<p>I just noticed that there’s a bunch of photographers on this thread. We should do a portfolio exchange!</p>
<p>Sounds like a good idea, although I fear I’m probably going to be dismal in comparison to some of you! My photography is not landscapes or wildlife, but more portraiture and fashion related like I said before.
What type of photography is in your portfolio, Nikkor50mm?</p>
<p>I’m all over the place… I do everything except for portraiture, but I’m kind of dabbling in that with photojournalism. I’ll PM you, since I don’t want to post my work publicly and I doubt you’d want to either</p>
<p>You guys are far too humble, being accomplished photographers and artists and yet somehow still calling yourselves “extremely unlikely” hopefuls. I have a hunch some of you have truly amazing portfolios and are just unwilling to admit it. :)</p>
<p>LOL what gives you the idea that we’re accomplished? Actually, youthtography probably is, so I can only speak for myself -_-</p>
<p>See? Your reaction proved my point. You’re all far too humble. :D</p>
<p>Hahaha true to 50mm. Ps, i want the new d400 when it comes out! Full frame is too expensive and not really worth it i think.</p>
<p>Eh, I have a D90 right now, so I don’t think another DX camera would be that big of an upgrade for me. Going FX (or film! if I have time) seems like my best bet, especially since I don’t do sports/wildlife and use massive teles</p>
<p>I feel like I should pop in and say hello 
I applied REA, but think this thread is a great idea… Though no one really has a great chance at Stanford… Best of luck to you all! :)</p>
<p>You do realize how few lenses will work on FX? And dude, there would be a HUGE increase going to the d300s. Many pro photographers i know have gone with multiple d300’s over the 700 for a lot of reasons.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. So if you took the thread title at face value, you might as well also invite every single Stanford applicant to join in. :p</p>
<p>Haha exactly. Because no one’s a perfect applicant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually from what I understand the D300 and the D90 use nearly identical sensors. The main difference between the two is the actual durability of the camera - I think the 300 has weather sealing/magnesium body? - and “pro” bells and whistles like higher FPS and more AF points which are negligible for me. (I baby my equipment because I use my own money earned from freelance graphic design to buy my computer/camera stuff. As I’ve mentioned before, I don’t do sports/wildlife so FPS doesn’t really matter to me, and since I usually manual focus anyway the # of AF points don’t have a lot of effect on my work.)</p>
<p>I’m also aware of the differences between DX and FX lenses. I’m already phasing out my DX collection… the only DX lens I have left is a consumer zoom which I doubt I’ll use when I migrate over to FX.</p>
<p>Also, the (albeit few) pro photographers I know have a D3 or a D700 as their main body, and a D300 or D90 as a backup. </p>
<p>But why are we talking about equipment? I think any artist knows its the creativity and ideas that count.</p>
<p>Love how this forum has turned into photographers
teehee</p>
<p>The sensor’s of the D90 and D300s are pretty different. And sure, it’s just equipment. But hey, it’s what we can talk about :p</p>
<p>I’ve got a D90 but I’ve been thinking about saving up my earnings and eventually getting a Canon 5d Mk II…dream camera.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re right, though I imagine not in the way you meant - the D300s sensor is actually slightly worse than the D90 sensor. </p>
<p>[DxOMark</a> - Compare sensors](<a href=“http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/(appareil1)/439|0/(appareil2)/614|0/(appareil3)/441|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Nikon/(brand3)/Nikon]DxOMark”>http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/(appareil1)/439|0/(appareil2)/614|0/(appareil3)/441|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Nikon/(brand3)/Nikon)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I actually considered switching to Canon for a pretty long time because for some odd reason all their lenses are cheaper than their Nikon counterparts. I think the difference between the 24-70 f/2.8 among the versions is around $500 last time I checked. But I’m pretty much invested in Nikon glass now with the 85mm f/1.4 so guess I’m sticking with it.</p>
<p>Another option is to buy the D700 after its replacement comes out so there’s a price drop. Kind of what I did with the 85mm f/1.4 since I got it after the G version came out, except the anticipated price drop didn’t happen -_-</p>
<p>I came to this forum, just to lurk, then I found this post and it pretty much made my day. lol</p>
<p>I know that the admissions officers are looking at us with context of our backgrounds, but it’s comforting to know about them too. I couldn’t scrape up any details to minimize our anxiety, however this article was just published today: [It’s</a> ‘reading season’ for Bob Patterson, Stanford’s new director of admission](<a href=“You've requested a page that no longer exists | Stanford News”>You've requested a page that no longer exists | Stanford News). I wonder how admissions this year will change from the previous years under Mr. Abbott.</p>
<p>Yes, I’ve wanted to possibly switch based on the gap in prices for lenses! I’ve got a 50mmf1.4 which is my baby, and a few manual lenses. Otherwise, though, it wouldn’t be terribly difficult to switch over to Canon. I’m REALLY attracted to the video features on the MKII, I have video on my D90 but there is definitely a lack of control over the video settings on.</p>
<p>Man, that number in the article…the number of applications…DAUNTING. I know I’m not getting in, but for now I’ll just sit here and dream…:)</p>