Posted by Robert Bunch on July 14, 2009 at 1:24 AM
I am getting ready to buy a new camera and I have been thinking about the D300. I have a D200 now and I have been pretty happy with it. I would like to know what you D300 users think of its performance at high ISOs such as 800 and above. When the D300 first came out I seem to recall hearing that it was much improved over the D200 at high ISOs. Have you found this to be true. Any comments on any other aspect of the D300s performance would be welcome also.
I am also considering the D700 but I would rather get DX crop at a lower price if the D300 will suit my needs.
I'm sincerely sold on the D300. Here's what I had to say about it on another post:
I just finished an aerial shoot with the D300 alongside a D2X.
It was an especially tough shoot, one of the most challenging I've ever experienced. Due to timing and client needs, shooting had to be done just after "sunrise" on a cloudy day, so light levels were low and I had to shoot at 2500 ISO in order to achieve 1/125 shutter speeds. Worse yet, the helo I had chartered mechanicalled out the night before and I had to shoot from a plane, but not just any plane. It was a Beaver on floats, and the doors couldn't be removed. So here I sit in the front passenger seat shooting out the open window in the narrow span between the prop in front and the wing behind. Talk about quick reflexes, a quick camera and good coms with the pilot! It was low elevation shooting seldom above 500 feet and in order to keep steerage, speeds needed to be kept at or above 80 knots. And lots of the shooting was with the right wing down and spinning in tight turns.
Dizzy yet? No? Stick a viewfinder in front of your eye.
And the D300 knocked the pants off the D2X! Focus was distinctly faster, as was acquisition of VR, mandatory under those conditions. Worst of all, the image quality with the D2X SUCKED in comparison. I didn't get a usable shot from the D2X, while virtually everything from the D300 was stunning. Ping pong ball grain from the D2X, while the D300 was grainless at 2500 ISO. As the morning progressed I was able to drop the D2X to 800 ISO, but forgot to do so with the D300. Shooting at 2500 ISO, the D300 beat the pants off the D2X at 800 ISO.
Buy the D300. Don't look back.
I'm attaching a shot from that aerial shoot. It needs a very small bump in Curves, but other than that the only processing is size reduction and a slight sharpen. It has been reduced from roughly 35mb to 200k for posting, and it was shot at 2500 ISO. At 80 knots. Through a small opening. In a tight turn. In rough air. I'm more than a little impressed.
Robert, if you need the reach get the D300. It's a fine camera in terms of response, noise and color, especially color. I have one and love it.
But...I recently bought the D700 and I use it in every situation except those where I need the reach. The D700 is almost a D3, except cheaper, as is the case with no noise to speak of at even higher ISO's than what the D300 handles.
By all accounts the D300 is soon to be replaced by what will either be called a D300s or D400. Most feel it will be in the 16-18 MP range and with high ISO performance a little better than the current D300. So if you buy a D300 now you might be kicking yourself in just a couple of months...
Personally I did not have good luck with the D300 and I have seen a number of them fail under tough field shooting conditions (and I do mean tough conditions - not the sort of thing most shooters would shoot under - like shooting in the rain in the Great Bear Rainforest - if you get my drift...). On the other hand, when I replaced my D300 with a D700 I was pretty close to completely happy. It wasn't quite as good as my D3, but so incredibly close (especially when run with the optional battery grip, which increases it's frame rate to close to the D3, and gives you all the controls you need when shooting vertically) that I was left wondering why anyone would buy a D3 (after the introduction of the D700). There is a marked difference in build quality between a D700 (made in Japan - the D3 factory) and the D300 (made in Thailand).
If you're interested in my experiences with the D300, go here: http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/cameragear.html
(you'll have to scroll down a little to the section called "Cameras - Recently Abandoned Products".
Right now (Tuesday AM) I'm in the processing of adding my thoughts on Nikon's coming camera introductions to my blog - I'll post this info in the next couple of hours - you may find it interesting...the info will be here in a few hours:
That's not great news on robustness of build Brad, but it's hard to imagine even better high ISO performance. I'll attach another 2500 ISO shot, this one an outtake for framing reasons, but no reflection on the image quality..... OR the fast focus and VR engagement. There's not a spot of noise in those blacks. My head was absolutely spinning, but the camera came through like a champ.
