Nikon D300 DX 12.3MP Digital SLR Camera with 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Nikkor Zoom Lens by Nikon
|
Our Price: $2,100.00 Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Category: Digital Camera See more digital camera details and other models |
|---|
Digital camera reviews of Nikon D300 DX 12.3MP Digital SLR Camera with 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Nikkor Zoom Lens
Digital camera Review: D300
Summary: 5 Stars
Love my D300. Still learning all the features, but that is some of the fun. Images from it are great. It is large, especially with the optional battery grip, and somewhat heavy, but it has a good feel in my hands. The 18-200 mm lens give me a lot of range with just one lens. Good for travel.Digital camera Review: D300
Summary: 5 Stars
The D300 is a must have you are into photography in a serious way.
Highly recommended.
Digital camera Review: D300
Summary: 5 Stars
Love the camera and taking pictures with it is a lot of fun. Ordering from amazon was relatively painless. US serial numbers so I was able to register my camera and accompanying 18-200 lens through Nikon USA for those of you worried about gray market gear. Beware that Amazon has dropped their post-order price guarantee policy though and the price dropped $200 less than three weeks after I ordered.Digital camera Review: D300 + 18-200mm VR = astounding images
Summary: 5 Stars
I ordered my D300 after my D70 suddenly froze in the mirror-up position while I was accompanying a handicapped Italian participant in the 2008 NY City Marathon (I managed to fix it, and had to run like h*ll to catch up!)
I already owned the 18-200mm lens, purchased in a kit for my photojournalism-major son, who is down on zoom lenses.
I've been a photographer since 1958 when I "inherited" a school photographer position held by my father and uncle before me. I've owned dozens of cameras over the years, mostly Canons and Leicas, and won more than my share of awards from the start, including grand prize in the Kodak High School contest and the old NY Herald Trib contest. I shoot today to illustrate medical equipment case histories as a marketing communications consultant. I have a collection of more than 50 cameras of all brands.
And so, when I say the D300 + 18-200 zoom is a magnificent imaging-making combination, I know of what I speak.
1. First of all, images. Spectacular. At 18mm, it is sharper by far than my 20mm f2.8 Nikon AF, which I sold shortly after I bought the zoom lens (I still own a 17mm Tokina for use with a film N80). There is some mild pincushion distortion characteristic when you shoot planar surfaces close, and you need to keep people out of the frame edges or they will look fat - but for scenics and general photography, it is spectacular.
There are definitely focus points across the 18-200 range that are not as sharp as at the extremes. It's pretty neutral from a color cast perspective - that point was brought home to me this week when I shot the same scene with the 18-200 and my Tamron 28-75mm XR Di, which startled me with a warmth I never appreciated.
Also - you will discover that the small maximum aperture of the 18-200mm VR doesn't give you the focus separation of subject from background you might want. Shoot close and wide where you can - the lens is sharp enough wide open to handle that, although "wide open" on this lens isn't very wide at any focal length.
2. The VR spoils one. For shooting subjects that don't move, it works just as promised. If you have good technique, you can easily hand-hold this lens at 1/8th of a second over most of its range, and I've shot lower with careful bracing.
Unfortunately, the VR mechanism is pretty useless for shooting moving subjects unless in quite bright conditions.
3. The range of options of the menu system can be boggling, although right out of the box, you will shoot amazing images, particularly in the "P" (program) mode. However, once you get past the standard functions, you will not use a tenth of this camera's capabilities without reading the manual with the camera in front of you. I rate the quality of the manual as a B-. Its explanations are pretty good, but organization borders on absurd, and you may be forced to go through the manual just to understand the vernacular for the function you may be seeking.
4. The LCD screen is a blow-away. I am reluctant to increase its brightness from "0" because I am afraid of misjudging images, but you can boost brightness quite a bit.
5. The RAW setting produces roughly the same quality images as the fine jpeg setting - until you screw something up. Then the RAW images are vastly better, because you can compensate greatly, especially with the Nikon Capture NX program. Be warned, however, that the NEF format is NOT compatible with popular programs like Paintshop Pro, which handled the NEF files from my D70 and my son's former D50.
