http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/ Engadget Comments for Nikon D300 gets reviewed http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/Jan 25th 2008 8:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/
If you are going to pay close to $2000 for a camera then at least dish out for a fully-blown professional one.

However, reading the specs, this looks like it could destroy some lower-end pro cameras. And it looks pretty nice.]]>Jan 21st 2008 4:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/
A pro camera cost $5000-$8000 that's a big price gap.]]>Jan 21st 2008 4:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/
the guy with three D300's, each with a different lens (wide, long, fast)
OR
the guy with one D3, constantly swapping lenses and hoping it doesn't fault for some reason?

There is nothing "unprofessional" about the D300.]]>Jan 21st 2008 5:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/Heck, there are pros getting Holga shots published, so your argument doesn't even make sense.]]>Jan 21st 2008 5:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/
The D2x / D3 series have the exact same image processing and can create functionally identical images to their lesser brethren. The biggest difference here is the FX aspect in the D3, and consequent better high ISO performance. Also, all of the bigger bodies carry far larger batteries allowing longer continuous shooting, and I believe they take two CF cards instead of just one. However, none of that matters unless you are shooting a sporting event or wedding. Sharpness, color, etc... everything you need to make top quality images are in the firmware and are conserved within these two series. The D300 IS a pro camera; it is a D3 with the D2x's old sensor and D3 electronics. Other differences are extremely minor.

Disclaimer: I personally own a D200 and have played with a D2x, so I have personal experience here.]]>Jan 21st 2008 6:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/
I've had a D300 since November, and also own a D200, D2Hs, among other cameras. @Josh Warner the D300 does not use the old D2X sensor. It is a 1.5 crop, but its a CMOS sensor and not a CCD. This is a big difference between the last generation of Nikon cameras and the latest. The sensor sensitivity is above and beyond what Nikon could do in the past, and was an aspect that Nikon always lagged behind Canon. Not only is the battery in the D300 exceptional (somewhat of a weak point of the D200), but the low amount of noise at high ISOs (1600-6400) is exceptional compared to what I could achieve with my D200 and D2Hs.

The D2X/D2H IS a 'pro' camera and the D300 most certainly is as well. With the battery grip, its also an amazing sports camera. 8fps, incredible autofocus (same 51-point as the D3), and the 1.5 crop sensor gives exceptional reach. Clearly not the same level as the 1D Mark III ($4500, 10fps, 1.3 crop) or the D3($5,000, 9fps, full-frame), but an affordable alternative that still produces amazing photos.]]>Jan 21st 2008 7:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/Jan 21st 2008 9:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/Your explanation of the variables that differentiate the sensors between the D2x and D300 is incomplete and somewhat misleading.
You seem to be mistaking the D2x for much older Nikon DSLRs.
Prior to the D2x, there were no other CMOS based DSLRs in Nikon's arsenal, it was the first, and until the D3 and D300 came along it was their only CMOS DSLR.
Although, the D2H LBCAST sensor was believed to have been a derivative of CMOS technology.

Never the less, the D2x was a 1.5x CMOS and it was 12MP, so it's easy for others to assume the D2x and D300 share the same sensor. Both sensors are fabbed by Sony, although the D300 and D3 sensor have some very different CMOS designs at the gapless microlens and circutry level to help seperate them from the D2x, allowing for much greater image quality, particularly at higher ISOs.

My primary point was to clarify that the differences between the D2x and D300 go much deeper than CCD vs CMOS and MP count. It is new CMOS technology coupled with new image processing and overall better performance from AF among other improvements.
With this in mind, it should be interesting to see how the successor to the D2x improves upon current trends and what they have in store to compete with the ridiculously popular Canon 5D and/or its successor.]]>Jan 21st 2008 9:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/
]]>Jan 21st 2008 6:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/Jan 21st 2008 5:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0710/07101603olympuse3.asp
http://reviews.photographyreview.com/blog/olympus-e-3-review/]]>Jan 21st 2008 6:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/Jan 21st 2008 7:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/@ Jan 21st 2008 7:29PM

I'm sorry, but those two cameras don't even compare to the D300. Even 40D does not compete with this camera, although it is cheaper. Canon is probably busy at work to bring something out for 2008. I think Nikon has totally caught them by surprise with the D300. Heck, I was surprised. But seriously no reason for the Canon guys to be alarmed. Hold on to your lenses, most likely Canon will not disappoint in the next round. For awhile Canon has been whipping Nikon, this is actually good for us consumers whether your in the Nikon or Canon camp."

