Thinking of updating D300

[ntrphotos]

So I have a D300 and I'm thinking of updating. I'd like to stay with the dx format to keep the lenses I have for that format. The new D800

is nice but I would not get full use with the dx lenses so do I wait and see if Nikon comes out with a new dx model in the same class as

the D300 or go with the D800 and have to update lenses as it seems the switch is on to more full frame camers? Thanks for any help.

[LenMarriott]

<p>Charlie, who among us has not been tempted to do that? In your quest for a definitive answer may I suggest you check out Ken Rockwell's article (search "upgrade" ) in your research? Big brother on this Nikon forum won't allow the grownups to decide for themselves the value of Ken's site. So no link is permitted. Sorry. Best, LM.</p>

[djolk]

<p>Ken Rockwell will just tell you the D800 is the best camera ever. Or maybe the D7000. Or actually no the 5DMK3 is better. Oh wait, better get that Fuji X1 pro. Or an M9. Actually, just shoot Velvia, its better.</p>

[rossb]

<p> I suppose you could make a list of the things the D300 is lacking. Then decide if there is a model that would provide those qualities at the price point you are considering. I do not know what Nikon might come out with in the future. But a person might think the D400 should come out sometime. Since they do not seem to be able to get their current models out in circulation I am not sure what good it would be to bring out another camera you cannot actually purchase. However I personally do not upgrade camera's. I would just shoot the D300 and be happy to have such a nice camera. When I get to the point where I must go buy stuff I just tell my wife and she sets me straight about wasting money and polluting the earth. Then I forget about it for a while. </p>

[Sanford]

<p>I think the point of all those MP in the D800 is so that it could be used as a DX camera and still have better than respectable numbers. It switches between FX and DX according to which type lens is mounted, or so I've read.</p>

 

[warren_wilson]

<p>It is NOT a rumor to report that Nikon Rumors is predicting three more digital cameras this year. </p>

<p>charlie -- I am entirely with you on the conundrum: though over the last few years I have been migrating back to "FX" lenses that I used to use on my film bodies, I am still pondering whether I need 36 MPx. The "problem" is that there is essentially nothing wrong with the D300. I think it was the nefarious Ken Rockwell himself who opined that digital camera technology is now mature and will consequently become more stable.</p>

<p>I think I will work on my eye and art using my D300 for a while yet: just this week I did some body repair with duct tape, and it is holding up nicely.</p>

 

[jose_angel]

<p>Nikon could release anything when they consider the right moment... so if there isn`t a perfect choice for you in the market right now, my advice is to keep shooting as you did yesterday.</p>

<p>The D800 is the ony camera on its class, so I think there must be something different in the future; it all depends on their sales, demands, etc. There isn`t a D700s kind of camera, so I expect something in this level in a near future. If the D800 or D7000 doesn`t work for you, wait for another, or wait to see how the market runs. There is a deep financial crisis in some european countries, so I expect sales to be dramatically lowered, at least in this year.</p>

<p>It could be that the D300 will never be updated; top DX cameras being D7000 type. It could be that advanced amateurs were forced to jump to FX; then there should be a "cheaper" D700 replacement. Who knows?</p>

[abib_b]

<p>I've had a D300 for more than 4 years and think it's perfect except for two things: ISO above 1250 or so and wide angle. If those are your problems and they are pressing then you should think about upgrading, though you wouldn't get much more than a stop of improvement right now. But a D800 seems like a very expensive toy if you want to stay with DX.<br>

Personally, I covet an FX camera for high ISO, wide aperture wide angle (I have the 12-24 F4) and for portraits (I have a Zeiss 100mm that gets little use): my photographic interests have changed since I got the camera. But I also don't think that my photography will improve if I get one, so I'm waiting until the queues clear for the new cameras</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Thom Hogan recently posited an interesting situation.</p>

<p>Scenario... The D300 "class" goes away as a DX product, the replacement is a low cost FX D400</p>

