Extremely happy with my D300s.

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by kohanmike, Mar 11, 2014.

  1. 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.
    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.
    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.
     
  2. I wouldn't even change if Nikon brought out a true replacement, like a D400

    I guess this means you and your camera are never out of the 'Comfort Zone' then? I'm happy for you!..:)
     
  3. it's still a good camera, but the sensor is a little bit outdated--16-18mp would be ideal--and the high-ISO performance could be better ( i get almost two stops difference from my Fuji XE1).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.
     
  4. 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.
     
  5. pge

    pge

    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.
     
  6. I shoot ISO 1600 very often with extremely good results.​
    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.
     
  7. pge

    pge

    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.
    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.
     
  8. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    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.
    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.
     
  9. 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.....
    D70 !!!
    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...
    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.
    bye, Marco
     
  10. But if you can't produce great photos with a D300 a better camera is not going to solve your problem​
    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!
    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.
    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!
     
  11. 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.
     
  12. 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.
     
  13. This is an article I found on another forum:
    All the cameras are better than you are...

    http://ripecamera.blogspot.jp/2014/03/all-cameras-are-better-than-you-are.html
     
  14. Rene--thanks for the link! Really interesting reading..nice to know my D300s is still usable.
    Paul
     
  15. Rene, Yup just read that and the author has obviously never shot anything that moved faster than a legless zombie in bright sunshine.
    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​
    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 .
    Why do so many well lit photographers instantly become scathing Luddites when anyone says they need the latest bit of kit? They just assume everyone else shoots like they do.
    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.​
    Just plain naive and vaguely insulting.
     
  16. pge

    pge

    I thought it was a good article. I liked this quote.
    "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."
    Mike, people have been taking great photos of moving objects for years. It just takes less skill now.
     
  17. Ditto, Mike Halliwell's comments on that Kirk Tuck blog, which has been thoroughly discussed and cussed here on the casual photo conversations forum.
    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:
    • I'm a professional and/or award winning amateur photographer.
    • I don't need Camera X to do my job/win awards.
    • Therefore you don't need Camera X.
    • If you do need or simply want Camera X, you are not a professional and/or award winning photographer.
    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:
    • Wait for obviously illogical premise to generate buzz and battle between outraged reactionaries and the bias confirmation yes-men.
    • Enjoy web traffic and higher Google ranking. Who cares if the buzz is negative - all publicity is good publicity.
    • 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.
    • Lather, rinse, repeat.
    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.
     
  18. 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!
     
  19. Sure people where shooting sports with 4X5 film back in the day. Now those where real men....
    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.
    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.
     
  20. 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.
    good for you... (still rockin a D90)
     
  21. "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."​
    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?

    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.
    "I used to shoot with a D2h and it did what I needed it to do at the time."​
    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.
     
  22. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

  23. Shun,
    because he shoots sports for a living I think.
     
  24. Opinion pieces like that are generally intended to generate buzz, arguments, web traffic and Google ranking, not to shed any light.​
    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?

    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.
    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!
     
  25. Shun, you type faster than me! Guess it's horses for courses...:)
    Although it's a borrowed term, if you're not 'Pushing the Envelope', you don't need an upgrade.
    Why do think film stopped getting any faster than ASA 3200? Because.......
    A) No-one wanted to shoot any faster or
    B) The chemistry wasn't up to it?
    If you think the answer's A), get real and smell the coffee.
     
  26. If you think high ISO is the most important feature buy a night vision device
     
  27. Sure people where shooting sports with 4X5 film back in the day. Now those where real men....​
    "Back in the day" was 2012. It's always possible to use the specific abilities of a given camera to do things that a much more "suitable" camera can't. There's a reason I vaguely lust after an X100s, a Rolleiflex or a 5x4: are they "better" cameras for 90% of what I do than my D800? No. Would they be better in some ways, for some shots? Yes.

    I make no claims to be a competent photographer; apart from anything else, I don't get enough practice. Yet I have expensive kit. When I shoot outdoors in daylight, stopped down and downsampled for web viewing, it doesn't matter. When I shoot nearer the limits of the camera, it absolutely makes a difference to the quality of the shot. Not as much as some artistic talent might, but the camera can affect noise/autofocus/frame rate, and of course the comfort of achieving it.

