Nikon D300

ladytxladytx Registered Users Posts: 814 Major grins
edited September 30, 2008 in Cameras
I have been giving consideration to the Nikon D300 as I have heard it does a wonderful job at higher ISO's but I have seen a few reports that it gives very poor pictures with a lot of noise at any ISO under 800. Anyone have experience with the Nikon D300?

Would also be looking at the 18-200 lens? Experience with that lens?
LadyTX

Comments

  • OhEddieOhEddie Registered Users Posts: 337 Major grins
    edited September 29, 2008
    I just posted a shot with the D300 & 18-200 here...

    http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=933592#post933592

    Exif... http://edh.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=383320312&ImageKey=EdbW4

    In fact, almost all of the shots in my home page slide show have been taken with this combo.

    I'm very happy with it, but I still lust for the 70-200 2.8 VR iloveyou.gif
    Blessed are those who remain flexible, for they shall not get bent out of shape.
  • swintonphotoswintonphoto Registered Users Posts: 1,664 Major grins
    edited September 29, 2008
    That is a fabulous camera. It will do very well at any ISO.
    Jonathan
    http://www.jonathanswinton.com
    http://www.swintoncounseling.com
  • jwearjwear Registered Users Posts: 8,013 Major grins
    edited September 29, 2008
    I have been giving consideration to the Nikon D300 as I have heard it does a wonderful job at higher ISO's but I have seen a few reports that it gives very poor pictures with a lot of noise at any ISO under 800. Anyone have experience with the Nikon D300?

    Would also be looking at the 18-200 lens? Experience with that lens?
    I think you mean OVER 800 UNDER the camera is very good and each shooting with the light and jubject the noise is different . all in all a very good camera .
    Jeff W

    “PHOTOGRAPHY IS THE ‘JAZZ’ FOR THE EYES…”

    http://jwear.smugmug.com/
  • Art ScottArt Scott Registered Users Posts: 8,959 Major grins
    edited September 29, 2008
    OhEddie wrote:
    I just posted a shot with the D300 & 18-200 here...

    http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=933592#post933592

    Exif... http://edh.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=383320312&ImageKey=EdbW4

    In fact, almost all of the shots in my home page slide show have been taken with this combo.

    I'm very happy with it, but I still lust for the 70-200 2.8 VR iloveyou.gif

    Seriously, as a D300 owner, would you say it is great or just fair at iso 1600 and above.....for my shooting I can't see iso 6400.....but I took a look at some postings found on google of full rez jpg and raw files and they are absolutely terrible..even the iso 1600 one, however your baseball shot was really good at iso 1600...but what does it look like at full size....just how pixelated is it.....

    Why do I want to know......in the film days I shot almost exclusively at iso 50.....in all my years i shot less than 5 rolls of film between iso 400 and 1600 and 2 rolls of the Ilford variable iso film......
    I was shooting iso 50 and 100 at a concert next to a guy from Black Star agency and a guy from Magnum...both of them were shooting iso 1000 pushed to 1600 and 2000......

    so I like looooow iso for 99.999% of my shooting and if I want to enlarge (20x30 or 30 x 40 inches).....I want it as near to grainless as possible....that is why all of my files are worked oever in PS the way they are (down sized in the Image tab to 300dpi and then uprezed in GF5 to the actual print size I want).....that is giving me 300dpi(ppi) 30 x 40's and yes that is a huuuge jpg.....but my Pro Lab loves them...actually told me that he likes the GF'ed files better than the same native file ripped by his software.......

    I have never used any noise elimination software (Noise Ninja, etc etc) so I do not know how much it softens the files.........

    THANX
    "Genuine Fractals was, is and will always be the best solution for enlarging digital photos." ....Vincent Versace ... ... COPYRIGHT YOUR WORK ONLINE ... ... My Website

  • JohnCJohnC Registered Users Posts: 222 Major grins
    edited September 30, 2008
    Coming from a Nikon D80 to a D300, I can say it's an awesome camera and more than I'll probably ever need.

    But if you need the absolute best ISO performance, get the D3 or D700.

    For lenses, we need to know what you'll be shooting, budget, etc. thumb.gif
    Nikon D300 l Nikon SB-600 l Nikon MC-30 Remote l Nikon AF-S 24-85mm 1:3.5-4.5G IF-ED l Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF-D l Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM l Quantaray Pro U-100 backpack by Naneu Pro l Quantaray QSX 9500 Tripod by Sunpak
    Canon AE-1 Program l FD 28mm 1:2.8 l FD 50mm 1:1.8 l Sunpak Auto 821 Dedicated
  • jonh68jonh68 Registered Users Posts: 2,711 Major grins
    edited September 30, 2008
    The ISO performance of the D300 is good at the expense of detail. It smooths things out, and is very noticeable with faces. If low ISO performance is needed, get the D700, or even the D90 as I believe it's noise performance is better than the D300.
    www.jonimages.com
  • HarrybHarryb Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 22,708 Major grins
    edited September 30, 2008
    I've found the D300 to be fine up to ISO 800. I've gone up to 1600 with good results but you have to nail the exposure dead on.

    For high ISO shooting the D700 would be a better choice.
    Harry
    http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
    How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
  • geospatial_junkiegeospatial_junkie Registered Users Posts: 707 Major grins
    edited September 30, 2008
    Harryb wrote:
    I've found the D300 to be fine up to ISO 800. I've gone up to 1600 with good results but you have to nail the exposure dead on.

    For high ISO shooting the D700 would be a better choice.

    Agreed.
    "They've done studies you know. Sixty-percent of the time, it works every time."

    My Website
    My Photo Blog
    Twitter Feed
  • OhEddieOhEddie Registered Users Posts: 337 Major grins
    edited September 30, 2008
    Art Scott wrote:
    Seriously, as a D300 owner, would you say it is great or just fair at iso 1600 and above.

    THANX
    Art,

    Before I got the D300 I had a D70. So that is all I have to compare it too, and yes, in that comparison, the D300 is outstanding. I shoot a lot of sports, and even with relatively good light, and using the 18-200 3.5-5.6, I find myself using a high ISO to get my shutter speed over 2000/sec to stop a baseball in flight.

    For me, it was a lot of money. I had to choose between the D300 and the 70-200 2.8, and I chose the camera body for both the high ISO capabilities and the 12.3 mp file size. This combo gave me the ability to crop tighter and effectively gave me a longer and faster lens than I had with the D70.
    Blessed are those who remain flexible, for they shall not get bent out of shape.
  • david_hdavid_h Registered Users Posts: 463 Major grins
    edited September 30, 2008
    I have a D300 and I don't think there is a better value out there, it has really good build quality and gives great images.

    I don't use mine too much these days - mainly as a backup for my working cameras - but I hve no problem at using using it to ISO 1600, 3200 at a stretch. As mentioned, you do need to get your exposures close or there is a fair bit of noise in the shadows.

    All in all, the D300 is a big step up from the 2nd generation Nikons like the D200 or D2X. Since a lot of people are upgrading to D700's there are some great deals around on good used D300s.

    ladytx wrote:
    I have been giving consideration to the Nikon D300 as I have heard it does a wonderful job at higher ISO's but I have seen a few reports that it gives very poor pictures with a lot of noise at any ISO under 800. Anyone have experience with the Nikon D300?

    Would also be looking at the 18-200 lens? Experience with that lens?
    ____________
    Cheers!
    David
    www.uniqueday.com
Sign In or Register to comment.