Nikon D300 and D300s Owners

[wildhorserunphotography]

What are your pros and cons of these cameras?

I'm pretty sure I'm going to buy one, but I like to hear from real photographers' on their experiances on the camera.

I own a D200 now.

[PhotoByLeal]

magical question, what do you want or going to shoot with this camera?
(wildlife, weddings, sports or just have something better?)

D300 is nice, but the D300s handles better ISO and the auto focus system seems a bit better on tracking subjects, IMHO!

If money is not a problem, them go with the D300s!

I have a D200 as a back up and I love to shoot that with my 50 1.4, awesome camera!

later

[Hanky]

I don't like the af on my D300 however if you judge real photographers on a scale of 1-10 my rating would be a 2.381 so take with a grain of salt. Btw, I will either get the D400 or D800 (if my new wife allows).

[wildhorserunphotography]

I mostly do portraits (natural Light) and Weddings. I enjoy nature photography. Money isn't a problem between the d300 and d300s. I just can't jump into the D700

[Rson]

I Love my D300, but are you jumping up much from the d200 to d300.....look at a used D700. That would be a upgrade that is worth it.

[shnitz]

I think the D300 is a real upgrade from the D200. Unfortunately, the D200 doesn't command solid prices on the used market. You won't be disappointed if you upgrade, and unlike going to the D700, you likely won't have to reinvest in new glass. It's just too bad for you that the D200 didn't hold its value as well as the lower-end cameras. I see D80's sell for as much as D200's.

[Nikonfan]

Wow, I'm really surprised that the lack of enthusiasm here for the D300/D300s. This is the flagship of Nikon's crop sensor line. The autofocus on it is among the best in the industry. ISO is awesome. I almost pulled the trigger on a D300s and went with a D300 instead. I must have read 50 articles/reviews and a thousand opinions on both. At the end of the day, the ISO is the same on both of them. Heck, everything is practically identicle. The big differences are that the D300s has video with horrible audio (unless you purchase an external mic) and it also has dual card slots. One can hold CF and the other SDHC. I looked all over Texas and bordering states as I was willing to drive for a deal. The current rate for a used D300 is $875-$1000. For a D300s you are looking at $1,200-1,350. While I wouldn't have minded having the video or dual slots of the D300s it wasn't worth paying an extra 40% over the D300 which is 96% the same camera. At least that's my opinion. Either way you go, the D300 or D300s are both excellent pro body cameras.

D300 from Nikon

D300S from Nikon

[TXAvi8tor]

If so doing doesn't require new lenses, I'd search for a used D700.

If you're staying DX, wait a few weeks. The D300s replacement (D400?) should be announced soon. It most likely won't actually be available until 30-60 days later, but will probably drive down the price of both new and used D300s bodies.

You may decide the feature set is worth waiting for, or you may get a better deal on a D300s, but unless you have an absolutely compelling reason, buying a D300 or 300s now may make you want to kick yourself in a couple months.

[Rson]

Originally Posted by Nikonfan

Wow, I'm really surprised that the lack of enthusiasm here for the D300/D300s. This is the flagship of Nikon's crop sensor line. The autofocus on it is among the best in the industry. ISO is awesome. I almost pulled the trigger on a D300s and went with a D300 instead. I must have read 50 articles/reviews and a thousand opinions on both. At the end of the day, the ISO is the same on both of them. Heck, everything is practically identicle. The big differences are that the D300s has video with horrible audio (unless you purchase an external mic) and it also has dual card slots. One can hold CF and the other SDHC. I looked all over Texas and bordering states as I was willing to drive for a deal. The current rate for a used D300 is $875-$1000. For a D300s you are looking at $1,200-1,350. While I wouldn't have minded having the video or dual slots of the D300s it wasn't worth paying an extra 40% over the D300 which is 96% the same camera. At least that's my opinion. Either way you go, the D300 or D300s are both excellent pro body cameras.



NO NO, I love my D300, but if I had a D200, the D700 would be my next upgrade. The specs are too close and the cost vs., benefit isn't there.
D300 from Nikon

D300S from Nikon

NO NO, I love my D300, but if I had a D200, the D700 would be my next upgrade. The specs are too close and the cost vs., benefit isn't there.
[url=http://www.nikonusa.com/d300]D300 from Nikon

[RickD]

I jumped from a D70 to a D300 - huge upgrade. I used it for sports and portraits, but I knew it was an interim step towards the D700. So in my search for a new primary camera, I tested the D300s....the bottom line is I didn't notice a huge gain in price/performance.

I ended up with the D700 only because of lowlight and investment in FX lenses, but I kept the D300 as loaner/backup camera.

[Bob_S]

D200 to D300 is a huge upgrade if you shoot in low light. 300 vs 300s... not such a big difference. Perhaps better AF but the same image quality. You get video. (Why are they stuck on putting in video in a SLR. Stop it! :) ) For me and the features I used, the 300 and 300s are the same camera. The D200 is like a D50 where a D300 is like a D90.

[Nikonfan]

Originally Posted by Rson

NO NO, I love my D300, but if I had a D200, the D700 would be my next upgrade. The specs are too close and the cost vs., benefit isn't there.
[url=http://www.nikonusa.com/d300]D300 from Nikon

I agree that going to a D700 would be more of an upgrade than the D300. However, if buget is a factor it wouldn't make sense. The D200 can be sold for $400 making the cost to upgrade to a used D700 about $1,700 vs $500 for a used D300. That's a HUGE price difference.

The D300 is leaps and bounds better than the D200. 51 focus points, 3" lcd, 100% view finder coverage, 14 bit processing, ISO 6400, better AF, etc..

The D700 isn't actually very different than the D300 it was based on. The only big difference is the better low light capabilty. So unless the OP will be shooting in very dark situations on a regular basis without a flash, it wouldn't make much sense to spend three times as much for a camera that is almost the same.

[Richard_B]

If you shoot a lot of weddings the low light capability of the D700 will show itself in a big hurry in the amount of time you don't have to spend in PP, but even a used one is a big price jump and then there is the matter of lenses. If you have mostly DX lenses the change may not be practical at this time.

The prices of the D300s seem to be coming down a little bit which suggest that people are starting to clear inventory in expectation of the D400 release. Guessing when Nikon will actually release the D400 is problematic though most people seem to be saying "this year" which probably does not help you much in deciding what to do now...or do you need to buy now?

Cheers

[Edit] P.S. NikonRumors seems to think the D400 release must be near as they have rated the D300s as a "wait".

[KenJulio]

Have you considered the D7000? It has been reported it handles ISO better than the D300 series. It'll be a smaller body compared to the d*00 bodies, it's on par in size to the D90.

[wasserball4]

I will break everyone's heart. Get a used D90 instead, for around $650. Professional magnesium body? Why? I doubt OP will shoot in a war zone. Yea, it has less focus points than the D300, but the sensor is just as good if not better. I loved my D90 unless I have to shoot at ISO 3200 under crappy HS stadium light. But then, that's where the D700 comes in handy. If the OP wants to stop upgrading after a short while, I would get the D7000 for around $1200. I agree with Ken.

BTW, the D90 is the most popular Nikon camera for a good reason.