<p>A camera with the D300 capabilities (but perhaps not the D300 size) appears as a D8000 series, presumably with the kind of AF that will make the D300 user who is upgrading happy.</p>

<p>So...</p>

<p>consumer: D3x00, D5x00, D7x00, D8x00<br />FX: D400, D800, D800E<br />Super-rugged: D4</p>

<p>Not saying I "WANT" that, but it might make sense from a marketing standpoint.</p>

<p>The bottom line is this. If I were looking to upgrade a D300, I'd be waiting to see what happens this year. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>If I were looking to upgrade a D300, I'd be waiting to see what happens this year.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly (and exactly what I'm doing...).<br>

One nice thing is: if Thom Hogan's ideas aren't correct, the D800 remains a great option, even with (occassional) use of DX lenses. Its DX crop mode is practically a D7000 - more than enough for most too, and you can gradually upgrade your remaining DX lenses that way.Not the best of both worlds maybe, but not far off either.<br>

And if Thom Hogan turns out to be right, choosing will become much harder :D</p>

[abib_b]

It is worth mentioning one more thing with the D800: your

DX lenses may not be up to its exacting needs. You could

find that you need to spend another 2x times its cost on lenses to get the best image quality from it and cropping wil

only make this more evident. So the fully loaded cost of that camera is very high. See, for example, the lensrentals.com

blog.

 

 

All told, you are better off waiting for the next generation of

DX cameras.

[Two23]

<p>There's no way I'd buy a $3,000 D800 for use in DX mode. That makes no sense at all. You could buy a refurb D7000 for a bit less than a third of that and have $2,000 left over for better lenses etc., or a trip to Iceland! I too use a D300, and I'm sitting tight & waiting. I have little doubt Nikon will replace that camera. They will not cede that price point over to the Canon 7D. In the meantime what I've done is buy a reburb D5100 for ~$500. It has a ~16mp sensor and movie mode, and the low light capability of the D7000. Made a lot more sense to me to spend five hundred bucks than three thousand. When a "D400" comes out, the D5100 will make a great back up and compact travel camera.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[orcama60]

<p>Charlie, I also have a D300 and I am waiting to upgrade but this is what I do think about : I must have two cameras and If I had enough money right now, my two cameras will be the D4 and the D800. Why ? For landscaping, macro and architecture, the D800 is the best in the market. For any other type of photography, the D4. Now, If I had the money and the D400 would be available, I would pick the D400 and the D800. Why ? Because I like the xtra range with DX lenses and that way I could use my lenses with another DX camera better than the D300. <br>

I do agree with Abib. The D300 is a great camera, but sometimes, I need to increase my ISO and we know the D300 is not that good in this department. Other than that, I have no complaint about my camera D300. <br>

If I do not have enough money to buy two new cameras, then in I would wait for the D400. Practically I am on your shoes. I am waiting for this camera to be available and that will be my first camera and I would keep my D300 as a second camera. For now, that is exactly what I am doing. </p>

<p>There are other options, like the D7000 but this camera is not that good for shooting in RAW due to the buffer problem and I do not want to rush myself. I better wait another 6 months or the entire 2012 to see if Nikon give us the expected D400, otherwise, if they decide not to, then I will try to buy the D800. What I do like about this camera is that I will use it for macro, landscaping, low light and architecture. For sport, portrait and wedding, my D300. </p>

<p>I think you need to define yourself what is it that you want to do with photography before you go for another camera but I do believe it is a good practice to have at least two cameras and in my case, I would like to have a DX and FX if possible. Good luck and read what Thom Hogan is saying about the new D800 and the D4 and the lack of DX cameras we do have right now, except for the consumer cameras like the new D3200 and the D7000, which is not in my opinion, the next step in the ladder for me. I do agree with Daniel. Ken will tell you to buy the last one in the market but that is his opinion. As a photographer, you need to decide what camera is the one you need for the type of photography you do. But if you have the money and you want to add another camera to your arsenal, I would pick the D800 for sure but you know this means, that you would have to buy some lenses to match a FX camera like that one, otherwise, I would wait and welcome to the club. I do have the same problem you do.</p>

