Nikon D300 and D300s Owners

[Redneck]

The D300 is a fantastic camera but its ISO capabilities are IMO not good enough to shoot under any light conditions. For instance, if you want to use your camera to shoot weddings or sports events in poorly lit facilities, then you better get yourself a D700.
I use both, the D300 for studio shots and the D700 for pretty much anything else. Both are great camera bodies but the D700 is double as good as the D300 when it comes to low light, IMO.

[wasserball4]

Originally Posted by Redneck

The D300 is a fantastic camera but its ISO capabilities are IMO not good enough to shoot under any light conditions. For instance, if you want to use your camera to shoot weddings or sports events in poorly lit facilities, then you better get yourself a D700.
I use both, the D300 for studio shots and the D700 for pretty much anything else. Both are great camera bodies but the D700 is double as good as the D300 when it comes to low light, IMO.

From what I read the D700 is best for studio portraits because of the dynamics of the sensor capable of showing more detail features. The cropped DX cameras excel everywhere else where there is sufficient ambient light because the pixel density is greater then the full frame FX cameras. The question comes if you crop (make the subject bigger) the FX photo to DX, which would have better IQ. The DX of course because you lose pixels when you crop the FX photo. So, the FX is not inherently a better format than the DX. That's why a pro like you carry both format cameras.

[LadyShutterBug]

For me, the ease of use where dials/controls are concerned is far superior on the d300 (vs the d90). You have iso and wb RIGHT THERE, you can easily manipulate them without having to go into a menu.

D90 is way better in low light, though.

[starlightbreaker]

Originally Posted by LadyShutterBug

D90 is way better in low light, though.

but not in focusing.

The reason for me to grab a D300 was because it can focus properly in a dark situation.
D90, not so much.

[tertius]

Originally Posted by LadyShutterBug

For me, the ease of use where dials/controls are concerned is far superior on the d300 (vs the d90). You have iso and wb RIGHT THERE, you can easily manipulate them without having to go into a menu.

D90 is way better in low light, though.

On the D90 you hold the WB or ISO button and scroll to the desired value. Is it easier than that on a D300???

[LadyShutterBug]

honestly? yes it's much easier on the d300. they're up on top and you can see them and the display at the same time.

[PEC]

i went through a similar decision not long ago :)

I ended up with a D300 (the d300s was not available at the time and I don't do video) and a D700 to replace me 2 d200's.

Here is why - i have both DX and FX lenses and there are times when I want the crop factor for extra reach on my 300/f4. If i want to go real light and just shoot snapshots with my 18-200, i use my d300. If i am really serious about what I am shooting i normally grab the d700. I didn't want to have to sell off all my dx lenses.

I plan on leep froging my upgrades, when the next upgrade comes first to go will be my d300.

I feel safe shooting up to 800 iso with the d300 and will occasionally push myself to 1200. I go 1600-2000 on my d700. Compared to the 400 i felt safe going to in the d200 both are great upgrades.

[tertius]

Originally Posted by LadyShutterBug

honestly? yes it's much easier on the d300. they're up on top and you can see them and the display at the same time.

My point was that you don't have to go into a menu to adjust. I do see the advantage to having them on top, but the back isn't that bad when you use it for a little while and get use to the button layout.