6. The dynamic range - highlight to deep shade/shadow - is spectacular. I don't push the camera to 3200 ISO, where I know it is measurably poorer; I don't shoot faster than 1600. I carry a 50mm f1.8 lens with me at all times to avoid having to go faster than 800 ISO, because I can see the difference.
Don't overexpose with the D300 - not necessary, and just complicates your tasks later. I used to set my D70 at +0.3 compensation to avoid shadow losses, but be VERY careful in doing that with the D300. I do it only in backlit situations where I cannot flash fill. The D-lighting in Capture NX is safer than the D-lighting setting in the camera, and seems to work fine.
7. Battery life is good, assuming you don't use built-in flash. I always use an SB-400 for fill, so my experience may be different. TTL flash with the SB-400 on the D300 is not to be believed.
8. Consider carefully if you really need the vertical grip. I find the ergonomics quite good without it, and I don't like the hair trigger on the vertical grip. However, the grip changes the public's perceived nature of the photographer using it, in an era when everyone is walking around with dinky D40s and digital Rebels. At weddings, it's a must. I attach it when I want to crash a scene as a pro - with the 80-200mm f2.8 zoom and lens shade, and the vertical grip on a D300, you can get past a lot of guards (e.g. sidelines of most non-pro football fields). On the other hand, take it off when entering museums or other places where the guards are looking to keep pros out. The weight with the AA battery pack is unacceptable - with the lithium ion, no big deal.
Conclusion: While not a D3 or D700, the D300 is more than enough camera for those who shoot images rarely printed larger than 24x36, and certainly more than enough for those whose work shows up mainly on the web.
Digital camera Review: D300 - Good, but over-hyped.
Summary: 4 Stars
Reviews I read made it sound like the D300 was leaps and bounds better than all other Nikons before it, and all other competing brands today. I had such high expectations that I also had disappointments. I mean, it costs 10 times as much as a compact, weighs 10 times as much as a compact, and is 10 times bigger than a compact, yet I usually don't get 10 times better pictures than with my compact(s). I'm not a professional photographer, but I've thoroughly learned how to use the D300, and can now usually get much better results (sometimes only after extensive editing, or with added lighting) than I can with my compact(s), but I must say today's little P&S's take some pretty darn good pictures, as long as there is plenty of light. So, if you are an amateur and considering buying one, just be aware that the quality of your pictures may not skyrocket like you hope. Note: The D300 is the first and only SLR I've owned, and some of my comments are more specific to SLR technology than the D300. Some specifics:
- Depth of field tends to be shallower than on a compact. - this is good for taking pictures of subjects that you want to stand out, but bad for taking close-ups when you want the whole subject in focus. And its harder to get the underside of a mushroom with it, than with a smaller camera.
- When using LiveView, the display shuts off as soon as you initiate focusing to get your shot - better get used to using that viewfinder ($180 for a Nikon right-angle viewfinder to keep from having to lay on the ground, or when there just isn't room, oh - then you need a camera bag to carry it in, along with the other things...).
- For a deeper depth of field, if there isn't enough light after stopping down the aperture, flash can be added - and the D300's built-in flash is quite nice. Since depth of field is hardest to come by the closer you are, the flash is a nice way to acheive it, although I now have an entire bag just devoted to supplemental lighting.
- Photos of people have far less red-eye than with my compact(s), even with just the built-in flash (I dont use the obnoxious red-eye flash mode)
- Lens changing provides more options than with a compact - watch out for dust on the sensor though. Fish-eye is super-fun and useful - I've taken great fish-eye shots, as well as great wide-angle - after fish-eye lens correction and cropping. Beware that telephoto lenses to get as far as, or further than a compact super-zoom are extremely expensive, big, and heavy.
- You can take pictures with less light than with a compact - do not underestimate this plus - compact cameras perform well under ideal lighting conditions, but many pictures are taken in less than ideal lighting, especially if you are into wildlife photography where you are shooting at dawn or dusk, into a shadow, ... - this is one of the biggest pluses of the D300 in my opinion. I'm constantly amazed when I hear people say "low-light performance is not a big factor for me". What? - I mean taking pictures indoors almost always constitutes a "low-light" situation. Pictures taken in shadow are often "low-light". OK, if you put your camera on a tripod and dont shoot moving subjects, then low-light isn't a big factor - unless the wind is blowing...