    The D300s is a lovely camera. Some of what it does, it still does as well as the state of the art, give or take; it's hardly a D1. The D300s obviously doesn't keep up in other ways. If I needed the best possible camera all the time, I wouldn't use the camera on my phone; indeed, if the phone camera wasn't good enough for most people most of the time, the compact camera market wouldn't have slumped. We pay the money to get better performance in extreme conditions (incidentally, I count wide dynamic range as being just as big an issue as low light) - how much money and how extreme is up to us. You can deal with some camera limitations with technique, but you can never deal with all of them. Sometimes it doesn't matter.
     
  28. pge

    pge

    Who's photos have the edge, the photographer with a D800 and virtually no post processing skills or the photographer with a D300 and substantial post processing skills?
     
  29. Shun
    I bought a D4 because it did things that I needed. If Nikon had come up with a D400 that did what I need I would have been one of the first in line to buy one. But they didn't and because of some of the venues that I recently started shooting in I needed much higher ISO capabilities. Priced out a new D3s and a new D4 and the D4 was less.
    Oh and I love the D4 it does what I need it to do.
    Lex if I pull out the D2h it is because I am putting a camera in a remote location where there is a good chance of it getting trashed.
     
  30. Michael B, sometimes my D300 lives in a tripod mounted foam blimp on a dual trigger. I fire my D700 shutter and the gizmo fires the D300 simultaneously, but from a different angle in-case the horse goes sideways.....like they do!
    Indoor show-jumping is a real bummer......:-( I have been known to use my 85mm 1.4 D @ 1.8 to try and keep the shutter-speed up and the ISO down.
     
  31. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Shun
    I bought a D4 because it did things that I needed. If Nikon had come up with a D400 that did what I need I would have been one of the first in line to buy one. But they didn't and because of some of the venues that I recently started shooting in I needed much higher ISO capabilities. Priced out a new D3s and a new D4 and the D4 was less.​
    Michael, it is fair to say you agree that the D300/D300S are insufficient under certain shooting conditions, such as when you need high ISO to capture indoor or night sports?
    A few days ago I was at the Indian Wells tennis tournament. I had the D7100 and Df with me. Even with the latest FX and DX models, there is still a huge difference between their high-ISO results. At ISO 3200 and 6400, the Df yields much better results due to the much larger sensor area. That is a matter of simple physics that DX is never going to overcome.
    Of course I am very certain that Nikon has no plan to introduce this hypercritical D400 (or some people prefer to name it D9000 or whatever), but even though there were an update to the D300 that remains DX, if you need high ISO results, you still need to go FX.
     
  32. pge

    pge

    Just because a better camera exists does not make the D300 "insufficient". That is marketing coolaid.
     
  33. Phil: Sometimes data isn't captured - a D800 can pull shadow detail out, even if you resort to doing it in-camera with active D-lighting rather than in post, that a D300 can't. In this case, maybe there's little to do in post other than start painting. There's also only so much that can be done in image processing, for example in noise reduction. (And yes, I have the latest DxO.)

    I shoot almost exclusively in raw, in the assumption that I can recover whatever damage I've done to the shot by messing up the exposure, and whatever mess nature has made of it by not providing me with a convenient dynamic range. However... having seen the amount of post-processing that managed to make it into Wildlife Photographer of the Year this year, I do think one can go too far. I'm no believer in the purity of the captured image - art is art - but photography isn't painting, however much post-processing is applied.
     
  34. Mike H
    When it gets that dark I am using the 135 f/2 at f/2 and the D4 around ISO 12800. It does what I need it to do.
    Shun
    Yes I can agree with your statement but then even the D4 comes up short in some situations. In which case I will go with the noise and call it art.....
     
  35. pge

    pge

    Andrew, I don't disagree with you that the D800 is a better camera, but that doesn't diminish the D300 at all. My point is that many factors go into great photos, and starting with a better camera is only a small advantage. Its not always the biggest sword that wins the fight.
     
  36. 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.​
    yup. the D300 was just a little heavy/bulky as a travel camera. can't wait to travel with my Fuji set-up...
     
  37. My 7 year old D300 is still my only DSLR and I use it quite a bit. I am very happy with it. Of course there have been many improvements in resolution and low-light shooting over those years. If someone was to drop a D800 in my lap, I would probably never use my D300 again. When I rationalize it however, my photography wouldn't greatly improve from having a more modern camera.
    Eventually I will upgrade, but as of now the money I invested in things like lighting equipment, adding some extra lenses and gas money to find new places to shoot has done far more for my photography than a newer body ever would.
     
