Extremely happy with my D300s.

<p>Shortly after the earthquake/tsunami I bought two referb D300s bodies and f/2.8 Dx lenses, trading in two D70s and lesser lenses. I could have chosen the D7000, but it was not configured as well as the D300s. Since then, as I read through the posts month after month, I find myself less and less interested in all the talk about the "newest, greatest" equipment, and especially how "old" the D300s is, to the point where it almost sounds like the D300s is useless.</p>

<p>I shoot ISO 1600 very often with extremely good results. The auto focus is fast, the frame rate is even better, and the configuration and feel is excellent. Battery life is great, and I've even used the limited video function with very good results.</p>

<p>My clients constantly commend my photos, and I'm very proud of my work. I wouldn't even change if Nikon brought out a true replacement, like a D400.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't even change if Nikon brought out a true replacement, like a D400<br>

<em> </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><br /></em>I guess this means you and your camera are <strong><em>never</em></strong> out of the 'Comfort Zone' then? I'm happy for you!..:-)<br>

<br>

<br>

<br>

</p>

<p>it's still a good camera, but the sensor is a little bit outdated--16-18mp would be ideal--and the high-ISO performance could be better ( i get almost two stops difference from my Fuji XE1). not an issue if you're shooting with flash, but if you need to go to 3200, you have a problem. i routinely shoot between 3200-6400 for available-light concert shots, so i was running up against that technical limitation on the d300 and d300s all the time. but for less-demanding PJ work, the d300s still gets the call often. it's astounding that Nikon has never really truly upgraded that camera with a DX model and the same "big body" controls, and hasnt put out an FX model with comparable features since the d700. i consider the d600/d610 consumer FX, while the d800/e is overkill for a lot of the stuff i shoot. the d7100 comes closest to the d300, but still cant match the frame rate and buffer.</p>

<p>Isn't it a good thing that you can focus on the content of your work rather than spend money on a new camera? I would think that's very relieving and productive state of affairs.</p>

 

<p>My backup/vacation camera is a D300 and I agree it is a fine machine that can handle iso's up to 1600 nicely with some attention in post processing. 12mp is plenty for me. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I shoot ISO 1600 very often with extremely good results.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>in your eyes maybe. for casual shooting, as a non pro, sure, but for those who get paid, the D300/D300s is not a competent camera. I had the D300s and the D3. no comparison. its just not a very capable camera. at iso 1600, its decent but smear and chroma noise is at its limits.has nothing to do with having the newest. its just that older cameras arent as competent as newer ones. $1800 for a new D300s when launched. same as a D610 more or less..I recently sold mine. I felt it held back my IQ. dynamic range. the colors, the tiny details, the contrast. pretty much everything is better with a FF. good camera for its time, ok for today, but not even in the prosumer league. </p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Robert, it’s easy to point out better cameras. Some might suggest that your D3 is pretty old. But if you can't produce great photos with a D300 a better camera is not going to solve your problem. Plus, a camera is more than a sensor. The D300 is a better camera in several ways than a D610 even though obviously there is no comparison between sensors. Your comparison further fails because the D300 is a $400 camera today and the D610 is not.</p>

<p>For the record, I have also owned the sensor that comes in the D3, and yes it's pretty amazing. I preferred it in many ways to my present 36mp's.</p>

<p>I wish I were so easy-going with equipment. Personally, while I captured close to 10K images with a loaner D300S for photo.net's review, I never own a D300S myself since it is 90%, 95% the same as the original D300. I went straight from the D300 to the D7000 and then upgraded to the D7100. While I need to compromise on frame rate, the newer electronics make a difference to me.</p>

<p>As I mentioned in a recent thread on the D4S, if you shoot those sports that have a well defined track or course so that the subjects' positions are predictable, 16MP is perfectly fine. The D300's 12MP is a bit low but still ok. When you shoot wildlife or those sports whose actions are unpredictable, you need plenty of room to crop and therefore more pixels to start with. The problem becomes capturing 24, 36MP at 8fps requiring a lot of fast electronics. That is why even those dedicated DSLRs for sports at over $6500 are still not 24MP yet.</p>

<p>The current issue of the german magazine Naturfoto has a couple of services shot with D300 (s or not). It's one of the best magazines for nature and photography in my opinion and those photos of course look great. There seem to be little to complain with the camera or the "outdated" sensor. In the last issue one photographer had a set of underwater macro images shot with a.....<br>

D70 !!!<br>

wow! garbage camera some would say, but then again looking at the images, nothin wrong... the author recognises it 's a bit old but underwater housings cost a lot...<br>

