[Iron_Dreamer]

Quote:

Does anyone have experience with the 70-300VR? I'm thinking of getting it for nature/landscape and street photography with occasional outdoor sports mixed in.

I have it, and I've used it for all those purposes (though primarily #1, just what I favor most).
 
I really can't register any complaints about the lens, given the price.  The build is very reasonable for such a lens, and definitely a step or two above current Nikon kit lenses (not pro level, but it definitely feels more solid/tight than the 18-200vr, 18-135, and 18-70 that I've owned).  It manages to feel nice, while still being quite light for the focal lengths it covers.  It does have a rubber gasket at the rear, for weathsealing the mount, if you have a D200 or higher body.
 
The optical quality is great overall, very sharp indeed, and my copy does very well at 300mm.  There is a touch of correctable CA here and there.  The bokeh is very nice if you have sufficient subject/background distances, which is simply a limitation of the small aperture.
 
Sadly, I haven't used this particular lens a whole bunch lately, as the Sigma 150 macro has been taking most of my telephoto time during wildflower season.  As hiking season approaches, I will probably be using the 70-300vr more for its' versatility.
 
In the end, I would highly recommend the 70-300vr if it fits your uses and price range.  I think it would be pretty fair to say it's the best ever 70-300mm f/xx-5.6 lens from any manufacturer.  To address the primary criticisms of the 70-300vr would be to make it a completely different lens.  If you want to shoot 1:1 macro, night-time HS football, or wafer-thin DOF portraits, you should probably consider a different lens, and not criticize this one for not doing things it was never intended to.

 

[ccbass]

Anybody have experience with the new D300s?  It's my next upgrade.
 
I have the D90 now, and while I love it to death, the plastic body is killing me.  I broke off the metal mount from the plastic body with normal use, and had it repaired for ~$300.  Any opinions on the newest revision of the D300?

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

There are no real changes in terms of image quality, versus the original D300.  The main difference is the addition of video, which is still rather lame by comparison to the video capabilities of the 5DMkII, 7D, or GH1.  Unless you absolutely have to have video in a Nikon DSLR, or are enraptured by one of the other small updates, like the ability to use CF+SD cards, I would save some cash and get a regular D300 instead.

 

[ccbass]

Quote:

There are no real changes in terms of image quality, versus the original D300.  The main difference is the addition of video, which is still rather lame by comparison to the video capabilities of the 5DMkII, 7D, or GH1.  Unless you absolutely have to have video in a Nikon DSLR, or are enraptured by one of the other small updates, like the ability to use CF+SD cards, I would save some cash and get a regular D300 instead.

Very true.  While I don't do very much video, I am disappointed at Nikon's stabs at HD video in their SLRs.  Canon's 5dm2 and 7D are destroying the Nikon line.  The season finale of house was shot completely with a Canon slr!

 

[bigshot]

The problem with video is that the focusing motors in video cameras are entirely different than in still cameras. For Nikon to compete with video cameras, it would have to introduce an entirely new line of lenses with a different focusing scheme.

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

The problem with video is that the focusing motors in video cameras are entirely different than in still cameras. For Nikon to compete with video cameras, it would have to introduce an entirely new line of lenses with a different focusing scheme.

If they wanted to make a video camera yes.  But not if they wanted to make a DSLR that could compete with the video capability of the 5Dmkii.  If nikon had figured out 1080p with the D3s, it would easily be the best DSLR for video, with it's high iso, and the lower megapixel count wouldn't matter at all.

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

Given Nikon's past track record, I wouldn't be shocked if the D4/D400 have 1080 video capabilities that bring them up to, if not beyond the levels of their competitors.  On the other hand, Nikon doesn't have the video experience that Canon and Panasonic do.

 

[koonhua90]

This is a long thread indeed. I was eyeing the D700, but then decided to spend the money on lens and erm, earphones instead. I agree with what Iron_Dreamer said, but there is also reason to believe that the next generation of D700 will have video capabilities as well. Maybe a D700X or D700S. Just like what they did to D3.

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

Maybe.  I lean more toward the idea that we won't see a D700 refresh until after the D4 comes out.

 

[rhythmdevils]

which won't be for at least a year since they just released the D3s

 

[nukeu666]

Im planning to get a 18-200VR for my D90 as a all-in-one lens
Would it be a wise choice?
Extreme telephoto isnt needed

 

[bigshot]

I love my 18-200 vr. It's a great walk around lens. It can be a little soft above 135mm, but if you stop down a bit, it's fine. That lens and the 35 1.8 is all that most people need.

 

[bigshot]

I really don't think video will be really viable until they solve the focusing problems, automate zoom controls, and redesign cameras to suit a hybrid video/still function. The DSLR form just doesn't suit shooting video. But the video camera form could easily be adapted to shooting still.

 

[danne]

I'm in the run off getting a new camera as well to take some sweet shoots when going to Australia next year, been looking at the D300 along with the Nikon 24-70/2.8.
By the looks of it you could get them for a very decent price when buying them secondhand.

 

[JaZZ]

I'm in the run off getting a new camera as well to take some sweet shoots when going to Australia next year, been looking at the D300 along with the Nikon 24-70/2.8.
By the looks of it you could get them for a very decent price when buying them secondhand.

Not the wisest choice in my book. While the 24-70 is certainly an excellent lens, you pay the price and carry the weight of an FX lens on a DX camera, so you give up the inherent advantage of the DX system. Maybe you could get along with a good, more compact DX zoom instead, like Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 OS, the new 17-50/2.8 OS (if it's any good) or Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC – which moreover have VR. However, I support the choice of a D300 (own one and am happy).
.