Extremely happy with my D300s.

<p>Michael Darnton - I agree 100%. While still using my D70s, a magazine published one of my shots, when I sent it in and they saw it came from a D70s, they immediately asked for higher res. I told them that's all I had, so they used it. When I received copies of the magazine, the printed photo looked great. There is this pre-determined notion that photos can only look good if they are 300 dpi at the exact size of the print, WRONG, most times I use 180 dpi.</p>

<p>I even tested it out one day; I printed an image at 300 dpi, then 180 dpi and gave them both to an editor I was working with who was adamant that an image for print always has to be 300 dpi. I didn't tell her they were different. She had no idea.</p>

<p>The last two Michaels: I blame Adobe. Introducing the completely pointless concept of ppi into Photoshop has caused years of chaos with people trying to resize things by changing the ppi and not modifying the pixel count.<br />

<br />

In reality, even assuming a constant viewing distance and therefore subtended angle per pixel, the detectable resolution depends highly on what you're viewing. Printers don't use high resolutions just to be able to halftone - you really can see pixellated edges in black-on-white text quite clearly at 300dpi, and there's a clear difference between a 300ppi phone screen and a 400+ppi one. I have a 204ppi monitor at home, and ClearType significantly improved it. Apple spent years claiming that 100ppi was "perfect", which is one reason I was quite so shocked that they were the company that went to "retina" displays. However, if you view low contrast content with smooth (and particularly antialiased) edges, it's quite hard to see a problem. It also helps that sharpness is relative - images tend to look sharp unless you see a sharper image next to them, which is one reason why high-res sensors can make a lens look worse than a low-res sensor. I've viewed a book full of 35mm-shot images that looked fine until I hit a page with some medium format shots on it. I've noted that film images at Wildlife Photographer of the Year (and I didn't see any this year) looked fine until they're mounted next to digital images, at which point they look very fuzzy. Not necessarily <i>bad</i>, of course.<br />

<br />

Sometimes resolution helps. I've blown up a D700 image I took of the Grand Canyon, and the enlarged one clearly doesn't have enough pixels - I wanted a big print to view close to get an immersive effect, and I really needed pixels. Mostly, I use the resolution for cropping - but it was the dynamic range of the sensor (not just for low light) and, yes, the high ISO performance that sold me on getting a D800. Those are aspects that are visible at longer range than the resolution. Besides, there are always superresolution techniques.<br />

<br />

Not that blowing all my (semi-)disposable income on a camera makes me a better photographer in any significant way, but it does allow me to take some shots that I couldn't with my Eos 300D, and take some shots <i>better</i>. But there's no doubt that the improvement is incremental. (I pretty much <i>don't</i> still use the 300D, to follow the theme of the thread, but I do still use my F5 and my Pentax 645.)</p>

<p>Bravo Micheal! If the camera isn't good enough for you then don't buy it. If it's good enough when you bought it then it should be good enough now why should it changes? Unless a camera is broken or degrade significantly as compared to when it's new there should be any need to buy a new camera. </p>

<p>Oops. I seem to have mistyped a close italics. Sorry.</i></i><br />

<br />

Hopefully that's fixed it. And, while I'm happy to look at the advantages of the latest and greatest, I'm glad to hear people are enjoying what they've got - and, since quite a bit of what I own is actually quite old (apologies to everyone born before my Leica lens), I certainly sympathize that the latest doesn't have to be the greatest.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If it's good enough when you bought it then it should be good enough now why should it changes?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because my requirements change; in fact, I am getting more and more picky every year because technology makes higher quality possible. Likewise, the industry standard changes and if you have competition, you'd better keep up. Frequently, whatever quality that used to be acceptable a few years ago are not necessarily so any more.</p>

<p>Andrew, I fixed you italics.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

 

<p>If it's good enough when you bought it then it should be good enough now why should it changes?</p>

 

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>Ever heard of aspirations? Trying things more difficult than you're used to doing? To do that do you need better kit?</p>

 

<blockquote>

 

