Amazon Kindle Unlimited Offer: 1-Month For FREE!

Nikon D300?


User_Removed 11 4.6k 1 Scotland
22 Aug 2011 2:48PM
Just to add a further thread to this pro/am discussion.

The fact that a manufacturer might describe a camera model as "professional" does not say anything whatsoever about the quality of image it is capable of producing. In fact, many keen amateurs routinely produce much higher quality images than most professionals bother with. The reason is very simple - keen amateurs are in the business of pursuing excellence, whether it be for competition, exhibition or merely self-satisfaction. Professionals on the other hand, are generally in the business of trying to make money.

When a manufacturer describes a model as "professional", all they are really saying is that it has been designed to withstand the amount and type of use (and abuse) that a pro might give it. Nothing to do with image quality, which, for many pros, is a much less important consideration.

In my county there are two photographers who are professional in the sense of it being their full-time self-employment. One uses a D300 and the other uses a D700. Both, in order to make a living, cover the full gamut of press and events photography for the local newspapers, weddings, studio portraits, formal school photographs, industrial and commercial photography for local companies, etc., etc. I really have no idea how many times they click the shutter in a year but would guess that it must be in the 10s of 1000s. They need cameras that will provide reliability in the wide range of (sometimes harsh) environments that their profession sometimes takes them into. If the local rag phones to commission pics of severe flooding in the area, they can't turn round and say, "Oh no. My camera might get wet!"

The other thing neither of those pros do is shoot Raw or spend much time in Photoshop. They shoot Jpegs and hope to get images that require minimum adjustment. When time is money, they simply can't afford to spend five minutes converting and photoshopping images.

In the same county there are several amateurs who, like myself, use much more expensive cameras and think nothing of spending 10 minutes in "post-processing" on a single image to try to get a finished result that might win a camera club competition. But we only enter or exhibit a few hundred images a year (selected from a few thousand), as opposed to the 10s of 1000s that the pros have to churn out. And it is much easier to persuade oneself to spend silly money on a hobby than it is to justify expenditure in a business.

Horses for courses.
BigRick 15 2.1k 3 United Kingdom
22 Aug 2011 7:27PM
the funniest bit for me, is that it matters not what the camera is called, as it is the camera you have that is the best one for you.... most of the time.... it is merely the fact that i was correcting the category a camera was placed into, and still got told i was wrong?

I have loved every camera i have had since my first 2 MP canon compact, up to the D300s i have now, and will continue to love it until the D800 comes out and i move up to full frame, then i will love that too....

If someone makes a picture that is good, or even average, if THEY like it, then that really is all that matters.....

If i had the money in my pocket now, and was asked whether i would get the D300s or the D7000, for me it would be the D400 that may be released soon, or the D7000 if i wanted it 'right now'.
Sooty_1 11 1.5k 221 United Kingdom
22 Aug 2011 9:43PM
If Nikon didn't have different levels of camera genre (instead of just 'pro' and 'non-pro'), they wouldn't have 4 distinct series of numbering conventions. The way they have had the camera naming conventions throughout their history.

(which stretches a lot further back than the time 2 Mp cameras were around).


If I were buying anything the manufacturer labelled 'professional' I would, a. take it with a pinch of salt, and b. expect certain standards only to be found on an item designed specifically for the hardest environment likely to be encountered in the field.
In addition, looking at the list of lenses, there are some with serious doubts as to their 'pro' status. (eg the 28 f/2.8 was never considered a particularly sharp lens across the frame, but as DX only uses the middle....go fig, and the 300 f/4 suffers from a seriously wobbly tripod mount which many photographers claim never gives a vibration free shot and have sent theirs back!)
ChrisV 14 2.3k 26 United Kingdom
22 Aug 2011 11:28PM

Quote:If Nikon didn't have different levels of camera genre (instead of just 'pro' and 'non-pro'), they wouldn't have 4 distinct series of numbering conventions. The way they have had the camera naming conventions throughout their history.




I'm not picking an argument with you (tbh, I've no really strong feelings on anything you've said).

But the naming convention thing... The D7000 sort of replaced the D90 and sort of superseded the D300(s). So Nikon now seem to only have three DSLR 'series' (I don't think they're still selling the D90, are they?) the D7000 certainly isn't entry level. It begs the question: is the numbering a cynical ploy to obfuscate/differentiate whilst the D300s is still supposedly their 'top' APSc camera?
keithh 17 25.8k 33 Wallis And Futuna
23 Aug 2011 7:48AM
Just a warning because I know they can set everybody off.....

...YAWN....


OK - hands off mouths it's safe to breathe now.
23 Aug 2011 10:49PM
o my fffffin god..... i only wanted o know what the camera was like!!! couldnt give a toss about the pro or consumer argument.... some people on here are full of themselves ....

