Posted by Colin Smale on March 30, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Stuttering about trying to justify buying a D3 but the D300 specs are more than impressive and after reading bumph yet again over the weekend, which to choose ?
I have had the D100- still got the D200.
Be interested in your thoughts, especially if you are a wildlife photographer.
Posted by Paul Inglis on March 30, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Hi Colin,
Been there done that and got the T-shirt! Any wiser...
nope!
I think both are excellent and if I could afford it I'd have both, saves the pain of deciding! I'm still trying to make up my mind!
Here's the link to my post (a little while back now!)
Posted by Rene de Heer on March 30, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Colin i have 4 weeks ago moved to Nikon and i actually use both the D3 and the D300. My longest lens is the 200-400 VR with and without 1.4 and 1.7 converters.
I am mainly a bird photographer and use the D300 if birds are a bit too far out for me and closer by i use the D3. I am impressed by both and i believe you cant go wrong with either.
I have put some images up on the UKNPN forum and here on the Fauna one, have a look if that helps.
Rene de Heer
Posted by Colin Smale on March 30, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Hmm, interesting response and except for the last post, still makes it difficult to decide. Think I will go and play with them at local shop tomorrow.
Cheers Paul
Posted by Colin Smale on March 30, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Oh, that was quick, Hi Rene, yep, can't go wrong with either, that's certainly true but if it's going to be one, which one ??
Posted by Rene de Heer on March 30, 2008 at 2:03 PM
I think thats a good idea. If you can work with the D300 you keep a lot of cash in the pocket. It is a very good camera.
Rene de Heer
Posted by Colin Smale on March 30, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Oh, that was quick, Hi Rene, yep, can't go wrong with either, that's certainly true but if it's going to be one, which one ??
Posted by Colin Smale on March 30, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Oh, that was quick, Hi Rene, yep, can't go wrong with either, that's certainly true but if it's going to be one, which one ??
Posted by Rene de Heer on March 30, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Well if budget is no issue, go for the D3 i would say but equally the D300 is a fantastic camera. The only - as far as i can see is the fact that in 14 bit the motordrive goes down to 2-3 images per second.
I have just returned from a trip to the Bering Sea and used the D300 on both 12 and 14 bit and honestly no one could spot any differences between the 2.
So again i can only say that the D300 is a fine camera, also what lenses would you use???
Rene de Heer
Posted by Colin Smale on March 30, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Most of the time I am using the Nikon AF-S 500mm F4, sometimes with 1.4 converter. I also use the Nikon 70-200mm AF-S VR but I made a mistake with this lens, it is for the most part, too short.
Posted by Rene de Heer on March 30, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Colin, in that case i would suggest to for the D3
Rene de Heer
Posted by Colin Smale on March 30, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Thanx again Rene, I have a gut feeling that's the way I'm going to go.
Posted by Colin Smale on March 30, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Thanx again Rene, I have a gut feeling that's the way I'm going to go.
Posted by Paul Inglis on March 30, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Hi Colin,
I must say you really have an echo going here!
I love the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR for wildlife plus it doubles very nicely as a macro lens with 5T or 6T close-up filters added!
I want both bodies and it probably will end up that way! but first port of call will be the D3 for me!
I've been using the D300 since it came out with the 500mm AFS I, and now with the 500mm VR. I also use the 200-400mm VR quite a bit. It is one great camera, and has the added benefit of being smaller and lighter than the D3, which is nice for handholding and hiking. I was originally planning on a D3, but I hear that there's a 24 megapixel D3X coming in the spring. I'll continue to use the D300 until I hear more about it. Get the D300 now, and wait for the new one. The D300 will always be a good backup camera. You might find that you like it better for situations where you have weight and mobility to consider.
I'm with Charlie. I LOVE my D300, and use it wuith both the 500 mm and 200-400 Vr and am very happy with it.
but news of the upcoming D3x sure has me interested:
I am in the same situation. Do I buy the D300 and use the extra cash to pick up some good glass to add to my collection or go with the D3 and wait on the glass? The only thing pulling me toward the D3 is the full frame sensor and its better performance at high ISO. I prefer using natural light for nature photography. I feel like the low grain at extremely high ISO would be really helpful in low light handheld situation. Any thoughts?