And there are still services shot on film every now and then. Again, professionally scanned and the print quality of the magazine is good, nothing to complain.<br>

bye, Marco</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>But if you can't produce great photos with a D300 a better camera is not going to solve your problem</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>All things being equal (!), that 1 - 1.1/2 stops better high ISO performance from a D7100 or D5300 will let me stop a horse's movement....errr...or NOT. Specifically, that's 1/1250 rather than 1/500. I can't open my 70-200mm UP from 2.8 and tripods don't prevent subject movement...what's left to change? ....and before anyone mentions it, no, I can't use flash...it scares the horses!</p>

<p>I still use my D300 as backup to my D700 (same speed grip) for action sports, frame rate is important to me too. I'd love a pair of D3Ss, D4s or D4Ss, but that's not going to happen for a while.</p>

<p>When push comes to shove, a better camera will take a better shot. As I said higher up, if you're still happy in your comfort zone, the D300S is a GREAT camera. Sadly, it gets too dark, too soon and too often on 'horse' days and that's not comfortable in the least!</p>

<p>I do a lot of bird photography and can tell when going through files those made with the D300/D300S with about 95% accuracy. They have what I call almost a "studio" look to them, especially those made using the Better Beamer. I never got that when using the D7000, but am getting very close to the same look now with the D7100. As mentioned above I tried to always avoid anything above iso 800, opting most of the time to stay at iso 200. I keep the D7100 and 600mm lens on a tripod by my back door for birds, but most of the time grab the D300S and 200-400mm on a monopod that is next to it when I see something that may be there for only a minute or so. As long as there is good light I don't feel that I am sacrificing much at all other than the ability to crop more with the D7100. In a lot of ways I feel that the 12mp and below bodies make us better photographers because we have to get everything framed and set correctly before pushing the shutter release. Today's high mp models sometimes make us lazy because we know we can crop out half of the frame later in post processing. I do a lot of high school sports, mostly football at night. For that I have to use a D3S, but for the rare daytime games in the past I have used the D300/D300S with no issues.</p>

<p>Just for the record, I am a professional, shooting concerts and events, and as I say, I am, and all my clients are, very happy with the D300s images.</p>

<p>This is an article I found on another forum: </p>

<h3 >All the cameras are better than you are...</h3>

<p>http://ripecamera.blogspot.jp/2014/03/all-cameras-are-better-than-you-are.html </p>

 

<p>Rene--thanks for the link! Really interesting reading..nice to know my D300s is still usable.<br>

Paul</p>

<p>Rene, Yup just read that and the author has obviously never shot anything that moved faster than a legless zombie in bright sunshine.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>And rather than embrace and hug our tripods or turn up the volume on our plentiful flashes we followed right along and bought the cameras with the cotton candy ISOs</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>No tripod and no lights and a fast moving object...yup, you're screwed. Unless you can print out a nice 20 x 16 @ ISO 3200, you've failed to sell anything all day and you starve. RIP . </p>

<p>Why do so many well lit photographers instantly become scathing Luddites when anyone says they <em>need</em> the latest bit of kit? They just assume everyone else shoots like they do.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Once gifted lighters became, almost overnight, "available light" photographers. That just meant that even though they knew that "motivated" lighting was superior they were willing to be lazy and just depend on whatever (usually crappy) light they found on whatever location they were working.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Just plain naive and vaguely insulting.</p>

<p>I thought it was a good article. I liked this quote.<br>

"<em>An image with great content, shot with a shitty camera, will always beat an image of your cat sleeping on the carpet shot with a medium format digital back and priceless German glass.</em>"</p>

<p>Mike, people have been taking great photos of moving objects for years. It just takes less skill now.</p>

<p>Ditto, Mike Halliwell's comments on that Kirk Tuck blog, which has been thoroughly discussed and cussed <a href="/casual-conversations-forum/00cRPt">here on the casual photo conversations forum</a>.</p>

<p>Opinion pieces like that are generally intended to generate buzz, arguments, web traffic and Google ranking, not to shed any light. Whether Krockwell or some other pundit, such commentary usually follows this formula:</p>

<ul>

<li>I'm a professional and/or award winning amateur photographer.</li>

<li>I don't need Camera X to do my job/win awards.</li>

<li>Therefore you don't need Camera X.</li>

<li>If you do need or simply want Camera X, you are not a professional and/or award winning photographer.</li>

</ul>

<p>It's just a variation on the tried and falsified "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy and similar goalpost-moving fallacies, refined for the web punditry era:</p>

<ul>

<li>Wait for obviously illogical premise to generate buzz and battle between outraged reactionaries and the bias confirmation yes-men.</li>

<li>Enjoy web traffic and higher Google ranking. Who cares if the buzz is negative - all publicity is good publicity.</li>

<li>When Manufacturer X sends you review sample of camera you dissed last month/year, move goalposts again and claim *this* camera is the best thing since mixed metaphors.</li>

<li>Lather, rinse, repeat.</li>

</ul>

<p>Incidentally, this is nothing new. Computer columnist John C. Dvorak mastered this technique back in the 1980s, often writing dueling "versus" opinion pieces pitted against another columnist.</p>