  38. While reading this post, I am looking at my 56 inch wide print on canvas of a female lion on a tree limb in the Serengeti taken with my D300s and my Nikon 500mm f4.0 AFS-II lens from the top of a Land Rover. Last weekend I did a presentation at a "birds and blooms' weekend near Houston, TX and most of the bird images I used were taken with my trusty D 300s and not my FX bodies.
    I will also say that there are some darn good 30x zoom cameras out there right now with a fixed zoom that can be a good bird camera if the photographer knows how to shoot with such a camera. While there are some limitations with these cameras, these limitations might not apply to many photographers. Chasing the latest and most expensive gear is rarely the best solution.
    Joe Smith
     
  39. While reading this post, I am looking at my 56 inch wide print on canvas of a female lion on a tree limb in the Serengeti taken with my D300s and my Nikon 500mm f4.0 AFS-II lens from the top of a Land Rover. Last weekend I did a presentation at a "birds and blooms' weekend near Houston, TX and most of the bird images I used were taken with my trusty D 300s and not my FX bodies.
    I will also say that there are some darn good 30x zoom cameras out there right now with a fixed zoom that can be a good bird camera if the photographer knows how to shoot with such a camera. While there are some limitations with these cameras, these limitations might not apply to many photographers. Chasing the latest and most expensive gear is rarely the best solution.
    Joe Smith
     
  40. this thread actually made me feel a lot better about still using my d300s. i think it would be a mistake to sell it, because nikon may never make a prosumer DX body with that level of responsiveness again. and as i said earlier, for event shooting with flash or in daylight conditions, it's still capable of great pics. i've gone up to 16x20 with it but i could probably go bigger... as i said on another thread it wouldnt be my first choice for a professional fashion shoot but i'd take it over the more recent consumer models with larger sensors but less-responsive bodies. it just feels right in the hand, especially for action shooting.
    00cRks-546173784.jpg
     
  41. If you have plenty of light and shoot at low ISO a D300, 300s and even a D200 still take very good images. For daylight events I still use the ole D200 with a 70-200 and it makes absolutely usable images. I even had a shoot on harbor cruise and didn't want to take my newer model as it was in the day time, so I used the D200 with a 17-35 and got what I felt were great results. I wouldn't try to deepend on it in low light though. But for daytime shooting these cameras are great.
     
  42. Clark Little is simply the master when it comes to shooting spectacular photos from inside shore break waves. According to this story he is still using a D300. His images are fascinating. Plus, he and the D300 take quite a beating when he gets pounded by the bigger waves. Clark is making big bucks, while living the dream.
    "His tool is a Nikon D300 with a fish eye lens. The ultra-wide angle fish eye creates a wide panoramic picture. The camera is then cased into a waterproof box." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2578228/Surfer-ditches-board-camera-capture-precise-moment-biggest-waves-break-positions-right-them.html

    Also, check out his website and the short video that CBS did on him. I saw a longer story on him, but can't remember where. http://www.clarklittlephotography.com/
     
  43. wow, amazing surf shots. i'm sold on the d300!
     
  44. While I tend to agree with Shun that Nikon isn't likely to bring a real D300 successor out, if a thread like this one would be statistical evidence, it would show them to be greatly wrong. And personally, yes, I'll take my D300 over a D7100 still for ergonomics - in my view, the D300/D700/D800 bodies are just laid out better than the D7x00/D6x0.
    But this thread isn't statistically of much importance and won't make Nikon change their mind probably - most people in this thread have used a D300(s) or still do, so we're biased enough. And yet, still... I'm not too convinced that it's a smart move. There is a clear benefit in having a DX/FX mixed kit where both bodies behave nearly identical, like the D300/D700 gave. A "D4 DX", a (very) specialised niche product, to me would make some sense still. But I just don't see it happening, and with every month that passes without an announcement, it's getting more unlikely.
     
