Should I buy Nikon D300s?

<p>

<p>I am THINKING of moving up from the Nikon D40x to the Nikon D300s. I own two Nikon lenses (18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 and 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6) but will be purchasing more. <br>

I shoot mainly wildlife/landscape/nature in low light near sunrise and sunset times and will be doing HDR. I would GREATLY appreciate any comments/feedback from D300s users OR people knowledgeable about this camera.<br>

Sincerely,<br>

Gregory</p>

</p>

<p>..perhaps investing in a 'really good' lens might be money better spent ?</p>

<p>If you can wait, why don't you wait for a DX version of the D3S sensor (12800 ISO should be good for you, specially since your lenses are not very fast).</p>

<p>Better ISO performance and dynamic range do help. Why not just go for a D700. Should be no problem selling your 18-135. </p>

<p>David-<br>

I have outgrown D40x. There are features I need that it does not have.</p>

<p>Tommy-<br>

I seriously thought of the D700; however after researching the lenses I realized that there are more choices and price points offered in the DX format. Also, my current DX lens will maintain high resolution on the DX format cameras, whereas on the FX format (D700) the DX lens would provide about 5 or 6mp. </p>

<p>Nish-<br>

I do not want to wait for a possible DX version of D3S because I have no idea when that will come out IF it does come out. Do you know something that I don't?</p>

<p>The D300 or D 300s is an excellent choice for wildlife/nature/landscape work. I have no problem recommending it over a body with a full frame sensor. I shoot with a D 300 and a D 300s. If you need an upgrade now, by the model that best meets your needs and budget now. Joe smith </p>

<p>For wildlife, stick with DX. You are far better off. Wildlife shots really come down to the lens, and a solid tripod/head to support it. You don't seem to have either. Buy a used or refurb D90, put the big money on a lens. And a tripod/head. You will make better wildlife photos with your D40 + Nikon 300mm f4 & TC-14E than you will with D700 + 70-300mm f5.6. The importance of cameras is typically way over rated by beginners.<br>

<br />Kent in SD</p>

<p>What Kent said. You don't need the D300 for low light. You need a better lens and tripod. I like his recommendation. </p>

<p>I third what Kent said. What the D300S has over a D90 is irrelevant for landscape photography. I would take every penny saved and invest in tripod and a good ballhead. I use Manfrotto/Bogen as it is what I consider to be the best $/quality available. I can also recommend the Nikon 300mm f/4 lens, which I don't own but have used along with a TCE14 v2. That is a remarkably sharp 630mm FX equivalent for the money. You could never hand hold that in most situations, but on a tripod (especially using the shutter delay feature and the 2 sec self timer to allow any vibrations to dissipate prior to the shutter opening) it can be very good.</p>

<p>Hi Gregory,<br>

I wouldn't advise getting a D90 for landscape/wildlife since the camera is not weather sealed. One of my friends D90s has become an expensive paperweight because of water intrusion while on a shoot near some waterfalls. Buy a D300! </p>

<p>With digital, using a good body is equivalent to using good film in the old days. Get a 14 bit camera with weather sealing =D300s. Look for a used bargain tele. My wildlife lens is a 600mm manual focus from the 1980's.</p>

<p>I 100% agree with RL Potts. A good camera is important and is equivalent to good film. It isn't all 100% about just great lenses anymore. I'm about to purhcase a D300s because of that same realization. The better your camera processes a RAW image the better your final product may be. It is not just the lens, although I wouldn't buy a poorly rated one.</p>

<p>You can't go wrong with the Nikon D300s. If you are serious and committed to your hobby or avocation then you should at least get the Nikon 200-400mm f4 (<a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Camera-Lenses/Autofocus/Super-Telephoto.page">other options</a>). I'd rather not hear any whining about the price. Where there is a genuine will, there is a way. Save up or get a part-time job. If you want the best, you can get it. The optics you are now using represent a major compromise for real wildlife photography and replacing them is more important than replacing your camera. I would also look into one of Nikon's high end <a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Camera-Lenses/Autofocus/Wide-Angle-Zoom.page">wide angle zooms</a> for your landscape work.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You can also buy an older manual focus lens like the 400mm f/5.6 (see deer shot with this lens propped up on the car window in my portfolio). The camera is a D300, which will meter with manual AI and AIS lenses, which gives you a wider selection of used options than lenses that don't meter with manual Nikkors of old. The D300 used is quite reasonable these days what with people switching to D700 cameras.</p>

<p> I'd rather not hear any whining about the price. Where there is a genuine will, there is a way. Save up or get a part-time job. If you want the best, you can get it.</p>