<p>Best regards,<br>

Maurice.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>So I have a D300 and I'm thinking of updating. I'd like to stay with the dx format to keep the lenses I have for that format.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To the OP, can you specify the reasons that you are not happy with the D300's features so that you want to upgrade? Technically, Nikon's top-of-the-line DX body is currently the D300S, which is not that different from the original D300 + 720p HD video capture and dual memory cards.</p>

<p>Since Nikon can no longer sell the D300S in Japan due to the EN-EL3e battery it uses, it seems obvious that an upgrade is overdue. In the last year and half, I prefer the D7000 over the D300 due to the D7000's better high-ISO capabilities, but not everybody likes the smaller size of the D7000.</p>

<p>My guess is that Nikon will introduce a successor to the D300S in the coming months. Currently on the DX front, Nikon is just recovering from the Thai flood late last year. The recent announcement of the D3200 seems to indicate that things are finally back to normal. I expect more new-camera introduction in late August to early September after the attention to the Olympics is over and before Photokina in Germany. In 2012, Photokina is from September 18 to 23. Most new cameras are announced a few weeks prior to the show.</p>

<p>Another wildcard is that any successor to the D300S will almost for sure use the same EN-EL15 battery as the D7000 and D800. A lot of such batteries are being recalled. Nikon has to replace a lot of existing batteries that are already in customer's hands and also supply to new D800, D7000, and V1 purchases. The shortage of EN-EL15 will likely delay any new camera introduction in the next 2, 3 months: <a href="00aJHo">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00aJHo</a></p>

<p>P.S. I would take Thom Hogan's future camera predictions with a small grain of sale. He can correctly predict the obvious stuffs such as the D4 will follow the D3 before the Olympics, as most of us who know a thing or two about Nikon can. For others stuffs, he misses as often as he hits.</p>

[Kent Shafer]

<p>The OP specifies two alternatives:</p>

<ul>

<li>Do nothing (free).</li>

<li>Get a D800 and update lenses (US$8,000–$10,000 for a basic set-up, depending on whether he also needs a new computer).</li>

</ul>

<p>The second alternative would be more fun.</p>

[ntrphotos]

Thanks everyone for your input. I should have said thinking of second camera. I am very happy with the D300 it's just I

could use a second camera and pretty much like I thought there is not right now nothing right now worth updating to. So I

guess I'll wait and see what Nikon comes out with in the future. Not really looking to spend $5000 plus for the basic D800

setup. Again Thanks all for input.

[joseph_smith3]

<p>Yesterday, I just used my D 300s with battery pack with my 500mm f 4.0 AFS II lens. Every picture was taken at 8 FPS and I still missed some good bird action at nests, not flight shots. The D 800 is missing 8 fps; it has a top rate of 6 fps with battery pack and that is a 25% reduction or step backward. Not for me. I looked at some of my 12 megapixel images and they are just wonderrful. I have a 56 inch print from my D300s and my 500mm f4.0. What more do I really need (except higher ISO capabilities.) Now if a D 400 came out with 10 fps and higher ISO, etc.</p>

<p>Joe Smith</p>

[ellery_chua___singapore]

<p>Charlie,<br>

While you did no say which areas you find lacking in your D300 nor if this is for hobby or work. Hobby normally has a budget - yes even if the wife see this I said it grin keeping to the straight and narrow is another thing entirely. Okay I am find my wife's D5100 to be surprising good once you get past the issues - its small, it works in a strange way read that as different. Then when you use this in low light, tungsten or artificial lights, its strong points suddenly shine through.<br>

1. AF in low light is remarkable more effective than the D300. With same lens in same setting, the D300 has some problems acquiring focus, the D5100 does not miss a beat.<br>

2. Higher ISO, cleaner image - D5100 has a workable max limit of 3200 maybe 5000 if you have no choice, the D300 is probably maxing out at 1600 to last resort 2500. I would have to post process to balance of Nikon's gift of texture grain in the D300 more than in the D5100.<br>

