Frustration with Nikon / D300 waiting game

<p>If he moved to Florida he would be Kent, an xD. Oh well....does anyone still remember those?</p>

<p>In past threads here I've expressed my preference for CF cards over the smaller, more fragile, and not-as-zippy SD cards. But things have changed. Taking into account the likelihood of any future body having dual slots (for safety), of so many other devices being able to natively mount SD cards, of the cards becoming blazing fast and absurdly inexpensive, and the format nicely supporting things like Eye-Fi chips ... I've decided I no longer care. <br /><br />My I-can't-wait-I-need-another-body-and-one-that-does-decent-video body purchase was of all things a D3200. I have plenty of bones to pick with regard to its viewfinder, AF performance, etc - but I've found that the SD card aspect of things just doesn't bother me. It's a small body I can throw in a small bag, and I've learned to live with its limitations for certain tasks, no problem when I'm not using my meat-and-potatoes D300. But the whole SD card thing has been the least of the issues. And I suppose I've surprised myself at how convenient it is to be able to insert that SD card in a laptop's included reader, or in an iPad's media adapter.<br /><br />The modest funds tied up in my older CF cards is now, I think, going to have absolutely no impact on future body purchase decisions. </p>

<p>I see problems in both CF and SD. Florida tends to be hot with lots of mosquitoes while South Dakota is too cold. Oh, I mean I have seen bent pins inside cameras' CF compartment and I have bent bins on some cheap card readers, and I have personally cracked a couple of SD cards; they are too thin.</p>

<p>Currently, XQD cards are just too expensive and only the D4 uses them among cameras. If they can get more popular and the price can get more reasonable, I would rather have that instead of CF and SD.</p>

<p>Shun in XQD</p>

<p>Be glad not to be in San Marino.... those SM cards are hard to find these days....</p>

<p>I did consider getting a D800 a while back (got a D700 instead for reasons unrelated to the CF card), and one of the things I did include in the cost was all new memory cards. I have a nice pile of CF cards, but the largest are 8GB, which is perfectly fine for a D300 or D700 shooting RAW. For a D800, it's a bit tiny, and I'd want 16 or 32 GB card probably.<br>

And when I'd have to get new cards, I wouldn't really care whether it's SD of CF. SD got a lot faster, and will do fine for nearly all types of shooting except the heaviest machine-gun fire.</p>

<p>There are SD on CX, CF on DX, CF and SD and XQD on FX and xD on some older cameras. You can have wifi with SD. You can adapt SD to CF. There are SDXC and SDHC SD's. There are UDMA CF's, and off course there is the SM cards for the people in SM. They've always had their own take on things.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Get yourself a D800/E. Shoot in DX mode. Its DX image size is even larger than D300 (If MP concerns you). Far better IQ. Dual slot memory cards. 1080HD video.</p>

 

<p>It makes little sense to buy a $2,800 camera and then shoot it in DX. Why not just buy a D7000, or a new D5200 which has even more resolution for a third the money? If I were to buy a $2,700 camera, the truth is I will not be making more sales, and I won't be able to charge my customers more. They can't tell the difference between images made with a D800 or a D200 for that matter. I'd rather put the money on a lens, or lights. OR, a sliding box camera made in 1860. :-)</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>It does make sense since he has both D700 (FX) and D300 (DX). Sell these two and add just little bit more, and he can get a camera that surpasses IQ of these two bodies.</p>

<p>CF cards just feel more secure, so i can see where the OP is coming from. i'm kind of in the same boat on feeling like i've been constrained to limbo land waiting for the d300 replacement, although my complaints about that camera have mainly to do with hi-ISO performance and not dynamic range. on times when ive shot events with the d300s and D3s, i cant say the FX camera was all that much better to where it made me feel bad about the d300s. i've printed up to 20x30 with the d300s.</p>

<p>i'm sure the d800 offers better IQ, however i just dont need 36mp files for most of the shooting i do. my advice to the OP would be to consider a lightly-used d700, which can be had for under $2000. it doesnt make sense to me to get a d800 and use it in DX mode just to get a CF card-capable camera.</p>

<p>The D300/D300S offer 8 frames/sec with the MB-D10 grip and appropriate batteries, such as 8 AA. However, the D300S and D700 were officially discontinued over a year ago since they use EN-EL3e batteries, which are no longer allowed on new products in Japan. Therefore, among current Nikon DSLRs, the only one that can give you 8 to 10 frames/sec is the $6000 D4.</p>

<p>I would much rather not spend $6000 on a D4 and I would also lose the DX crop advantage. Other than that, no current Nikon DSLR can give you even 8 fps. Unfortunately, even though you don't mind paying (close to) $3K for a D800, there is no way you can make it capture 8 fps in any mode with any battery. I believe that is why a lot of us are still waiting for the upgrade to the D300S, which, again, was officially discontinued over a year ago and its technology is dated back to the D300 from 2007.</p>

