D300 vs. D3200

 

<p>I am a member of another forum which is frequented by mostly fashion photographers. Someone recently posted the question, which one should I buy (D300 vs. D3200), being that they are about the same price? I spend much more time reading photo.net than I do this other forum so I am more familiar with the advice generally given here. I would personally prefer the D300 but said in my reply that I suspected that most would choose the much newer D3200. I believe the majority advice would have been for the D3200 had the question been posted here. The term "older technology" comes to mind. To my surprise the advice from the large majority was to purchase the older D300 rather than the consumer D3200.</p>

<p>This got me thinking.<br>

<br /> Either I am wrong and he would have received the same advice here or photo.net members tend to have different needs in a camera than members of that other forum and therefore would give different advice in this situation.</p>

<p>What would you have advised? Would your advice change knowing that the camera was to be used mostly for fashion (he said in the post portraits, weddings and newborns but it is a fashion forum)?</p>

<p>I could not find the forum rules on photo.net and do not know if it is ok to post links to other forums. If someone tells me that it is ok I will post the link.</p>

 

 

<p>One vote for the D300. Old technology but better camera in my mind anyway.</p>

<p>mm I find this an apples pears comparisson..<br>

If you want to put a new camera against the D300(s) i guess the D7100 would come closest..., so then you get pro's ( af speed, buffersize, ) against con's ( sensore resolution, ). etc..</p>

<p>I would say a D300s because it has two card slots to use as a backup. I like that the D300/D300s has all the controls on the back (not menu), it's really fast when you need to shotgun something, and balances well with larger lenses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you want to put a new camera against the D300(s) i guess the D7100 would come closest</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But I think the point of the comparison was to put $400 cameras against each other.</p>

<p>The dual card slot is something to seriously consider, as is the CLS flash capability.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I've had my D300 since 2008 and it is still my only DSLR, so I can attest to it's durability and reliability. It's sensor has long since been surpassed by more modern cameras in terms of resolution and high ISO performance. I rarely shoot above ISO 400 though, so it does just fine for me. You definitely get a feel of it's build quality when you pick it up and compare to other lower end/midrange Nikon cameras. I also prefer Nikon's pro control layout and having the option of a built-in PC port for flash use. Also, the D300 only has one CF card slot. The D300s has 2.</p>

<p>A D3200 will win on image quality. A D300 or D300(S) will win on AF performance, Speed, buffer size, durability / build and ability to control CLS system. It will also win on the ease of setting / changing settings given that there is a button for almost everything. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>i still have (and use) my d300s. im keeping it because newer DX cameras offer more resolution, some bells and whistles, but less overall functionality. almost every single camera nikon has put out since is compromised in some way. 12mp files are manageable if you shoot a lot. my only real complaint about d300/s is the upper ISO limit, which is poor by today's standards.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Would your advice change knowing that the camera was to be used mostly for fashion</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this question is kind of like, would you rather drive a Ford pickup or a Toyota Camry in the Monaco GP? for fashion, i wouldnt want to use either camera (though the d300 has better overall features other than resolution). ideally, i would use a d4 and d800 for fashion, the d800 for posed studio shots and the d4 for available-light portraits. if i had to shoot DX, the extra rez might be nice but nikon's DX lens lineup isn't really tailored for high-end fashion shooting. also, besides having limited functionality as an entry-level model, the d3200 is too small to balance well with the lenses i'd want to shoot with, and 4fps is too slow.</p>

<p>I can't comment on the 3200. However, I've had a D700 for several years: wonderful camera. I've recently bought a D300 (near mint and low shutter count) and a 16-85VR. I wouldn't use it when high iso is demanded, but otherwise it is sheer delight. Moreover, my wife has taken to use it. I've tried to get her to use a high quality compact in the past, but without sucess. The D300 is a hit with her though!</p>

<p>It is also very good with some of my older lenses. Might that be the case with a D3200?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>One vote for the D300. Old technology but better camera in my mind anyway.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1</p>

<p>+1 Vote D300(s) It goes a-lot faster than a D3200 as-well. It's a nice sports camera!</p>

<p>You can't tether a D3200.....Nikon doesn't even support it's own camera!</p>

<p>Now a second hand D5100...Hummmm??</p>

+1 for Eric Arnold's post (among others).

Both cameras are not an ideal choice for fashion.

But.. The D300 might get you the shot easier (viewfinder,

AF), where the 3x00 would give better image quality IF you

frame/focus it right.. for $400.

<p>I'll vote with everyone else. The right answer to "should I get a D300 or a D3200 for any kind of professional photography?" is probably "no" (and to save up), but I'd claim the D300 is the better all-rounder and the D3200 will give better image quality because of the newer sensor. If you can focus, make sure you have back-ups, not miss the shot, don't care about a grip or driving external strobes (as easily), don't mind the handling etc. then the D3200 is better. If you care less about the quality of the shot than making sure you can get it, get the D300. The same applies to Nikon's pro range like the D4 - they're about getting a shot in the worst of conditions, not getting the best possible image quality in optimal conditions (which is where you start looking at the D800 and medium format cameras).<br />

<br />

For what it's worth, a D300s would have significant appeal for me over a base D300, due to the extra card slot for back-up. Equally, a D5200 (or 5300) has much better autofocus than a D3200. If this is for a pro shoot, though, I'd just rent a D7100, getting two cards for back-up, very good autofocus, better dynamic range than the D3200 with the same resolution, and handling much closer to the D300. More money does make a difference.</p>

<p>In 2014, I wouldn't use either of those cameras.</p>

<p>If you only have 400 for a body, you would be best served by saving a little more money.</p>

<p>Size counts! I get more shots with a camera I have on me than a camera that's too heavy to carry. Based on that I know what I'd choose.<br>

<br />(I also use a Olympus E-M5.) </p>

<p>I have both a D300 and a D3200.<br /><br />Since I've also picked up an FX format body, I find that the very nice D300 is sitting alone in the Peli case a lot more often, and the D3200 is actually along in the bag as an emergency backup because it's so nice and small and light and cheap and almost disposable. Plus, it shoots video.<br /><br />But even the old D300's AF is much, much better than the D3200's. The D3200's tiny viewfinder and slightly fiddly menu system - to me - doesn't lend itself to dynamic shooting environments (like weddings) unless you're going manual anyway. But focus is still a real challenge, in that its AF is marginal and manual focus in that small finder is a major challenge, especially when shooting with wide apertures in typical event venues.<br /><br />So, I'd save a little more and shoot for at least a D5200/5300. I much prefer the D300/s ergonomics, but that generation of sensor is certainly showing its age. A lot, compared to the D7100-ish bodies. <br /><br />I've used the D3200 in controlled circumstances and made some really glorious image files, but I think it would make me crazy in a high pressure shoot with varying subject and lighting conditions.</p>

As our friend mention if you need CLS flash, old lens metering, no interest in Video, like all control buttons are out and

MP is not an issue then d300 is the choice

 

But if you need video, high MP, light weight, then better to go for d3200.

<p>Eric and Matt<br>

+1<br>

Neither body is suitable for professional fashion or wedding shoots - the reasons have already been mentioned in previous posts.</p>

<p>Still have my D300, amongst other bodies, and intend to keep it.<br>

I would not trade it for a 3200.</p>

<p>Can anyone comment on using either of these models for live concert photography?</p>