Nikon D300 - Obsolete?

[Golaboots]

ian in lancs said:

wait for the 400

There will never be a d400 in the same way that there isn't a Mazda 4. 4 is considered an unlucky number in Japan and many Japanese companies never use it in their product names as a result.

[RobDickinson]

Golaboots said:

ian in lancs said:

wait for the 400

There will never be a d400 in the same way that there isn't a Mazda 4. 4 is considered an unlucky number in Japan and many Japanese companies never use it in their product names as a result.

Must have imagined the canon 400d, 40d etc...

[K12beano]

RobDickinson said:

Golaboots said:

ian in lancs said:

wait for the 400

There will never be a d400 in the same way that there isn't a Mazda 4. 4 is considered an unlucky number in Japan and many Japanese companies never use it in their product names as a result.

Must have imagined the canon 400d, 40d etc...

....never an F4 either


No.... Wait!....

[Itsallicanafford]

It's interesting that the D300 still is viewed as current enough tech, I was expected comments on noise or something like that on the older style sensor or some other fault which would make a change worthwhile. Sounds like Nikon did a pretty good job on the camera in the first place.

Alas, Lack of time is my problem at present but the Ricoh GR does a pretty good job for the occasion when I can grab a shot for me in between smiling family...come to think of it I'm now on my 4th! (GR1, GR1s, GR1V and now GRD).

[RobDickinson]

Its not that its that new, but IMO new sensors havnt come on that much that it will make a significant difference if you are not shooting much.

Probably a stop or two better ISO, lots more pixels. Better AF etc but its all relatively marginal

[ian in lancs]

K12beano said:

ian in lancs said:

I have a 300 f4 that never sees the light of day either. Same for a 14-24 and 16-35 bought and never use! 24-70 and 70-200 and 35, 50, 60, 85, 105 are more than enough for me.

Uh-ha...(14, 17-35, 45, 50, 85, 105, TC14, TC20..... Got a 300mm sized hole.... (FX))

I'm sure we can resolve that for you! Nikon Nikkor AF-S 300 mm F/4.0 D IF ED Lens? Complete with a fancy Kirk NC-300 tripod mount which costs £150 on its own!

[Simpo Two]

K12beano said:

RobDickinson said:

Golaboots said:

ian in lancs said:

wait for the 400

There will never be a d400 in the same way that there isn't a Mazda 4. 4 is considered an unlucky number in Japan and many Japanese companies never use it in their product names as a result.

Must have imagined the canon 400d, 40d etc...

....never an F4 either

Or a D4, heaven forbid!

I can't imagine a Japanese company stopping all development when they get to 3.

'We need to launch a new product'
'Yes but we have made three versions already'
'Oh arse, we'll have to shut down the company then. Curse this unlucky number 4'

Itsallicanafford said:

It's interesting that the D300 still is viewed as current enough tech, I was expected comments on noise or something like that

There is that, but after a while it's like saying 'My car will only do 120mph, and now there's one that does 160mph'. If you never go faster than 80, what's the point?

[K12beano]

Ahem, before anyone says "Oi! Get a room"

General consensus is a D300 is great. Law of diminishing returns means the very latest models are smaller incremental leaps forward. Nikon lost the plot (about a clear line up) donkey's years ago....

ian in lancs said:

I'm sure we can resolve that for you! Nikon Nikkor AF-S 300 mm F/4.0 D IF ED Lens? Complete with a fancy Kirk NC-300 tripod mount which costs £150 on its own!

...and I PM-d you last night (cheekily) about my latest NAS problems - over the years I never know whether to rely on PH or not....

[GravelBen]

If you want to have a go at macro without investing in something like the 105mm, get a cheap 50mm (D not G) and a $10 reverse adaptor. You may still decide to invest later, but it will give good enough results (if you're comfortable with full manual control) to have fun and figure out if you like macro photography.

And another vote for keeping the D300 and actually using it.

[ExPat2B]

The D300 has a lot of things going for it as a camera.

It has a great body, good controls, and a good sized sensor.

12Mpix on DX is actually the limit of the resolution of most DX lenses.

The main advantage of 24mpix on the later DX sensors is noise control and gaining a few stops of ISO.

The two places the D300 struggles with are shadow recovery/dynamic range, and high ISO noise.

However, this is relatively easy to fix -

1. Expose the scene properly, shoot RAW and Expose To The Right, and use a quality RAW convertor like DXO Optics pro to process the RAW files.
2. If you are having to raise the ISO due to lack of light, instead of raising ISO, make sure the scene is lit properly, by using sppedlights. You can get a pair of Youngnuo 568EXII for £80 each, If you can learn to light, then the D300 can produce comparable output to the latest sensors. The D300 is a great choice with flashes as it supports Nikons Creative Lighting system and High Speed Sync ( also know as Auto FP ) which the Yougnuo 568EX II's support fully.

If you want to do Macro work, once you have a macro setup, lighting is the next step as well.

[Ixnay]

The D300 is a brilliant camera - one of the best Nikon made. Stick with it I would as you already have it and like it. Spend your money on glass. If I was going to go up to FX I would get a D750 but do that and you are into a world of cost. Honestly thats the only Nikon I would upgrade to. The 7200 is very good but not sure if its a worthy successor to the venerable 300.