<p>Canon has the 7D camera from 2009 (18 MPix also 8 fps) but they haven't upgraded that either. Perhaps high fps DX is dead and will never come back?</p>

<p>Anyway you look at it - it certainly can't be an important market segment for these companies...</p>

The D300s is still current (outside of Japan) and both listed as current on various Nikon websites (not Japan of course)

and available new in stores. The D700 however is no longer listed current or new in stock. It seems to have been discontinued (outside of

Japan) around the time the D600 came to the market (earlier in Japan).

"They've always had their own take on things".

 

I recently shot a personal project with my full-frame Nikon, saving my images to a technology based on Molecular Transformation.

 

 

Chris in MT

Really Christopher? Daylight WB I suppose.. or monochrome?

 

I still use D200/300 and fullframe now (FX that is..). I do have a use for quick successive shots. Can the D7000 &

600 do that, I wonder. But SO happy with FX that I'm definately not anxious about the DX successors .

<blockquote>

<p>I wanted to up my sensors and so picked up a couple of D5100s at a great price, put a lens on each and use them for all kinds of stuff.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p><br />Good idea. In another thread about <em>'which camera to buy for weddings'</em> The OP was asking about the D600 and other expensive options. I suggested a couple of D3100s or D3200 and spend the bulk of the money on lenses rather than a body with more resolution and features than will ever be needed.</p>

<p>"Daylight WB I suppose.. or monochrome?"</p>

<p>F4 w/ Monochrome. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The D300s is still current (outside of Japan) and both listed as current on various Nikon websites (not Japan of course) and available new in stores.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The D300S uses the same electronics as the 2007 D300. In particular, the sensor is a 12MP CMOS one. After the D300, the subsequent D90 (2008) and D5000 (2009) use the same generation of 12MP CMOS sensors. The D5000 has been superseded by the 16MP D5100 (2011), which in tern is superseded by the 24MP D5200, introduced recently.</p>

<p>I would say the D300s is still using electronics that are two generations behind.</p>

<p>There is nothing wrong with the D300/D300s, except that they could have had better high ISO properties (IMO). They are capable of nailing fast action with good colors, and they use the current CLS system. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is nothing wrong with the D300/D300s, except that they could have had better high ISO properties (IMO). They are capable of nailing fast action with good colors, and they use the current CLS system.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>An experienced salesman at our local camera store bought a D300 when it was first introduced, and said to me, "this will be the last camera I will buy". He has since moved on, so there is no telling what he is shooting now. But one thing is for sure, one never knows when NAS can capture your attention with a new product offering. I still use my D80 for casual shooting, but when I was ready to upgrade, I decided that a D300s would be the path -- so I bought a thick book on the D300s and started reading in advance. Surprise! The D7000 was introduced. I waited a while, reading the Nikon forum. Paying attention to Shun's advice, I bought a D7000 -- and another thick book.</p>

<p>Decades ago I used to shoot outdoor action sports with all-manual cameras and manual focus lenses. I didn't even have AE. From that perspective, the D300s is a dream machine for outside action sports. Without reviewing Shun's comments, some D300s advantages over the D7000 for action are high frame rate, larger buffer, perhaps a shutter built for more longevity, and for some people, body layout and ergonomics. I'm ok with the resolution. When the future camera that is the subject of this thread is introduced, it will be interesting to note the cost of a D300s. But for me, batteries, CF cards, and electronics aside, the larger consideration is the action sports lens to place on the camera. If you don't need high ISO, and already own the action sports lenses, buying a D300(s) camera body at a really good price may be a reasonable choice, being mindful of batteries and chargers. I still have the the D300(s) book, but that's a sunk cost and isn't relevant.</p>

<p>Shun?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is nothing wrong with the D300/D300s, except that they could have had better high ISO properties (IMO)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In your opinion, what would they have done with available and market-price-minded APS-C sensor technology to change the A-to-D conversion and the amplification issues that introduce the noise at higher gain? If it's your opinion that the team of incredibly skilled and experienced hardware and software engineers creating the product and looking to compete tooth-and-nail with other manufacturers in a race to provide the best image quality possible chose not to do so, then what's your explanation? Or is it possible that you're confusing your analysis of what they could have but didn't do with what a misunderstanding of what was possible at tolerable prices as the product was developed?<br /><br />Anyway, please be specific on the technical details on the shortcomings in the hardware and software as it relates to high ISO performance with <em>that generation of camera</em>. You seem to have formed an opinion that comes down to what you think about the <em>people</em> at Nikon, rather than about the practical realities of the entire state of all of the involved technological arts at the time the camera was made. You're implying that they deliberately released a camera that was hobbled in some way. So, explain. What should they have done that they didn't do? What would you have been willing to pay for a D300 in order to fund their doing something that nobody at Canon, or Pentax, or Panasonic, or Leica, or Olympus, or anyone else was able to do at the same time?<br /><br />If you're going to use "IMO" about what someone else could have done but didn't, back it up.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>An experienced salesman at our local camera store bought a D300 when it was first introduced, and said to me, "this will be the last camera I will buy".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Back in 1987, after I got my first real job, I bought a Nikon FE2 to accompany the FE I was using throughout college. I told myself that the FE2 would be the best camera for the rest of my life.</p>

