Posted by Paul Inglis on February 28, 2008 at 9:00 AM
We all know the main difference between these two bodies, one is Full Frame while the other is a cropped sensor. As for shooting wildlife subjects many have made it clear that having a cropped sensor is the only way to get a frame filling shots with certain species i.e. blue tits.
I thank those who have emailed me detailing their reasons for having a D300. I was fortunate to be able to get my hands on a D300 to it try out for an hour yesterday with my own lenses and I thought it was a cracking little camera but I did miss certain functions and abilities that that D2Xs has. I miss the vertical hand grip with the shutter button, the way in which I can change the ISO, WB, etc… I haven’t held a D3 yet! But have heard things like it has a brighter viewfinder and its round like the D2Xs. The square viewfinder on the D300 is a little annoying for me personally but do like the new covers compared to the D2Xs for the 10-pin & PC sync. The auto-focus is superb (a little strange compared to the D2Xs) and also been able to shoot higher ISO’s is a boon (less noise).
I suppose I’ll get used to where everything is in time just as I have done so with every other body in the past. So it basically boils down to one thing and one thing only!
Image quality – For me personally I could ditch the cropped sensor (as I’ll still shoot the D2Xs for now). So does the quality of the D3 images really out shine the D300?
Some of Tim’s images that he has shot using the D3 are simply gorgeous, but I have seen some stunning images from people shooting the D300! (Far too many people to list now!). I like the softer appearance to the images shot with the D3 compared to the D300.
But is it enough to ditch the cropped sensor? And furthermore pay around £2000 extra?
Sorry for rambling on, if any of you have any view you’d like to share, it’ll be appreciated. Any canon users out there shooting Full Frame bodies want to chip in about frame filling shots, can still be achieved with an FF body, speak up!
Many thanks,
Posted by Andy Bate on February 28, 2008 at 9:08 AM
im staying out of this cos it will just end up costing me money, im happy with my D2xs!!!!
Full frame shots of small birds can still be got on a full frame camera (at least on the close-focusing 100-400mm lens I use) but it really requires the use of an extension tube and shooting from very close range, i.e. 5 feet to get very large subject size of small birds.
For this reason I still find the advantages of a camera with a crop factor outweigh the slight quality difference of a full frame camera.
I find a 6 or 8 mega pixel image will print very well at A3+ or A2 and probably even larger so don't find the extra resolution of the full frame camera a necesity. A luxury, yes, and used when the situation allows for it, but not essential.
Posted by tony flashman on February 28, 2008 at 9:43 AM
Hi Paul
I use both the D2X and D300. I have also used a D3.
While the D3 does have advantages over the D300 a regards noise, the D300 does resolve more detail. You say you miss the vertical grip and shutter release. I have the grip on my D300 and in my opinion it changes the camera completely, its much better all round.
Regarding filling the frame on a full frame sensor I have included a shot that was taken on my D2X using a Sigma 18-50 at 45mm. I also have shots taken at 18mm. It just needs a different approach and technique and shows you dont always need huge lenses.
The D3 is a lot more expensive so I kept away........however had it of been 18mp or greater......it may well have been a different story.
Regards
Tony
Posted by Tim Munsey on February 28, 2008 at 9:56 AM
It's a bugger that the D3 is so expensive, if it weren't then it would be easy, you wouldn't even worry about the crop factor I bet. You can already buy the D3 for 3K, as I've said it will drop even more in a few months. I've kept my D2X, and always go shooting with two set ups, so its there if needs be. Ideally both, D3 and D300, would be in my bag (which is now on a B&Q trolley ). If you want to tease yourself have a play with a D3, go on I dare you.
As for filling the frame with a bird, is this good photography?
If Justin's comment about printing from 6 to 8 mega pixels is correct you already have the crop factor in the D3, especially as the larger photosites deliver higher quality pixels.
Tim
Posted by Paul Gibbs on February 28, 2008 at 10:51 AM
To me it comes down to light. Are you always pushing the edge of your D2X etc ISO limits?
If you think you will need the high ISO 1600+ as it where, then i can see an advantage in the D3, else i think you would be happy with the D300. If i was to buy my gear again i'd probably go for a D300 (with the D2X a close second). 90% of my shooting is ISO 200-400 which i'm happy with the D2X's noise, so i dont think i would see a huge difference by going to a D3 vs a D300.
Posted by Paul Inglis on February 29, 2008 at 7:59 AM
Thanks for all your replies very much appreciated!
Andy – Very helpful!
Justin - I believe that the D3 has a high-speed cropping which allows a crop factor but brings the mega-pixel down to about 8MP (correct me if I’m wrong?). So in light of that and your comment I may still choose the D3 1-0.
Tony – Superb image I must say (it has to have been a remote set-up though?). Your comments make me want both bodies (however the bank wouldn’t like that!). I agree if the D3 had been 16MP+ I’d say absolutely no contest! So at the moment I’d go for the D300 making it 1-1.
Tim – Please don’t dare me – my bank account just would like it! I agree that frame filling isn’t good photography! Now you say the photosites deliver higher pixels, so I think another point for the D3 making it 2-1 (D3 winning! – so far!).
Paul – I do have a tendency to agree with you there and the D300 does shoot well at higher ISO’s than the D2Xs but not in the same way as the D3. Another point to the D300 I’d say, making it 2-2.
Now the cost the D3 is now going for (the cheapest I can find at the moment) £2747.00. The D300 with battery grip is £1299.00. Leaving a difference of £1450.00. I’d say that 1 to the D300 making it 2-3 with the D300 in the lead.
If I still shoot with the D2Xs which is a cracking body at low ISO’s (100-400) then at full frame body such as a D3 would be a nice addition apposed to the D300 which has a cropped sensor. The score is now 3-3.
However Nikon will be bring out an update later this year (I’ll take bets if anyone thinks not!) and I’ll probably want that as soon as it comes out – so I think choosing the D300 would be a good choice as it’ll keep more money in the bank yet allow a different shooting from the D2Xs during spring, summer and into autumn. I think this brings the score to 3-4 making the D300 a winner!
I really was trying to talk myself into that D3 too. Many thanks for all your comments posted here and those of you who emailed me!
Posted by Tim Munsey on February 29, 2008 at 8:42 AM
Hi Paul,
Other things to consider, the D3 has greater dynamic range especially for highlights, its hard to blow a highlight that you cannot recapture in post processing. It shoots 14 bit files at 9fps unlike the 2.5fps of the D300. The AF is faster, studies show the D300 has a sharp capture rate below the Canon 1D Mk111, whereas the D3 easily beats the Canon, so your keeper rate is very high.
I think you should buy the D300, less competition for me .
Tim
PS The HSC on the D3 is 5.1 megapixels, not 8, a canon 1.3 crop of the D3 sensor is around 8 megapixels.
Posted by Paul Inglis on February 29, 2008 at 8:54 AM
Hi Tim,
Thanks for that! That does change things for sure! Ouch that bank account is certainly going to hurt!
1. Can't blow highlights that can't be recovered at post-processing 1-0 (in favour of the D3).
2. 8fps on D300 with battery grip Vs 9fps D3 (with price in mind) 1-1.
3. Only 5.1MP on HSC 1-2
4. Competition 2-2
Decisions, decisions, decisions (The jury is still out on this one!)
Posted by Tim Munsey on February 29, 2008 at 9:02 AM
Buy the D300 Paul, I don't want to be responsible for a divorce, hey its my D3 anniversary tomorrow! We've been together for 1 month . It's bliss.
Tim
Posted by Paul Inglis on February 29, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Happy Anniversary Tim
Oh by the way I am divorced for that very reason
Posted by Rene de Heer on February 29, 2008 at 9:11 AM
Tim, i would be very interested where you read that the AF of the D3 is so much better than the D300? I believe they are very much on par. I have tested them side by side and no noticeable difference to be spotted. Also 12 versus 14 bits.....i wonder if you would spot the difference anyway.
Rene de Heer
Posted by Tim Munsey on February 29, 2008 at 9:24 AM
Hi Rene,
I'm doing my homework now, here's the study that shows the D300 is less able at tracking than the 1D Mk111:
Spot the differance between 12 and 14 bit? Probably not, but surely it must give you more to play with in the eventual file, helping with the extremes in the shadows and highlights?