3. It can do video sort of.<br>

4. It auto white balance is more advance and intelligent vs the D300, in menu you can tweak the WB Y-B or G-M setting effectively do something like a kevin dial in. <br>

Hadda to admit what looked like a toy camera actuals hold its own and pulls ahead of the D300 in certain circumstances.<br>

I would most probably get the D800 but not just yet. There appears to be some settling down that has to be done first. Nikon has also to redesign the 24-70/2.8 to have VR. This puppy plays better with VR lens, yes we could remember to brace, lock before shooting but sometimes there is no time for that. The camera in the D5100, D7000 range are for the time being good substitutes. </p>

 

[johne37179]

<p>Digital cameras are like commuters and new cars. Remember when you would not need more than 256K of RAM? Remember cars when radios and heaters were options? (Probably not for most of you.) It is important to separate the "I wants" from the "needs" and the "nice to have, but rarely used."<br>

I like new equipment. I upgraded to a D7000 from a D70. It is not that the D70 was bad, but it was worn out. I'm thinking about replacing my car -- not because it doesn't do the job, but because with 200,000 miles on it, the upkeep is about as expensive on a per mile as buying a new one. <br>

I think there is a D800 in my future, but only because I really like wide shots and right now my path to that is to use stitching software with my 10mm DX shots. That works, so the $3000K for a D800 seems like a real extravagance -- and I'd need to shell out for a wide FX lens. That has cured my current "I want" for the D800.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>I can't fathom why Nikon would replace the D300 with another semi-pro DX camera (e.g. D400). The D3200 just came out, I suppose the D7000 will become the D7200, or whatever. There have been no new professional grade DX lenses in what, 6-7 years? If you want to keep shooting your old 12-24 and 17-55, just run them on a D800 in crop mode.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Dan, besides the lower cost for DX sensors, the other main advantage is the crop when using long telephoto lenses. That is precisely why a lot of leading wildlife photographers prefer DX. And for lens telephoto lenses, there is no point to make decidated DX lenses. FX long teles serve both FX and DX very well. </p>

<p>Personally, I prefer to use the D7000 over the D800 for wildlife work. The 36MP on the D800 is like you are carrying useless extra weight that is slowing you down. I by far prefer the smaller NEF files from the D7000. Now only if the D7000 has a larger memory buffer, faster frame rate, and maybe a bit better AF ....</p>

[Two23]

<p>

Now only if the D7000 has a larger memory buffer, faster frame rate, and maybe a bit better AF ....

</p>

<p>Oh, you mean like a "D400"!</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Shun, with high density sensors, like the D800, all the benefits you itemize exist by merely cropping the image, or operating in DX crop mode. It comes down to price. The D800 is a bargain at $2999. If Nikon wants to target a semi-pro model in the $2000 price range, it would be a far better marketing move to make that an FX sensor model. Otherwise, if it were an DX camera, it would have to offer some substantial advantage over the D3200 and D7000 bodies to justify the price differential. What could that be? Also, Nikon generally makes cameras to sell lenses, and as you mentioned, the longer glass is all FX, and the FX sensor gets the shooter more FOV with wider angle lenses. DX is defaulting to a consumer niche.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>DX is defaulting to a consumer niche.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We don't know this until we know what will happen with future models. As Shun has pointed out, there are folks, especially wildlife photographers who use a lot of telephoto, for whom DX still makes sense, professionally.</p>

<p>That said, I agree that it is highly likely that the small 4-digit cameras will be DX (but that there will be a D300 killer at the top of that line that won't make everybody happy), the 3-digit cameras will be FX (like the D800 and future D400), and the one-digit will be rugged flagships.</p>

<p>The shock right now is that the most resolution (in terms of megapixels) is available in the lower pro line, the next most is entry level, and THEN the next most is in the high-end flagship. THAT is a situation that will change, no doubt... </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I hope people can keep in mind that well over 90% of Nikon DSLRs sold is DX. If anything, FX is a niche product. They are just way too expensive.</p>