Anyone try a D300 yet?

[Underwater Mike]

After 30 years of using the same Canon that I bought when I was a kid, I have yet to buy a dSLR. I never found one that gave the kind of results I was looking for at a price that I could touch (i.e., not selling a kidney for a full-frame sensor, for example). But, I think I found my answer: the Nikon D300.

Yeah, it's pricey and, no, I can't use all my existing Canon glass. But I can't use the old lenses on any dSLR, so that part's a wash. What I need is a flexible feature set with decent resolution and sensitivity, and LOW noise (which dives me up the wall). Everything I've read about the camera says that it's the . All I need to do is run to a store and give one a try.

Just wondering, though: Has anyone here on XS used a D300? I'd love to get some first-person feedback that's not on dpreview.com.

[MaxxxRacer]

I have not tried one yet, but if you are looking for high ISO low noise, you will want to look at the Canon Full frame cameras. the 5D would be your only economical choice. The 5D kinda sucks for ergonomics and the LCD is horrid, as well as it being a relatively slow SLR. That said, its image quality beats that of ANY Nikon digital ever made, including the d300 and D3. At high ISO it gets even better. [EDIT: A bit of confusion. The D3 trounces the 5D at High ISO, but the 5D is a bit sharper at base ISO. Check here for a comparison http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/sharpness-1.htm )

On the other hand if you are looking for a camera that is blazing fast and has good High ISO ability the D300 is for you.

If you want a more hands on review of the D300 try reading Ken Rockwell. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d300.htm He has the 5D, D300 and D3 as well as many other Nikons and Canons.

But as you mentioned the only way to really tell is to try it in person. Don't go to Ritz as they wont let you touch any of the cameras or lenses.

[Underwater Mike]

Wow, great review. Thanks!

[Soulburner]

Max, in the review I read the D300 did just slightly better than the Canon 40D in noise tests, though they were close.

[MaxxxRacer]

Max, in the review I read the D300 did just slightly better than the Canon 40D in noise tests, though they were close.

That does not suprise me in the least bit. Newer sensor with better in camer processing. The camera that spanks the D300 and D3 as far as noise and IQ goes is the 5D. It seems Canon has been doing FF cameras for longer and knows how to get a better image out of them. BUT I should state that I think Nikon was going for speed (crazy high ISO) rather than insane IQ with the D3 and the crazy high IQ will be reserved for the D3x at 24MP.

[Soulburner]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3VEc9ulgSY

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d300-review/

http://a.img-dpreview.com/previews/N...lroundview.jpg

vs Canon EOS-40D
http://a.img-dpreview.com/previews/N...sidebyside.jpg

Oh yes, I want one

[Nate P.]

Damn, I wish I could afford that camera... not to mention some decent lenses.

[Soulburner]

So what do you think Underwater Mike? I'm considering the camera but am having a hard time justifying the cost.

I work at Immigration, and I'd feel pretty guilty with $2500 of gear around my neck while there are children out there in third world countries that barely have enough to eat.

Anyway it seems to do just about everything I want...but still need to do more research. Oh, now that we have Live View on DSLR's, why hasn't anyone taken features from their P&S cameras yet? Where the heck is my Stitch Assist?

I also have to consider the fact that I do not own any lenses so I would buy buying into a brand for the first time. The D300 is expensive yes, but if you look at it like a cheap Canon 1D Mark II...well then you have a hell of a deal.

[aspire.comptech]

The new Pentax K20D is looking like a great camera if you want something a tad less expensive.

http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/5112...ntax-k20d.html

[Soulburner]

Is this a valid argument?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...75306#24775306

There are many people that believe that the Nikon D300 is over priced and many that believe it should not even be compared to the Canon 40D because of its feature set and price difference. So if one was to look at a feature by feature comparison the real price difference, one might say that the D300 is price very well, once you upgrade the 40D to make for a more fair apples to apples comparison.
Canon 40D.......................................... $1299
Canon ST-E2..........................................$210
(to add wireless flash controler)
Canon TC-80N3 Remote...........................$133
(to add Time lapse/interval shooting)
Canon viewfinder Grid Screen.....................$39
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. ......$1681
versus
Nikon D300 w/above features included.....$1799

Real Difference.......................................$ 118


Now this for an additional $118 you get a few more features you simply can't upgrade a 40D to have such as a 51point AF module, a 920,000 pixel LCD display and Spot Metering for all AF points.

[Underwater Mike]

Well, I've been waiting 5 years to find a dSLR that had the features I wanted. The D300 is the one that finally comes closest, absent a full-frame body. I'll be starting from zero with lenses, too, but you gotta begin somewhere!

I just bought a Q6600 today, so I'm finally upgrading my four-year-old main machine. That puts another cramp in my spending. But I still think I'll wind up going with the Nikon.

[MaxxxRacer]

Well, I've been waiting 5 years to find a dSLR that had the features I wanted. The D300 is the one that finally comes closest, absent a full-frame body. I'll be starting from zero with lenses, too, but you gotta begin somewhere!

I just bought a Q6600 today, so I'm finally upgrading my four-year-old main machine. That puts another cramp in my spending. But I still think I'll wind up going with the Nikon.

D300 > Q6600. Return that CPU and go get a D300. It will bring you much more enjoyment.