I regret selling my D2x. There's no doubt that the D300 has a more advanced autofocus system (compared to the D2x) but I didn't find it worked as well as that on my D2x is SOME shooting conditions (it isn't the same system on the D300 and D700) - such as acquiring initial focus on birds in flight when using long telephoto lenses (but I will not disagree that in MOST situations the autofocus system on the D300 works better).
In terms of ISO performance, there's no doubt that the D2x was a low ISO camera only. But I only found about a 1 stop improvement with the D300, compared to a 2.5 to 3 stop improvement with the D700 and D3. And, as you crank up the ISO on the D300 your dynamic range falls way faster than it does on the FX bodies. Interestingly, my own findings on the high ISO performance of the D300 (I never liked shooting it above ISO 640) parallel the tests on it by the DXOmark team - their results are here - www.dxomark.com
My personal experiences with the D300 (two bodies, both of which failed on me) leave me in a position where I simply can't recommend the camera to most serious wildlife shooters (which I know Robert is). Others' experiences may differ, and I won't contest their (or your) recommendation - it just isn't the same as mine.
Yup, different horses for different courses. Our commercial, studio, industrial and scientific shooting put a very different set of demands on a camera than wildlife shooting.
My wife and I both love our D2X's, and originally viewed the D300's we bought as lightweight backups. I'm wondering if there's a difference between older D300's and new ones in high ISO performance, since we just bought ours (four of them) in the last 6 weeks. The D2X flopped badly alongside the 300's in the challenging use shown in my two photos, and in all other low light situations in the subsequent two weeks of our contract. We've both reached the point that we trust the D300 a whole lot more than the D2X, based solely on performance in our conditions.
We're flying out this Friday for four days of bear photography, giving us a chance to compare them on wildlife. Since the long-range forecast appears wet, we'll be giving the 300 the ultimate test, I'm afraid. Thanks for the forewarning!
Posted by Robert Bunch on July 14, 2009 at 7:27 PM
Thanks to everyone for your input.
Robert
Posted by Kent Staubus on July 15, 2009 at 12:29 AM
I've been using a D300 for most of a year now. I'm very tough on gear, and usually damage or destroy something every year. D300 has held up well in the blizzards I love to shoot in, as well as temps down to -32. It takes light rain in stride. I shoot a LOT in low light conditions and mostly use ISO 800. I'll go to ISO 3200 in a pinch. It's getting to be Nikon's oldest current camera now, so a new model is due out sometime. I'd wait to see if one surfaces in Sept. Actually though, D300 does almost everything I ask. I sometimes take ambient light shots with it using only starlight (no moonlight.) I can do it with an f1.4 lens--you might be surprised. Anyway, I have no concerns about it's ability to withstand Dakota weather and trips in my duckboat.
You bring up an interesting point for Robert by inference, Kent. With new models looming, a sudden and dramatic drop in D300 prices is likely. If the newest Jones-pacer model doesn't offer performance improvement commensurate with the extra cost, you can get the performance you need for considerably less money picking up the "outdated" D300 as the new models hit the market. That's an important decision for us in a business environment. Pay the big buxx for the hottest new thing, or pay less for an entirely suitable predecessor and put the savings into other gear, retirement accounts or mortgages?
Discussion
11 repliesI am also considering the D700 but I would rather get DX crop at a lower price if the D300 will suit my needs.
Thanks in advance for your help!
Robert Bunch
I'm sincerely sold on the D300. Here's what I had to say about it on another post:
I just finished an aerial shoot with the D300 alongside a D2X.
It was an especially tough shoot, one of the most challenging I've ever experienced. Due to timing and client needs, shooting had to be done just after "sunrise" on a cloudy day, so light levels were low and I had to shoot at 2500 ISO in order to achieve 1/125 shutter speeds. Worse yet, the helo I had chartered mechanicalled out the night before and I had to shoot from a plane, but not just any plane. It was a Beaver on floats, and the doors couldn't be removed. So here I sit in the front passenger seat shooting out the open window in the narrow span between the prop in front and the wing behind. Talk about quick reflexes, a quick camera and good coms with the pilot! It was low elevation shooting seldom above 500 feet and in order to keep steerage, speeds needed to be kept at or above 80 knots. And lots of the shooting was with the right wing down and spinning in tight turns.
Dizzy yet? No? Stick a viewfinder in front of your eye.
