Purchasing a D300..

The D300 is one of the most successful camera's Nikon ever made. For bird photography it was awesome.

Possibly a bit harsh - I do dearly love all of my digital cameras across three brands, but they are a bit like home appliances. Would you buy a ten or twelve year old refrigerator? Microwave? Once parts, batteries, memory is no longer available what do you have? Though many will disagree,IMO there are no legendary digitals that can compete with current / more modern best. Newer is better in most cases in this venue. That said, you get what you can afford and move up when you can.

Lets not forget, the D300 is also one of the best looking Nikons of all time.

The D300 is one of the most successful camera's Nikon ever made. For bird photography it was awesome.

So was the F100 in a slightly earlier era.

 

At the beginning of this century, around 2001 or 2002, a Nikon rep told me that the F100 was the best selling Nikon SLR ever. I had purchased mine at the end of 1999 and it complemented my F5 really well as a second body, usually holding a different type of film.

 

And then Nikon introduced the affordable D70 in 2004 and everything changed rapidly. Nikon discontinued the F100 in January 2006, along with the FM3a, and many AI-S lenses.

 

When Nikon introduced the D300 in late 2007, they had a program to provide a free copy of Nikon Capture software to like the first one million D300 bodies sold. That program ended within a year. I don't have hard numbers, but apparently Nikon managed to sell a million D300 in less than a year. (The initial figured Nikon provided in 2007 was that they were manufacturing 80K D300 bodies per month, but they increased that due to demand.)

 

I still have my F100 and my D300 today, but I haven't used them for years.

Possibly a bit harsh - I do dearly love all of my digital cameras across three brands, but they are a bit like home appliances. Would you buy a ten or twelve year old refrigerator? Microwave? Once parts, batteries, memory is no longer available what do you have? Though many will disagree,IMO there are no legendary digitals that can compete with current / more modern best. Newer is better in most cases in this venue. That said, you get what you can afford and move up when you can.

 

Sandy, I still shoot with a 36 year old Hasselblad and I love the look it produces.

 

I can show you D300 images that are as good for reproduction on the web or 8x10 equal to anything current.

 

As for Spares, there is that, batteries will not be an issue or memory.

Sandy, I still shoot with a 36 year old Hasselblad and I love the look it produces.

Yup, and I shoot a Leica M 3 from mid '50's - that camera will work as long as there is film, processing chemicals, and someone to do a rare CLA. Results up there with the best of film, even today. Film cameras not in issue on this thread.

I'm sure the D300 was great, and decent still if you handicap it to web or 8x10 - full ahead, even up, no rules, no chance vs. recent / current best. Sorry!

For bird photography it was awesome

At the time. After holding out way too long for a never-to-be D400, I grudgingly had to admit to myself that in terms of resolution, ISO performance, and the ability to crop a D7100 or D7200 was a better choice for bird photography - even though I didn't like the size and handling of the D7x00 bodies.

Would you buy a ten or twelve year old refrigerator? Microwave?

 

When I was a student, and once after starting a new following a year of study away from home, I was happy to buy old refrigerators and microwaves. But these were items on which the technology had hardly advanced. It was certainly not the incredible way that digital cameras have changed. If you already own a D300, it can still be a viable camera, solid, with great controls. But to take on twelve-year-old technology given how much better sensors have become since would be a mistake. Another way to think about it is that you're likely to keep anything you buy for a while. Do you really want fifteen-year-old sensors? Or older?

In the right hands even ancient cameras can produce results equaling current super duper cameras.

 

Give me solid construction, weatherproofing and proper controls over plastic toy cameras any day. To the OP get a D300S or better still a D700, if you are only posting to the web or printing small you do not need heaps of mega pixels.

 

So what's this taken with? D300? Z7? D850? Answer below.

 

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-IHeBOrstdFo/VK7Ss7FZEFI/AAAAAAAABk4/1-QzGJm-190/s1600/Cardinal%2B1.jpg

 

It was taken with an 8MP D70s.

Nobody saying D300 is bad, it is just doesn't make sense to buy it now, there is better options.

Would it be wise to switch from a D3400 to a D300, or save up a little more for a 7xxx camera? The biggest thing I am concerned about in terms of photographic quality is high ISO performance. I generally do not shoot above 3200.

I don't think we need to over-analyse this. Given your biggest concern, the answer is no. For the D300, ISO 3200 is very much in the high ISO range, and noise (etc.) will be significantly worse than what you see now with the D3400. You also won't be able to crop as hard starting from 12MP. The D300 still does lots of other things very well (nice controls, handling, build, framerate, AF, works with screwdriver AF), but high ISO is not its strongpoint. Where the cutoff is depends on your tolerance for noise, lower contrast and the artefacts of noise reduction. If you see a D300 cheap enough, you might use it normally up to about ISO 800-1000. You can still get decent results up to about ISO 1600 if you're careful, though I expect you'll already be visibly better off with the D3400. Beyond that, you probably need to take particular care with your choice of subject and exposure, and probably do noise reduction in post. It sounds like you'd be better off saving for the D7xxx for most purposes.

If you could find a used D300 in excellent condition for $200-$300, the going rate apparently, you would enjoy the experience of using a true classic. Yes, the D3400 is a superior picture maker in most respects. ISO 400 film used to be the fastest film anyone could possible need for most situations. Do you really see a need for more speed?

