Rancher_RIP
RIP
If I didn't have two already...
Nikon D300 12 3 MP D SLR w Acc 29GB of Cards MC 36 EX Batt Bag Body Only 018208094813 | eBay
Nikon D300 12 3 MP D SLR w Acc 29GB of Cards MC 36 EX Batt Bag Body Only 018208094813 | eBay
This is a D300 :)
- Thread starter fotojack
- Start date
WOW! That's a great price for all that!
If I had the money, I'd buy it myself! But I never seem to have money when there is a great deal to be had! Lol 
If I had the money, I'd buy it myself! But I never seem to have money when there is a great deal to be had! Lol
Yup. Story of my life, Bill!
Just-Clayton
Senior Member
Your right about the low light of the 300, this is why I keep my 3100 around. It works great for the low light shots.
rocketman122
Senior Member
for its time the D300 was elite. today it isnt so relevant. I do know pros that use a D300. I would not shoot a wedding wtih that camera. its very limiting iso wise. cant shoot past 2000 without smear and heavy chroma noise. and flash is not the answer to everything.
IQ between FF and DX is very visible. maybe the dynamic range. but I remember comparing my friends D3S to the D300 screens when shooting my first comeback wedding with him and just didnt understand why theres such a huge difference. something else altogether.
D300 had its day. for a regular user its fine. but for a pro, you should not be using that camera. and no, I dont believe in "its the photographer not the equipment" its true partly. there's only so much a pro photog can do with lacking gear. sure a pro can get better results but the gear imo is what limits the photographer. many situations im in events I shoot that say that god I have great gear. and mostly it has to do with fast glass and cameras which allow me to shoot to iso6400.
IQ between FF and DX is very visible. maybe the dynamic range. but I remember comparing my friends D3S to the D300 screens when shooting my first comeback wedding with him and just didnt understand why theres such a huge difference. something else altogether.
D300 had its day. for a regular user its fine. but for a pro, you should not be using that camera. and no, I dont believe in "its the photographer not the equipment" its true partly. there's only so much a pro photog can do with lacking gear. sure a pro can get better results but the gear imo is what limits the photographer. many situations im in events I shoot that say that god I have great gear. and mostly it has to do with fast glass and cameras which allow me to shoot to iso6400.
Dennis Kussener
Senior Member
I would love a D300 / D7100 fusion or so, like a pro body with DX sensor.
I'll say it this way.
For me the D600 is the fullframe brother of the D7000
Now a DX little brother of the fullframe D800 would be great.
I'll say it this way.
For me the D600 is the fullframe brother of the D7000
Now a DX little brother of the fullframe D800 would be great.
rocketman122
Senior Member
I only see 2 reasons why someone who buy DX. price, or heavy lens investment for DX. and maybe size but the D600 is the size of the d7000/7100. besides the prism. its a mistake to invest in DX imo. there's no future in it. OTOH, many are selling lenses for DX like the 17-55 for quite cheap. not cheap enough though IMO.
For me I guess it's the prices that has limited me to DX so far. But I can't complain since I'm enjoying them. I'm not a pro and I never intend to be, so it's the features like the D90 have in a cheap enough price that I'm thrilled with lately. So I would love to have the D300 or D300s especially since it has some weather resistance!
I want one bad enough, that I have even considered trying to trade my D5100 for one!
I want one bad enough, that I have even considered trying to trade my D5100 for one!
For me I guess it's the prices that has limited me to DX so far. But I can't complain since I'm enjoying them. I'm not a pro and I never intend to be, so it's the features like the D90 have in a cheap enough price that I'm thrilled with lately. So I would love to have the D300 or D300s especially since it has some weather resistance! I want one bad enough, that I have even considered trying to trade my D5100 for one!
You know, not everyone needs or wants FX. Seriously, DX likely does what 90% of us needs. I know professionals who use strictly DX and do quite well at it. Certainly the D300(s) could make you money!
Just-Clayton
Senior Member
I have done all my weddings except my first with the 300. I actually put my 85 macro on the 3100 for back up for close up shots. I haven't had a complaint yet.
rocketman122
Senior Member
I did my sisters wedding with the D300. then, I thought the IQ was great. today I know that its crap (for my eyes). dont get offended. its only my opinion. there are many who use the D300 for weddings. I have very high standards and I always want the best equipment and I know that DX sensors is not it. there is just a huge amount of smear and chroma noise from iso 2000. to all who say otherwise, if you havent shot with a FF, you should at least try a few pics.
I just did my comeback a few months back. and my friend who is a pro took me under his wings as I came from the F5 film world. actually I photographed his weddings years back and he says it was me who pushed him into it. anyways I told him what I was planning to buy. DX gear obviously. he said NO WAY, I WONT LET YOU. I said, why its good enough. he explained the many reasons why. he explained the dynamic range, dx looks muddy, ff is nice and bright. the texture of the skin is amazing. even the sensor is different. IMO the dx sensor is nikon and the FF is sony and you can see the IQ difference right in the screen.