Posted by Drew Fulton on March 31, 2008 at 12:42 AM
I recently made the same decision and went with the D3 over the D300. I was moving from a D2Xs and the main reason I upgraded was low light performance. Beyond nature work, I am starting to get into sports stuff and the D2x high iso was pittiful. Additionally, I chose the D3 because it offered something more than simply low light performance. I went with the D3 and the new 14-24 and am absolutely loving the wide angle ability.
My plan is this. When lack of light isn't an issue and I need length, the D2Xs will be on the long lens because of the 1.5x crop. The D3 will be on something much wider either a 70-200 or maybe even the 24-70. For me, the D3 added a level of versatility that I couldn't get with the D2x. That being said, if I only shot wildlife, I would have gone with the D300.
I must admit though, I have only had the D3 for about a week and a half but I sure love it.
Good luck with the decision...
Drew
Posted by Brent Reid on March 31, 2008 at 12:49 AM
I'm a Canon shooter, but have three friends with D3's who are getting high ISO performance out of their Nikons that is revolutionary, and far surpasses what my 5D and 1DMkII can deliver.
Yes, I'm envious, particularly when covering dance recitals on stages lit like a coal mine at midnight, and sports in gyms with dodgy lighting.
If you need to push the ISO up for bird photography in early morning, late evening, and shady conditions, the D3 will outperform anything on the market.
I have a VERY serious question for you?????
WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHS YOU TAKE?????
I have the D300@D200 Withh the 300 I have just printed photos 150cm x 100cm sharp exceptional colour(12bit) But either of them are good.Advantage is that you can buy 2 bodies D300 CHEAPER THAN 1 D3 @ Put the D200 out to rest
Posted by Colin Smale on March 31, 2008 at 5:07 AM
Well after all that, my thoughts are, buy the D3 because of the high iso ability and the quality that everyone is raving about but then again, the D300 has 'almost' as good a high iso ability, I could get that, save about 2k and think about getting a D3 sometime in the future when the D300 would become a second camera.
BUT....you know what it's like, while you are using one model and you know there is a 'better' model out there, it's unsettling isn't it. Truly between a rock and a hard place. I'll toddle along to the store today, clap my 500mm on and see how I feel.
Avi, I do sell my pics here and there and top quality is a must, if there's a way I can produce better quality I always want to know about it, I'm talking about the tools of course, the ability of the photographer to create a good image is something quite different as I'm sure you know.
Posted by Paul Inglis on March 31, 2008 at 8:13 AM
Troublesome isn't it! The saga continues!
Posted by Kent Staubus on March 31, 2008 at 8:46 AM
There's always a chance that Nikon will reposition the D3 to compete against the Canon 5D (i.e., lower the price) once Nikon has their 24mp body out. Either way, I'd agree that while the 70-200mm f2.8 VR is an excellent lens (I have one,) it's really too short for much wildlife photography.
I feel your pain in deciding between the D300 and D3. It isn't an easy choice.
I've been shooting a D200 and picked up a D3 early this year. Getting wide angle pictures from my wide angle lenses again is a kick. I'd forgotten how much of a difference there is between 17mm and the effective 25.5mm with the D200. I found I missed the effective 300mm from the 70-200 Nikon VR so I bit the bullet and bought a D300. Frankly I really like both cameras, but I use them for different things.
The D300 is lighter and easier to carry. If I put the 18-200 VR lens on the D300 I've got a light weight and versatile camera for hiking. The D3 has a little less noise with high ISO settings. I haven't really taken the time to compare the photos critically, but I suspect a D3 ISO of 3200 has about the same noise as a D300 ISO of 1600.
The active D lighting works. I have a long haired white dog that I took out in the snow in late afternoon light. Detail was easy to maintain in the snow and the dog's fur in the shadow and sunlight.
What's more important to you, a wider wide angel from your wide angle lenses or a longer reach with your teles? Is being able to shoot at a higher ISO with the same noise level significant to you? As noted by others, if you set the D300 to shoot 14 bit images it really slows down to about 2.5 frames a second, the D3 doesn't seem to slow down.