If you could find a used D300 in excellent condition for $200-$300, the going rate apparently, you would enjoy the experience of using a true classic. Yes, the D3400 is a superior picture maker in most respects. ISO 400 film used to be the fastest film anyone could possible need for most situations. Do you really see a need for more speed?

I wouldn't say ISO 400 film was the fastest anyone could possibly need. 20, 30 years ago, it was the fastest color film available without sacrificing quality big time. Back in 2004, I was the main photographer at the wedding of a friend's son, where no flash was allowed. My only DSLR at that time was a D100, and I also used ISO 800 color film, which generated poor results, but we had to operate under those restrictions. Today I use ISO 3200, 6400 very regularly indoors and at night, sometimes ISO 12800 too.

 

It was the OP who specified the need up to ISO 3200, which is very modest today in 2019.

 

Incidentally, the OP CorySmith has not posted again since the opening post.

We veered too far off topic.

 

Incidentally, the OP CorySmith has not posted again since the opening post.

 

Been a busy end of the week. But I have been monitoring this thread. I never expected quite the response, and I want to thank everyone for their input!

 

 

I understand that the D7200 is probably the best way to go when it comes to IQ. However I am still very tempted by the low prices that the D300 carries these days. I did state in my post that I do like to shoot in a max of ISO 3200, that's true. But the majority of the photos that I take are in daytime situations, which the D300 excels in, right? I have no plans on doing any large prints, so more MP's aren't that much of a benefit, and I don't do much cropping. Since I live near adorama, ill probably pick up a used d300, and see how I like it. If it's not giving me the ideal results, I'll return it.

Just go here and forget this sillyness.

 

Nikon D3400 vs Nikon D7200 vs Nikon D300 | DxOMark

<chuckle>

 

10 years or so, ago the D300 was the heart of discussion on this same PNet forum. Yes, I still have mine. I still use it. It is one of the few cameras that you can attach any lens, take a shot and presented shot was "gold."

 

Not all Nikon bodies are like this. (I waded through a lot of stuff and was dissatisfied with quite a few previously owned, Nikon bodies.) 12mp is fine for fine print inkjet, and actually overkill if you present your photos on a 4K Television. At the current resale price, it's a sentimental "keeper." It's low miles compared to many and if I did an alcohol wipe down, it would look brand new.

 

If you want to talk about old........I recently purchased a D3x with 16,xxx clicks, and I am zen..

 

 

The "Semi Forced Upgrade Attitude" in Shun's world may fly here. That's why I'm usually "not."

OK...

 

Nikon D3400 vs Nikon D3X vs Nikon D300 | DxOMark

 

Just forget the D300 as an upgrade.

 

I've got one myself with a MB-D10 and still use it as a remote 'machine gun'...:cool:

I never expected quite the response, and I want to thank everyone for their input!

That's how it is here, people discuss every aspect of any question, some of which one may not have anticipated. But eventually the discussions lead to a good decision after considering every aspect and suggestions, bushwhacking or not.

However I am still very tempted by the low prices that the D300 carries these days

Considering the price, it is a good buy. I recently sold my D300s at a very good price to a Canadian. It was in like-new condition with a very low shutter count. I have used quite a number of D300/s; I prefer it over the D7xxx because the D300/s controls are "main stream" - what I have been used to.

IQ versus UI is a very individual choice......;)

 

You can control/learn UI, you can't fix poor IQ.....:)

Edited January 5, 2019 by mike_halliwell

You can control/learn UI, you can't fix poor IQ.....:)

True, but the D300/s IQ is good enough - accordingly to me anyway. :) Gotta consider it in conjunction with price-value. Now I am using D500 and Olympus. But would not hesitate to use a D300/s as a backup.

Edited January 5, 2019 by Mary Doo

It was taken with an 8MP D70s

Must have been a very special D70s - the ones I knew had only 6.1MP ;)

But the majority of the photos that I take are in daytime situations, which the D300 excels in, right?

As already stated a couple of times, dynamic range of the D300 (and D700) is nothing much to write home about today - your D3400 does better in that aspect too.

 

IQ versus UI is a very individual choice......;)

You can control/learn UI, you can't fix poor IQ.....:)

I am not much in favor of the UI on either the D3x00, D5x00, or the D7x00 bodies (or the FX D6x0 and D750 for that matter) - the D300/D300s certainly suits me better. But in terms of IQ, the D300/D300s is a clear step backwards for the OP.

I understand that the D7200 is probably the best way to go when it comes to IQ. However I am still very tempted by the low prices that the D300 carries these days

Buy cheap, buy twice :(

Brand new D7200 is now less than $700. If you accept used (which you will have to going for the D300) then the D7200 isn't all that much money. The D300 does have something better than the D7200 but for the OP I think the D7200 would satisfy the OP much more.

But would not hesitate to use a D300/s as a backup.

Use, sure.....but to buy now?.. Honestly..? :)

Use, sure.....but to buy now?.. Honestly..? :)

Call me stubborn or inflexible but the answer is "Yes" if the other choices are D3xxx, D5xxx, or D7xxx ... with "foreign" Nikon UI's. :D But the camera body cannot be ugly - as I don't like to use beat-up-looking gear. :eek: