Question for Nikon D300 & Dxx/Dxxxx users

tim_uk

tim_uk

Suspended / Banned
Messages
591
Edit My Images
No
I was wondering what the preference is to the feel of these two camera ranges, the D300 has the rubber type finish on it's body whereas the Dxx and Dxxxx ones all have the more plasticy finish.

I was planning on getting the new D7000 to replace my ageing D40 as I feel the D7000 will be a much better camera than the D300 (at least for me!) but just slightly surprised that for the same sort of money as the D300 it won't have the nice rubber finish which I must admit I did quite like when looking at cameras this morning.

Any views on this ?
 
The rubber grip does feel nicer, but in fact, I find the rubber grip pads can get to get a bit "aged" looking, and often doesn't look as good 3 years down the line than the moulded plastic grips on the D40 / D50 / D60 class camera.

Actually until your post, I've been using Nikon bodies for over 10 years and never really noticed the grip difference until your post!
 
I think this is where it comes down to personal tastes. For me, I love the rubber (oh er missus!) and would hate to go back to the plastic. It just feels like a totally different experience.
 
I feel the rubber gives a better grip, though agree with Andy it can age. Would rather have rubber.
 
Rubber for me too. As the actress said to the Bishop. Actually, it's not just that it has a better feel to it, it offers more protection to the point that you could drop the D300 and merely watch it bounce, rather than shatter.
 
Didn't someone post a solution using some shoe glue for re-attaching lose rubber parts? Was it Rob? :thinking:
 
Cistron said:
Didn't someone post a solution using some shoe glue for re-attaching lose rubber parts? Was it Rob? :thinking:
Click to expand...

yes, it was shoe glu. bout a fiver on amazon. he uses it for reattaching the rubber grips on zoom wheels on lenses.
 
tim_uk said:
I was wondering what the preference is to the feel of these two camera ranges, the D300 has the rubber type finish on it's body whereas the Dxx and Dxxxx ones all have the more plasticy finish.

I was planning on getting the new D7000 to replace my ageing D40 as I feel the D7000 will be a much better camera than the D300 (at least for me!) but just slightly surprised that for the same sort of money as the D300 it won't have the nice rubber finish which I must admit I did quite like when looking at cameras this morning.

Any views on this ?
Click to expand...

In your hand (quote from dp review)

The D7000 is one of the most substantial DSLRs in its class. A magnesium alloy chassis and 'proper' rubber hand grip (as opposed to just rubberized coating) give it a reassuring heft which is closer to the experience of holding and using a camera like the Canon EOS 7D, or Nikon D300S. In terms of its control placement, however, the D7000 is very similar to the D90. This makes it an easy upgrade for D90 users that want a more 'serious' camera, but without the need to relearn a whole new ergonomics.
 
puddleduck said:
Nikon Spare Parts Dept will do replacement grip rubber for about a tenner last time I looked.
Click to expand...

That must have been a long time ago, the main grip with the red flash, plus the thumbrest cost me just shy of £30 from them......


AdamPearcey said:
The second one never stays on as well as the first orignal one.
Click to expand...


In that case you're not fitting them properly as they're the exact same parts attached using the exact same adhesive. A bad workman and all that......:naughty:
 
Last edited:
stillshot said:
In your hand (quote from dp review)

The D7000 is one of the most substantial DSLRs in its class. A magnesium alloy chassis and 'proper' rubber hand grip (as opposed to just rubberized coating) give it a reassuring heft which is closer to the experience of holding and using a camera like the Canon EOS 7D, or Nikon D300S. In terms of its control placement, however, the D7000 is very similar to the D90. This makes it an easy upgrade for D90 users that want a more 'serious' camera, but without the need to relearn a whole new ergonomics.
Click to expand...

thanks for the info stillshot - I was just going on pics - guess we will have to wait a month to see it in the flesh - think I will get the D7000 whatever the finish - it seems so much better than the D300s and a little less money.
 
tim_uk said:
thanks for the info stillshot - I was just going on pics - guess we will have to wait a month to see it in the flesh - think I will get the D7000 whatever the finish - it seems so much better than the D300s and a little less money.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think this is like getting an Audi A4 (d7000) 2.3litre over getting an A6 (D300) 2litre. Which you see as the better camera will come down to what you want or need but I don't think the D7k will be better (except in the hgiher resolution and will lack many of the features of the d300. I understand for example that while it has a magnesium "body" this is just for the top and back covers and it is not as environmentally sealed/protected).
 
