|
Post by kiev4a on Jan 8, 2008 16:28:43 GMT -5
I dropped by our local camera store the other day and wonder of wonders, they actually had the new D300 on display and I had a chance to hold it in my sweaty palms and drools over it.
Probably the most noticable feature is the new 3-inch LCD display tft display on the back that has about twice the resolution of any other DSLR LCD. The LCD display can also be shifted into live mode, like on a point and shoot (the eye piece doesn't work in live mode because the mirror has to be up for live mode to work.
The D300 sensor apparently handles noise at higher ISOs much better than the D200 does. It also has sensor cleaning mode (vibration).
The pixel count has been raise from 10.5 megapixels on the D200 to 12 megapixels. Most reviewers say the extra pixels won't noticeable but the the noise reduction will be.
About the only con of the D300 is the price. But if you compare what is costs ($1,800 U.S.) To the price of a Nikon F with Tn finder in 1968 (I think $400 to $ 500), the price really isn't out of line.
I didn't bring a D300 home with me but I think it's only a matter of time. I had toyed with the idea of getting a smaller, high end point and shoot like the Leica DLux-3. But after handling the D300 I'm convinced that if I got the DLUX, a few months down the road I would be kicking myself for not getting the D300.
Of course the great camera would be the Nikon D3 full frame. Unfortunately, I don't have an extra five grand stashed away.
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Jan 9, 2008 10:30:55 GMT -5
You have got to stop teasing yourself, it will drive you to smoke. Nikon needs to have a cheaper FF camera than the D3 and it should have been the D300 IMHO. I would have bought one in a flash. Love my F90x and never wanted an F5.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Jan 9, 2008 10:40:38 GMT -5
Wayne, everything I hear about the D300 is positive. I'm still delighted with my D200 and the D300 is even better. I don't think you'd regret getting one. They both work a treat with older AIS lenses too, with metering, stop-down exposure, and recording the focal length and aperture into the exif data.
Gene
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Jan 10, 2008 11:35:43 GMT -5
Well, I pulled the trigger today. B&H even had them in stock. Should be here next week. I'm using money saved by not smoking to get it. If I start smoking again my mate would beat me to death with the camera. Now that's incentive!
|
|
Reiska
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 558
|
Post by Reiska on Jan 10, 2008 14:02:53 GMT -5
Congratulations Wayne!
You made a good decision (to quit smoking) ;D. and at the same time you got an excellent camera.
I have already used that option. I stopped smoking about one year ago, though the model was then D200. After some months you might yearn for a VR lens. A man has to have goals, you know.
Regards
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Jan 10, 2008 14:05:28 GMT -5
Wayne, congratulations all around, both for the D300 and stopping smoking! You're going to love the D300.
Gene
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Jan 10, 2008 17:47:42 GMT -5
The reviews are claiming the D300 and D3 put Nikon DSLRs on the same level as Canon--and Canon has dominated digital since the beginning.
Some question why Nikon only jumped to 12 megapixels on both cameras but there seems to be some agreement that 12 mps is pretty much the "sweet spot" on DX cameras and a higher pixel count doesn't accomplish much. Not sure if that's the case on full frame.
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Jan 11, 2008 10:59:34 GMT -5
Camera Followup: The D100 Nikon I was using was purchased about 11 months ago used for $500. I've shot probably 5,000 photos with it including about 1,200 during our European trip. After ordering the D300 I sold the D100 to a friend for $375 (including an accessory MB battery pack which I never used). So it only cost me about $115 for a year's use and my friend got a good deal, too. I would have kept the D100 as a backup but I suspect a P&S would get a lot more use than a second DSLR body.
|
|
Reiska
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 558
|
Post by Reiska on Jan 14, 2008 10:02:19 GMT -5
... Some question why Nikon only jumped to 12 megapixels on both cameras but there seems to be some agreement that 12 mps is pretty much the "sweet spot" on DX cameras and a higher pixel count doesn't accomplish much. Not sure if that's the case on full frame. Yes, and one point which is causing this is, that we are closing on then limits of the "seeable" light. This interference has been an issue with the lens microscopes for years. Another thing is the "leaking" of electrons between the photocells. It is a question of the density of the light cells. Still, perhaps a piece of cace in the future
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Jan 14, 2008 11:50:18 GMT -5
Reijo:
I know the pixel count of point and shoot cameras is a little misleading in that once any of them get above 200 ISO they have serious noise problems. That's because of the small size of the sensor. That's why you are likely to get better results out of a 6 mp five year old DSLR that you'll get from a brand new, 12 mp point and shoot--at least in low light situations.