- I maintain that when pictures have been taken under ideal lighting conditions, and when viewed at normal screen resolutions, my compact does just about as good a job as my D300, sometimes better actually. That said, when viewing super-sized, or when blowing it up for print, or if the image will be extremely cropped - the D300 is by far the better tool.
- SLR cameras make audible noise (mirror and shutter). This noise can scare wildlife and/or offend humans. Compacts can be made silent.
- I am enjoying the more precise focusing and faster performance of my D300, although I'll swear the automatic metering does not seem to do as good a job as my compact(s). On the other hand, I find myself using manual exposure modes more and more, in which case the auto-metering does not come into play, and since I shoot RAW, it is easy to adjust exposure after the fact without much quality penalty.
- RAW images often do not look as good as the JPEGs that come from the camera, until after spending a while editing.
- Another complaint: I don't think the user interface of any modern cameras is very good. I wonder what Apple would come up with if tasked with designing a camera's user interface. For example, the D300 has four banks of settings, but they are in two sets, and they include all settings, and if you change a setting you change the bank. There is no way to define a subset of settings, or to change settings that don't get saved in the current bank, or to even define default settings to load the camera into a preferred known state (you can load factory-defined defaults, but not user-defined defaults).
- Some other things to be aware of: Nikon charges extra for its editor, and remote control programs, and the Nikon wireless interface is $700. Also, the speedlights that support CLS are very expensive, and CLS only works line-of-sight (indoor bounce helps, and outdoors you can funnel control light into the IR sensor using a tin-foil construction, but what fun is that?). I don't use the editor, but I've spent several hundred dollars on CLS lighting and I'm still not happy with it - camera only controls 2/3 groups (A & B) so you need an 800 or SB-900 to control group C. Also, you can't control individual units, just groups. I've found I usually end up walking around several times to adjust positions of the lights anyway so having remote control of flash compensation on a group basis is not that valuable, if I were doing it, I would use radio-waves for communication, and provide positive feedback from flash unit to camera so you know whether a flash is likely to fire ahead of time, and whether it did after the fact, and can control as many lights as you want individually or by group - b.t.w. I am a professional engineer. Also, the same radio-comm would be built-in for camera control and picture transfer, obviating the need for a WT-4A, external devices would merely add power and range). As it stands, I just do without the computer and wireless interfaces.
All in all, I love my D300, believe it or not. I just think reviews are most valuable if they include the disappointments and stuff too. After spending $2200 for D300 with an 18-200 lens, I have spent another $2000 on additional lenses, and say $800 on lighting, accessories, and software, so my total picture taking upgrade is like $5000, in order to get better pictures sometimes, or to get pictures that I wouldn't otherwise be able to get sometimes, and to be able to get pictures that aren't quite as good as my compact at other times. My camera bag(s) together weigh over fifteen pounds, and I'm scared to leave them in my car.
PS - I always have my pocket camera with me, and only have my D300 with me when I plan to take pictures. If I do bring my D300, I don't stop along the way for anything that would require me to leave it out of my sight.
Summary:
If you've got lots of money, are into still photography, and are willing to deal with the inconveniences of the D300, I'm still guessing you can't do much better in a sub-$2000 DSLR body - just be aware what you are getting yourself in to.
Its been a few months since I wrote that review, and I just read the comments of everyone who commented. Let me start by saying "I'm aware that you can stop down a D300 for increased depth-of-field", BUT that increased depth-of-field comes with a penalty - diffraction/softening & reduced light. And, although my experience with photography is far shy of most professionals and many amateurs, I've spent countless hours experimenting with the D300, reading photography books, pooring over forums and blogs, and comparing the pictures taken with the D300 to my compact. I doubt everything I said is exactly and perfectly correct as it came out, but I bet 99% of it is spot-on - I understand aperture/shutter-speed/ISO/depth-of-field/what-determines-image-quality-under-various-situations, etc. VERY well. To those D300 zealots who I've offended - I'm not bad-mouthing your/my camera, just want people who are considering purchasing it to think twice, then buy it - if they still want it. If you already have a D300, why are you still reading about it on Amazon?
[...]