Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Nikon D300 reviewed!!


MattGrayson e2
7 622 3 England
4 Dec 2007 11:41AM
Hi guys, we have a review of the Nikon D300 available and it can be accessed from here if you want to avoid my mug on the home page. Smile

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

strawman e2
11 22.0k 16 United Kingdom
4 Dec 2007 12:18PM
Not looking, Not looking................................................................................. Smile

Looks like a fair review, how did you find the auto focusing tracking work?

I was given a quick play, and it work briliantly twice then went into a could not focus on anything mode then was great. did yours do that or was it contamination from a canon users hands Smile

Give me a pile of new lenses and one and I am certain I could adjust to it Smile
IanA e2
11 3.0k 12 England
4 Dec 2007 12:19PM
Pretty near spot on. Better than the D200/D2X Smile
hobbs e2
10 1.2k United Kingdom
4 Dec 2007 1:55PM

Quote:I was given a quick play, and it work briliantly twice then went into a could not focus on anything mode then was great. did yours do that or was it contamination from a canon users hands


As being an ex canon user I can assure you it works just as well in my hands Smile

Ian, nice to see my camera looking good
strawman e2
11 22.0k 16 United Kingdom
4 Dec 2007 2:02PM
I know I gave it back to its owner who looked it over passed it back and all was well. Probably a numpty user issue Smile

My first reaction was it looked complicated with lots of buttons and switches. So user error, probably. I may even have hit a button by accident.

But if its as good as they say its probably good value, compared to say a 1D MKIII.

I know my place, it took me long enough to get use to the 40D Smile
Thincat e2
7 616
4 Dec 2007 2:08PM
Interesting to see the description of the D300's LCD:

"With the D300's huge 922,000 pixel LCD, it is a useful tool in some circumstances where it is either not easy or impossible to put the eye to the viewfinder."

This is slightly different to the description of the Sony A700's LCD:

"The large 3in LCD has 900k dots - as has been discussed at length, these are individual dots that are capable of only rendering a red or a green or a blue colour, not all three."

Obviously the Sony doesn't have liveview, but most readers wouldn't understand from these descriptions that the D300 and the A700 have the same LCD. Some might call this evidence of bias, but I couldn't possibly comment.

The D300 and A700 also have the same sensor.
strawman e2
11 22.0k 16 United Kingdom
4 Dec 2007 2:12PM
I think you are reading too much into it.

I guess the intention was to give feel to us of how the camera is to use, rather than a comparative review.
Thincat e2
7 616
4 Dec 2007 2:39PM

Quote:I think you are reading too much into it.

I guess the intention was to give feel to us of how the camera is to use, rather than a comparative review.



I'm just picking on one aspect of the review - I haven't read all of it. The thing that interested me was that the Sony LCD was described as a "900k dot LCD, where each dot can display only one colour" but the Nikon has a "huge 922k pixel" LCD.

They're a bit different, eh? Except they're the same LCD. If stuff like this isn't consistent/accurate how can anyone rely on the rest of it?
mshepherd e2
10 667 United Kingdom
4 Dec 2007 2:49PM
I was planning to upgrade from a D70 to a D200 when the D300 came out but after reading this and other feedback Iím tempted to jump straight to the D300

Ive got budget for a D300 or a D200 and a new lens. Question for the lucky few who have used both is the D300 worth the extra £500???

Thanks in advance

Matt
MattGrayson e2
7 622 3 England
4 Dec 2007 3:27PM

Quote:Quote:I think you are reading too much into it.

I guess the intention was to give feel to us of how the camera is to use, rather than a comparative review.I'm just picking on one aspect of the review - I haven't read all of it. The thing that interested me was that the Sony LCD was described as a "900k dot LCD, where each dot can display only one colour" but the Nikon has a "huge 922k pixel" LCD.

They're a bit different, eh? Except they're the same LCD. If stuff like this isn't consistent/accurate how can anyone rely on the rest of it?



I noticed this too and I am going to look into it.

The reviews were done by two different people. Ian is a freelancer and kindly contributed his review to us.
Thincat e2
7 616
4 Dec 2007 3:51PM

Quote:The reviews were done by two different people. Ian is a freelancer and kindly contributed his review to us.


What Ian said is correct. The bottom line is that the D300 and the A700 LCDs have the same spec - and whether it's dots or pixels, it's 4 times the standard (as on the 40D).

But my point was this. If people review the same item in such completely different ways how can anyone place any trust in the reviews? I commented on the error on the A700 specs a few weeks ago and was told it would be investigated, which it wasn't. It's just interesting to me that in the case of the Nikon the facts are correct. I'm just interested in accuracy.
MattGrayson e2
7 622 3 England
4 Dec 2007 4:07PM
I checked the thread for the A700, I don't see anyone saying they would investigate the A700 as Duncan had already had a Sony guru saying it was dots and not pixels, which is what he reported. I have contacted Nikon for an explanation which I will post as soon as I receive it. Smile
mattw e2
11 5.2k 10 United Kingdom
4 Dec 2007 4:48PM

Quote:What Ian said is correct. The bottom line is that the D300 and the A700 LCDs have the same spec - and whether it's dots or pixels, it's 4 times the standard (as on the 40D).

Not true. If it is '9K pixels' then it is double the resolution of the Canon 40D's unit.

If it is '9k dots' then it is still better than the Canon one, but not double the resolution.

I thought it was well spotted by Duncan.
strawman e2
11 22.0k 16 United Kingdom
4 Dec 2007 5:09PM
Can I refer you to my camera angst thread.

I bet all three cameras will produce great results, once you get over the initial learning curve.

but the good news for us is if they are competing it lowers the price of technology for the rest of us. Plus there may be some good 2nd hand equipment up for sale. Look at the 20D's for sale under £300 as one example.

Things like that must be bonus for many people.
IanA e2
11 3.0k 12 England
4 Dec 2007 10:38PM

Quote:Question for the lucky few who have used both is the D300 worth the extra £500???


Well I have both and I reckon it is!


Quote:Some might call this evidence of bias


Perhaps! Wink After I reviewed the D200 I bought one. In the case of the D300, I bought one whilst I was still reviewing it!
Even so, I have tried to be as objective as usual. I haven't, however, read the Sony review, or any others as I prefer to make up my own mind about equipment, so a difference in terminology is only to be expected. Wink

Ian

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.