Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
I use D3S bodies at the moment but have been thinking of getting a D300s for travelling
I've been abroad 3 times this year and couldn't face taking my heavy equipment with me so thought I might be better off with the D300 and something like the new 18-200 if the quality of the D300s is comparable to what I could expect with the D3 or D3s
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
Quote: ...if the quality of the D300s is comparable to what I could expect with the D3...
Very close. The D300(s) doesn't have the low-light/high ISO performance of the D3(s) simply because of the large differences in the size of the respective sensor photosites - but it is still good.
Thanks for that
Yes, I expected something like that to be honest. The low light capability wouldn't be so much of an issue in the circumstances I'm thinking of but the size/weight of the camera would make a huge difference and it's very tempting.
Any feelings about the latest Nikkor 18-200?
Funny thing is after using the two cameras side-by-side this week I have decided to get a second D3s body!
However, as you say the ISO capability is not a major factor then this your decision would be based on different criteria to mine. I am not a machine-gunner under normal circumstances. In all attempts with a real subject I have failed to fill the buffer on the D3s. Not so on the crested tits and the D300s. Also the ISO performance is just no where near really between the two cameras. This last week I could happily shoot at ISO 4000 or even 8000 on the D3s, but could see noise on the same shots from the D300s at ISO 1600.
Without using the two cameras side-by-side you would not really appreciate when/where the D300s is not of the same quality, but there is a possibility that given you have used the D3s you may be a little disappointed. Just a warning. In isolation both cameras are good performers, but in poor light the D3s certainly justifies the difference in price!
HTH and does not sway your decision too far one way or the other. If ISO and FPS are not likely to be key concerns for the shots then D300s should be OK.
Thanks Cheryl. Problem is, being a D3s shooter under normal circumstances, I would inevitably be making comparisons no matter how hard I try not to
Which was my point with the warning really
Sorry to be so negative. I love the D300s but in comparison to the D3s, well there is none!
Quote: Any feelings about the latest Nikkor 18-200?
Not personally used it but everything I read about it is positive - not least of which is it's versatility. I would imagine the D300(s) and this lens would be ideal given your criteria Barrie.
Just a thought Barrie but... what about a D700? There are some Nikon-refurbed, 6-month Warranty units out there to be had.
i just bought a D300S, it is a superb camera and so far in front of my old D200 and FujiS5pro i cant believe the difference in noise reduction, it also works well with the 18-200 which is a super lens (sweet at f8 on)
however i only dabble with nature/wildlife and im sure that it cant compete with the d3 on noise as Cheryl has pointed out, having said that its pretty good up to 1600.
but for travel and static work the d300s, its got to be ideal. and i dont mind saying built a 100 times better than the new d7000
How about the D700 Barry - about the same size / weight as the D300, and better noise performance.
Barrie, take a close look at the D3100. The Nikon man on the stand at FOCUS told me the results are much the same as the D3, but it's half the weight.
the D3S is probably the best camera I have ever owned in terms of quality of results: to be able to shoot at 9000 ISO at a wedding in a dark church in Winter and obtain more than acceptable results is almost unbelievable; the dynamic range in pouring sunshine is outstanding; my D3 as a back up camera is almost as good.
My walk around D90 is acceptable at 800 ISO more than that I am having to use L/R noise removal tool; at a house party last night I had a chance to use my new D7000 with 35mm f1.8 at 1600 ISO and just the flash on the camera; results at 1600 ISO whilst acceptable and much better than the D90 don't come near the D3S. I have to say that the D7000 colours in AWB are brilliant and well ahead of my D3S/D3 and D90.
Edit Update:I just looked at one of my 1600 ISO images from my new whizzbang answer to all my prayers D7000 used the noise removal tool and the result is outstanding!
I just really didn't and still don't need the D7000 and I mostly resist impulse purchases but at £699 at Focus my credit card sorta leapt on to the counter
Is the D700 an possible option?
Quote: The Nikon man on the stand at FOCUS told me the results are much the same as the D3, but it's half the weight.
I traded a D3s to buy 2 D700's and have never regretted it - the output from both is as good as identical, and I could live with the slight disadvantages of not having the D3s (buffer, twin cards).
In fact, for travel the D700 would be BETTER than a D3s as it has the built-in sensor clean which the D3s doesn't have. The 700 body is comparable in size and weight to a D300s.
Don't know about the 18-200 though - have never used one, but anything I've read has said that they are ok. Perhaps a D700 and a couple of primes (50 and 135mm)??
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
01/09/2014 - 30/09/2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View September's Photo Month Calendar