retief
12-09-20079th December 2007, 08:29 AM
opinion/commentary/whatever you want to call it ;)
First, a touch of background. I used to shoot a D2H, loved the camera, hated the 4mp for small/distant subjects. Many of us were hoping that the successor would maintain the great AF with more MP and better High ISO, in my case I wanted up to ISO 2000. Unfortunately, the next cameras out did not provide this combination, and I move to the D200 for resolution, knowing I would lose some on the AF side. While I have not been totally unhappy, my personal time-frame was something better from Nikon be the end of summer, or a switch to Canon, probably a MkIII with a 40D as backup, would have been in order.
Disclaimer: This is in no way meant to be a definitive, scientific, thorough review of the camera, frankly I'm too darned lazy to do such. These are nought but the ramblings of a mostly deranged bozo with a couple of cameras ;), so take it for what it is worth.
AF performance:
Beats the pants off my D200, and it will take years to figure out when to use all 51 pts, 3D tracking, Auto-Area AF and such. And they look to be VERY happy years, we finally have more AF points than Canon :biglaugh:. I find 2 things to be much better than the D200. The first is that I can aquire a target much faster, I have settled for the moment on 21pt, and the low-light/low-contrast AF is just amazing. I shoot a lot with a couple of friends who both have D2X's as well as recently aquired D300's, and they both say that the AF is superior to the D2X as well. Does the D300 miss sometimes? Sure does, but then it isn't magic and the darned thing still doesn't have the one feature I want and need, focus on what I'm THINKING, not where I'm AIMING ;)
High ISO:
All that I had been told prior to release was to expect 1-1.3 stops better than the D200. This led me to belive that up to ISO 2000 I was going to be very happy. From my own observation, and reports from others, ISO 2500 is a snap, 3200 is quite usable, and frankly I'm amazed at how well ISO 6400 cleans up. Would I use ISO 6400 in any kind of critical situation? Absolutely, if it meant getting a shot I needed or not. Does it take more work than ISO 1600 and below? Yup, but heck, it is ISO 6400 after all.
8 fps:
Oh, I'm happy to get this back again as well ;)
Compared to Other Cameras:
Well, Canon obviously has "led the realm" in ISO performance over the years. Without a doubt at all. Canon has thoroughly annoyed me, and Nikon didn't seem to much care. But now, obviously, Canon will go out of business in the nex 4 weeks, just because of the D3/D300 combo rolleyes;rolleyes;rolleyes; ... NOT! What we do have now, in my opinion, is one heck of an awesome set of cameras from both companies, and hopefully ( yeah right dream on Dewey ) an end to the incessant High ISO Noise debates. Would I switch if I was a Canon shooter already solidly invested in Canon? Tough call, but if I was a MkIII user, I doubt it. For someone new with a 40D, the question would be is the AF and such that much better as to be worth the cost differential, tough call as always.
My Recommendation:
Well, now that I have my 2, I suggest that everyone buy one, as I won't be in line behind you :biglaugh::biglaugh:. But there are, again in my opinions, some real downsides into moving to a D300, but these are the same for many cameras from both companies. If you expect to pick the camera up, shoot in P mode with default settings, you may very well find yourself disappointed. My guess is that well over 85% of the complaints we see about this camera will come from people who do exactly this. We have seen this with many of the cameras, I'm sure it is the same in the Canon world. If you buy something this sophistacted, plan to invest a significant amount of time understanding the settings and what it can do. Even more, understand the limitations. As great as this camera is, the photographer is still "in charge". That being the case, it is up to you to get the best performance out of the camera.
First, a touch of background. I used to shoot a D2H, loved the camera, hated the 4mp for small/distant subjects. Many of us were hoping that the successor would maintain the great AF with more MP and better High ISO, in my case I wanted up to ISO 2000. Unfortunately, the next cameras out did not provide this combination, and I move to the D200 for resolution, knowing I would lose some on the AF side. While I have not been totally unhappy, my personal time-frame was something better from Nikon be the end of summer, or a switch to Canon, probably a MkIII with a 40D as backup, would have been in order.
Disclaimer: This is in no way meant to be a definitive, scientific, thorough review of the camera, frankly I'm too darned lazy to do such. These are nought but the ramblings of a mostly deranged bozo with a couple of cameras ;), so take it for what it is worth.
AF performance:
Beats the pants off my D200, and it will take years to figure out when to use all 51 pts, 3D tracking, Auto-Area AF and such. And they look to be VERY happy years, we finally have more AF points than Canon :biglaugh:. I find 2 things to be much better than the D200. The first is that I can aquire a target much faster, I have settled for the moment on 21pt, and the low-light/low-contrast AF is just amazing. I shoot a lot with a couple of friends who both have D2X's as well as recently aquired D300's, and they both say that the AF is superior to the D2X as well. Does the D300 miss sometimes? Sure does, but then it isn't magic and the darned thing still doesn't have the one feature I want and need, focus on what I'm THINKING, not where I'm AIMING ;)
High ISO:
All that I had been told prior to release was to expect 1-1.3 stops better than the D200. This led me to belive that up to ISO 2000 I was going to be very happy. From my own observation, and reports from others, ISO 2500 is a snap, 3200 is quite usable, and frankly I'm amazed at how well ISO 6400 cleans up. Would I use ISO 6400 in any kind of critical situation? Absolutely, if it meant getting a shot I needed or not. Does it take more work than ISO 1600 and below? Yup, but heck, it is ISO 6400 after all.
8 fps:
Oh, I'm happy to get this back again as well ;)
Compared to Other Cameras:
Well, Canon obviously has "led the realm" in ISO performance over the years. Without a doubt at all. Canon has thoroughly annoyed me, and Nikon didn't seem to much care. But now, obviously, Canon will go out of business in the nex 4 weeks, just because of the D3/D300 combo rolleyes;rolleyes;rolleyes; ... NOT! What we do have now, in my opinion, is one heck of an awesome set of cameras from both companies, and hopefully ( yeah right dream on Dewey ) an end to the incessant High ISO Noise debates. Would I switch if I was a Canon shooter already solidly invested in Canon? Tough call, but if I was a MkIII user, I doubt it. For someone new with a 40D, the question would be is the AF and such that much better as to be worth the cost differential, tough call as always.
My Recommendation:
Well, now that I have my 2, I suggest that everyone buy one, as I won't be in line behind you :biglaugh::biglaugh:. But there are, again in my opinions, some real downsides into moving to a D300, but these are the same for many cameras from both companies. If you expect to pick the camera up, shoot in P mode with default settings, you may very well find yourself disappointed. My guess is that well over 85% of the complaints we see about this camera will come from people who do exactly this. We have seen this with many of the cameras, I'm sure it is the same in the Canon world. If you buy something this sophistacted, plan to invest a significant amount of time understanding the settings and what it can do. Even more, understand the limitations. As great as this camera is, the photographer is still "in charge". That being the case, it is up to you to get the best performance out of the camera.