<p>Unless a camera is broken or degrade significantly as compared to when it's new there should be any need to buy a new camera.</p>

 

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>With that sort of thinking you'd still be happy with Fox Talbot kit from 1850 and not be here on the Nikon forum.</p>

<p>Technological Progress is not a bad thing. Stop Denying it!</p>

 

<p> </p>

 

<p>So far my aspirations over the last few years has been within the parameters of the D300s.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So far my aspirations over the last few years has been within the parameters of the D300s.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Michael, that fact has been very obvious from your posts in the last couple of years. And since you started this very thread, there is no doubt about it any more.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>With that sort of thinking you'd still be happy with Fox Talbot kit from 1850 and not be here on the Nikon forum.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know the Fox Tablot kit from 1850 but if I bouht it then and it doesn't break and I can find consumable for it I would still be happy with it. <br>

I never upgrade. I am perfectly happy with the very first camera I ever own back in 1977. A Nikon F2AS. I only need a DSLR this past Dec because I visited 3 large photoshop in the area driving more than 100 miles total only to be greeted with the funny look because I was asking if they sell film. But also there is a certain level of quality before I would think if something is is good enough for me. Before the introduction of the D3 there was no Nikon DSLR good enough for me. Of course many were good enough for others who thought they were so great when they bought them but have since upgrade many times because their state of the art equipment is no longer the lattest. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Because my requirements change; in fact, I am getting more and more picky every year because technology makes higher quality possible</p>

</blockquote>

<p>MM Good example of "The availability creates the need"....</p>

<p>When I bought my first SLR way back in 1972, I was mainly a landscape photographer. Years later, my wife got into bird watching and I started doing more wildlife photography. Around that time AF began to appear and throughout the 1990's, AF improved significantly such that wildlife photography became much more satifying.</p>

<p>Digital was the reason I started shooting more and more sports since 2005 or so. Prior to that, film and processing cost would have made sports photography incredably expensive. Since then, improvements in electronics makes it possible for me to push the boundaries further and further with action photography under dimmer light.</p>

<p>I have had my D300 since 2007 and I have passed on too many cameras since then. I love my camera. It is a great camera for : outdoor sports ( and some usable pics within the category of indoor sport at ISO 3200 which will require post processing ), macro, landscaping, portrait, wedding ( with speedlight and f/2.8 lenses ), street, arquitecture, etc.... but I feel the need to jump to a better camera. <br>

I wish I could have the money to go FX and I could probably get the D610 but in the lenses area, I am dead if I go FX, so I have to remain a DX’s user. My D300 will become my second camera and my first will be either the D7200 ( or whatever title Nikon wants to name with ) or the D7100. I am waiting. I do have my reasons : better ISO is a must to have for me, better sensor and if I have more pixels, it won’t hurt to have more and they will play its rol when cropping pics. <br>

Even though I could go FX, I would keep my D300 as a second camera. When you shoot weddings, you must have a second camera available just in case. But the electronics and things you can do with the D7100 and I expect with the probably upcoming D7200, are way ahead of the D300. It will be easier to achieve what I struggle to achieve now, especially in the are of indoor wedding photographs. That’s my whole point ! </p>

<p><strong>"I wish I could have the money to go FX and I could probably get the D610 but in the lenses area, I am dead if I go FX, so I have to remain a DX’s user"</strong><br /> <br /><br /><br /> <br />I know your dilemma. That's one of the reason's I never understood the advice from online reviews and experts who say "don't waste your time on good full frame glass if you are slapping it on a DX camera." The advice should be to never accumulate more than one DX lens (for wide angle), unless you plan on staying with the format for life. Full frame bodies have have become cheaper over the years and the used market makes them more obtainable. The price of lenses only goes up so it's better to not be in a position where you are forced to revamp your lineup to make the switch.</p>

<p>I too love my D300s, it's everything the OP says it is. I compliment it with a D700 which provides awesome high ISO pictures.</p>

