2008)

lifeafter2am said:


> You NEVER cease to crack me up!



Well, what do you expect? 

The kids at school call me the white Bill Cosby. 

Now that I think about it, I'm not sure if that's because I'm hilarious or because I wore this sweater to school that had reindeer playing tennis on it...


----------



## lifeafter2am (Feb 13, 2008)

LMAO!!!

I don't know if I would like the title of White Bill Cosby.  In fact, thats kind of a weird reference for the younger generation.


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Feb 13, 2008)

lifeafter2am said:


> LMAO!!!
> 
> I don't know if I would like the title of White Bill Cosby.  In fact, thats kind of a weird reference for the younger generation.



Don't point out generational flaws in my jokes. My jokes have no flaws. 

Shame on you and your critical ways. 

And don't bother noting the irony of me being hard on you for being critical, when I spent at least ten minutes of my life yesterday and today thinking of ways to belittle Ken Rockwell behind his back.


----------



## lifeafter2am (Feb 13, 2008)

LOL!!!

I can't help it, I analyze everything, constantly..... I think its why I don't sleep much!


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Feb 13, 2008)

lifeafter2am said:


> LOL!!!
> 
> I can't help it, I analyze everything, constantly..... I think its why I don't sleep much!



I know that feeling...think so much you get tired, but you're thinking too much to sleep. Oh yeah man, rough stuff. I hate it. 

That's why I make fun of people online, to relieve the frustration I have with myself.


----------



## lifeafter2am (Feb 13, 2008)

Trenton Romulox said:


> I know that feeling...think so much you get tired, but you're thinking too much to sleep. Oh yeah man, rough stuff. I hate it.
> 
> That's why I make fun of people online, to relieve the frustration I have with myself.



Transference.... what a healthy thing to do!  
































I just make fun of people everywhere, much easier!


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Feb 13, 2008)

HAHA.

I'll be sure to try that out.

*shakes head*

I don't feel like getting my ass kicked. Although, last time I checked, kids with mohawks weren't messed with. 

Stylish haircut from the 90's metal scene: $25
Striped sweater and ripped jeans: $75
Using an outdated hairstyle to stay out of fights: Priceless. 

There are some things money can't buy, for everything else, there's Bastardcard.


----------



## lifeafter2am (Feb 13, 2008)

Sorry....but...... I would say more of the 80's and 90's punk scene.. 


LOL!


----------