  45. ISO 1600 is not enough and still at that range, you need to post-process your pic to clean it up a bit more with the right software. I also have a D300 but I need a camera that allow me to shoot very clean shots at ISO 6400 or more. I struggle a lot with this camera when I am shooting weddings. I MUST have more ISO and my beloved D300, simply, is lacking this extremely important capability.
    Depending on what your style is, you may pass on ISO or not. If you are a wedding photographer, you are in the “red zone” with the D300s, especially if they do not allow you to use your speedlight. You will struggle and suffer. If you are a sport photographer, you are not even close to shoot indoor sports with the D300s and get excellent results. On the other side, if you a dedicated landscape photographer, then you do not really need high ISO but a very good tripod and play with your speed. If you are shooting indoor, street, low-light, definitely, you will need more ISO than the D300s allow you.
    The best DX camera at the moment is the D7100. Better ISO ( up to 3200 clean shots and very usable shots at 6400 ), better sensor, 24mp and still, 51 AF points. The only problem with this camera is the buffer issue. If Nikon fix it in the expected D7200 and increase the ISO to take clean shots at 6400 ISO, then, this will be my next camera, otherwise, I would have not other choice that to buy the D7100.
    But if you Michael are satisfied with what the D300s allow you to do, according to your style, then I guess you should stay with that camera. Good luck !
     
  46. As long as you know what your camera
    can and cannot do and it meets your
    needs, you are in good shape. I still
    use my D200s for some things, love
    the D 5100 with the fold out screen and
    nice and light and small for shooting in
    theater or jazz venue. Main bag right
    now is pair of D7100 with mixed
    lenses. So, whatever works to express
    yourself and get the job done.
     
  47. Which is why I am still with my D300 after 4 years despite having tried M43 and NEX in my bid tofind a replacement and daily shooter, neither has come close to replicating my Nikon when it comes to fast, accurate AF. Maybe all I need is a used D3200 for travel and some new glass and ... and ... and...
     
  48. According to some comments, I guess I have to consider myself lucky that the concerts and events I shoot are lit well enough most times not to use a flash, but in really low light situations I was allowed a flash. I haven't encountered an indoor sport where the light was so low I couldn't use 1600 ISO; volleyball, basketball, etc. I'm not even sure I've ever seen a really low light indoor sport.
     
  49. Maurice
    If you read all of my posts on this thread you will see that I use a D4 as well as the D300 and D300s
    And all three of them work just fine for me.
     
  50. People talk about "needing" more pixels. I'd have more sympathy if I wasn't still getting this type of requests from people at magazines: "We need a bigger image--you sent one at 72ppi and we need 300ppi". So I respond, OK, how large? and they write back "300ppi". So I re-spec the same one I sent them to print at 300ppi, and they are happy like pigs in mud.
    I saw two nice things recently in the same vein: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2316701&postcount=13
    and http://newcameranews.com/2014/02/26/interview-with-dajiro-jones-prize-winning-photographer/
     
  51. 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.
    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.
     
  52. 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.

    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 bad, of course.

    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.

    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 better. But there's no doubt that the improvement is incremental. (I pretty much don't still use the 300D, to follow the theme of the thread, but I do still use my F5 and my Pentax 645.)
     
  53. 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.
     
  54. Oops. I seem to have mistyped a close italics. Sorry.


    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.
     
  55. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    If it's good enough when you bought it then it should be good enough now why should it changes?​
    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.
    Andrew, I fixed you italics.
     
  56. If it's good enough when you bought it then it should be good enough now why should it changes?​
    Ever heard of aspirations? Trying things more difficult than you're used to doing? To do that do you need better kit?
    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.​
    With that sort of thinking you'd still be happy with Fox Talbot kit from 1850 and not be here on the Nikon forum.
    Technological Progress is not a bad thing. Stop Denying it!
     
  57. So far my aspirations over the last few years has been within the parameters of the D300s.
     
  58. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    So far my aspirations over the last few years has been within the parameters of the D300s.​
    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.
     
  59. With that sort of thinking you'd still be happy with Fox Talbot kit from 1850 and not be here on the Nikon forum.​
    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.
    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.
     
  60. Because my requirements change; in fact, I am getting more and more picky every year because technology makes higher quality possible​
    MM Good example of "The availability creates the need"....
     
  61. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    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.
    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.
     
  62. 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.
    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.
    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 !
     
  63. "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"




    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.
     
  64. 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.
     
  65. 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!
     
  66. 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.

    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.

    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.
     
  67. If the once-in-a-lifetime shot falls just outside the abilities of the camera to do justice to, maybe it matters.​
    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.
    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!
    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!
    *Maybe even just 2 would be of great benefit?
     
  68. 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 check 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.

    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.

    Now, improving ISO performance by using trichroic prisms 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.
     
  69. I think the D7100 runs rings around the D300/s ,but you say your happy so what does it matter....
     

Share This Page