I was shooting the wedding with him the whole afternoon and he kept showing me pictures, and I could not understand why it looked like crap and muddy in the D300 (sorry again, this just me and my eyes) I also was a lab printer in the past so my eyes are very sensitive to color casts. over and over I kept seeing the pictures and I was so frustrated. I kept asking how the hell your pictures look so amazing in this D300 doesnt look anything close to yours and we were shooting comparison shots with the same exposures.
he gave me his beat up D3 and BAM! just like that it was just amazing. the detail and gradients from bright to dark was just amazing. I knew I was home. I knew I must go FF. I sold my 17-55, I sold my 12-24. I sold everything I didnt need to move to FF. I was in your place. the D300 is great, but for pro work, FF leaves it behind. I even made a preorder for a D7000. when it would come in stock I was going to buy it. thank god he stopped me. the sony FF sensor is like nothing else. Im sorry to be harsh but this is from someone coming from DX. I was there. I didnt believe FF would be better. my mindset was, why the hell spend more. I was shooting film at iso 800 then and with the d300 I can shoot iso 2000. what, that isnt enough? and FF is not only about the ISO. the images look like something else. the amount of detail inside is just amazing. its a different league, pictures look so much different.
see this video. about 2 minutes in he talks about how things look bright with the FF and its true but they look so alive. not muted and boring. im not saying the D300 is boring, im saying the images are very boring compared to FF images. sorry to harsh guys. not trying to make you feel bad. but those who are pros should not be shooting DX.
We are spoiled: Nikon D70 vs. D600 ISO comparison | Nikon Rumors
today I was shooting a bar mitzvah. towards the end of it, it got dark and thank god for the FF sensor. I was shooting friends of the parents before they left and was using a bit of flash bounced behind me at iso 6400 and I still got some great ambient light with the flash. you cant do that with dx. DX for pros then was great but with the prices of D600, there's no reason a pro shouldnt buy.
Just-Clayton
Senior Member
I'm still at the beginning in this. I 100% agree. I started with my 3100 and then 300. I am now saving for a FF. It just won't be until next year. I want to be in full frame before the end of 2014. Sooner if I hit the lottery. I wanted to work on my technique before I go and buy a very expensive camera. I have all the lenses to convert. Now just the funds.
rocketman122
Senior Member
Its great that youre building yourself to move to FF. its an expensive move. not many pros bought the greatest gear in one time. the FF sensor will take your images to another level. the detail and dynamic range. the tones and even the quality of the grain look better than DX. I was with film and used my brothers d300 everytime there was a family event. people were very happy with the pictures. but I never was. I had to tweak it a lot in ps to get the look I was used to dealing with in film. I hate the look of digital. if I had the money, I would buy an analog machine at home, a film developer and just shoot film. the D3 IQ are very satisfactory to my eyes. im not happy with it but im very content. I feel proud when I pass my pictures to the clients and other photogs I work with. reala film on fuji pro matte paper...ugh, to die for. thats the reason I never moved to digital. it looked like crap. today its not there yet, but its getting there. I was like many who said, eh, its good enough. but once I started with FF, wow the IQ is ano another level. theres no comparison between them. not only does it give you freedom to get shots you couldnt get, everything about the image (providing the photographer knows how to photograph hah) is a different level. I said iso2000 with the D300 isnt enough? now with the D3 6400 isnt enough. next year I want to get the D3S for really low light situations. being able to shoot over 6400..upgrading never stops
@ rocket man. I fully agree with your experience with regards to full frame. It is easy to say go with a full frame camera but this might be easier said than done but everybody here have different financial situation and getting a D300 for some is already a big achievement. Even though I would like everybody to experience a FX camera, it is just not financially possible to most photographers.
It is not just about the equipment and we all acknowledge that.
I always find myself disgusted with my previous work few years ago since my software and post processing have also evolved. I think I am slowly getting better.
Sent from my iPhone.
It is not just about the equipment and we all acknowledge that.
I always find myself disgusted with my previous work few years ago since my software and post processing have also evolved. I think I am slowly getting better.
Sent from my iPhone.
rocketman122
Senior Member
Yes absolutely. Im just talking about pro. pros working, who get paid, should be using FF, or at least be pushing to move to FF. im not saying the D300 isnt capable. its an ok camera. but FF will help you capture images you wouldnt be able to with DX because of the high iso. especially in a church. the most important part of the whole day. again, for the average person DX is fine. pros who get paid, must make the move to FF. and the saying "its the photographer not the gear" is only partly true. the gear is what limits a good photographer. it limits what one can do.
Just-Clayton
Senior Member
I am almost to my 4th year of my 4 year plan. It was to be accepted as a legit photographer, have the right equipment to advance myself(which will never end) and possibly get a retirement from current job to a Monday - Friday job so, I can have my weekends free. The 4 might change to 5 but, I can handle that. For now I will make my money selling local postcards and landscapes to build my fortress using the equipment I have. Which will be my D300 and D3100.