Get Up To 30% Off Regatta Waterproof Jackets

Nikon D300?


BigRick 16 2.1k 3 United Kingdom
21 Aug 2011 9:54PM
i am not bothered about the classification of a camera body, but i am bothered about people proffessing to know things that they dont.... i wouldnt care if the camera i used was (and is sometimes) a compact fuji, as long as it does what i need it to do.
dathersmith 14 565 12 United Kingdom
21 Aug 2011 9:54PM
OK, as for opinions I have both the D300 and D3s. Both are excellent camera's but the D300 is not in the same league when it comes to low light performance.
BigRick 16 2.1k 3 United Kingdom
21 Aug 2011 9:56PM
agree with you about light performance, but as 90% of my work is studio, or location with strobes, ISO is not so important... if it was i would have the D3s. Smile
BigRick 16 2.1k 3 United Kingdom
21 Aug 2011 10:00PM

Quote:Jeez folk, calm down calm down... its all good... I want one anyway, just wanted to know opinions of those who have used one i suppose.. O SO IT ISNT A A D3S OR D3X BUT neither is my bank balance!!!!!!!!!!!!

and as at the moment i use a littl nikon d3000, so any upgrade will be good Wink



LOL... Grin i now have Harry Enfields Character in my head with the big fuzzy wig and tash....

If you were to get the D300 or the D300s i personaly would recommend them.... although if you can get the D300s it may well be worth it, for not much more money.

There is meant to be an upgrade, but as has been said, there always is.... and the price will be HIGH at the minute i would think.
Sooty_1 11 1.5k 221 United Kingdom
21 Aug 2011 10:42PM

Quote:but i am bothered about people proffessing to know things that they dont..


I take it that was aimed at me. I stand corrected that the D300 is on the Pro user list, but it is still categorised as a 'semi-professional' body, as is the D700.
The D3x is a better built professional camera, or it wouldn't be 5x the price. It may not suit you, but that is the fact. Many times more D3s than D300s are used worldwide by professional photographers because it is a workhorse, and the users can rely on it more than the cheaper option.

I do not say that a camera 5x the price will necessarily take better pictures, nor that an expensive lens will, but these products are priced as they are for a reason.


For the OP: why do you feel the need to upgrade to a D300? If you can justify it to yourself, then buy a D300. You will not regret it from a photographic point of view, it is a very capable camera. And yes, I have used one (and most SLR cameras made by Nikon, digital and film, so I believe I am qualified to make a comment).

One more point: It is better to have better lenses on a cheaper body than the other way round. Take a good look at the optics you are putting on the front of the camera.
BigRick 16 2.1k 3 United Kingdom
21 Aug 2011 10:51PM

Quote:but i am bothered about people proffessing to know things that they dont..

I take it that was aimed at me. I stand corrected that the D300 is on the Pro user list, but it is still categorised as a 'semi-professional' body, as is the D700.
The D3x is a better built professional camera, or it wouldn't be 5x the price. It may not suit you, but that is the fact. Many times more D3s than D300s are used worldwide by professional photographers because it is a workhorse, and the users can rely on it more than the cheaper option.

I do not say that a camera 5x the price will necessarily take better pictures, nor that an expensive lens will, but these products are priced as they are for a reason.


For the OP: why do you feel the need to upgrade to a D300? If you can justify it to yourself, then buy a D300. You will not regret it from a photographic point of view, it is a very capable camera. And yes, I have used one (and most SLR cameras made by Nikon, digital and film, so I believe I am qualified to make a comment).

One more point: It is better to have better lenses on a cheaper body than the other way round. Take a good look at the optics you are putting on the front of the camera.



if you have anything that backs this up, i would like to see it.... as the Nikon website STILL doesnt say that....

nikon-page.jpg
Sooty_1 11 1.5k 221 United Kingdom
21 Aug 2011 11:13PM
I expect you have/had a D300 or a D300s. Sounds like a major case of 'professional gear snobbery' to me.

Anyway, I'm off to fondle my Nikon F and Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 .......


TongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongueTongue
discreetphoton Plus
16 3.5k 20 United Kingdom
22 Aug 2011 12:22AM
sc20110822-000249.jpg

Hmm.
Quote: I stand corrected that the D300 is on the Pro user list, but it is still categorised as a 'semi-professional' body


Not sure where you're getting that from. The D300 was always regarded as a pro DX body, especially when paired with the MB-D10 grip, and in many ways out-stripped the D2x

Edit: excuse the sideways upload, it's a screen grab from my phone.
G_Hughes 14 19
22 Aug 2011 6:54AM
I currently have a Nikon D2x and was thinking of buying either a Nikon D300 or D7000 as a lighter alternative. I think that is the question for anyone in that price range - D300 or D7000?
Greta.
RRRoger 11 53 United States
22 Aug 2011 7:18AM
If I were you, I would get a D7000
I had a D300 and preferred the D90

The D300s replacement should be announced in a few days, but you will be lucky to get one anytime this year.
peterjones 19 5.1k 1 United Kingdom
22 Aug 2011 8:02AM
regardless of what anyone, any manufacturer or any website claims I define a so called "PRO" camera as the one I am using that earns me some s; many wedding photographers use the D300, D300S, D90 and the the D7000 to great effect; just buy what suits you and don't worry about what slot people place a camera in.

The image below was taken at a recent wedding with a D7000 ( & 105mm macro wide open at 800 ISO for the techies) ; IMO it is just a much a so called "PRO" camera as the D3s it backs up.

high-key-bride.jpg


If a new camera is launched just after your purchase it doesn't automatically make your camera worse.

Peter.
22 Aug 2011 8:14AM
It's a great marketing ploy. Call something a 'pro' camera/lens or whatever, then immediately you are going to increase sales amongst those people for whom these items are no more than ego-massagers and jewellery (mainly men as it happens). A professional is somebody who makes money from whatever it is they are doing. A pro-camera therefore is one that makes you money as Peter says and that could be a Box Brownie or the latest offering from Nikon or Canon. It matters not one jot.

So when the latest cameras are announced then why not splash the dosh if you can afford it but just because they says it's a pro-camera, then don't expect by some miracle, you will instantly become a better photographer and start making and selling prize winning pics 'cos it ain't going to happen Grin

Believe me, if this morning you're the guy who has taken a photo of Gadaffi being placed under house arrest the subs in the newspapers are not going to take the slightest interest in the kit that was used to take it Wink
22 Aug 2011 8:23AM
I meant to add that amongst professionals, the main criteria is fitness for the job (there is no doubt that technology in the top of the range cameras does make certain aspects of the job a little easier), reliability and robustness. Call a camera that's largely made from plastic a 'pro' camera and see how long it lasts treated the way many press snappers treat them Smile
ChrisV 14 2.3k 26 United Kingdom
22 Aug 2011 10:12AM
It's an interesting debate [OK, I'm being sarcastic - it's not an interesting debate] what constitutes a pro camera?

The bottom line is will the extra cost give you anything that benefits you?

I used to own a D300 [my entire kit got wiped out and I jumped ship going to full-frame 5DII*] and despite loving the capabilities of the Canon, I miss the handling of the Nikon. It was a lovely, very capable camera.

But Greta earlier, made a very good point - metering aside - the D7000 seems to trump its older sibling on almost every count. It has a top plate info panel, mag-alloy chassis and dual-dial ergonomics. It has a greater pixel count and counter-intuitively [given that] reputedly better low-light performance. As good a camera as the D300s is [and I think it's very good], the newer generation technology of the D7000 and its obvious advantages makes me wonder how Nikon is still selling any of the older bodies. Maybe it's got something to do with that 'Pro' tag..? Tongue




*There's a long, convoluted, reason I didn't go for a D700 - not especially relevant here.
RRRoger 11 53 United States
22 Aug 2011 1:45PM

Quote:I meant to add that amongst professionals, the main criteria is fitness for the job (there is no doubt that technology in the top of the range cameras does make certain aspects of the job a little easier), reliability and robustness. Call a camera that's largely made from plastic a 'pro' camera and see how long it lasts treated the way many press snappers treat them Smile


Yes I've seen some of them dump one of their dented cameras and lens on the ground while shooting with the other.
Seems they want to use it up so they can get a better one.

Don't discount those new Plasticy cameras and lens.
Yesterday my new D5100 popped from the TriPod and then bounced a foot off the Asphalt before I caught it.
I can not find a scratch. And, it worked perfectly to Video several hours of the Race thru Redwoods.

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.