| Joined: | Wed Apr 18th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4187 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
This thread is a split from several off topic posts in Iain's "Quick Question".
Eric Wrote:
In fairness I think you missed a significant step not going to the D300. Not quite the magnitude of the D2X to D3 step change, but the D300 was in the same wave of urgent upgrades designed to win back users who were drifting towards Canon for better high ISO noise performance. And as such did make a significant step improvement worth buying into.
Eric, I had been led to believe, by several 'knowledgable' people that the D300 was pretty much a cosmetic up-grade from the D200. I know one or two here have maintained that the D300 up-grade was more than cosmetic, but:
There were also two other factors, I wasn't prepared to invest a further £800 in another new body when the D200 was producing the quality of images that I needed and my long term goal has always been a full frame 35mm (FX) camera, indeed I still miss my 6x6 Bronica S2a single lens reflex. But MF digital is out of the question on cost grounds and also their sensors are only slightly bigger than FX anyway, so there isn't much to be gained.
In the next few month I am hoping to acquire a D3, a good one has come available from an unexpected quarter and I hope to clinch it next year. So, as I do, I have been reading up as much as I can about the D3, while I am aware of the basics, I want to swat up on the detail. One of my sources of info is DPPreview:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3
One of the things in the review I have noticed is that they are constantly referring to the D300 and many of the components seem to be common, for example the rear viewing screen. They also make direct comparisons between the D3 and the D300 both regarding image quality and ISO performance. They regard the D300 as a worthy stable mate for it's big brother. The comparison images at the end of the review compare very favourably with the D3 until about ISO 1600, when the D300 starts to break down. The smaller sensor packing almost the same number of pixels then shows it's limitations.
I am very tempted to try a D300 and see how it feels and performs, they can be had for very little money now. It may be worth a punt, even though I still intend to get the D3.
Well I think those knowledgable people were talking through the wrong orifice. Lol
So... a new CMOS sensor and Expeed processor, more active pixels giving higher resolution, wider ISO range with greater noise reduction, 51point focusing system, bigger LCD with more pixels, faster fps, burst rates and buffer,...that's a cosmetic upgrade?
I really enjoyed the D300. It was better than the D2X never mind the D200. (Although in fairness I only had a D200 for IR so didn't see its full colour performance.
The only thing that eclipsed it was the D3 at that time. And had I not gone to FX I suspect I may still have it.
Don't get me wrong...I still think the D3 is the best choice for you. I wouldn't waste any of that money trying a D300. The step change in all areas is the D3. I just think the D300 is a forgotten hero.
Last edited on Thu Nov 12th, 2015 09:29 by Eric
____________________
Eric