| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Question for Nikon shooters
Jonathon Bird, Photographer
 |
Port Clinton | OH | United States | Posted: 11:33 PM on 07.10.11 |
->> I was curious of peoples opinions on the Nikon D300. And do you prefer the D300s to the D300? I'm looking to replace an old D2H and wondered how the D300 compares. Also I have been doing some lens shopping but it gets very confusing with all the letters AF-S, ED, EX, G, N etc how are you to know what is best when shopping around? Also if your looking at used equipment is there any way to tell the age of the gear?
Thanks in advance |
|
Gary Cosby, Jr, Photographer
|
Decatur | AL | USA | Posted: 11:43 PM on 07.10.11 |
->> Jonathon, never shot a D300 but the AF-S and ED are the lens nomenclature that matter to me. AF-S refers to the auto focus system in the lens using a silent wave motor. That is important for speed and accuracy. ED refers to Nikon pro glass, also very important. It is much better than non-ED Glass.
I have purchased a great deal of used gear from KEH in Atlanta. They have a very accurate rating system; although, it does not include age but focuses on condition of the product. |
|
Michael Ivanin, Photographer
|
Oakville | On | Canada | Posted: 12:27 AM on 07.11.11 |
| ->> Nikon D300s is much better camera, files are better, less noise at high ISO, shoots video, and focusing is faster. I definetly would prefer D300s. Also have a look at D700 it is much better camera then both D300 and D300s. |
|
Ethan Klosterman, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Dayton | Ohio | | Posted: 12:43 AM on 07.11.11 |
| ->> If you don't need the rugged build and the fps, it may be wise for you to go with a D7000. The D300/300s is old technology (2007). |
|
Joshua Lindsey, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Bowling Green | KY | United States | Posted: 1:18 AM on 07.11.11 |
| ->> I've been really happy with my D300s. I've always used it as my second camera when shooting football along with my D3. It you search around you could probably find a good used D700 close to the price of a new D300s. D7000 is also a great new camera as well. I've been told it rivals the D700. |
|
Butch Miller, Photographer
|
Lock Haven | PA | USA | Posted: 7:14 AM on 07.11.11 |
->> Jonathan ... fortunately you have many options available and I think you would be more than pleased with the resulting image quality of the D300, D300s, D700 and even the D7000 ... All would be a major step up from D2H in many respects ... though if you shoot RAW at all, be prepared to need both more processing power and hard drive space to deal with the increased data captured by newer DSLR's ...
While something released in 2007 may be considered "Old Technology" ... the D300/D300s is not outdated, obsolete, ancient technology either ... there are more than a few folks capturing superb top quality images each and every day with those models ...
Fortunately we are moving towards a point in technology, while there are improvements with new introductions, those improvements, while welcome, are not always so dramatic that warrant instant adoption of the latest and greatest and instant obsolesces of the older sibling in order to offer clients the best possible images as was common a decade ago ...
So if a true bargain presents itself for a D300/D300s, you won't be disappointed with it's performance or overall IQ ... |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 11:09 AM on 07.11.11 |
->> Well if the first question is how the D300 compares to the D2H, I'd say night and day. Although I would advise you to seriously look at used/refurb D3's as a better (IMHO) option if you are making a living with the gear and pounding away on it. I'm no fan of adding grips or pinning my living on 'good enough' gear when built like a brick bodies are within financial reach. Two of the guys shooting for me use D300's. The file quality isn't bad but once you are over iso 1600 it becomes obvious. Both also shoot for a marathon company and both have had issues with having the mirror boxes replaced. I just don't think that they are high mileage tools. Maybe as backups but I wouldn't want it to be my primary body. Many will disagree with me and that's fine. I'm just posting based on what I know first hand.
On the subject of lenses. All those letters really do mean something.
D = Distance reporting. The lens reports to the body what distance it is focused at. This is used to fine tune metering and exposure calculations. It really comes into play with fine tuning strobe settings in the Nikon CLS system.
ED = Glass formulation that produces glass with better optical qualities.
N = The new Nano Coat lens coating formula. Better colors, better contrast, better pictures or so we are told by Nikon.