<p>I agree. The last 2 photo books I have read in the last few months, published in 2006 and 2009, contained photos taken with a d2x and d200 and d300. I guess I should ask for my money back. How could they dare continue to sell books shot with such gear! </p>

<p>A good photo doesn't become bad just because technology has moved on, although it may become less remarkable. New technology makes it possible to get better image quality from a capture, though it won't usually make what is being captured much more interesting; it also makes it easier to capture a particular image well, or to capture images in new styles.<br />

<br />

I enjoy Ansel Adams landscapes. With modern technology, I could, technically, capture something the match of many of his images, with somewhat less technical talent - though waiting around long enough for something like "Clearing Winter Storm" is not something that technology can fix. I could also take more shots and pick the ones I liked, rather than spending so long setting up one image. Ansel was an expert, but he still reports a degree of guesswork in his shots of Half Dome and Moonrise; with a modern camera, it would have been possible to capture more combinations and have less guesswork in the capture. Obviously upgrades since the D300s are more incremental than the difference between a 10x8 and a D800 (and I'm not going to deny the capture abilities of a really big sheet of film), but for every image that came out good enough to publish from a D300s, maybe there are some that could only be rescued effectively by the dynamic range or resolution of a more modern camera.<br />

<br />

Using older technology doesn't lose you everything, just as shooting your entire life with a 50mm lens won't stop you from taking good photos. But as technology improves (or in the case of the D300s, maybe "changes" would be better) more things become possible. If you're happy to shoot within your restrictions, this may not bother you. If the once-in-a-lifetime shot falls just outside the abilities of the camera to do justice to, maybe it matters.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If the once-in-a-lifetime shot falls just outside the abilities of the camera to do justice to, maybe it matters.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I wonder when triple sensor cameras will arrive for the Landscape shooter? I know Fuji tried the idea on the same chip but with a 3 sensor camera with the slowest set at ISO 25 for the highlights, the main at 100 and the highest at 400 for shadow detail. HDR & bracketing have always been very iffy if there's movement in the frame, I'm thinking breaking waves or somesuch. You can't easily overlay non-aligned stuff.</p>

<p>Probably easier to just bolt 3 or 4* D5300s together with the optical axis as close together as possible and slave them to the same trigger. You could probably capture 30+ EVs simultaneously!</p>

<p>The offset in axis wouldn't be too bad with something as wide as a 28mm. The maths is a bit hard for my caffeine deprived head!</p>

<p>*Maybe even just 2 would be of great benefit?</p>

<p>The multiple exposure thing is interesting. The latest Sony sensors that Nikon uses in, for example, the D610 and D800 are pretty much ISO-free - you can shoot everything at base ISO and scale the raw file while getting very little more noise than you would by actually shooting at the named ISO. I was actually under the impression that the Fuji SuperCCD approach might not gain much, but unusually decided to <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D800E-versus-Nikon-D7000-versus-Fujifilm-FinePix-S5-Pro___814_680_511">check</a> before saying so. Go figure, at ISO 800 the S5 Pro has significantly more dynamic range than even a D800 - though it then drops off a cliff before ISO 1600. The sensor does suffer from a resolution perspective, but the design has some merits. In fact, typical Fuji - a weird design offers some advantages, but also has a few trade-offs that means the whole world is unlikely to switch from simple Bayer any time soon.<br />

<br />

I should also bring up the dual-ISO trick that Magic Lantern enabled on some Canons (though I think it might be violating a patent or two) - alternate scan lines go to different amplifiers, and you can set the ISO gain differently on each, on some models. Supposedly this helps significantly with the dynamic range defecit of some of Canon's models compared with the Nikons.<br />

<br />

Now, improving ISO performance by using <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichroic_prism">trichroic prisms</a> in place of the Bayer filters, that I'd like to see. And if the reviews of the Red Epic Dragon on DxO are anything to go by, there may be a little still to come from camera sensors anyway.</p>

<p>I think the D7100 runs rings around the D300/s ,but you say your happy so what does it matter....</p>