I have a job coming up, a beauty, we'll be shooting some set-up model shots and others photojourno style in sunny locations. I've put my Sigma 70-200 on ebay and found a Nikon VR version, I've also got a Nikkor 35-70 and 50mm prime, all FX.. Now, is my D300 up to the job? The images won't be reproduced very big, for print and online, max A4. I'll be using lighting kit so should be able to keep to 200iso. I'm soo tempted to get the D700 but I'm wondering if it's justified, I just feel like my D300 is the weakest part of the whole operation.. Any opinions?
New bloke, London
Is the D300 good enough..?
(43 posts) (20 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
If you have the money and you make a living or a large part of it from photography then yes the D700 is worth it. However for the job you just described I don't see why a D300 wouldn't give you great photos. It's all about how much you can and are willing to spend.
If a new D800/900 is unveiled soon then the price of used D700 should come down.
I know this isn't going to be popular in this forum but I would recommend that you only buy FX lenses even for a D300. FX is pretty much future proof while DX future is still questionable.Good luck on the shoot Jim22
Posted 3 years ago # -
Don't you worry now, at ISO 200 or 400 your D300 is more than enough for A4 prints if not cropped too much but I suppose you will not do this and will use your 70-200 VR for framing instead.
You should better wait IMHO and use the money earned on D700 successor in a couple of months.Posted 3 years ago # -
You should be just fine with the D300. What is actually your concern? What feature of the D700 would help the shoot?
Posted 3 years ago # -
The camera is more than up for the job. Think what nikon professionals were using 2 - 3 years ago on the digital front. The camera (IMO) is rarely the weakest link in the operation .... if you know the D300 inside out then I think you are better off going with what you know rather than trying to learn the nuances of a new camera while on a shoot, especially where low light is unlikely.
I'm not saying the D700 won't get better shots in some situations but for "sunny" locations and A4 \ online viewing, only pixel peepers will see any difference.
Longer term, if you are thinking to go full time pro then you probably want to reconsider your gear for larger prints \ a more diverse range of conditions.
Have a great shoot!
Posted 3 years ago # -
I have both the D300 and D700 and for this shoot the D300 is going to be just fine. Probably no noticeable difference between the two at 200 ISO.
In my mind it would be a mistake to get the D700 for this shoot, especially when its replacement is coming out in the near future. (Though I still think the D700 is an amazing camera)
Posted 3 years ago # -
Thanks guys, I appreciate your speedy responses (especially as the d300 vs d700 discussion is such a well trodden one!) My mail concern is that I get the best possible images for the client as it's one I want more work from in the future. That said I don't want to spend money unnecessarily. I realise that good lenses are key so I've got that covered, I especially wanted to hear if there are pros that use D300's as their main body.
As to what the D700 would give me, higher IQ possibly? (At ISO200-400?) Maybe I shouldn't listen to Ken Rockwell who reckons DX is for amateurs..Posted 3 years ago # -
I agree with everyone else, the D300 is good enough, perhaps more so for the job you're doing. I don't do people much and I use natural light but I have some D300 people shots that I personally and some others who've seen them are more than happy with.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Also consider the fact that the 1.5 crop factor is a great advantage in this sort of lighting controlled setting, as you can setup slightly farther back, frame a little tighter, etc. . .I'm with everyone else, D300 shouldn't be an issue. . .hell, I manage with my D200 in controlled lighting situations just fine, anything above 400 I'm good (ergo, you're probably sailing up until 800!)
Posted 3 years ago # -
Hmmm. do you have a back up camera? It sounds like this shoot cannot be repeated easily if your camara falls into the pool!
Posted 3 years ago # -
You can get some really goos shots on a D300 even at higher ISO's and in natural lighting:
Please excuse me but I am better at showing then telling
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/acecool/models/nos_pp.jpg
Now this was shot at ISO 2200 under florescent lighting. This is the post processed version.
Here's what the original looks like:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/acecool/models/Jnos.jpg
As you can see the D300 does quite well. With your set up, you should be more than satisfied.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Thanks again. Yes I have a D200 as a 2nd body, failing that it'll be my G9..
Thanks for the links Gentoo, that's amazing quality for iso2200, I've just assumed everything above 800 would be unusable so kept below that. Gonna do some tests now..
Cheers JPosted 3 years ago # -
At iso 200 you should be alright, but the main reason I finally traded in my D300 for a D700 was the extreme noise I used to get out of the D300. I used to think it was exposure issues, then just high isos, then too much saturation or high level of contrast, sharpness in camera. My exposures were bang on, I got noise at iso 100 and I turned off saturation, 0 contrast and 0 sharpness, turned off long exposure control and set picture control to standard and the noise still persists. Even shooting raw I still had too much to remove in post processing with noise ninja or CS4. I couldn't take it anymore so I made the jump to the D700 and life has been wonderful. For most people the D300 is fine though. Image quality is very similar to the D700.
You mentioned your shooting in sunny locations with good lighting so you might be fine. As Nikodoby says a new FX body will come soon so try and wait a little longer or get the D700 at a good price.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Keep in mind, if you do go higher, make sure your high ISO NR is set to low. You can see in my original photo that there is a slight softness but it's not too bad. If you set the NR higher the shots will be noticeably softer.jim22 said:
Thanks again. Yes I have a D200 as a 2nd body, failing that it'll be my G9..
