Nikon D300

[SGirl]

Hiya.

I've been offered the opportunity to upgrade from my D200 to a D300. Has anyone else tried this yet? Is there much difference in performance between the two? Would I like a D300 better?

Or would I be better off going to Canon?

[DanH]

Well I like mine very much and the D200 user who had a play with it on Saturday definitely wants to upgrade, although sensibly he will leave it a few months for the price to drop. He thought the focussing was noticeably better in low light.

Canon haven't really got a direct competitor as the 40D is inferior in a number of ways, the 5d is full frame but very old and the 1d mk3 is way more money, bigger and has problems with focussing...

The camera mag reviews have been very positive too.

The forums have been full of pixel peepers zooming into 200x discussing noise. I've come to the conclusion those forums are best avoided as you get a 5 page thread full of despair before it becomes apparent that the photos were taken by someone with their first camera ever and they got the exposure wrong.

[V6GTO]

DanH said:

the 5d is full frame but very old

So old they were photographing dinosours with them...

[_dobbo_]

When I was in the market to upgrade my D70, it was because I hated the high noise even at low ISO, and I never got consistent results with the kit lens. All in all I fell out of love with it entirely.

This time round I have virtually no criticisms of, or issues with my D200. On that basis upgrading would appear to be for the sake of it rather than for any good reason, so I'm sticking with what I've got.

I'll wait for the D400, time flies so I'm sure it's just around the corner!

I still lust after a 5D though, not sure I'd call it old either!

[GetCarter]

As I understand it, the D300 is basically the insides of a D2X - but if you drop it, it breaks. Picture quality will be better than a D200... Build quality will be the same. You just need to decide what you want it for.

BTW - Wait for the D900 - it'll be a stunner!

[DanH]

GetCarter said:

As I understand it, the D300 is basically the insides of a D2X - but if you drop it, it breaks. Picture quality will be better than a D200... Build quality will be the same. You just need to decide what you want it for.

BTW - Wait for the D900 - it'll be a stunner!

Thats incorrect on so many levels!

It has the 52 point focussing engine of the D3. It has a full mag chassis with improved sealing vs the d200 so is as strong as anything Nikon make. It has a far faster processing engine than the previous generation (you can review shots instantly, no delay zooming etc). A much better screen to preview on. It has a CMOS sensor unlike the CCD sensor of the previous generation which reduces noise. 6fps with standard batttery or 8fps with AAs/d2x battery. It frankly takes better pics than a d2x, which is why the arse has just fallen out of the d2x 2nd hand market...

You were thinking of the 5d when you mentioned cheap chassis? How else do they pay for that nice sensor Anyway 5d replacement must be coming soon if a budget full frame camera is wanted?

[SGirl]

Thanks everybody.

To be honest, I'm still none the wiser. I could wait and get the 5D replacement... Or I could get the D300 and be happy with it... Or I could continue with the D200, which I do still like a lot...

Or I could go back to plan A and get a nice lens instead? Tricky one.

I'll think about it some more.

[DanH]

SGirl said:

Thanks everybody.

To be honest, I'm still none the wiser. I could wait and get the 5D replacement... Or I could get the D300 and be happy with it... Or I could continue with the D200, which I do still like a lot...

Or I could go back to plan A and get a nice lens instead? Tricky one.

I'll think about it some more.

Personally, I'd get the lens...

5D is full frame so that's fine if you don't need the reach that crop sensors give you. Apart from the low iso performance of a FF sensor though, I'd say the d300 has quite a lot more features than a 5d so it depends what you want. You really are paying a lot for the 5d's sensor which is why it offers less in other areas.

Frankly unless you don't need the money or really need the new features I'd stick with the d200 rather than get a d300. It would probably cost you a 800 GBP+ to upgrade and you'd probably get more from having a nice lens.

[_dobbo_]

SGirl - you haven't mentioned what lens or lenses you currently use. If you are currently using something like the 18-70 kit lens or the 18-200VR, you really should look at some lens options before you upgrade your body.

Stuff like the 17-55 f/2.8 or the 24-70 f/2.8 really are leagues apart from the kit lenses, and I suspect you'll benefit far more from decent glass than a body upgrade.

DanH said:

It frankly takes better pics than a d2x, which is why the arse has just fallen out of the d2x 2nd hand market...

I fear you may falling victim to the same pixel peeping you mentioned earlier - I'd be highly dubious of claims the D300 is as well built as a D2x, even if in other areas it's as good or even better.

[DanH]

_dobbo_ said:

DanH said:

It frankly takes better pics than a d2x, which is why the arse has just fallen out of the d2x 2nd hand market...

I fear you may falling victim to the same pixel peeping you mentioned earlier - I'd be highly dubious of claims the D300 is as well built as a D2x, even if in other areas it's as good or even better.

Fair point - I haven't done comparative tests although I did look at a D3 in B&H photo. Just having a mag chassis is well built in my book, but if you are a pro maybe that's not enough.

The comparative tests I've seen though have rated it ahead of the D2X in both focusing and sensor. AP reviewed it last week and put it ahead of the 5D too which is surprising vs a full frame sensor.

Get a trade in price on a d2x though at Gray's and you will see its not good news... (unless you are buying!)

[kenp666]

I have a D3 which uses the same AF engine as the D300 and frankly it beggars belief. Even in low light shooting at ISO6400 it is spot on.

