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

  • NEWS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here

D300s Pointless

Leif 13 722
31 Jul 2009 10:15PM
I think people have hit the nail on the head already. It is simply to keep it competitive, rather than to get existing D300 owners to upgrade. I stuck with a D200 on the grounds that the D300 would drop in price with time. Only the exchange rate stuffed that idea. Ha ha ha.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Fairclough 8 174
31 Jul 2009 10:47PM
D300 is a flipping GREAT camera. Add a fundamentally FUBAR video mode and I'd save my money.
photofrenzy 11 424 2 United Kingdom
31 Jul 2009 10:53PM
Quote:Besides, how do you improve a D300?

You carnt the D300 is what it is A GREAT CAMERA Nikon got it right first time with thE D300 it doesnt need to be messed with.
31 Jul 2009 11:06PM
No, won't be "upgrading" the D300 for this...really cannot understand the "need" to add video to an SLR...I sure as hell wouldn't fancy trying to hold the D300, with battery pack, with large glass - to video summat... Much easier to whip out the Sony handycam ( fits snugly in one hand..).

I expect though, if a D400 comes out my D300 will suddenly become un-useable, budget/entry-level, semi-pro etc. and stop allowing me to take decent photos any more....
peterjones Plus
16 4.7k 1 United Kingdom
1 Aug 2009 12:08AM
where the D3 wins over the D300 and maybe the 300S which we don't admittedly know yet is the D3's amazing high ISO performance; insignificant if you shoot landscapes highly important for event photography in low light.
Leif 13 722
1 Aug 2009 8:14AM

Quote:really cannot understand the "need" to add video to an SLR...

Marketing. And I am sure there are people who want a stills camera and video camera in one unit. Just look at the popularity of you tube. I suspect that most people who buy a D300 do not use it much, or use it for family pics etc where a much cheaper camera would have done. But marketing hype and FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) convinced them to buy the D300.
rhody 15 2.4k 2 United Kingdom
1 Aug 2009 10:13AM
I think adding the video capability is a superb option. To have that facility and ability in one camera is a great alternative to carrying a video cam as well as a dslr.
A quality camera with the ability to take stills and video is a great buy.
It's the future of photography in my opinion. I quite often wish I had this facility on mine - and when I upgrade it will be an option to consider for me. DSLR image quality will come first - but the video option could well be a deal clincher when it comes to a decision.

The D300 is a superb camera - this just makes it appeal to an even wider market.

Years ago I remember people saying "Don't trust and don't need auto focus - it won't catch on"

Time will tell.
LenShepherd 10 3.6k United Kingdom
1 Aug 2009 2:17PM
Once the D300s becomes available at a discount it will not be much more than the D300 is now.
Taking the D300 not everybody uses jpeg, or RAW, or spot, or matrix, or 14 bit processing, or D lighting, 6 fps, CL-s flash, in camera editing or live view.
What is important is some people use all of them - making a D300 or 300s extremely well specified at a lower price than a niche product like the F6.
There are times when I could use video - but adding a cam corder is too expensive and one will not fit in my camera bag.
I expect to get video on the next camera I buy and (like live view) I will sometimes use it.
My guess is a D400 with a new and better sensor is being developed but Nikon are months or perhaps a year from being ready to launch it.
jonah794 8 1.7k 11 United Kingdom
2 Aug 2009 2:41PM
I am interested in buying the D300s, just because of the movie feature, that comes with it. I would use the camera to take photos more than I would for anything else, but I have been told that sometimes the fact the camera also has a movie feature, can make the quality of the photos taken not as good as the D300.

If this is so, I would much rather have a D300. Does anyone have any idea about this? Did it happen with the D90?

Carabosse 15 41.1k 270 England
2 Aug 2009 2:45PM

Quote: have been told that sometimes the fact the camera also has a movie feature, can make the quality of the photos taken not as good as the D300.

Sounds like someone is spinning you a yarn, Jonah! Wink
jonah794 8 1.7k 11 United Kingdom
2 Aug 2009 4:14PM
Muste be!!
stewybill 9 42 United Kingdom
2 Aug 2009 5:39PM
Hello from Sunny Sheffy

Its simple,

THE D300 is an AWESOME beast and cant be improved.

Shine On
rhody 15 2.4k 2 United Kingdom
2 Aug 2009 7:48PM
I think Nikon would disagree with you - they have taken the D300 and improved its appeal to an even wider market.

Video capability is the future IMHO - it's a great feature to have.

Silent jerky B&W movies evolved into the standard we have today.

Things change and move on.

Nikon have to adapt to compete and survive.
Carabosse 15 41.1k 270 England
3 Aug 2009 12:29AM
Just get the D300s, Jonah - with both stills and video, you'll have a whale of a time with it!

(God, I've been dying to say that!! Grin)
stewybill 9 42 United Kingdom
3 Aug 2009 7:33AM
I have to say that as far as HD Video goes,i dont think its the way forward for DSLR makers at all,if you want a Cam Corder,fine,go buy one.do you really think that people will think "ooh i want a camcorder,i know,i,ll spend a grand on a dslr" ?
I have a HD camcorder(very good it is as well-SONY),i would never use it to take stills,methinks the camera makers have dropped the ball here,it just wont fly.
They would be better off serving us stills photographers by looking at better high ISO peformance or such like,i,m glad the megga pixel race is gone,but i do not see video capability becoming relevant to me.

Shine On

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.