And the D300 knocked the pants off the D2X! Focus was distinctly faster, as was acquisition of VR, mandatory under those conditions. Worst of all, the image quality with the D2X SUCKED in comparison. I didn't get a usable shot from the D2X, while virtually everything from the D300 was stunning. Ping pong ball grain from the D2X, while the D300 was grainless at 2500 ISO. As the morning progressed I was able to drop the D2X to 800 ISO, but forgot to do so with the D300. Shooting at 2500 ISO, the D300 beat the pants off the D2X at 800 ISO.
Buy the D300. Don't look back.
I'm attaching a shot from that aerial shoot. It needs a very small bump in Curves, but other than that the only processing is size reduction and a slight sharpen. It has been reduced from roughly 35mb to 200k for posting, and it was shot at 2500 ISO. At 80 knots. Through a small opening. In a tight turn. In rough air. I'm more than a little impressed.
Wow, Hank! A fantastic camera makes a great photographer look like a wizard! What a shot in such strenuous circumstances.
But...I recently bought the D700 and I use it in every situation except those where I need the reach. The D700 is almost a D3, except cheaper, as is the case with no noise to speak of at even higher ISO's than what the D300 handles.
By all accounts the D300 is soon to be replaced by what will either be called a D300s or D400. Most feel it will be in the 16-18 MP range and with high ISO performance a little better than the current D300. So if you buy a D300 now you might be kicking yourself in just a couple of months...
Personally I did not have good luck with the D300 and I have seen a number of them fail under tough field shooting conditions (and I do mean tough conditions - not the sort of thing most shooters would shoot under - like shooting in the rain in the Great Bear Rainforest - if you get my drift...). On the other hand, when I replaced my D300 with a D700 I was pretty close to completely happy. It wasn't quite as good as my D3, but so incredibly close (especially when run with the optional battery grip, which increases it's frame rate to close to the D3, and gives you all the controls you need when shooting vertically) that I was left wondering why anyone would buy a D3 (after the introduction of the D700). There is a marked difference in build quality between a D700 (made in Japan - the D3 factory) and the D300 (made in Thailand).
If you're interested in my experiences with the D300, go here: http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/cameragear.html
(you'll have to scroll down a little to the section called "Cameras - Recently Abandoned Products".
Right now (Tuesday AM) I'm in the processing of adding my thoughts on Nikon's coming camera introductions to my blog - I'll post this info in the next couple of hours - you may find it interesting...the info will be here in a few hours:
http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html
Hope this helps...
Brad
I regret selling my D2x. There's no doubt that the D300 has a more advanced autofocus system (compared to the D2x) but I didn't find it worked as well as that on my D2x is SOME shooting conditions (it isn't the same system on the D300 and D700) - such as acquiring initial focus on birds in flight when using long telephoto lenses (but I will not disagree that in MOST situations the autofocus system on the D300 works better).
In terms of ISO performance, there's no doubt that the D2x was a low ISO camera only. But I only found about a 1 stop improvement with the D300, compared to a 2.5 to 3 stop improvement with the D700 and D3. And, as you crank up the ISO on the D300 your dynamic range falls way faster than it does on the FX bodies. Interestingly, my own findings on the high ISO performance of the D300 (I never liked shooting it above ISO 640) parallel the tests on it by the DXOmark team - their results are here - www.dxomark.com
My personal experiences with the D300 (two bodies, both of which failed on me) leave me in a position where I simply can't recommend the camera to most serious wildlife shooters (which I know Robert is). Others' experiences may differ, and I won't contest their (or your) recommendation - it just isn't the same as mine.
Cheers...
Brad
My wife and I both love our D2X's, and originally viewed the D300's we bought as lightweight backups. I'm wondering if there's a difference between older D300's and new ones in high ISO performance, since we just bought ours (four of them) in the last 6 weeks. The D2X flopped badly alongside the 300's in the challenging use shown in my two photos, and in all other low light situations in the subsequent two weeks of our contract. We've both reached the point that we trust the D300 a whole lot more than the D2X, based solely on performance in our conditions.
We're flying out this Friday for four days of bear photography, giving us a chance to compare them on wildlife. Since the long-range forecast appears wet, we'll be giving the 300 the ultimate test, I'm afraid. Thanks for the forewarning!
Robert
Kent in SD