Considering you can get the Canon 40D for $999.00 for just the body, its a better bang for the buck than the D300, costing 2x as much. Also, the 40D came out not too long ago (a few months ago). I doubt that Canon is already going to replace it...

]]>Jan 21st 2008 10:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/
Seeing that the next camera up in the pro line from Nikon is very expensive $1800 doesn't sound much for a body. When one factors in that this camera does have a full frame sensor and the AF system from its big brother it becomes apparent that it really does define the "prosumer" range.

There will always be nice better DSLRs as long as there is improvements in their subsystems, but I can see myself purchasing this camera and not having to worry about an upgrade for some time.]]>Jan 21st 2008 5:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/Jan 21st 2008 7:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/Jan 21st 2008 5:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/>That's the first time I've seen anyone bring up the notion of pairing every single lens with a different body! Why in the world would someone use a removable lens system if he/she is afraid of the lens mount mechanism failing? The entire point of the SLR system is removable lenses!

I think he's referring to the fact that the D300 has a 1.5 crop sensor compared to the 1.0 full-frame sensor. The 1.5 crop sensor will have a much farther reach then the full frame sensor due to the crop size, hence you will need to carry around 300mm lens on the D3, whereas a 200mm on the D300 will have same effect in terms of distance. So there is a trade-off with reach versus quality that you inherently get from a full-frame sensor. The D300 does provide many virtues, and the fact that they put in a professional AF (same 51-point as the D3) and features into the D300 makes it suitable for many professionals.

For reference, the Canon 1D-Mark III, a favorite of photojournalists & sports photographers, has a 1.3 crop factor. Which many believe is an effective compromise in sensor size and reach. The D300 is roughly comparable in some aspects, slightly smaller sensor, slightly longer reach. Many professionals that don't want to carry too much glass around may appreciate that (primarily compared to the full-frame D3). Especially photographers that do a lot of their work outside the studio, like back-packers, nature photographers, etc. The reality is, there really isn't a single camera that fits into every photographers needs. ]]>Jan 21st 2008 8:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/
And as a professional photographer, I can say that if you've never heard someone suggest carrying multiple cameras with multiple length lenses, then I would say that you have never talked with a professional photographer.

I have a D300, and may get a D3 someday for certain applications. But I would still carry multiple D300s unless I needed the D3 for a certain application (which is entirely possible).

NO photographer carries a single body to any critical shoot.]]>Jan 21st 2008 9:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/
Anyway, I have something to add. I shoot Canons and Nikons for different subjects, and I have to say is that the D300 tops anything under the $4500 1D Mark III. And it even tops that in focusing, and yes, even the "fixed" 1D Mark III IMHO.

If you are considering getting a D300, get it. You will not regret it, not for one minute. I am extremely picky and it is a fantastic camera.]]>Jan 21st 2008 9:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/
the guy with three D300's, each with a different lens (wide, long, fast)
OR
the guy with one D3, constantly swapping lenses and hoping it doesn't fault for some reason?"

That's the first time I've seen anyone bring up the notion of pairing every single lens with a different body! Why in the world would someone use a removable lens system if he/she is afraid of the lens mount mechanism failing? The entire point of the SLR system is removable lenses!

And just who is concerned about the lens mount failing anyway? That's probably one of the last components in a SLR system to fail. Typically the shutter mechanism is the first to go out, and those things have rated lifetime usage times and once they get past that they will need to be replaced. I don't think I've heard anyone comment that they have to replace a camera body because the lens mount has failed.]]>Jan 21st 2008 8:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/]]>Jan 21st 2008 5:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/
I want an F6.

