D300s...Opinions please....Update.

Dave in Wales

Dave in Wales

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,373
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm deeply into M4/3 but want to get a toe back into Nikon camp, not D7000.

I know the D300s is a little long in the tooth, but what are the feelings, especially from owners.

Any problems with 'just' 12.3 MP.

While we are at it, any recommendation for a particular lens that I might not have considered, perhaps a prime, I was thinking the 16-85mm.

Total spend...around £1.5k

TIA.
 
Last edited:
Hi,

Only a d300 here, but heard the d300s is pretty darn good :)

Lens wise I will say only those in my links ;) 35mm f1.8 or sigma 30mm f1.4 for portraits (although more in your face I feel they are better then stepping back... (50mm f1.4))

Links to pics in the siggy

12mp is enough for most prints (think its around 4k x 2.5k pixels...)
 
No idea what you shoot but your budget would stretch to a used D300 and 24-70...
 
Dave in Wales said:
I know the D300s is a little long in the tooth, but what are the feelings, especially from owners.
Click to expand...

I think the 16-85mm is the perfect mid/high quality lens for the D300/S. It's the best combination of wide angle and zoom in one lens for me. I had the D300 and 18-85mm, and then bought another 16-85mm to go with a D300S when the first lot was stolen.

Dave in Wales said:
Any problems with 'just' 12.3 MP.
Click to expand...

I've had not had any problems with 12Mp, but more pixels can give more flexibility, as long as it doesn't come with any downsides, poorer ISO performance. :shrug:

It is enough for most people though. :)
 
D300 is a bargain second hand. Trading for around £450-£550 I think - great value. Great camera, 12mp is enough for me, I wouldnt say no to a few more but dont think I have ever thought I really need more. ISO is fine at 200 and 400, ok at 800, 1600 is the limit for me, although its not that bad - i am just a peeper!!

Lens wise, for me, the 50mm 1.4 is a beauty, £220 or so used, great for portraits although some prefer the 35mm. An SB900 at £240 or so is great if you need flash, and the 24-70 is hard to beat, although £900 but the 17-55 is £550 or so.

Cheaper option could be a Tamron or Sigma 2.8 at £200-£300 or so?
 
nikon 17-55 f/2.8, nikon 35mm f/1.8G, nikon 70-200 VR I or II job done.
 
callumduff said:
nikon 17-55 f/2.8, nikon 35mm f/1.8G, nikon 70-200 VR I or II job done.
Click to expand...

That's going to be an impressive bit of bargaining for £1500! ;)
 
I use the D300 (D300s is pretty much the same, just with video capability) and as others have noted, 12MP is more than adequate. My issue however is that the high ISO performance is very long in the teeth compared to modern cameras, ISO800 is as far as I usually go, 1200 at a push. I'm guessing that your M4/3 setup will probably beat it in this respect.

I considered upgrading to a D7000 a couple of months ago, but couldn't get on with the ergonomics, it's just too damn small for my hands! For IQ however, I'm convinced that it's streets ahead of the D300.

I'm still waiting for a decent upgrade that matches the handling and build quality of the D300 (D400?) but fear that it may never make the light of day considering the impending D600 launch...

Cheers
Aled
 
D300 from new,had the D80 but this is miles ahead of that.
It is a bit long in the tooth,but I love it.
Drawback as mentioned is ISO, I have had it to 1200 but later cameras are better at ISO.
Lens,I have the 17-55 2.8 . great lens,with the 70-300 I use them most.
 
The D300 produces very noisy images in comparison with the rest of the current Nikon range. Its OK if you shoot in good light and don't do a lot of post processing but if you want to shoot above ISO 800 or do a lot of manipulation particularly darker shadow areas then there are better alternatives for less money.
 
towershot said:
Lens,I have the 17-55 2.8 . great lens...
Click to expand...

I went for a new Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS EX as opposed to an used Nikon 17-55 and although it's a cracking lens I wish I'd bought the Nikon, I just keep on thinking what if...