AF = Auto focusing lens. The lens has a coupling mechanism that connects the body's focus control mechanics to the lens to allow the body to move lens elements to achieve focus. Slower than Af-s and requires greater battery drain from the body than Af-s. Not compatible with some newer Nikon consumer dSLR bodies.
G = No Aperture ring. Aperture is set on the body, which is fine for the newer bodies but won't work with the older film bodies if you want to play with an original F or a beloved FM2.
AF-s = Built in focus motors. Better faster more accurate focusing. Less battery drain as it is a more efficient way of moving elements. Newer consumer Nikon D-SLRs REQUIRE AF-s lenses for there to be any AF function at all.
DX = Indicates lenses designed for the smaller DX (APS) sized sensor. DX lenses will work on FX bodies but will the body will invoke DX cropping. Using a DX lens on an older film body will cause vignetting as the lens has a smaller image area.
FX = Full frame or what we think of as a full frame in terms of 35mm photography. FX Bodies (currently the D3 D3s D3x D700's ) have an image sensor that is the same size as a standard 35mm neg. (more or less). FX bodies require FX lenses to achieve the full field of view for the length of the lens.
VR = Vibration Reduction. 'Nuff said :)
Not all inclusive but should cover most of what you'll find in the current production and used markets. |
|
David Scott, Photographer
|
Portland | OR | US | Posted: 4:10 PM on 07.11.11 |
->> I'm no longer shooting D300s. I've replaced them with D7000 bodies. I love them!
-- Dave |
|
T.J. Hamilton, Photographer
|
Grand Rapids | MI | USA | Posted: 8:24 PM on 07.11.11 |
->> Was shooting with a D2xs as main body along with a d300 for a couple years. Then I got to replace my d300 with the 's' version and now because of the superior noise, color and the ability to shoot video for my newspaper instead of carrying an extra dv camera is an extra plus. I pretty much use the D300s all the time and pull out the D2xs as a backup now.
I suggest you get a extra battery attachment for the grip of the camera, and as well as a bump in frames per second.
It rocks. |
|
Jonathon Bird, Photographer
|
Port Clinton | OH | United States | Posted: 8:25 PM on 07.11.11 |
->> David
Do you use the D7000 for shooting sports if so how is the AF? Gary and Eric thanks for clearing up the info about all the abbreviations. That's some huge info. I'm still trying to decide what will be best to get. Unfortunately cost will be a big factor ortherwise I'd just pick up a D3. I have a nikon 80-200 ED Af-s 2.8 it needs about $325-$400 in repairs. I think I'll get it fixed cause the cheapest I could find the same lens was a little over $1000 and seeing how I don't have the money for the VR2 version I think the repair will be my best bet. |
|
Matt Strasen, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Dallas | TX | USA | Posted: 8:50 PM on 07.11.11 |
->> Jonathon,
I have both the D700 and the D7000. The D700 is a great camera, because it is basically a D3 without the grip, and couple of other minor details. The images that both cameras produce are identical, and the AF is fantastic. Overall, it's my workhorse camera, especially with the grip.
The D7000 is a superb little camera for the cost. The AF isn't as fast as the D700, but it isn't enough to really bother me. I wouldn't use it as my main camera, but as a second camera, it's great. I'm not as happy with the images from the D7000 as I am the D700, as the D7k images seem to have a yellow/blue tint to them. The main reason I got the D7k is for its video capabilities...I have been very happy with the 1080p videos I've done with it.
My suggestion to you would be to check out keh for a used D700...I've bought most of my used glass from them, and have been extremely pleased with every purchase. |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 9:46 PM on 07.11.11 |
->> Hard to go wrong with either D300, D300s, or D7000. Personally, I'd opt for the D300s as a primary sports-shooting body. But all 3, IMO, are better than the D2H and clearly good choices if you can't afford a D3.
I find the D7000 a bit less effective at AF than the D300s, using the same glass you mentioned. Others have claimed it is better than the D300s when using the $4000+ Nikon long glass.