<p>So Robert you are saying if you can't afford thousands for lenses don't even bother, what sort of BS is that "save up or get a part time job" that's the most insulting advice I've seen on this forum for some time, for your information there are many dedicated photographers who do quite well without a huge arsenal of expensive lenses. My advice to the original poster would be hone your skills take lot's of pictures gain experience and find out for yourself what's preventing you from getting the images you want, throwing money at the problem is not the way<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Steve,</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>So Robert you are saying if you can't afford thousands for lenses don't even bother...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't put words in my post. I never said that. Quite the opposite.</p>

<p>I knew one or more people would not agree with my opinion, but I certainly did not foresee insulting anyone. I stand by my advice. It reflects my late father's wisdom who started out life without anything, including both parents. I've done well for myself and owe much of that success to my father's guidance. I believe you can accomplish anything you put your mind to. </p>

<p>I'm with Robert.</p>

<p>Robert's post isn't insulting; it's reasonable advice. (And Steve, even if it <em>is, </em>if it's the <em>most </em>insulting thing you've read on photo.net, then I'll bet my salary this is the only thread you've ever read on photo.net.) If you can't afford a lens you want, do you a) whine about it, or b) set a goal and devise means of achieving that goal? I don't see the insult, here.</p>

<p>Gregory, the issue of weather-sealing is an interesting question the relevance of which only you can determine. How have you done with your D40x? Any problems with water or dirt getting places it shouldn't? If so, then the extra ruggedness of the D300s could be valuable to you.</p>

<p>By contrast, if you've never had a problem and don't anticipate going swimming with your camera, then a D90 has substantially similar image quality and features, and leaves several hundred dollars available for glass. And glass is just never, ever a bad investment.</p>

<p>I agree with Kent, with two reservations: If being out in the rain is a priority, you want the D300S weather sealing, and if you want to track fast moving animals the AF system and faster burst fire of the D300S will help. There are other features that are probably not important to you, so aside from those factors the D300S and D90 are essentially the same camera. Both are excellent.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.ewa-marine.de/index.php?id=515">Ewa-Marine</a> for that added protection in inclement weather.</p>

<p>How about a D300? Unless you need that extra frame-per-second and the SD card capability, the D300 is exactly the same camera, and substantially cheaper ($1319 US at KEH for a 'like new' used D300, v. $1939 for a new D300s at Adorama). At $1319 it's also only about a hundred bucks more than a new D90.</p>

<p>The only similarity between the D90 and the D300s is the image quality produced by the sensor....since they share the same sensor. Aside from that they are VERY different cameras. The D300s offers plenty of upgrades that make it a worthy purchase over a D90.<br>

Unless the extra $ spent on the D300s prevents you from investing into a good tripod and quality glass....buying the D300s is a very good decision. It's a great camera and I cannot say anything bad about it at all. As others have mentioned the weather seals should be a very big consideration if you are shooting a lot out doors. I recently shot for the first time in the rain and it scared the h*** out of me.....but I had no issues at all. <br>

Pro's<br>

Dual Card slots, weather seals, better AF system(by a long shot), ability to use Ai and AIS lenses, virtual horizon, 100% viewfinder, more shots per battery charge, better metering system, higher frame rate, and a VERY big improvement in the body and interface. </p>

<p>Con's<br>

Heavier, lacks auto settings vs the D90, higher price</p>

<p>I don't think you can under state the pro's I listed above. Those improvements IMO are huge when comparing the two cameras. Yes side by side in the exact same situation the D90 will produce equally good image quality. But that really doesn't matter if miss a shot you would have other wise nailed using a D300s. <br>

For the $ the D90 is a great camera so don't misunderstand what I am saying. Also it is true...your glass is more important then the body. Given the two lenses the original poster is using , I'd say upgrading your lens options should be a priority for the type of shooting he is doing.</p>

<p>Glass is important for wildlife shots, but your 70-300 will do the job for now. No snob factor but it delivers, as you probably know already.<br>

Get a D300 or D300s. It will meet your needs in quite a foreseeable time, in which you can save up for more expensive lenses.<br>

In the bush, a monopod may have advantages to a tripod. And, if a monopod fails to stabilise the camera enough, the shutter time is too long to catch live animals anyway.<br>

The difference between 300 and 300s mainly boils down to video and dual card slots.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> At $1319 it's also only about a hundred bucks more than a new D90</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Wow! Riley, you shop in some expensive places for a D90. More like a Five Hundred Dollar difference.</p>