That Nikon 17-55 is such a solid lump of optical engineering that it's just destined to carry on taking great pictures for ever and a day.

Aled
 
Dave the D300 is a perfectly fine, robust camera, if you want video you need to go with the D300S.

As for noise, providing you get the exposure nailed ISO 3200 is fine, the example below was shot with a 300/4 + 1.7TC f7.1 ISO3200.



Most of the shots on my gallery were taken with the D300
 
I don't think the D300/s is quite as bad in terms of high iso performance as people are making out. It's probably only a stop behind the D7000 and D5100. As Martyn says, get the exposure right when shooting a scene without too much in the way of shadow and it's perfectly usable.

This is 1600, really not bad if you ask me and I'm sure I could have pushed it further.


_GAD1114 by G.A.D, on Flickr
 
Just try and get my D300 off me, no chance at all, best camera Nikon have produced.

Realspeed
 
One other thing that's been touched upon. I realise that the D300 can no longer be bought new so this may be a moot point if the OP wants to buy brand new. But buying used the D300 seems to be about £200 cheaper than the D300S. For that £200 the only real tangible benfits that I can see are dual memory cards and quiet shooting mode. The extra FPS is nice but a grip redresses the balance for less money. The only other advantage seems to be video but the video function is so clunky that if video is on the agenda this is not the camera for you. So what I'm getting around to saying is that unless you really need dual card slots or quiet mode, consider saving yourself a bundle of cash and get a D300.
 
gad-westy said:
That's going to be an impressive bit of bargaining for £1500! ;)
Click to expand...

i suppose but if you search about you can get a VR I for 900, a 17-55 for 550 and a 35mm for 150, i know that makes 1600 but its close enough. worth spending a tad more and getting much better stuff than scrounging and getting worse things for much much cheaper prices.
 
callumduff said:
i suppose but if you search about you can get a VR I for 900, a 17-55 for 550 and a 35mm for 150, i know that makes 1600 but its close enough. worth spending a tad more and getting much better stuff than scrounging and getting worse things for much much cheaper prices.
Click to expand...

I think you forgot to include the camera... ;)

I do agree that would be a nice line up though. Just bought a 70-200 VR1 myself. Bit shabby but at £750 and just back from a £300 service at Nikon, I couldn't say no!
 
The D300 is the way to go! Pro build and an absolute beauty to use. As mentioned earlier, If you nail the exposure then its higher ISO is perfectly usable. Focuses faster than the consumer D7000 as well. If making movies is your thing then get a camcorder as the D300s aint that hot. But if shooting stills is your thing, then the D300 is as good as it gets, unless of course you wanna slash out on a D700/D3 ....... :)
 
D300 is a great camera I love it as a back up to my D3.
Image quality is not as nice as the d7000 but better camera.

For lenses use the sigma 18-50 very good lens and as good as the Nikon IMO
 
gad-westy said:
I think you forgot to include the camera... ;)

I do agree that would be a nice line up though. Just bought a 70-200 VR1 myself. Bit shabby but at £750 and just back from a £300 service at Nikon, I couldn't say no!
Click to expand...

oh, i never realised it was 1.5K including the body.
 
If you are still looking for a Nikon D300s I saw them in Currys/PC World last week for £769.91 as a clearance price. This was in the Chesterfield store.
 
ive recently upgraded to a D300 from a D200 and it blows the 200 out the water!
i absolutely love it and have shot at ISO1600 without a problem, its 10 times better than the D200's ISO performance in my opinion. Its a joy to handle and use, the IQ is superb and 12.2MP is more than enough for me, also keeps the file size down for storing on your computer, we all store far too many pics dont we.....?
 
Thank you all for your advice, but mainly for your enthusiasm.

D300s + 16-85mm ordered :D should be here tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
The D300(s) is truely a great camera. I rank it better then my D7000, so i use it as my main and my d7000 as backup. To be fair the ISO performance is not as great as D7000 since it only shoot up to 3200 but in reality you don't need to shoot that high all the time. Handling wise and build quality the D300 blow the D7000.
 
surfg1mp said:
The iso performance of d300 is acceptable IMO, you just have to get the exposure right. I'm happy to push it to 3200. Not looking to upgrade for a long time yet.
Click to expand...