[GetCarter]

kenp666 said:

I have a D3 which uses the same AF engine as the D300 and frankly it beggars belief. Even in low light shooting at ISO6400 it is spot on.

How are you finding the D3?... I have an order in for one, but my DX lenses won't take advantage of the full frame sensor so I'll have to fork out more cash... did you come from a D2X?

Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 18th December 19:15

[DanH]

GetCarter said:

kenp666 said:

I have a D3 which uses the same AF engine as the D300 and frankly it beggars belief. Even in low light shooting at ISO6400 it is spot on.

How are you finding the D3?... I have an order in for one, but my DX lenses won't take advantage of the full frame sensor so I'll have to fork out more cash... did you come from a D2X?

Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 18th December 19:15

Think D3 review is in this weeks AP mag. Not read it though. Everything I've seen about the d3 so far has been glowing. Fortunately I want a cropped sensor so I don't lust after it too much

Edited by DanH on Tuesday 18th December 20:54

[GetCarter]

DanH said:

said...

It 'the D300' frankly takes better pics than a d2x, which is why the arse has just fallen out of the d2x 2nd hand market...

A couple of things to say at this point. I'd be interested to see the results from the D300 (to compare to the D2X)... happy to know that they'll be better.

Nikon don't seem to share your view that the build quality will be up to D2X quality (I just spoke to them - the D300 is not considered a 'pro' body), but I really hope it is, as my D2X is falling apart after only 117,980 shots - and being left overnight in a peat bog.

When my D2X finally dies, I need to choose between another D2X, a D300 and a D3. We all know what is best there, but I have several DX lenses, so the D300 is a runner.

[DanH]

GetCarter said:

DanH said:

said...

It 'the D300' frankly takes better pics than a d2x, which is why the arse has just fallen out of the d2x 2nd hand market...

A couple of things to say at this point. I'd be interested to see the results from the D300 (to compare to the D2X)... happy to know that they'll be better.

Nikon don't seem to share your view that the build quality will be up to D2X quality (I just spoke to them - the D300 is not considered a 'pro' body), but I really hope it is, as my D2X is falling apart after only 117,980 shots - and being left overnight in a peat bog.

When my D2X finally dies, I need to choose between another D2X, a D300 and a D3. We all know what is best there, but I have several DX lenses, so the D300 is a runner.

I can't really comment on the build quality. It seems solid in the hand and is made of mag unlike a 5D etc but it sounds like you have some extreme expectations! Hey, at least its cheaper than a D3...

None of the reputable web sites seem to have reviews on the D300 or D3 yet whereas the weekly mags have done a fair bit. re d2x vs d300 - 2 years is a long time in camera bodies!

Will be interesting to see what you settle on. I'm guessing the D3 for its low noise Still, a second hand d2x is as much or less than a new d300 now so I guess you could just refresh it and not have to sell any lenses.

p.s. Love your Hebrides shots.

Edited by DanH on Tuesday 18th December 23:21

[DanH]

Quinny said:

According to the Canon website, the 5D does have a magnesium chassis

You may be right but not what I've read?

e.g. http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Nikon-D20...

[DanH]

Quinny said:

1st paragraph

Magnesium alloys make up the outsides of both the 5D and the D200.

They go on with 'Canon's literature says the 5D adds a stainless steel chassis and a plastic mirror box'... Also its not weather sealed.

[Bacardi]

GetCarter said:

We all know what is best...

Yep, buy a Canon .

The BJP did a favourable write up on the 300 a couple of weeks ago. You can register online and access the archives for a limited time. I suspect the 300 to have better picture quality than the D2x. Better noise (at higher iso), by far, better shadow and highlight detail, smaller and lighter than the D2x. I believe it loses out to the D3 in noise, buffer and wide angle ability (depending on lens of course), smaller viewfinder etc.and general robustness.

I can tell you that the mate I share studio with is raving about the improved file quality of the D3 over the D2x. I'm still getting used to my D3 and coming from using Canons it's not all sweetness and light. I like the camera and lenses but there are unexpected irritations and differences. Maybe I'll post a review/comparison after I've played some more over the hol's for anyone who's interested.

[DanH]

Bacardi said:

GetCarter said:

We all know what is best...

Yep, buy a Canon .

The BJP did a favourable write up on the 300 a couple of weeks ago. You can register online and access the archives for a limited time. I suspect the 300 to have better picture quality than the D2x. Better noise (at higher iso), by far, better shadow and highlight detail, smaller and lighter than the D2x. I believe it loses out to the D3 in noise, buffer and wide angle ability (depending on lens of course), smaller viewfinder etc.and general robustness.

I can tell you that the mate I share studio with is raving about the improved file quality of the D3 over the D2x. I'm still getting used to my D3 and coming from using Canons it's not all sweetness and light. I like the camera and lenses but there are unexpected irritations and differences. Maybe I'll post a review/comparison after I've played some more over the hol's for anyone who's interested.

That would be interesting. Quite a major step to switch brands. What prompted it?

For those considering D300 vs D3 this raises the main points of comparison although I believe he wrote it before trying either (and his reviews aren't done yet) :

http://www.bythom.com/d3ord300.htm

p.s. BJP also did a second review of the D300 last week with further testing of noise and accuracy.

[CVP]

Bacardi said:

Maybe I'll post a review/comparison after I've played some more over the hol's for anyone who's interested.

Would be very interested in reading those thoughts.

Chris