Good luck with your choice, but both cameras are really good.
Discussion
24 repliesI have had the D100- still got the D200.
Be interested in your thoughts, especially if you are a wildlife photographer.
Been there done that and got the T-shirt! Any wiser...
nope!
I think both are excellent and if I could afford it I'd have both, saves the pain of deciding!
Here's the link to my post (a little while back now!)
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=27121&CGISESSID=6e0bb1c16fffdb8b99f5d7539c3f3f68&u=12022
Hope it helps!
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=24121&CGISESSID=6e0bb1c16fffdb8b99f5d7539c3f3f68&u=13170
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=24314&CGISESSID=6e0bb1c16fffdb8b99f5d7539c3f3f68&u=13170
I am mainly a bird photographer and use the D300 if birds are a bit too far out for me and closer by i use the D3. I am impressed by both and i believe you cant go wrong with either.
I have put some images up on the UKNPN forum and here on the Fauna one, have a look if that helps.
Rene de Heer
Cheers Paul
Rene de Heer
I have just returned from a trip to the Bering Sea and used the D300 on both 12 and 14 bit and honestly no one could spot any differences between the 2.
So again i can only say that the D300 is a fine camera, also what lenses would you use???
Rene de Heer
Rene de Heer
I must say you really have an echo going here!
I love the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR for wildlife plus it doubles very nicely as a macro lens with 5T or 6T close-up filters added!
I want both bodies and it probably will end up that way! but first port of call will be the D3 for me!
but news of the upcoming D3x sure has me interested:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3x.htm
Sandy r
My plan is this. When lack of light isn't an issue and I need length, the D2Xs will be on the long lens because of the 1.5x crop. The D3 will be on something much wider either a 70-200 or maybe even the 24-70. For me, the D3 added a level of versatility that I couldn't get with the D2x. That being said, if I only shot wildlife, I would have gone with the D300.
I must admit though, I have only had the D3 for about a week and a half but I sure love it.
Good luck with the decision...
Drew
Yes, I'm envious, particularly when covering dance recitals on stages lit like a coal mine at midnight, and sports in gyms with dodgy lighting.
If you need to push the ISO up for bird photography in early morning, late evening, and shady conditions, the D3 will outperform anything on the market.
WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHS YOU TAKE?????
I have the D300@D200 Withh the 300 I have just printed photos 150cm x 100cm sharp exceptional colour(12bit) But either of them are good.Advantage is that you can buy 2 bodies D300 CHEAPER THAN 1 D3 @ Put the D200 out to rest
BUT....you know what it's like, while you are using one model and you know there is a 'better' model out there, it's unsettling isn't it. Truly between a rock and a hard place. I'll toddle along to the store today, clap my 500mm on and see how I feel.
Avi, I do sell my pics here and there and top quality is a must, if there's a way I can produce better quality I always want to know about it, I'm talking about the tools of course, the ability of the photographer to create a good image is something quite different as I'm sure you know.
Kent in SD
I've been shooting a D200 and picked up a D3 early this year. Getting wide angle pictures from my wide angle lenses again is a kick. I'd forgotten how much of a difference there is between 17mm and the effective 25.5mm with the D200. I found I missed the effective 300mm from the 70-200 Nikon VR so I bit the bullet and bought a D300. Frankly I really like both cameras, but I use them for different things.
The D300 is lighter and easier to carry. If I put the 18-200 VR lens on the D300 I've got a light weight and versatile camera for hiking. The D3 has a little less noise with high ISO settings. I haven't really taken the time to compare the photos critically, but I suspect a D3 ISO of 3200 has about the same noise as a D300 ISO of 1600.
The active D lighting works. I have a long haired white dog that I took out in the snow in late afternoon light. Detail was easy to maintain in the snow and the dog's fur in the shadow and sunlight.
What's more important to you, a wider wide angel from your wide angle lenses or a longer reach with your teles? Is being able to shoot at a higher ISO with the same noise level significant to you? As noted by others, if you set the D300 to shoot 14 bit images it really slows down to about 2.5 frames a second, the D3 doesn't seem to slow down.
Good luck with your choice, but both cameras are really good.