Leapfrogging Technology

[Sanford]

<p>Is it fair to say that the entry level Nikon DSLRs of today far exceed the picture taking abilities of the D300?</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>In certain regards, yes. The d300 still is superior in build and fps speed. The other strong feature of the d300 has been its incredible durability.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>I think the D300 and D700 were the first two cameras that entered the DSLR technology plateau. There are still folks using these machines 5-7 years after they were introduced. Surely, the D800 and D600 will be serviceable for a good number of years to come.</p>

<p>I feel sure my Df will serve me well for over 10 years.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I'd actually say the D300 and D700 were the last of the "old generation" of sensors. Sensors since the D7000 generation have been almost ISO-less in response, and there's not much between them in terms of dynamic range. The D700 and D3 sensor were appreciably worse at low ISO. There have been a few exceptions (the D3s, D4/s and Df all lack the low-ISO dynamic range of the others).<br />

<br />

The current 24MP bodies used by Nikon are all very similar in performance, and the D7000/D5100 weren't far behind. And they stomp on the D300's sensor. Does this make them better cameras? It depends whether you timed your shot right, got your subject in focus, and whether you ran out of buffer while shooting a sequence.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I feel sure my Df will serve me well for over 10 years.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>10 years from the time the Df was introduced (late 2013) would be 2023. We'll revisit that comment by the end of 2016. :-)</p>

<p>Concerning the original question, I think all Nikon DSLRs introduced since the beginning of 2014 have better video capability than the D300.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p><i>Video</i>? All cameras that have video support at all have better video than the D300!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Andrew, that was why I specified 2014, as Nikon introduced the Df at the end of 2013 and the Df has no video. :-)</p>

[fotolopithecus]

<p>Having had the D300, D7000, D610, and now the D7100, I can say quite confidently the best for overall image quality in DX was the D7000. It couldn't compete in absolute terms with the D610, but I preferred it. My hope for the D7200 (or whatever it will be called) is a camera with the D7100's body, and resolution, with the D7000's noise, and dynamic range. I know, on paper the D7100 already has that, but in the real world it ain't so. I chalk it up to the differences between the Sony Emor sensor (great) compared with the Toshiba sensor (very good).</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p><i>Oh</i>. Sorry Shun, I'm slow today. :-)</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>And they stomp on the D300's sensor. Does this make them better cameras? It depends whether you timed your shot right, got your subject in focus, and whether you ran out of buffer while shooting a sequence.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This. Plus how the whole thing works in <em>your</em> hands. I've used D5x00 and D7x00s quite a few times, and in my hands, something just doesn't connect as quickly and fluently as it does with a D300, D700 etc. Somebody handed me his D800, and it was "at home" straight away. On the D5x00 there is always some button I cannot find, and the D7x00 handgrips cramps my hand after some time.<br>

Dynamic range of the D300 at higher ISOs did sometimes really have its limits, but other than that, I think sensors have reached such a high level (whoever produces them and whichever brand camera they're inserted into) that they're no longer the biggest worry in "picture taking abilities"; all of them utterly capable. It's in my view all the other characteristics that matter a lot more (and no, then a D300 isn't overtaken by a D3200 or D3300).</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>Knowledge, artistic ability and technique are far more important than any technical differences. That said. There are times I would choose the D300 over a more modern camera. If I was shooting fast action sports on good light for example I would choose it over the D7100 though the D7100 is a wonderful camera with better image quality.</p>

<p>The real truth is that for the average advanced amateur or professional, improving ones skills through training and education will show more improvement on the screen than just about any camera upgrade. I have a good friend who regularly attends workshops and seminars. His "bag of tricks" is formidable. He has a 1Dx and 3DMkII. The thing is that he knows, far better than most people who own these cameras, how to use them. That and the fact that he takes making every single image seriously makes him a triple-threat. </p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>"picture taking abilities"?<br /><br />Depends on whose holding the camera. <br /><br />If we're really talking about picture-taking abilities rather than megapixels and resolution and IQ, I'm not sure the camera makes much difference. :)</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>The technical advances in the new entry level cameras are pretty obvious, as are their limitations (fps etc.). Which, if any, of these are relevant depends on the output resolution you need, how much light you have, how fast your subject is moving, and your own choices about what actually matters. There's a nice 'behind the scenes' video on Youtube of Steve McCurry shooting the 2013 Pirelli calendar. Alongside the D3X and high resolution Hasselblad he's shown using (shock, horror!) a D2Xs...</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i still use the d300s a lot. ive printed 16x20 with it, no problem. i think the newness of technology makes some people think newer = better, but that's not always necessarily true.</p>

[nsfbr]

<p>Umm, no. Cameras have no picture taking ability. Snark aside, I'd take the D300's AF and other characteristics over most of the current DX lineup in exchange for what I lose in sensor most days. In dim light, probably not, but in some cases that too, as I'd rather have a noisy in focus image to a noise free out of focus one.</p>

<p>It can't compare to any FX camera in Nikon's lineup perhaps, but I think it still holds its own in many conditions, in many situations against the entire DX lineup. Heck, people started writing it off when the D90 came out and today no one bemoans the lack of a D90 follow on. The D300 is a classic and if I could stick a sensor upgrade into mine I'd pay nearly as much as I paid for the original camera to do so.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Yes, it's fair to say that.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Adding new thingies does not make the old thingies any worse than they used to be.<br>

An older camera is still as good <em>as it ever was</em>, if it hasn't actually been damaged in some way.</p>

<p>Whether the newer thingies are useful to someone or not is a decision only that person can make.<br>

On several occasions I have consciously bought older technology precisely because I didn't need the improvements in my own work.<br>

You can also save a lot of money if you are willing to trail the cutting edge a bit.</p>

<p>"If it works, don't change it", in other words.;)</p>

<p>According to some info just today on the "new" Windows 10, some 25% of PC users are still using Windows XP, if you get my drift.</p>

<p> </p>

[bob_h]

<p>Leapfrogging technology as in megapixels.... more megapixels do not always make for a better image. I know a woman who uses a D300 and a D300s that she knows inside out, forward and backward and that knowledge means that she usually gets the exact image that she wants. There is only one camera that she has interest in at the moment, and that would be the Df body. Many people think that because a camera like the D3200 or D3300 has 24 megapixels that is all they need. Maybe for someone who does not own legacy glass. There is a reason that an entry level camera is priced lower than a used D300s. The demand is still there for the used D300 by a certain group of shooters, and they are people will accept no less than what they need.</p>

[bruce_maddox]

<p>One of the greater benefits of the D300, beyond excellent ergonomics, is that it's sensor is less demanding on the glass you will be using. It is noticeably weaker in dynamic range, high ISO performance, and auto white balance to the current DX generation. It's still a relevant body for most any photographer contemplating ownership. Holding it/using it is a revelation. Others may disagree, but I would not consider the opinion of anyone who has not used a D300.</p>