Purchasing a D300..

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by corysmith, Jan 3, 2019.

  1. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    All flavors of the D810 are discontinued. The A was just a niche off shoot from the D810. It is hard for it to stay in production while the regular D810 is not. Whoever needs one has bought it a long time ago. I would imagine Nikon just made a bunch of them and then sell them slowly. Therefore, you may still be able to find a new one somewhere.

    Very few DSLRs still in production use CF cards. Canon's 5D Mark 4 and some variations have dual CF/SD, and the 1Dx Mark 2 uses dual CF/CFast. Maybe some medium-format backs are still CF, but most cameras are now SD based, other than a few higher-end Nikon and the up-coming Panasonic FX mirrorless are using XQD/CFexpress.

    Therefore, when one is trying to save money getting a D300 or D700, you'll also need to spend some money on the EN-EL3e and CF, which will not be useful on future cameras but will definitely eat into the saving you think you are getting. If one instead buys some SD cards and EN-EL15 batteries, they will be useful for years to come.
     
  2. steve_g|2

    steve_g|2 Posting to strangers is just a hobby of mine.

    I'm having great luck with my en el3's, even a couple (black ones without the extra monitoring pin) that I got with a craigslist D100.
    Got 7 total from my D90 & D7100 days. YmmV
     
  3. Exactly. We are talking about some functioning D300/s selling for less than $200 here. That's why it makes sense to have one on the side - probably not the main camera forever. Re batteries: I have used 3rd party batteries and they were fine - inexpensive.
     
  4. That goes without saying. What I meant was that I prefer tools that do not look beat-up. If it's beat up by me (haha), I would soon sell and swap. Thank goodness there are people who would not mind buying equipment that do not look very good, as long as they function. :)
     
  5. You lost me. All the Nikon cameras I found searching for "Italdesign, Giugiaro, Nikon" are looking good. Btw, I am not aware of any ugly cameras, think because I like camera equipment. What I meant by "ugly" in a prior post did not mean an ugly design. It meant beat up, tattered, raggedy, scruffy, shabby, threadbare, bedraggled, tatterdemalion... - Merriam-Webster synonyms. Learned a few new words. :D
     
  6. I'd start an "ugly, etc, etc" n/w theme but I've already used up my daily allotment.
     
    Mary Doo likes this.
  7. Would posting a photo of an F3 result in my Nikon forum credentials being revoked? :)
     
    Mary Doo and Dieter Schaefer like this.
  8. Has to be an original F3, not the ugly F3HP.
     
    Mary Doo likes this.
  9. Mary Doo likes this.
  10. Given my professed love of the F4, I figured I'd invite a comment like that :)

    I will concede that the F4 styling is a bit...unconventional...
     
  11. Happy to be of service :D
    I admit that when the camera came out I considered it downright ugly - but it did grow on me. :cool:
     
    Mary Doo likes this.
  12. It's time to load up another roll of Ektachrome. I had said I would use my yet-unused(by me) F3HP, but perhaps I'll just go with the F4s again...the F4 has a roll of Velvia in it that will probably stay there until the spring.

    I just wish I could find a K screen, or at least something with a focusing aid. I have an F5 L screen, which is probably even more rare than an F4 K, but of course it doesn't do me any good in an F4.

    I have seen reports of folks transplanting F3 screens into F4 frames, and I'm almost tempted to toss a few extra B screens onto my next KEH order to try that. To my eye, a red-dot K screen is about as bright as a B screen on an F4, so hopefully it could be done without needing to dial in exposure compensation. I'd even try just dropping in an F3 screen, but there are conflicting reports as to whether or not the F3 screen will seat correctly(and thus give correct focus).
     
  13. Hmm... never thought this discussion would inspire one to excavate moribund film from the fridge or morgue again. Thought that most here (with just a few dissenting votes) have considered the D300 to be ancient and primitive enough. But now to revive prehistoric gear? :eek::D:p
     
    Nick D. likes this.
  14. Is it resting or unconscious?

    I can feel a Norwegian Blue quote coming on....:D

     
    Mary Doo likes this.
  15. Too funny. Did someone shoot the bird with a Nikon camera? :D:eek::p
     
  16. Personally, I went to the obvious D300 upgrade at the time, the (7xxx/5xxx.) I won't go long but short story "I ended up with several years of bad IQ photos in my Lightroom blob."

    I lost hope. I even bought a couple Canon's higher end P&S's. (Which are wonderful.)

    I then went lowball and got a D700. It was good. (I also have an antique 14mp Kodak.)
    When the D850 appeared I gambled and got a low mile D800. My copy, the body became like my old D300. Pretty much any lens mounted produces "gold."


    Why is the D7200 selling for $700, New? (I know, why.) Nikon slowly moved the masses to FX and though I'm sure the D500 may be a superb camera, it's too late for myself to even consider it.

    Buy a D300. The build is top notch. It produces excellent images. (Just beware, you may be shunned if you discuss it here.)
     
  17. Rather late contribution to this - I use mft extensively for travel (incl. e-P2 - don't laugh) but also Nikon DSLR for everyday/ when not travelling work. I shoot landscape/ people/ abstract.

    Purchase history (2010) D3000> D70?>D40?>D90>D60?>D7000>D7200>D610>D3200>D300>D700 (2018). What I kept ultimately were D300/D700 and D610. most used? D300 indeed. You ask why? Abslolute best balance between weight, ergonomics and image quality (to me 12 MP is the base threshold for images not looking too "electronic") for my needs. You've got to ask yourself - how often I shoot beyound ISO 3200+ and print big?I printed A4 (8x12) from a ISO 3200 and looks great (people shots).

    Why back to square 1 you ask - because of all the grief and suffering those 16 - 24 MP sensors gave me - focus errors, camera shake, mirrorslap, shutter shock, lens not good enough to resolve all them pixles etc. (my absolute beloved best is the Nikkor 18-70, on D300 of course). Absolute worst? Nikon d3200 - useless 24 Mpx for anything but tripod work and no MUP mind. These cameras should not be used outside the green auto mode + JPEG realm as Nikon (shamefully) intended and is this case you might as well buy compact.

    Note - Nikon's current DX flagship is 20MP, would I buy? absolutely not because it gives me no advantage based on my current needs - these are well covered by the D300.

    YMMV
     
  18. I'm not entirely sure that's the cameras fault!

    They were still there but you just couldn't see them.....;)

    PS. I still use my D300 + Grip for remote machine gun...!
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2019
  19. Erm...:) sure it's the tiny pixel 24MP camera's fault if you can see them on 24 MP ;) - what one does not see does not exist - but then again, that's the whole point of the absurdity of the upgrade allure. What I find absolutely ridiculous is that some so-called-experts advocate higher resolution sensors because you could down-sample ironing out lens shortcomings (providing you did not cough up on new lenses) but, lo and behold, reducing noise notwithstanding the cost and complexity of acquiring new gear for us "advanced-armatures" and how large one'd acually want to print if ever.

    If the aim is to admire detail at 100% and fret about how much one can recover dragging highight sliders then by all means - As said, YMMV.
     
  20. .....and then some bugger invented the microscope/telescope.

    .....and then a tree fell over in a forest, but it's OK, 'cos no-one saw it.

    and then philosophy went to a really silly place.
     
    bitphotospace likes this.

Share This Page

1111