tonybeach_1961

Photoshop Elements is adequate to the task. I would also recommend using Nikon's Raw development software (I use NX-D for about 99% of my Raw conversions), then you can always get exactly what you got out of the camera if that's what you want (it's actually slightly improved in terms of image quality). It's been my experience that post-processing Raw files is a lot easier than post-processing JPEG files.

Spectacular photos of the osprey Dieter!

Some (100%) pixel peeping of my Sigma Art 50-100mm f/1.8 with my D500: The "complete" photograph cropped to 16:9 aspect ratio (ideal for many modern displays), but downsized here to try and comply with the guidelines: For those that don't have an EXIF reader embedded in their browser, this was taken at 50mm, 1/6400s, and ISO 140. BTW, the GPS was inadvertently enabled because I had used SnapBridge earlier, and it's off by about 700 feet (which I think makes it not very useful).

I use the TC-14eII with my AF-S NIKKOR 70-200/2.8 VR on my D800. Using that combo wide open and zoomed to 200mm I see no difference between it and using the lens without the teleconverter at that same focal length and stopped down to f/4. By stopping down to f/5.6 with the teleconverter I can zoom out to 280mm and I definitely get more resolution than I can get by cropping a shot taken without the teleconverter. BTW, the lens without the teleconverter requires an AF fine-tune adjustment, but with the teleconverter AF fine-tune is set to zero -- go figure.

Shot with D500 and Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8, then conversion pushed 1.75 stops in NX-D, Topaz DeNoise and Sharpen applied, yada, yada, yada.

D500 and Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 Art.

Shot with D500 and Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 Art at f/2 at ISO 6400, then cropped and pushed two stops.

Okay Mike, you're not bashing DX, just dismissing the D300. I took your dismissal in the context of the exchange that started with the D300's main failing being that it's a DX camera and the response to that being that DX can be seen as a strength. Similarly, Conrad wrote that he never got along with DX because he wasn't willing to invest in a lens that gave him the same FOV he got with his 20mm lens on a 135 format film camera, so that's no necessarily bashing the format either. I should revise my comment about a couple of people here being responsible for bashing the format to just one person here.

Regarding the OP, the D300 came out along with the D3, and at the time the D300 was significantly better than both the D200 that it putatively replaced as well as Nikon's previous flagship, the D2Xs. The D3 was of course the new flagship camera, but the D300 cost a fraction of what the D3 cost and had the same AF system which is the foundation of all the Nikon DSLR AF systems up to the D5, D500, and D850.

There's been a fair amount of DX bashing here, mostly from a couple of contributors. I disagree with that, and I shoot both a D500 and a D800. What are the strengths of a DX camera? For one thing, smaller and less expensive lenses that can deliver very good results. No 20mm equivalent? I used a Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 14-20mm f/2.8 for years, which replaced a Tokina 12-24mm f/4, so the focal length argument is in my opinion a canard (though the former wasn't a smaller and less expensive lens; but now I have a Tokina AT-X Pro 14-20mm f/2 that cost me $400). The D300 was an exceptionally good camera in its day, and I used one for years and skipped getting a D700 in part because as far as I was concerned (and I still believe this), 12 MP is 12 MP regardless of format. When comparing an FX and a DX camera that have the same number of megapixels, pixel density was an advantage back then, as it still is today (e.g., D750 compared to a D7500). The viewfinder on the D300 is not bad either (.94x) and I can barely tell the difference between it and the viewfinders on my D500 (1x) and my D800 (.7x).