Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 3, 2007, 8:12 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Kendal, Cumbria UK: the English Lake District
Posts: 60
Default

I currently use a D2X. Increasingly my work takes me well off the beaten track and requires a lot of carrying of gear. The D2X is hardly light or compact, but it is incredibly robust and has taken a lot of knocks in it's stride.

I'm tempted by the relative low weight and compact size of the D300. My real concern is not to lose the robustness of the D2X.

Does anyone have any idea just how well built and robust the D300 will turn out to be?
slioch is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 5, 2007, 6:34 PM   #2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 18
Default

Have mine in hand, and it seems to be quite robust/well built. Love the new features on it too! Think you will really appreciate one if you decide to go t hat way.
seanile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2007, 9:56 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
cameranserai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 548
Default

There are of course quite a number of differences between the two, most importantly the sensor which, depending on whether you do much low light photography, could be very important. I have the D2X and find the only way forward the D3for professional usage. Some of the photos I've seen on the internet using this new camera are mindblowing in their christal clarity at high ISO ratings.

Both are alloy bodiedbut to me that isn't important since I've had a D70 for years and it has taken the knocks as well as the D2X. Both are very strong but the main difference for me has been the sealing. I've never, no matter what, had to clean the sensor on the D2X whereas the D70 lets in all manner of dust. I wonder if the D300 is in some ways the same in this respect.

However, for me, the main point you'll have to consider is battery life. It seems to me, without doing a full study, that the D300 with the additional battery pack won't be far off the weight of the D3. If you've ever compared the difference in battery weights you'll know why. The new D3, with my two 8GB cards in parallel, can take about 3,000 photos and for me, a motor racing photographer, that's important. If you aren't going to need the memory then perhaps the D300 might be just the thing for you. In addition, I don't see much future for my 17/55 lens which I am going to have to sell. Added expense!
cameranserai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2007, 12:36 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 18
Default

As far as sealing is concerned, I think you will find it seals very well. My son had a D70 which let in all manner of dust - as you say, but went to a D200 and has had no problems sinse, and he is a news photog.. The D300 is "supposed" to have an even better seal. Will let you know how it works!

A friend of mine shoots for the AP doing sports, and ordered two of the D300's, with no problems either so far!
seanile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2007, 2:52 PM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Kendal, Cumbria UK: the English Lake District
Posts: 60
Default

I forget-is it the D3 or D300 that has the active dust removal system on the sensor? [presumably similar to the Olympus 4/3 one].
slioch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2007, 3:19 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 18
Default

D300 does, cannot say for sure if the D3 does or not.
seanile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2007, 3:21 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
cameranserai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 548
Default

No the D3 doesn't have the self cleaning system. I must admit to being torn between the two (not least because I'll need a new lens as well if I buy the D3) but I would love to see some high ISO photos from the D300. I've seen loads taken with the D3 and impressive they are, but if the D300 is as good that would save me a heap of money.
cameranserai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2007, 3:32 AM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 18
Default

This was taken at ISO 3200.. The only pixilation I can see is in the print itself. Sorry about it being a little out of focus.
Attached Images
 
seanile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2007, 5:00 AM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Kendal, Cumbria UK: the English Lake District
Posts: 60
Default

OK, I'll come clean. I work almost exclusively on landscape and mountaineering shots. When I used a film camera, I never shot above 400 iso. And I didn't find that a problem-tripods, walls, trees to brace yourself against etc.

So, I find the near obsession in reviews and fora such as this with performance at ultra high iso to be a bit puzzling.

Is it my own photographic work prefernces that blind me to the importance of the debate?

Anyone got any ideas?


slioch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2007, 6:11 AM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 18
Default

High ISO and sports photography go hand in hand, as they are quite often shot in poorer lighting conditions. I like to do a lot of bird shots in the twi-light hours as well, and a smooth high ISO will allow me to get more shots that are keepers!
seanile is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:41 AM.