Average Reviews:
(More customer reviews)Since 2006 I have owned a D200 for serious shooting situations and I got a D40 in early '07 for everyday shots (an awesome camera - I give it SIX stars! - a whole separate review is needed!), and after hearing about the D300 release in late 2007 I debated over whether to get one. I was really happy with my D200, which I took on some overseas trips and it performed perfectly. After demo-ing a D300 in stores and reading some online reviews, I decided to take the plunge. It was a big investment but now I have no regrets - if not for the entire package, then for one thing: COLOR! Or one more thing: what Nikon calls 'Active D-Lighting' (translation: a significant change in the processor's realistic rendition of contrast, highlights, shadows, etc. - the entire package of "TONE"). Also - can an LCD rear-screen get any better than this?? In Jim Cramer-parlance I have to say that this model is definitely "best of breed".
Pluses and minuses: (note: edited every once in a while since I've used it for almost 6 months now and thousands of captures - last edit was done on 4/9/08)
PLUSES:
- Incredibly vivid, pleasingly, really surprisingly saturated color reminiscent of Velvia (high-saturation Fuji film used in slides, etc.) is now made possible by selecting the "Vivid" option in the "Picture Control" menu and cranking up the "Saturation" option - there are three levels beyond the default "0" - which sets it just about at the highest possible saturation that could be set in the D200. Even boring photos of things around the home, outside, etc. seem interesting and... well, exciting and vivid... with it set at +2 or +3 (although the +3 setting is a bit extreme for people photos, and renders their skin color a bit more intense than appears naturally). At the +3 setting even blase photos of ordinary things approach purposely-understated "art" in a MoMA-like way. For people I am finding Vivid+1 or Vivid+2 a bit more natural indoors with natural light, as the Vivid+3 saturates just a bit more than I prefer. Just like Velvia, these settings also do not warm the cool colors - one of the minuses of other cameras' 'vivid' settings - this is what's best (your cool blues, greys, greens, etc. stay cool, while the reds, yellows, oranges, bright blues/greens/etc. - watch out!) (Edited note: after about 3,000 shots I saw that indoors it might be best to do a manual white balance preset off a white wall or carpet or something and then shoot in vivid mode, since in the automatic WB mode the reds tend to get boosted quite a bit under typical indoor light and some of my subjects looked like they had a very dark suntan, or even a sunburn, in the middle of December! Careful with this... also tried standard - i.e. not vivid - color settings with +1 or +2 saturation, and these were very realistic, although the backgrounds can be dull if you're intent on vivid colors all-around. Maybe best to use those on portraits only. Try them all out and see what works best.)
- On-board so-called "Active D-Lighting" renders shadows and highlights in an very realistic manner, with no raising up of delicate shadow tones to mid-levels (as my outstanding, near-perfect-in-its-class Nikon D40 tends to do) - this really must be seen to be believed. Coupled with the color quality (and deep saturation noted above), the detail in the highlights is excellent. The D40/D200 have this feature in post-capture (i.e. you adjust the captured image yourself) but this seemed rather crude; here it is said that the Nikon actually computes the needed adjustment and does it specifically for the scene you've captured. No more blown or off-color highlights in those 'rare' occasions when overexposure seeps into a shot in a very contrasty frame.
- The new LCD screen is 3" in size and has a whopping 920,000 pixels (versus 230,000 for the D200, D80, D40, etc.) of resolution - which means image review to check focus, color, etc. is impossibly accurate and well beyond the already very high quality of Nikon's 2.5 inch screens and way, way beyond that of the Canons with the greenish-greyish-tinted LCDs even on expensive models like the much-venerated full-frame 5D. Doesn't even come with a LCD protector cover like the D200 did because it's made with tempered glass and is super resistant to scratching, damage, etc. No more looking through plastic - however transparent - when reviewing shots or setting colors, lighting, etc. (Kind of always bothered me, that.)
- 100% coverage viewfinder - excellent, and not cluttered up, making composition cleaner; nothing engraved in the viewfinder to get in the way (although you can optionally set the horizon-level grid to be on all the time, which I do, since it leaves an open space in the middle anyway, and those off-balance shots are a pain to fix).