Last edited:
Well, since the topic has digressed already.

I'm a little disappointed by the D7000. Seems as if Nikon is letting Sony dictate its sensor policies. It's time to step off the Megapixel rush and change the marketing strategies. Wasn't there talk about Nikon producing its own sensors?
 
Cistron said:
Well, since the topic has digressed already.

I'm a little disappointed by the D7000. Seems as if Nikon is letting Sony dictate its sensor policies. It's time to step off the Megapixel rush and change the marketing strategies. Wasn't there talk about Nikon producing its own sensors?
Click to expand...

Why are you disappointed? More MP but significantly better high ISO performance has to be a good thing surely?
 
grum said:
Why are you disappointed? More MP but significantly better high ISO performance has to be a good thing surely?
Click to expand...
Not that I would buy it anyways. However, more MP, larger files, yet who actually prints large enough to need such numbers? I much rather have a clearer image through larger photosites and even higher ISO capabilities.

If you use your excess megapixel "resolution" to crop, you could probably improve your composition, or use a different lens.

For the most of my photos, 6MP were enough. Feel free to disagree. :)
 
Cistron said:
Not that I would buy it anyways. However, more MP, larger files, yet who actually prints large enough to need such numbers? I much rather have a clearer image through larger photosites and even higher ISO capabilities.

If you use your excess megapixel "resolution" to crop, you could probably improve your composition, or use a different lens.

For the most of my photos, 6MP were enough. Feel free to disagree. :)
Click to expand...

I do like to crop for composition, and then sometimes print the result fairly big - so more MP is good as far as I am concerned. I think it's a bit of a purist argument to suggest there's something wrong with that - a good picture is a good picture imo. I quite often like a panorama format for landscape pics - and if I can do that at a decent res without stitching then that's great for me.

I just find it a bit amazing that there is a sub £1000 crop camera that apparently has High ISO performance not too dissimilar to the full frame D700 (as well as lots of other cool features) - and people are going 'hmmmm not impressed'.
 
one thing that cans it for me is the 11 frame buffer, that is just not enough for airshow/motorsport photography

If it were my choice i would get a d300s
 
grum said:
I do like to crop for composition, and then sometimes print the result fairly big - so more MP is good as far as I am concerned. I think it's a bit of a purist argument to suggest there's something wrong with that - a good picture is a good picture imo. I quite often like a panorama format for landscape pics - and if I can do that at a decent res without stitching then that's great for me.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Go get it! :)
I just find it a bit amazing that there is a sub £1000 crop camera that apparently has High ISO performance not too dissimilar to the full frame D700 (as well as lots of other cool features) - and people are going 'hmmmm not impressed'.
Click to expand...
Horses for courses. I'm impressed, but still disappointed.

To elaborate further: Over the last four years Nikon has progressed from 6MP in 2006 on the D40 to 14.2 on the D3100 in the beginner rank. I'm not sure how useable ISO1600 is on the D3100, but it was quite acceptable on the D40 already. Thus, 4 years have mainly improved resolution, which I might not even see without excellent lenses. Of course I understand Nikon's motivation as a big corporation to sell more cameras.
 
grum said:
I'm interested to know what would have impressed you/not disappointed you?
Click to expand...
As I said, feel free to disagree. This is my opinion about sensors. The D3(s)/D700 has larger photosites than the D40 had 4 years ago and it shows.
 
grum said:
Not really arguing, I was just genuinely interested to know what would have impressed you - so, it's a FF sensor?
Click to expand...
Eventually that would be nice. As I mentioned in another thread, I'd also be very happy about a low(-ish)-resolution medium format camera. However, as long as I can't afford one and the latter doesn't exist, I like nagging about APS-C sensors and their pixel density. It is striking how obviously different the criteria for 35mm and APS-C sensors are (well, at least at Nikon).

edit: I hope I'm not annoying you, with my "retro" view of things.

edit2: I actually like the approach that was taken for the D3. One high-resolution version, one high-ISO version.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top