Nikon D300 reviewed!!
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. 
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
Not looking, Not looking.................................................................................
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
Give me a pile of new lenses and one and I am certain I could adjust to it
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
Give me a pile of new lenses and one and I am certain I could adjust to it
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
Ian, nice to see my camera looking good
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
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
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
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.
"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.
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 was planning to upgrade from a D70 to a D200 when the D300 came out but after reading this and other feedback I’m 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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Ian