<p>At that time I was still in my 20's but had already finished graduate school. Looking back, I was quite naive. I am not going to make that kind of comment again, perhaps until the day I die.</p>

<p>I am looking forward to a 16MP DX body with 8, 9 fps, Multi-CAM 3500 with smilar AF capability as the D4 and D800, hopefully within $2000 or so. It'll probably require an overpriced grip to achieve 9 fps. High-ISO results should at least be no worse than the D7000 and perhaps a bit better. But that is just my way of thinking. I am currently under no NDA with Nikon.</p>

<p>WOW!<br /><br />You guys rock. Theres actually conversation, not much yelling, and good suggestion without going way over topic. I just need to read more photo.net forum threads. <br /><br />I personally quit reading forums a few years ago because of all the negitivity. I want to thank everyone for their responses. Especially those on page 2. <br /><br />I have not used SD cards since I sold my Nikon D50 :-)<br /><br />For those wondering what I do, (since I havent updated my photo profile in years)... I do have a "little" bit of a unique situation. Up here in Seattle, i'm a contracted photographer for all the 2 wheeled motorcycle racing. I've been through my third D300, I shoot a lot, and edit little. My sales are based off of quantity, (and I'd hope a little quality :) as well) but the reason i posted this, is exactly what one member mentioned regarding speed/quality/CF cards. <br /><br />Last year, for fun, I took my D700 out and used it with my 300 f/2.8 at f4.5-5.5 throughout the day. I knew the IQ would be better... but i didnt think it would be good enough that when I went back to my D300, i felt like I was using a D40. The image quality REALLY stood out in these motorcycle shots and my sales for the weekend doubled... Please remember I'm out ON the track, not 200 feet away. So I have objects coming at me at 60-160mph. I cannot afford a 5k dollar 200-400 f/4, so I'm stuck with my 300. <br /><br /><br />Back to the reality at hand. I will seriously consider your guys' statements regarding SD cards. I just figured it was silly "going back" but if some of you have, and dont mind... it sounds good to me. Thanks for this suggestion.<br /><br />Secondly, I was really hoping for a D400 type release because of the things stated by a recent post. You dont want to lose speed for quality. You also dont want to lose focal length for quality. These two reasons alone, are why I've been holding out for 2 years. My D300 is as tired as a 1991 honda civic. I just hope she holds off for another half season. <br /><br /><br />Thanks again for your guys' insightful posts.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Just a quick example, yes I realize I'm not shooting at the same turn. But I am using the same lens. Just wanted to show some sort of image quality, depth of the full frame versus cropped body, and how its even noticable on motorsports. Most people see the fx/dx conversation and think weddings and landscapes. Thought i'd share a few outdoor sport photos for you guys. <br /><br /><br /><br />D700: <a href="http://www.darrenbeattyphotography.com/photos/i-4cmHHh4/0/X2/i-4cmHHh4-X2.jpg">http://www.darrenbeattyphotography.com/photos/i-4cmHHh4/0/X2/i-4cmHHh4-X2.jpg</a></p>

<p>D300 at same track/conditions: <a href="http://www.darrenbeattyphotography.com/photos/i-VqRLGC7/0/X2/i-VqRLGC7-X2.jpg">http://www.darrenbeattyphotography.com/photos/i-VqRLGC7/0/X2/i-VqRLGC7-X2.jpg</a></p>

<p>Interesting examples, Darren! So hard to get apples-to-apples in shooting conditions like that. I agree that's sure not all about weddings and landscapes.</p>

<p>D700: <a href="http://www.darrenbeattyphotography.com/photos/i-4cmHHh4/0/X2/i-4cmHHh4-X2.jpg" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.darrenbeattyphotography.com/photos/i-4cmHHh4/0/X2/i-4cmHHh4-X2.jpg</a></p>

<p>Honda 350 Scrambler with cafe racer seat, flat bars, not sure on the tank, converted to belt drive? What, a dirt flat track? On board camera? Great shot!</p>