- 51-points of autofocus available - at first I didn't really care much as I tend to do the old-school method of using one point for focus, then recomposing - but I started using the 51-point AF mode (the full-rectange setting that uses all sensors) and found that I don't need to do this as the D300 always seems to pick the object I wanted to focus on - making things much, much easier - although for really unusual shots with a subject in focus and others way out of focus, I move to the manual mode; the AF system is excellent in speed and accurate tracking of the object of focus as well (i.e. a running child, etc.) The 51 points make this very easy to do. Fiddling around in the store I saw on the big $5k D3 the points are better looking (little red spots) and less intrusive when composing than these large-ish black rectangles on the D300, but I can live with that (although it reminds me "hey, you don't have a D3!...").
- There were issues about firmware and exposure on the D40, D80, where they tended to expose too brightly, and we had to set it manually to -0.3 or -0.7 to get back to normal exposure. Not on the D300. Perfect all-around. Still, adjusting WB and exposure can make or break the shot. Especially nice is the cloudy or 'shadow' setting for indoor shots in bright sunlight; everything looks pleasingly warm, even if just a tinge more than natural. Give it a try if you like warm colors. Interesting shots can be had using 'tungsten' outside in the snow - a blue-grey monochromatic world. (If you have snow, that is.) Manual WB setting is easy off of a wall, or carpet, or napkin, etc. as usual with the Nikons in this range, and makes quite a bit of difference in odd-lighting situations (i.e. very dim room, etc.) where the automatic presets, although excellent, don't work well (especially that 'tungsten' - in normal home incandescent lighting in the evening everything is medium-blued-out - who uses this? Or am I using it incorrectly? I set WB in that situation off the wall or rug.)
- other than the full-frame sensor (no small difference, that is) and high FPS, there appears, from what I am reading, to be no major differences (unless you're a sports or news shooter) from the highly-lauded D3, which costs 3x what the D300 costs; the D3's awesome high ISO performance can be mimicked by turning off the high ISO noise reduction set "on" in the default mode in the D300 (see below) Of course, the D3 has many other features that make it best for pro sports shooters, etc. who need that size and power, and of course, full-frame has no comparison - but I have a bag full of DX lenses (and some non-DX primes) and not ready to put out $10k+ for a D3 plus a 14-24, the new 24-70 and the 70-200, etc. that I'd want. The differences in picture quality due to the full-frame sensor (and other features I wouldn't need as I don't shoot sports or news) are outweighed by the cost involved and the marginal nature of the difference overall. Image quality is essentially the same - except for the pluses of the full-frame, especially noticeable in really big prints. Also the usual full-frame focal length versus DX issue remains alive here - yes, that "35mm on a DX is equivalent to a..." continues, and probably will as long as DX lenses remain in our bags. Edit: I have tried the D3 for a shooting session and it does focus incredibly fast, much faster than the D300 in some cases. The speed of the focusing and the shutter itself are unbelievable; that camera is the Ferrari or Lamborghini of Nikons. The D300 may be the Porsche - hey, not a bad compromise - it's unlikely that the average pro-sumer will need the power of the D3 (or of a Ferrari - ever try to do 140mph on the NJ Turnpike?).
These were my big main pluses which justified the transition from the D200, but there are a few more which don't really appeal to me but will for some:
- Live View (you can see the image on the LCD screen) - perhaps this might appeal to a tripod-user setting up a photo, but I doubt I'll ever use it. Smacks of "point-and-shoot", I think, but could be handy in some cases where it is hard to position the eye at the viewfinder (behind the sofa?...) (Edited note: should not have panned this - gave the camera to my 21 year old niece, who tried to take a Christmas portrait of my family and I together - and got half of us in the bottom of the frame, and an empty top half of the frame! - for those who basically grew up using live view digital cameras, this feature is very useful - just set it and let them shoot - I think the weight of the D300 and the fact that she had to use a (gasp!) viewfinder (as opposed to the RAZR internal cellphone camera) threw her off. Some creative cropping may save the shot, anyway.)
- Ultrasonic Sensor Cleaner - like the Canons and Pentaxes, Sonys, etc., Nikon finally offers a sensor cleaner (which is user-operated, not constantly running at each power-up if you set it that way). Might be useful after hard shooting in dusty or otherwise...Read more›
Click Here to see more reviews about: Nikon D300 DX 12.3MP Digital SLR Camera (Body Only)
Click here for more information about Nikon D300 DX 12.3MP Digital SLR Camera (Body Only)