Thanks for the links Gentoo, that's amazing quality for iso2200, I've just assumed everything above 800 would be unusable so kept below that. Gonna do some tests now..
Cheers J
Posted 3 years ago # -
yeah, very true, esp in D200, it's always easier to handle a little noise, clean it up, etc. then correct for NR suppression softness. . .sigh, maybe the D400 will offer us a stop advantage and force me to upgrade?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Many pro's I know make top dollar with a D200 and are now just considering getting their lazy butts to Samys to get a D3s. Although there are many upgrades from the D300 to the D700/D300s/ and even the D90 they are mostly minute and do not sound important in the shooting situations you described. Get an 85mm f/1.4 with the money, it is a much better investment than the D700 for what you are doing.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I hope today I hear something from B&H ANYTHIN about my D800
Posted 1 year ago # -
You prolly should have spent the money on glasses - this is a D300 thread not D800.... ;-)
Posted 1 year ago # -
So, is the D300 (or D300s for that matter) still 'good enough'?
I have a D5100, Nikon 18-200, 35 and 10-24. I'm relatively new to photography and am a hobbyist with an interest in landscapes.
I realise the sensor and technology in the D300 is well out of date compared to the guts of the D5100 BUT I am still considering a second hand D300 body, purely for the pro body experience and features. I want experience of using a pro body basically. Really just for the layout, controls, feel etc. versus IQ right now as I am considering trying to make some money on the side shooting weddings for friends of friends, kids parties etc. to start with and if this turned into a going concern, I'd consider a D700 or maybe even a D400 should one turn out to exist in the future. For this reason I'd like to have prior experience of such a camera, rather than going straight up from a D5100 and being lost.
So, is this a bonkers idea or does it make any sense? Is a D300 body worth any of anyone's money any more, 2nd hand?
Posted 11 months ago # -
I am in the same boat and I can't decide. I have looked at the d300, d300s, d7000, d90, d700 and even a d5100 or d3200. It is a gap right now. My thoughts are I hate to spend any money on something two generations behind with an update any time now. I don't think I have an answer though. I know the IQ and ISO performance of your d5100 will knock the socks off the d300 so the pro features of it appeal even less to me. On the other hand I know numerous people have shot events and made money with the d300...so maybe it is good enough. Most likely we are just spoiled right now with the new body releases. We all want more now. I will most likely jump on the next affordable updated body be it a d400, d600 or d7100...assuming it has specs that I find usable.
Posted 11 months ago # -
I think just buying a camera for the "feeling" or layout experience is probably not the best idea. Nikon does a great job of keeping the controls and "other" items very close between it's bodies. I got my D800 and coming from a D300 I was right at home within hours. When I moved from a D80 to a D300, it took me a bit longer but I wasn't shooting as much back then. If you take the time to go through the manual and do everything 2-3 times, and go out to specifically to try shooting in different settings, you will be good.
Honestly I think you money would be better spent on a good flash or some classes/books on lighting and composition then a body that you might replace in a short time and loose some $$ selling it.
Posted 11 months ago # -
jim22 I am telling you right now the upgrade from the D300 to the D700 is truely amazing. I did this after having a D40x, D80, D300 and then D700. You won't regret it. I actually prefer it to the D800e now to be honest. The D700 is the best camera I have ever used it is outstanding in every way. The 12mp files are more than enough to work with, the files are extremly clean with very little noise up to at least 1600-1800. You shouldn't need anything over this range anyways. A lot of Nikkor glass works great on the body as well, which is not the case with a lot of other Nikon bodies such as the D800e or even the D300. I will be purchasing another D700 again before the year is over thats for sure. The only real reason why you shouldn't do this is the mysterious D600 rumors which keep circulating..
Posted 11 months ago # -
For what its worth, I had the most romantic affair with my old D300 than any other nikon camera I have owned including my new D800. It was like a faithful old car, it never failed me and deserved to remain in my stable of old cameras.
Why. Despite taking amazing shots for its time it felt comfortable in the hand, sounded like the door of a merc shutting when the shutter went off and just plain did what it was told.
JIMM22 I sympathize with you and your situation. The D7000 is worth checking out.Posted 11 months ago # -
TaoTeJared said:
Honestly I think you money would be better spent on a good flash or some classes/books on lighting and composition then a body that you might replace in a short time and loose some $$ selling it.
I will second that...buy a better lens or two to make for the transition into your next body. IMO you could use a better lens for portraits or such at an event...I know I wouldn't feel comfortable shooting the 18-200 at someones wedding. At least a prime like the 85 F1.8G or 105 F2.8 seems like a must, if not a pro zoom like the 24-70, 17-55, or 70-200.
Posted 11 months ago # -
While there is excitement regarding the D600, I am a holdout for the D400 which I believe will be introduced in September. After shooting the D4 for a while, I can say I much prefer the control layout of this camera and regret selling my D200, instead of my D90. Oh well.
The D300 is a great camera, but the rapid technology advances, and especially the increase in ISO with low noise, is where it it at in my book. And I think the D300 is lacking in this area. Several other newer Nikon bodies outperform it. The D400 may be a surprise for everyone and have features which simply are a head above the others. Predictions suggest native ISO of 6400, but it would not surprise me to see higher. Other features, the processor, focus, metering, all, will be much improved aver the D300.
So, at the present time buy glass as you have an excellent body in the D5100
Posted 11 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