<p>Really, libraries should just take everything done before 2005 and throw it in the garbage, especially the pictures, because NONE of those guys were using a D800 and all of their work is crap. D3? Sooooo yesterday!</p>

<p>Sure people where shooting sports with 4X5 film back in the day. Now those where real men....</p>

<p>First let me say that I shoot sports for a living, mostly equestrian events like Mike H. I have and still use a D300 and a D300s. They work just fine and I have sold many an image from them. For that matter I used to shoot with a D2h and it did what I needed it to do at the time.</p>

<p>If a camera is doing what you need it to do in my opinion there is absolutely no need to replace it just because they came out with a new model.</p>

 

<p>If you're happy with a 5-year old camera it means you spend too much time taking photos and not enough time believing everything you read on the interwebz.</p>

<p>good for you... (still rockin a D90)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"If a camera is doing what you need it to do in my opinion there is absolutely no need to replace it just because they came out with a new model."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Would you decline to upgrade to the mythical D400 folks claim to want? Especially if the number crunching proved it would give you an edge in profitability?<br>

<br>

The problem with "it does what I need" is that it's a variable, and subject to interpretations and comparisons to improved technology. To a landscape photographer "it does what I need" may be, and probably is, entirely different than it would be for an available light action photographer.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I used to shoot with a D2h and it did what I needed it to do at the time."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ditto, and I still use it occasionally. Mostly I use its flaws and shortcomings as a weird sort of aesthetic choice. I don't plan to ever buy another big, bulky and heavy dSLR. But if a D3 or D4 fell into my lap I'd darn sure put it to some good use and sing its praises. And I'd probably kick myself for having put up with the D2H's shortcomings for so long: miserable performance at high ISOs and in artificial light; not enough pickles to allow for much cropping, or to reveal the intricate details in people's eyes unless we're shoving a macro lens into their faces. But I won't claim it did what I needed it to do at the time. I'd love to have a time machine and go back with a 12 megapickle dSLR and reshoot some of my D2H photos of a medical documentary project.</p>

<p>I wonder why <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=752987">Michael Bradtke</a> bought a D4.</p>

<p>Shun,</p>

<p>because he shoots sports for a living I think.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Opinion pieces like that are generally intended to generate buzz, arguments, web traffic and Google ranking, not to shed any light.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wait, I thought that was the whole point? I get from comments here that the gist of the article is not to depend on available light so much, instead to actually shed your own light? Moreover, the guy says he does great with his concert photography with a D300s, and we tell him that he would know better if there was a galloping horse on stage in near darkness, or a particularly twitchy animal doing an act on stage! Of course, we are about to tell him that if he were to put his pictures up on a billboard and people were to look at it from six inches away, what then? Huh?<br>

<br />Just kidding, just kidding. I am a lowly amateur, but I love my D300. I recently traveled with it for two weeks, and though some of the interior shots at ISO 1600 would be cleaner with a newer sensor, for the most part I am amazed by the shots. And reviewing some of my own boring shots, it is reinforcing what I already knew, the crispness and lack of noise "ain't it", it is the combination of those along with proper lighting, mood, color, interesting subject matter and emotion that make the impact by far. I would love a FF though, only a little because of the lower noise and higher dynamic range, but mostly because of subject isolation. But D800 is too darn heavy and expensive for my taste, and D610 just doesn't have the ergonomics of the D300 I so love, so I keep waiting. In the meanwhile, I hated the weight of my new backpack chock full of lenses and other sundry items during the recent travel, so maybe the Fuji X-E1/2 or X-M1 with an APS-C sensor will fit the bill of a light travel camera with high quality images. Again, I'll take APS-C over M4/3 any day because of subject isolation with larger sensor, and the new Sony FF mirror-less is too expensive if I also keep my Nikon DSLR system.</p>

<p>My brother is a professional (i.e. paid) event and portrait photographer, that shoots with a D300 and sells shoots and pictures out the wazoo! He also shoots professional models with the D300 and has sold/published pics to one of the most well known magazines in the world just a year or so ago. Depending on what you do, your mileage will vary, but for the vast majority of applications a D300 still works great. Some professionals actually "need" the D3/D4/D800, but they are the exceptions rather than the rule. On the flip side, I am not arguing for everybody using a LOMO or a pin-hole either!</p>

<p>Shun, you type faster than me! Guess it's horses for courses...:-)</p>

<p>Although it's a borrowed term, if you're not 'Pushing the Envelope', you don't need an upgrade.</p>

<p>Why do think film stopped getting any faster than ASA 3200? Because.......</p>

<p>A) No-one wanted to shoot any faster or<br>

B) The chemistry wasn't up to it?</p>

<p>If you think the answer's A), get real and smell the coffee.</p>

<p> </p>