Please folk, get a grip... some people say that its not the camera that counts but the person taking the photos... Well i say, utter crap!!! if that was the case then every pro out there would have the cheap option or even a point and shoot...

I agree that havng the correct lens is very important But im sure that if i put my 35mm f1.8 on a d300s then i have the potential to get better pics than i do on my d3000.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ChrisV 14 2.3k 26 United Kingdom
24 Aug 2011 12:38AM

Quote:
I agree that havng the correct lens is very important But im sure that if i put my 35mm f1.8 on a d300s then i have the potential to get better pics than i do on my d3000.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Seriously; what would make you prefer the D300s over a D7000?

And by the way - it is the person that counts. Better gear expands the possibilities - faster capture, more control, cleaner images in poor light and so on. But all these things can facilitate or enhance the image - they don't give it to you. Higher end cameras are wasted on those not technically adept because they are pitched at people who know what they're doing in the first place.

If you make a lot of money from photography, a few grand is well spent for any advantage, even if it's only incremental. If you don't know the fundamentals of photography, the outlay is more like a fool and his money...
ge22y 13 115 12 Wales
24 Aug 2011 8:23AM

Quote:Seriously; what would make you prefer the D300s over a D7000?


Chris have you experienced using a D300s against a D7000? The reason I ask is I had to sell my D300s (which I loved) a couple of months ago, I'm now in a position to replace it but I don't know whether to go for the D300s again or the D7000, on paper the D7000 looks like the better camera but I know what the D300s can do! I'm trying to get as many opinions on the D7000 as I can. I don't think my budget is going to stretch to the D400 or if I want to dangle on a piece of string waiting for the release.

Cheers,

Gez.
ChrisV 14 2.3k 26 United Kingdom
24 Aug 2011 12:13PM
Hi Gez. Sorry, no - I haven't done a direct practical comparison between the two cameras. I used to own a D300 [loved it], so it's based on the spec sheet and holding a D7000. It's a bit smaller in your hand and the control layout is more D90 than D300 - although there seems to be just as much manual control - it's a very solid feeling camera too. The only downside I can see is slightly slower shooting rate and a smaller buffer. It's rated as just about the best low-light performer in its class [that's APSc sensor cameras generally] despite having more [and smaller] photosites than the D300. The DPReview site gives plenty of detail and makes the comparisons with it's older stablemate.

There's an announcement from Nikon tomorrow that some pundits were positing would herald news of the release of the D400/D4 [or whatever they'll be called]. Others are saying it will be their mirrorless system - it may be none of these. It's worth waiting a day in any case. Are D300s being discounted at the moment? I know they didn't seem to drop that much from the MSRP the last time I looked, so the price differential on a newer model might be surprisingly small from current prices. On the other hand I would expect prices on any residual inventory of the older bodies to go down with a bump, once the replacement is announced.

These decisions are never simple are they?
24 Aug 2011 6:45PM

Quote:


And by the way - it is the person that counts. Better gear expands the possibilities - faster capture, more control, cleaner images in poor light and so on. But all these things can facilitate or enhance the image - they don't give it to you. Higher end cameras are wasted on those not technically adept because they are pitched at people who know what they're doing in the first place.




Ok ok so you are of cause correct to a point... put my d3000 in the hands of my wife and ask her to take it of auto and she hasnt a clue, but most photographers i would guess know what they are doing... so if you are at point where a camera upgrade is needed then of cause you will get better shots with better equipment regardless if you're making money out of it or not....
LenShepherd 13 4.4k United Kingdom
25 Aug 2011 9:13AM
As already mentioned the D300 was updated by the D300s - but basic image quality is similar.
The D7000 has been out 9 months - with a higher general performance than the D300s except in areas of buffer etc - it seems obvious there will be a "D400" top of the DX range body sometime - but nobody knows when.
The D300 (which I still own) is an extremely capable camera with fast, comprehensive AF, very good noise compared to the older technology D2x, and the ability to produce good A3 prints with relative ease.
As to was it or was it not a pro grade camera which has produced some "hot air" comment - Nikon said yes as they do of the current D300s http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/products/product_summary_list.page?sParamValueLbl=Digital%20Cameras&sParam1ValueLbl=SLR&sSubnav2ParamLbl=Professional&ParamValue=Digital%20Cameras&Subnav1Param=SLR&Subnav2Param=Professional&Subnav3Param=0&RunQuery=l3&ID=0
n8trm 13 4.5k United Kingdom
3 Sep 2011 4:49PM
Is there any difference between d300 and d 7000 in the lenses that they support?
RRRoger 11 53 United States
3 Sep 2011 5:36PM
The D300 and D7000 support the same lens.

It is the D3100 and D5100 that will only AF with AF-S lens.

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.