FWIW, the D300 with the firmware upgrade has AF pretty much as good as the D300s (and much better than the D300 had originally), but the high ISOs are still not quite as good. |
|
Gabe Souza, Student/Intern
|
Boston | MA | | Posted: 10:04 PM on 07.11.11 |
| ->> I will mostly second what others have already said. I've used a D300 for the past two years and overall have been happy with its performance. (With a grip.) Anything up to ISO 1600 is acceptable and the file size is plenty big. Mine seems to have quite a bit of a red cast, but nothing that can't be fixed. That said, the D300 is older technology. I haven't used a D7000, but those I know who have say they are impressed with it's quality. If I were to guess the issues I'd have with that body would be AF speed and build. If you're doing PJ work, I'd much prefer the bigger build of a pro body like the D3 (used are fairly affordable if there is ANY way you can swing it), but the D300 does stand up fairly well if its big brother is out of reach. Best of luck with your decision. |
|
David Scott, Photographer
|
Portland | OR | US | Posted: 11:24 PM on 07.11.11 |
->> Jonathon
I haven't had any problems with AF on the D7000 for football, basketball, baseball and soccer but I'm sure that others on the board are better judges than me as I am not a photojournalist.
-- Dave |
|
Louis Lopez, Photographer
|
Southern California | CA | USA | Posted: 11:37 PM on 07.11.11 |
->> "I haven't had any problems with AF on the D7000 for football, basketball, baseball and soccer but I'm sure that others on the board are better judges than me as I am not a photojournalist."
Dave,
Does being a photojournalist give one special abilities to judge whether an image is in focus or not???
I must have been absent when they passed out the "Super Powers" |
|
David Scott, Photographer
|
Portland | OR | US | Posted: 11:56 PM on 07.11.11 |
->> No.. I just don't put the camera through the daily workout that many of you guys do. :)
-- Dave |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 3:51 AM on 07.12.11 |
->> Jonathon,
When I switched back to Nikon I bought a D3 and a D300. As many have suggested, the D300 is a sweet little body IF you understand it's limitations.
I have since added a D3s so the D300 is really a backup body.I think I've used it once lately when I was trying to use the crop factor and tele extender on a 200-400mm.
IF the camera is going to get heavy use, then I'd continue to save my money and get a gently used D3. Built like a tank, good files in low light and good auto focus - there's just no substitute. Even with the D7000, you're buying a pro-sumer body, and there's always going to be a trade off. There's a D3 in the classifieds on here for about $2900, so you're not looking at a huge difference in dollars.
I haven't done any shooting with a D7000 but plenty of people on here use the body. Just don't think it will last like a D3 - Nikon knows better than that. |
|
Tim Hynds, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Sioux City | IA | USA | Posted: 9:46 AM on 07.12.11 |
->> I use both a D300 and a D7000 in daily newspaper work. I use the grips on both cameras. I bought the D7000 because I grew tired waiting for Nikon to update the D700.
Both produce very nice files, but the D7000 is better in terms of high ISO. At ISO 640-ish and below, the difference is non-existent. Autofocus is almost equal with the nod going to the D7000.
I think the build ruggedness of the D7000 is less than that of the D300. The D300 is slightly bigger and fits my hands better.
I have a two-year depreciation schedule on all my cameras and, thus, only expect to get get two years of quality, heavy use out of them. The D300 is on year 4, and I fully expect to get three out of the D7000. The extra two years out of the D300 is gravy.
FWIW: We have to buy all our own camera gear and receive a monthly equipment allowance.
With my depreciation expectations D7000 = $1,100/2 = $550 per year (not including grip) and D3s = $5200/2 = $2,600 per year.
Yes, I know I could get more than two years out of a D3s, but cameras evolve so rapidly, that I'm not sure I really want to be running a five or six year old camera.
I will not buy a used camera UNLESS I know the seller personally AND know first-hand how the camera was used. But, that's just me.
Really a no-brainer for me to go with the pro-sumer bodies. |
|
Tim Hynds, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Sioux City | IA | USA | Posted: 9:48 AM on 07.12.11 |
| ->> I should add that I take the money I save by buying a "lesser" body and use it to buy the best glass available. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|