Tim
Posted by Paul Inglis on February 29, 2008 at 9:50 AM
My French is awful but looking at the review it is self-explanatory pictorially!
The D3 is a lot more accurate at focusing in the field than the D300,the 300 is a lot better than the D2X was at follow focusing but its still a little hesitant on static subjects and it slows down when a 1.4x is attatched.The D3 on the other hand is a revelation!Follow focusing both with and without 1.4x attached is swift and positive and when it locks on its stays locked on,Focusing overall is better than the D300(not saying that the D300 is'nt great just that the D3 IS BETTER!!)
Noise on the D3 is also superb or rather lack of it at 400 and above noise is not visible until 1600 and even at 2000 its only really evident at 100x mag in photoshop and any decent noise reduction programme will take care of this.
This camera has opened up a whole new world for me,I can now take pictures in all conditions and use speeds that will allow me do things not previously possible with the D2X.
Can't recommend it enough!!
Cheers
Craig
www.craigchurchill.co.uk
ps
(Rene,will be in touch soon about meeting up,sorry not done sooner,been a bit busy!)
Discussion
15 repliesI thank those who have emailed me detailing their reasons for having a D300. I was fortunate to be able to get my hands on a D300 to it try out for an hour yesterday with my own lenses and I thought it was a cracking little camera but I did miss certain functions and abilities that that D2Xs has. I miss the vertical hand grip with the shutter button, the way in which I can change the ISO, WB, etc… I haven’t held a D3 yet! But have heard things like it has a brighter viewfinder and its round like the D2Xs. The square viewfinder on the D300 is a little annoying for me personally but do like the new covers compared to the D2Xs for the 10-pin & PC sync. The auto-focus is superb (a little strange compared to the D2Xs) and also been able to shoot higher ISO’s is a boon (less noise).
I suppose I’ll get used to where everything is in time just as I have done so with every other body in the past. So it basically boils down to one thing and one thing only!
Image quality – For me personally I could ditch the cropped sensor (as I’ll still shoot the D2Xs for now). So does the quality of the D3 images really out shine the D300?
Some of Tim’s images that he has shot using the D3 are simply gorgeous, but I have seen some stunning images from people shooting the D300! (Far too many people to list now!). I like the softer appearance to the images shot with the D3 compared to the D300.
But is it enough to ditch the cropped sensor? And furthermore pay around £2000 extra?
Sorry for rambling on, if any of you have any view you’d like to share, it’ll be appreciated. Any canon users out there shooting Full Frame bodies want to chip in about frame filling shots, can still be achieved with an FF body, speak up!
Many thanks,
For this reason I still find the advantages of a camera with a crop factor outweigh the slight quality difference of a full frame camera.
I find a 6 or 8 mega pixel image will print very well at A3+ or A2 and probably even larger so don't find the extra resolution of the full frame camera a necesity. A luxury, yes, and used when the situation allows for it, but not essential.
I use both the D2X and D300. I have also used a D3.
While the D3 does have advantages over the D300 a regards noise, the D300 does resolve more detail. You say you miss the vertical grip and shutter release. I have the grip on my D300 and in my opinion it changes the camera completely, its much better all round.
Regarding filling the frame on a full frame sensor I have included a shot that was taken on my D2X using a Sigma 18-50 at 45mm. I also have shots taken at 18mm. It just needs a different approach and technique and shows you dont always need huge lenses.
The D3 is a lot more expensive so I kept away........however had it of been 18mp or greater......it may well have been a different story.
Regards
Tony
As for filling the frame with a bird, is this good photography?
If Justin's comment about printing from 6 to 8 mega pixels is correct you already have the crop factor in the D3, especially as the larger photosites deliver higher quality pixels.
Tim
If you think you will need the high ISO 1600+ as it where, then i can see an advantage in the D3, else i think you would be happy with the D300. If i was to buy my gear again i'd probably go for a D300 (with the D2X a close second). 90% of my shooting is ISO 200-400 which i'm happy with the D2X's noise, so i dont think i would see a huge difference by going to a D3 vs a D300.