Picked up a 4 gig CF card for the D300 today. I have several 1 gig cards from the D100 but they won't hold many raw images from the new camera.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2008 22:52:06 GMT -5
Update:
I've had the D300 about a month now and I think the only way I would give it up now would be to a group of at least a dozen heavily-armed men. I really enjoy going out to the nearby river or lake on a Sunday afternoon and blasting away for an hour or two--and being able to print out the fruits of my labors in color later that same afternoon.
Although I love the Nikon I think I would enjoy it just as much with any DSLR that I could use existing lenses on.
When I shot film I always enjoyed the process almost as much as the results. But is has been a long time since I have felt the need to shut myself in a darkroom with Dektol and Rapid Fix fumes. With digital I find I am more interested in the results than the process. Maybe that's because I can shoot a photo, examine it immediately and if I don't like the result shoot it again. That doesn't mean I always get what I want. Despite constantly editing during our European trip last year, when we got home and I looked closely at the images, there were a lot of photos I wished I had shot differently and photos I wished I had taken but didn't. Still, I don't think I would have got nearly as many "keepers" on the trip if I had shot film.
There was a time (actually in another thread on this forum), when I was thinking out loud about getting a good point-and shoot rather than another DSLR because of the size and convenience difference, I'm glad I didn't go that route. Last week were were at Costco and came across a Panasonic Lumix DMC FX33 P&S on sale. We got it to replace the old Canon 4 Mp that Sara has been using. The Panasonic is 8.1 mp and has a Leitz 28-100 zoom. It isn't top of the line but gets good reviews. It should be a nice camera for Sara but after using it I know I would have never been happy trying to frame my photos on the lcd screen on the back of the camera. And although the FX33 photos are much better than the pictures from the Canon it replaces, they don't even compare to the images from the Nikon D100 6.5 mp DSLR I previously had--let alone the 12 mp D300.
When I first ordered the D300 I have to admit I felt a little guilty. I'm not in the habit of spending that kind of money for "toys." But I no longer feel guilty. Despite owning and using dozens of cameras over the past 50 years, including many "classics," none have have given me any more enjoyment that this camera.
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Feb 29, 2008 8:18:07 GMT -5
When I first ordered the D300 I have to admit I felt a little guilty. Guilt is a bourgeois concept. Enjoy the D300 full tilt boogie! Gene
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Mar 12, 2008 20:54:50 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2008 21:40:08 GMT -5
Thanks, Gene:
I may have noted earlier that if I had already had a D200 I couldn't have justified (or afforded) to make the move to the D300. But since I had the D100 (which is a nice camera IMO and I regret selling it) I read every thing I could find and liked what I was hearing--especially the much longer battery life than the D200 and the improved performmance at higher ISOs. The Live-View ans some of the other bells and whistles really didn't impress me that much.
Now I am convinced however that this a a camera I can be happy with for a long time. I'll probably never really use it to its potential and I don't think I'll ever need a camrea capable of producing higher quality photos.
Over the years I've had my share of new cameras that looked good on paper but turned out to have serious flaws. It doe feel good to have "chosen wisely" this time. Right now the D300 is sort of the Gold Standard for the latest generation of DSLRs.
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Jul 16, 2008 20:28:39 GMT -5
Well, I did it. Today I cashed in the Half-Back offer on my D200 and 18-55mm kit lens towards a D300 and the newer 18-55mm VR lens (image stabilized).
I was able to make up the difference by selling my Hasselblad kit.
Tomorrow I hope to take it outdoors for awhile and do my first shooting with it.
No pics of the cam yet, or from it. Soon though :-)
Gene
|
|