:(]]>Jan 21st 2008 6:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/
http://www.smartratings.com/review/photography/digital_cameras/1915]]>Jan 21st 2008 6:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/Jan 21st 2008 7:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/
Like everything else, it all depends on what you're trying to accomplish. That being said, I lust after high-end cameras because they're *cool*.]]>Jan 21st 2008 7:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/
I've had my D300 since the end of November and I have spent the last couple of months learning what it can do [and it can do a lot!] -- but I feel reined in by the fact that the major piece of my workflow software [Aperture] *STILL* doesn't support the camera, with no news [this being Apple] of when or indeed if that will actually happen.]]>Jan 21st 2008 8:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/Jan 21st 2008 10:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/Jan 21st 2008 11:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/
Of course, Adobe's suite of software will convert the new cameras' raw files, but those files still won't be integrated into the rest of the operating system: i.e. Quick Look etc. won't recognise them.

I'm not telling anyone *not* to get one of these cameras. I have the D300. It's a brilliant camera. I'm just pointing out that neither Mac OS nor Aperture support them yet.

Mike: CaptureNX is very, very slow [but it's nef conversions are the best, in my experience] and it is 'just' a raw convertor, whereas Aperture is a photo management system with a decent raw convertor built-in.

]]>Jan 22nd 2008 5:42AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/
Except the only RAW conversion software that uses those services is Aperture, so only Aperture users are effected. I'm a mac user with a D3 and I have no issue with lack of support since I don't use Aperture.

"Of course, Adobe's suite of software will convert the new cameras' raw files, but those files still won't be integrated into the rest of the operating system: i.e. Quick Look etc. won't recognise them."

As will ALL other software that provides raw support. As for QuickLook not recognising "them", what is "them"? I use Lightroom and my NEF files are supported entirely by the software I use. No serious photographer uses Finder to process his images on the mac. My mac works fine with JPGs and TIFFs that are the ultimate output of process, and my mac has no problem displaying previews of my D3 NEF files in the Finder. Sorry, Adam, you are mistaken.

"I'm not telling anyone *not* to get one of these cameras. I have the D300. It's a brilliant camera. I'm just pointing out that neither Mac OS nor Aperture support them yet."

MacOS supports these files just fine, it's the Apple application suite that doesn't. The fact that problem exists through a system library that needs an update is beside the point. Any photographer NOT using Apple's Aperture (or iPhoto) is not inconvenienced by the lack of a NEF update.

Apple is the only vendor who has chosen to integrate RAW support into OS libraries rather than into the applications that use them. Since no one but Apple uses those services, the distinction is moot.]]>Jan 25th 2008 1:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/Jan 21st 2008 10:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/
Really, ANY WAY I slice it? Tell that to the user who needs the longest telephoto he can get. Tell that to the fisheye shooter. Tell that to the macro shooter. Full frame is good but it's not literally better in every way.

I'm eager to see performance tests comparing the D300 to the 5D. The 5D sensor is bigger but it's a far older design. The D300 is a much better body with vastly superior AF. For a lot of shooting I expect the D300 to outperform the 5D.

"Before making a decision, I'd wait and see what the successor to the 5D is like. Especially if rumors are true and it drops this year."

Comparing existing cameras to ones that are rumored to exist some time in the future? Try to turn down the fanboyisms a little, please.]]>Jan 21st 2008 11:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/
A professional photographer - defined by most pro photo organizations as someone who derives at least fifty percent of their income from photography - will carry multiple bodies and use them as the tools they are. You need long reach? Get an Olympus E3 and glue it to a Sigma 300-800 zoom for an equivalent of 600-1600 zoom (compared to full frame). You need über-wide angle? Get a full frame body and shoot with a 14mm rectilinear (as opposed to fisheye) lens. Or dig up an old Nikon 13mm f/5.6 from the 70s. (Two existed in the US.)

Every camera is a trade-off. It's the eternal frustration of us pros that no one camera body or system does it all. So you pick the one that does what you want most. price is not a consideration for someone who makes their living with cameras. From the lowly weekly newspaper photographer who makes $300 a week to the New York fashion photographer who makes $15,000 a day, the tools they use are varied and pretty dang cool in the end. Because they all do magic. The let light into a box, and a picture comes out. That's been the attraction since Nicéphore Niépce took the very first fixed image in 1836. (Yes, before Daguerré).

So enough with the weenie-measuring contests! One camera is not superior to all others for every purpose and person. Get what you want and appreciate what other cameras have that yours doesn't. If you picked the wrong tool, get the one that's right and make someone on eBay happy.]]>Jan 22nd 2008 12:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/
Great noise handling at high ISOs, to the point where people have a hard time telling the ISO.

