| Joined: | Wed Apr 18th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4187 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
Thanks Eric, Ken Rockwell reviews don't feature in my bookmark list because I feel he is loud and narrowly opinionated! LOL
However, curious to discover more snippets of information from different viewpoints about the two D300 bodies I also dug out his review of the D300S.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d300s.htm
Interestingly in the D300S review he dismisses as irrelevant, some of the features of the D300 which he saw previously as reasons alone to go with the D300... However I came away with the impression that he rather liked the 'S' upgrade but didn't like the video feature.
I think people have way too demanding expectations of the DSLR video feature. As several members here have said, if you want to do video properly, get a proper video camera. That's fine but for somebody who just wants to make short video clips very occasionally, often in specialised circumstances, especially with specialised lenses, or even underwater housings, it CAN be achieved with a DSLR, despite the limitations of the equipment. I understand even on epic movies some clips are made using DSLR's because compared with the normal video cameras they use, a good DSLR can be considered almost disposable. So they are capable of producing acceptable results providing you don't push the envelope too far.
Ken remarks more than once that panning with the D300S produces a jerky image, that makes me wonder if he has turned off VR on the lens... A bit like forgetting to take off the lens cap on an 'M' Leica... LOL
On a more basic front, one of the points Ken made was the battery life of the D300 is much better than the D200 and the image processing which removes image artefacts like CA is vastly superior. I suspect this may be related to the D200 Low Pass/Anti Alising Filter which is generally acknowledged to be too strong with it's AA filter. I have noticed with my D200 IR body that the definition is outstanding in comparison with the normal body which will be due to the removal of the LPF/AA filter during the conversion.
I'm not convinced of the benefits of having an SD card slot and a CF card slot, one or the other seems more sensible. I don't care for the SD cards, my D3100 frequently has connection errors with it's SD card, in all the time I have used CF cards I haven't had one card read error. I know it's easy to rub the connector surfaces with a tissue and that fixes it for a while but I also don't like the apparent fragility of the SD card in comparison with the CF, nor do I like the insert latching idea, they do fail, then it becomes impossible to keep the card seated in it's slot. I would much prefer push in, pull out, as it is in my Mac Book Pro and Mac mini.
Made the same mistake on the wife's bridge camera...left VR on and got jerky pans. Switched it to vertical VR orientation only and lot better....just ME being jerky.
I've come to love? SD cards. I don't think they are as vulnerable to static and contact damage as they once were. And if you have modern large capacity ones they don't need to come in and out as much. In contrast I had a sticky moment pushing a compact card onto the pins in a cardreader a month or so back which made me realise the SD is probably better. Hark at me changing ships. Lol
Yes in hindsight selling that D200IR was prob a mistake. The Fuji conversion is ok but for some reason I don't seem to enjoy using it as much as the D200. And as we know, if the camera isn't a joy to use...it shows in the results..
Of course you could buy my 17-35 lens I used exclusively and successfully with the D200IR .....and make my misery complete.
Last edited on Sun Nov 15th, 2015 06:22 by Eric
____________________
Eric