Andy – Very helpful!
Justin - I believe that the D3 has a high-speed cropping which allows a crop factor but brings the mega-pixel down to about 8MP (correct me if I’m wrong?). So in light of that and your comment I may still choose the D3 1-0.
Tony – Superb image I must say (it has to have been a remote set-up though?). Your comments make me want both bodies (however the bank wouldn’t like that!). I agree if the D3 had been 16MP+ I’d say absolutely no contest! So at the moment I’d go for the D300 making it 1-1.
Tim – Please don’t dare me – my bank account just would like it!
Paul – I do have a tendency to agree with you there and the D300 does shoot well at higher ISO’s than the D2Xs but not in the same way as the D3. Another point to the D300 I’d say, making it 2-2.
Now the cost the D3 is now going for (the cheapest I can find at the moment) £2747.00. The D300 with battery grip is £1299.00. Leaving a difference of £1450.00. I’d say that 1 to the D300 making it 2-3 with the D300 in the lead.
If I still shoot with the D2Xs which is a cracking body at low ISO’s (100-400) then at full frame body such as a D3 would be a nice addition apposed to the D300 which has a cropped sensor. The score is now 3-3.
However Nikon will be bring out an update later this year (I’ll take bets if anyone thinks not!) and I’ll probably want that as soon as it comes out – so I think choosing the D300 would be a good choice as it’ll keep more money in the bank yet allow a different shooting from the D2Xs during spring, summer and into autumn. I think this brings the score to 3-4 making the D300 a winner!
I really was trying to talk myself into that D3 too. Many thanks for all your comments posted here and those of you who emailed me!
Other things to consider, the D3 has greater dynamic range especially for highlights, its hard to blow a highlight that you cannot recapture in post processing. It shoots 14 bit files at 9fps unlike the 2.5fps of the D300. The AF is faster, studies show the D300 has a sharp capture rate below the Canon 1D Mk111, whereas the D3 easily beats the Canon, so your keeper rate is very high.
I think you should buy the D300, less competition for me
Tim
PS The HSC on the D3 is 5.1 megapixels, not 8, a canon 1.3 crop of the D3 sensor is around 8 megapixels.
Thanks for that!
1. Can't blow highlights that can't be recovered at post-processing 1-0 (in favour of the D3).
2. 8fps on D300 with battery grip Vs 9fps D3 (with price in mind) 1-1.
3. Only 5.1MP on HSC 1-2
4. Competition 2-2
Decisions, decisions, decisions (The jury is still out on this one!)
Tim
Oh by the way I am divorced for that very reason
Rene de Heer
I'm doing my homework now, here's the study that shows the D300 is less able at tracking than the 1D Mk111:
http://www.prophotohome.com/forum/pro-photo-reviews-articles/75077-nikon-nikon-d300-camera-camera-interactive-review-new-autofocus-king-those-budget.html
Now off to search for the one where the D3 blasts the 1D Mk111.
Tim
http://www.pictchallenge-archives.net/TESTNUM/D3_TGVautofocus.html
Spot the differance between 12 and 14 bit? Probably not, but surely it must give you more to play with in the eventual file, helping with the extremes in the shadows and highlights?
Tim
The D3 is a lot more accurate at focusing in the field than the D300,the 300 is a lot better than the D2X was at follow focusing but its still a little hesitant on static subjects and it slows down when a 1.4x is attatched.The D3 on the other hand is a revelation!Follow focusing both with and without 1.4x attached is swift and positive and when it locks on its stays locked on,Focusing overall is better than the D300(not saying that the D300 is'nt great just that the D3 IS BETTER!!)
Noise on the D3 is also superb or rather lack of it at 400 and above noise is not visible until 1600 and even at 2000 its only really evident at 100x mag in photoshop and any decent noise reduction programme will take care of this.
This camera has opened up a whole new world for me,I can now take pictures in all conditions and use speeds that will allow me do things not previously possible with the D2X.
Can't recommend it enough!!
Cheers
Craig
www.craigchurchill.co.uk
ps
(Rene,will be in touch soon about meeting up,sorry not done sooner,been a bit busy!)