Even though we ARE Nikon lovers,we are NOT affiliated with Nikon Corp. in any way.

English German French

Sign up Login
Home Forums Articles Galleries Recent Photos Contest Help Search News Workshops Shop Upgrade Membership Recommended
All members Wiki Contests Vouchers Apps Newsletter THE NIKONIAN™ Magazines Podcasts Fundraising

I need to win the lottery, till then it's the D300


51 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author
Yzerguy Registered since 06th Jan 2007
Thu 01-Nov-07 05:25 AM

First a caveat -- I'm relatively early in the DSLR learning curve, having owned a D200 for almost a year -- I am fully and completely behind the principle that better photographs come from experience and technique far more than from the gear. Please, read that again, I'm not paying lip-service here, I know it, I believe it, I'm slowly living it.

That said, better gear can make taking some photos easier.

I'm on a waiting list for a D300 and I'm looking forward to hands on experience. While waiting I found myself over in the D3 forum and found the link to Dave Black's workshop/review of the D3. Link at the end of this post.

Second caveat... I make my living outside of photography, however, taking good photos often contributes to my bottom line. The rest of my time spent behind the cam is for my enjoyment -- I can write off some of my purchases but I am in no way a PJ or a sports photographer, I'm pure amature, actually, I'm still below even that level IMO.

Back to my thoughts on Dave Black's D3 article and how it relates to the D300:

Okay, so the images are small, and he's a Nikon pro, so maybe it's too good to be true... but if the high ISO performance he talks about is true, it's like a wet dream. He considers the D3 a landmark in photograpy, comparing it to other landmarks in photography like the motor drive of the 60s, AF of the 80s, and the digital age itself. Other things he talks about more than once is the 3D auto focus tracking system.

One thing that really caught my eye was that he's already bought lower quality glass to go with the D3, namely the 70-300 f4-5.6 G VR b/c the ISO performance suddenly makes that lens very relevant. Again, this may all be sales hype, but if even part of it is true, and correct me if you think I'm wrong, all of a sudden the "better glass trumps better body everytime" arguement could be shifting a little more to the camera (not entirely).

Given the D300 is purported to have superior high ISO performance (obviously not at the same level as the D3) in DX format, some individual's future glass purchasing strategies could be potentially be affected as well, depending on application -- that said I don't think that argument will hold nearly as much weight on the D300 vs D3, but still, slower glass *may* be useable where it wasn't before.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to suggest slower glass should or would replace good glass, rather, I'm just thinking out loud here. For me, I could afford a D3 and even glass on top of that, but that makes absolutely zero sense in my personal life, there are other far more important things in life that require money -- I'd love to buy a D3, but my needs and my ability don't even come close to justifying it.

Then there's the AF system both cams (apparently) share -- stay with me, I am trying to shut up already! If the D300 3D AF is even 50-75% of what the D3 supposedly offers, I'm thinking D200 resale values may be dropping faster than many of us have anticipated. Personally I'm not concerned about that, but many are for various reasons.


Cheers, Sean


Post script: I'm confident some, if not all, of these ideas have been touched on already here, I do my best to keep up but can't read all the posts. Given Dave Black's article is fairly new I felt it was relevant enough to post.

Slowly easing my way into this... need a money tree and a time machine.

Slowly easing my way into this... need a money tree and a time machine