Do you think the D300 is worth it?

SloYerRoll

My wife has a D300 for her work and I'm lucky enough to play w/ it.

Side by side to the D200 (my camera), I'm not all that impressed for all the hype people keep talking about. TBH, I like the D200 better than the 300.

I know the LCD is a bit larger, but I don't chimp to see the image. I chimp to see the histo to ensure no unwanted shadow/highlight. I'll figure out if it's a keeper in post.

I also know that high ISO is essentially unrivaled. But I'm all about lighting anyway so high ISO means nothing to me. I can see the advantages for it and will use it when I need it. But my day to day shooting never needs high ISO.

Thoughts for you D300 owners out there?

jonh68

I would like to hear too, but I imagine the response is going to the D300 is better. I want better battery life, higher ISO, faster frame rates, bigger LCD, and better highlights so that's why I am holding out for the D300.

Harryb

The D300 is absolutely worth it. The 3 main up grades over the D200 are better performance at high ISO, better AF, and longer battery life. Then throw in the higher resolution, larger LCD, live view, lens fine tuning, a better sensor, faster frame rate, faster card write speed, 100% viewfinder coverage to 95 % viewfinder coverage, & the self clean sensor.

The D200 is a damn fine camera but the D300 is a significant upgrade.

Remford

I absolutely vote for the D300. While the D200 was a "worthy effort" from a company effectively trying to play "catch up" with a market behemoth who, to a large extent, brought to market products based on technology they themselves developed, the D300 marks a whole new era IMO.

As Canon has rested on their laurels, offering as little as they felt compelled to give to justify a new release, in the D300 (and D3), Nikon, by contrast, has offered as much as they could give. And despite being a heavily-invested Canon shooter steeped fully in the EOS infrastructure, the Canon products are starting to "feel" more like PC's (or handheld technology devices) more than photographic instruments, something that Nikon has done well (IMO) in preserving.

The IQ of the D300 is stellar, ESPECIALLY at low light. Now, glass is another matter entirely, but if you choose wisely and find Nikon optics you're pleased with, the D300 and D3 are damn hard to beat, even in the face of the Mark III 1-Series cameras, whose only real benefit is if you need 10fps or enough pixels for a billboard (for which I'd shoot in the medium format sweet spot rather than pushing the boundaries of the APS sensor size to begin with).

So yes, the D300 is a marked improvement, not only generationally over the D200 and in its own right, I flatly think it's a camera that deserves to be owned. I'm hopeful it will all end with each maker pushing the other to offer "more" besides just pixels, but it's clear that Nikon understands the value proposition at this point, and I've just added a D300 for my own shooting pleasure.

MooreDriven

I think your asking two questions.

One, the title of your post.. Is the D300 worth it? When I posed the question before purchasing the camera (along with many others) the primary question I got back was, "What are you shooting, landscapes, cityscapes, portraits, macro, etc.? Followed by, are you printing your photo's beyond 8x10?

Second...Compared to what? You referenced the D200. I think Harry answered that one as a previous owner. I had a D50 (like you I believe), and I found that I had outgrown the D50 in less than a year. I've thoroughly enjoyed the D300. But I'm sure I would have enjoyed the D200 just as much, because both are a dramatic leap from the D50.

Dale

Joves

I personally never owned the D200 so I cant say how much better it is. But I do love my D300, I upgraded from the D80, which is still a large step up. All I know is I havent had some of the AF issues I had with the D80, like hunting on certain subjects, that annyed me before. I want to try out the 3D tracking soon but, havent had a reason to yet. What I love about it is the ability to tweak all of the WB settings as, needed. Im not sure if this is an option with the D200 but, I find it works great so far, I was especially surprised when I adjusted the Incandescant WB it came out great compared to the default setting. Im still learning to use it so Im guessing I will find alot more to like once I get it nailed down.

SloYerRoll

I didn't ask if the D300 was better than the D200. It's obvious for many reasons it surpasses it's predecessor.

I was asking specifically for my situation where high ISO doesn't mean anything and I could care less about LCD size since I don't look at shots until they are on my computer.

Battery life if a major benefit, but I'm about to grab a battery grip, so that will be a non issue.

It seems for my needs that the D200 is more than adequate. In all reality, a D50 is more than adequate for my modest shooting skills, but it is so much fun shooting w/ better gear.. I have a feeling that's a major reason that the D300 shooters love their cameras.

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

Cheers,
-Jon

omgitsacamera

Remford wrote:

I absolutely vote for the D300. While the D200 was a "worthy effort" from a company effectively trying to play "catch up" with a market behemoth who, to a large extent, brought to market products based on technology they themselves developed, the D300 marks a whole new era IMO.

As Canon has rested on their laurels, offering as little as they felt compelled to give to justify a new release, in the D300 (and D3), Nikon, by contrast, has offered as much as they could give. And despite being a heavily-invested Canon shooter steeped fully in the EOS infrastructure, the Canon products are starting to "feel" more like PC's (or handheld technology devices) more than photographic instruments, something that Nikon has done well (IMO) in preserving.

+1

I used a Nikon D70s before I had to switch to EOS b/c of school, and now that I am freelance, I am free to switch to the D300, and I do feel that the Nikons--at least the pro (-fessional and -sumer) really do feel like photographic instruments and they are the catch-up model, probably because of new players on the market.

LifeandLens

D300 is worth it.
Jon - I have the D300 and the D80 as a backup. I sold my D200 to help afford the D300. The D300 is a far superior camera. First low light, your lovely daughter is going to do all kinds of things over the next 5 years that you will be shooting in low light. My daughter, for example, plays volleyball in poorly lit gyms. You can't very well blast the whole gym with a flash (I have and the shadows are horrendous and the light distracts the players) so low light ISO1600-3200 stuff is huge! The highlight/shadow exposure abilities from Nikon's Active D-Lighting technology is amazing. The d300's auto focus system is amazing. the HDMI output of the D300 makes it really fun to show your shots on your HD TV. The d300 has a long list of features that haven't even been mentioned in the thread... I'd recommend you hold your wife's D300 a few more times and see if you can resist falling in love.

jwear

in my opinion at this point no but that is only for the reason that nikon is not handling the trouble with the camera I now have .I do think they have a tracking issue and also a small focus problem .