[Soulburner]

I am convinced that the D300 is #1 on my list of cameras currently available.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...-d3-d300.shtml

I do not want to start with an "entry" level, or half-baked SLR only to want to sell it later to move on. I'd rather skip the step, time, and expense entirely and just go for the gold. Since I do not currently own any lenses it is very easy to keep from forming a bias and choose entirely based upon what each camera has to offer, plus consider the lens choices available.

I have to keep an eye on the Sony A300, Pentax K20D, Samsung GX20, and possibly others but I don't see any of these dethroning the Nikon D300.

The only thing left to decide? To keep the S3 IS for its superb Macro and Super Macro capabilities. With the macro lens its just great. If I bought a macro lens for an SLR it would cost me all of the money I would get from the sale of the S3 and accessories so it wouldn't be worth it. I'd much rather keep the very good S3 around rather than just having a dedicated lens which does nothing on its own except sit there and look good.

[Nate P.]

If I had that much money, It would be between the Canon 40D and the D300. Which one would you go for?

[#su]

If I had that much money, It would be between the Canon 40D and the D300. Which one would you go for?

D300 hands down. i got my dad a D300 for xmas. he had to wait a couple weeks cuz the shop didn't have it in stock at xmas but anyway.... he's tried about 4 or 5 different 1500-2000$ dslr's and was never able to find a replacement for his f4. took him about 2 days of shooting to say this is it. the first dslr he will replace his f4 with.

[MaxxxRacer]

If I had that much money, It would be between the Canon 40D and the D300. Which one would you go for?

D300 hands down.

Souldburner, that was an awesome link. A fresh change from what you read around the web about image quality and whatnot. Its nice to hear from someone who actually uses the camera all day and is not Ken Rockwell.

[tomb18]

I've got one. What do you wanna know??

[Nate P.]

I've got one. What do you wanna know??

Post some pics to took with it!

[CookieFactory]

I have not tried one yet, but if you are looking for high ISO low noise, you will want to look at the Canon Full frame cameras. the 5D would be your only economical choice. The 5D kinda sucks for ergonomics and the LCD is horrid, as well as it being a relatively slow SLR. That said, its image quality beats that of ANY Nikon digital ever made, including the d300 and D3. At high ISO it gets even better.

On the other hand if you are looking for a camera that is blazing fast and has good High ISO ability the D300 is for you.

If you want a more hands on review of the D300 try reading Ken Rockwell. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d300.htm He has the 5D, D300 and D3 as well as many other Nikons and Canons.

But as you mentioned the only way to really tell is to try it in person. Don't go to Ritz as they wont let you touch any of the cameras or lenses.

I hope you're joking. The 5D has the ever so slightest edge in IQ when in low ISO, but it's slight enough that only pixel-peepers would notice, and we won't even go into print.

At high ISO the D3 absolutely trounces the 5D in IQ, noise quantity, noise quality, detail, what have you. Saying the 5D has better high ISO performance is flat wrong.

[MaxxxRacer]

I hope you're joking. The 5D has the ever so slightest edge in IQ when in low ISO, but it's slight enough that only pixel-peepers would notice, and we won't even go into print.

At high ISO the D3 absolutely trounces the 5D in IQ, noise quantity, noise quality, detail, what have you. Saying the 5D has better high ISO performance is flat wrong.

I mixed myself up when I said the 5D has better IQ at high ISO, but the 5D does look better (when you pixel peek) at base ISO. We all know the D3 is THE high ISO king, which is largely in part as to why it is selling like hotcakes and why so many Canon fans are selling their equipment and switching to Nikon. That being said, check out the link below.

Check out this comparison by Ken Rockwell. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/sharpness-1.htm

[Underwater Mike]

You must post pics!

[Soulburner]

Check out the Luminous Landscape link I posted if you haven't already. There is a shot at the bottom taken at ISO 25,600 from the D3. It looks like a typo, but it isn't.

That Sony sensor is amazing.

[Underwater Mike]

I've got one. What do you wanna know??

Also, what lens did you get with the body (or did you already have appropriate lenses to use)?

I was thinking about the 18-200; I do a fair amount of sports and wildlife, and a good all-in-one would be fantastic. But the review I read indicated more issues than I was willing to compromise on. I am thinking about getting a short zoom to start with and a longer one later.

Am I being too sensitive on the 18-200 review? Or should I follow my instincts, if not my bank account balance?

[tomb18]

You must post pics!

Ok, here ya go.
I used Capture NX for this, since I am at work and don't have access to photoshop. I would get much better results from PS but only because I do not use Capture NX regularly. Both taken with a 70-200 AF-S VR and 1.4 extender. The surfer was going by at around 30km/hr. The autofocus on the D300 is way better than my previous D200. The second shot is a 14bit.

[MaxxxRacer]

From everything I read, the 18-200 is not worth the money unless you have alot of money to spend and just want a lens for when you dont want to worry about having the right lens at the right time.

But for the rest of us, I dont think the 18-200 is a good buy. I believe the 70-300VR and the 16-85VR (assuming it turns out to be a good lens) are your best bet if you dont want to kill your bank account. And since you said you like to photograph sports and wildlife, the 70-300 would be a likely first purchase.