3200 :eek:

I should have no bother as I rarely go beyond 400.
 
I doubt you will regret your purchase. Got the combo of the D300 and 16-85mm and the lens rarely leaves my camera. Very versatile zoom range and when low light strikes I just switch to the 35mm f1.8 dx which is another cracking lens. Was looking to upgrade to the D7000 myself but I feel if I do upgrade ever it will be to full frame.
 
The D300s is my favourite, I also have a D300 and a D90 as a backup. The dual card slots of the D300s are hard to beat.

When the price drops just before the D400 (?) come out, I will snaffle another one at a decent price :-)
 
If i was looking for a cheaper used camera, it would be the D300 every time, great handling and a great performer, i used mine with a 18-200mm VR for a lot of the time, and i have nice sharp poster sized landscape prints taken with it, so 12mp no problem, also great with a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 and a Nikon 50mm 1.8 :)
 
Frogbad said:
The D300s is my favourite, I also have a D300 and a D90 as a backup. The dual card slots of the D300s are hard to beat.

When the price drops just before the D400 (?) come out, I will snaffle another one at a decent price :-)
Click to expand...

Not to poach your thread Dave :) but how much better is the 300s to the D90.
Gary
 
bl0at3r said:
http://camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod1653.html
Click to expand...

Not sure if any are still available but Currys had the D300S for £720 brand new (maybe ex display?) up until very recently. There was a thread here about it. It won't show up on the web as it seems to be in-store only.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=418757&highlight=d300s

Combine that with the £420 that Dixons charge for a 16-85 and you can save nearly £400 from the cheapest deal that camera price buster list. not a bad little saving!
 
Oh I'm sorry you've finally bought one as I just noticed this thread.

The ISO on the D300s is absolutely shocking, I made the mistake of capturing a kingfisher in broad daylight @ 3200 ISO and you could barely make anything out. The other features are not bad but this camera is overshadowed by many other cameras at a much lower price point.
 
razor777 said:
Oh I'm sorry you've finally bought one as I just noticed this thread.

The ISO on the D300s is absolutely shocking, I made the mistake of capturing a kingfisher in broad daylight @ 3200 ISO and you could barely make anything out. The other features are not bad but this camera is overshadowed by many other cameras at a much lower price point.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to say that the D300 performs miracles at high iso but to say it's shocking is wide of the mark in my opinion. At ISO 3200 in broad daylight, you shouldn't be seeing much noise if you get the exposure right. I haven't got any 3200 examples on my flickr, but here is 2800. It's not noise free by any stretch but I certainly wouldn't call it shocking.


_GAD1102 by G.A.D, on Flickr
 
gad-westy said:
I'm not going to say that the D300 performs miracles at high iso but to say it's shocking is wide of the mark in my opinion. At ISO 3200 in broad daylight, you shouldn't be seeing much noise if you get the exposure right. I haven't got any 3200 examples on my flickr, but here is 2800. It's not noise free by any stretch but I certainly wouldn't call it shocking.


_GAD1102 by G.A.D, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Looks good - What processing (if any) was performed on this photo?

The exposure was perfect on the KF - I couldn't ask for better conditions and the photo was shot in RAW. If I can find it (backed up on the cloud somewhere) I will post it on here.

The D300S is a very poor camera compared to it's peers when it comes to ISO control; I'll stand by that statement.
 
razor777 said:
Looks good - What processing (if any) was performed on this photo?

The exposure was perfect on the KF - I couldn't ask for better conditions and the photo was shot in RAW. If I can find it (backed up on the cloud somewhere) I will post it on here.

The D300S is a very poor camera compared to it's peers when it comes to ISO control; I'll stand by that statement.
Click to expand...

I didn't perform any noise processing on it principally because I don't have anything other than Aperture 3 at the time and that is pretty abysmal for noise removal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top