~1,000,000 pixel screen in the back at 3" - makes it possible to proof noise and sharpness in camera. No more busting out the laptop to check your shots.

Lotsa megapixels.

I am a nikon man and i am contemplating adding this to my collection, or selling all of my gear and going used Canon 5D + 24-105 L. It is about $1000 cheaper for me to go used 5D+24-105L, but i will lose my fast lenses (F/1.8 & 2.8), but gain FF and wider angles. Tough choice and only time will tell, but I am really liking what i am seeing from Nikon right now.]]>Jan 22nd 2008 2:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/
It's a good time to be a Nikonite! I've seen the D300 in action. That LCD on the back is gorgous, just as nice as the D3's. In fact, way better than on the 1D Mark III or the 1Ds Mark III (though I only saw preproduction screens on the D3 and 1Ds/1D).

I would not switch to Canon from Nikon. In fact, I've been using Canon professionally for years, including a 1Ds Mark II. But about 18 months ago at a workshop Nikon people from NPS and one of their reps showed the workshop people ISO 6400 images from a prototype that would become the D3. We were blown away. At least I was.

I had been Leica man through all my film years. (With a few stints with Nikon, Canon, Pentax and Contax). And I'm very picky about image quality. So when I saw the direction Nikon was going with their new sensor technology (which they said takes a lot from LBCAST which itself is a variant of CMOS) I knew that it was time to by cameras for myself once again. I continue to use Canon at work. But my personal cameras (for fun and the odd freelance job) is Nikon. In fact, I'm so impressed with the D3, I don't think I even care about a 24 megapixel monster coming some day. If they come up with an answer to the Canon 5D all the better. But some day I'll have my own Nikon full frame bodies, and the reason is, as the end of the day, it is quality that counts. And the 1Ds Mark II I use at work is so much better than anything else out there (other than the newer high-end cameras) that I can't imagine settling for less in the long run.]]>Jan 22nd 2008 3:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/Jan 22nd 2008 3:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/ ...
One camera is not superior to all others for every purpose and person."

Nice contradiction, Eric.

"You can crop the full frame image to the crop factor of the DX body and you'll get identical pictures give a similar pixel density."

Possibly, for the rare times when two such cameras actually exist. If you wanted the crop though, you'd be better off with the cropped sensor because of the faster processing and lower costs. The smaller sensor would also require less power which might result in lower noise.

"a Nikon FX body at 24 megapixels would match an DX body at 12 megapixles even cropped."

No it wouldn't. An FX 24MP sensor would provide 10.6MP when cropped to DX. No such sensor exists either.

Thanks, though, Eric for proving that full frame sensors aren't better for all uses than DX ones even though you stated exactly the opposite.

Joseph, the D300 (and D3) do not have million pixel LCD displays. The have million element displays but each pixel consists of 3 elements. The 3" displays on these cameras offer VGA resolution.
]]>Jan 25th 2008 12:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/nikon-d300-gets-reviewed/
And the bottom line is a smaller sensor will always have more noise than a larger sensor if you're comparing state of the art technologies. Of course a new cropped sensor can be better than an old full frame sensor. But you won't be seeing anything from anyone that can trump the Nikon D3 or Canon 1D Mark III for noise any time soon. Maybe a new Canon 5D Mark II? 3D? But they'll be full frame too.

The Olympus E3 is great up to ISO 800 and then it falls apart, just like the 40D and D300. (Depends on your standards what falls apart means. As a professional, it's pretty obvious to me. I saw Jim Sugar's (former National Geographic photographer) photos with an E3. The camera is amazing. But put it too hard and the small sensor loses it, while the Nikon D3 is just getting started. Physics. Efficiency of the sensor is based on the size of the pixels. Nothing you can do about it. That's where the "all other things being equal" statement comes from. You can twist logic all you want, but the bottom line is all cameras are compromises. I shoot with a 1Ds Mark II. It's an awesome camera, but only goes to ISO 3200. I get great photos at ISO 1600 with it. But they're not even in the league with the new 1D Mark II or the Nikon D3. That's cool. Technology never sits still.

Of course full frame sensors aren't best for all uses. Sometimes a 4 megapixel PHd camera (push here dummy) is the best tool for the job. Tell us something less obvious. Like you get what you pay for.]]>Jan 25th 2008 12:51PM