|
Nikon D300: Impressions from a D200 user
By John Cazolis
I'm currently residing in a remote village on Lesvos Island, Greece, so I'm a fair distance from the hustle and bustle of a fast paced city and my only real interaction with the rest of the world is through my dial up connection.
Anyway I've been longing for a full frame camera such as the D3 but at 4600€ and only 12MP it wasn't hard to overcome the initial excitement. Don't get me wrong, I was just as excited as most Nikon users but considering that my main subject matter is wildlife, I had to refocus on the more affordable and "longer" DX format. So I decided to stick to my trusty D200 and its 400 ISO limit (my personal noise performance limit).
But what about the D300 you ask? Well just like with the D3, I had read most reports and reviews and also scrutinized most of the pics online, but based on those I did't see much difference to warrant giving up a great camera such as the D200 for a one stop advantage.
When I visited Athens during the Christmas break a few weeks ago I had the chance to try both new cameras and I must say that even though both felt great, the D300 really stood out. And when I say stood out, I mean it really was a lot more than I had believed, WOW!
Up until now I thought the WOW factor only belonged to the D3, but I was mistaken, the WOW factor belongs to the D300. The image quality, the high ISO performance, the build quality, the “feel”, the large LCD and especially the great price of 1900€, including the MB-D10 battery pack really made me look at this camera twice – on the third look, I bought it.
Body and pack: Pro quality
Although the D300 looks the same as the D200, it’s the small differences that really make the D300 shine. The contours are better sculpted so this contributes to the better feel as does the magnesium frame which is of a more rugged and rigid design. Comparing the two bodies, the D300 also has more seals for better weather proofing. The few buttons that have disappeared or have changed are for the better and really make for a better experience when shooting. The pretty useless bracketing button is gone but can still be accessed by the function button on the front of the camera for those who wish to use it. The AF area mode selector on the back of the camera is reduced to three positions from the four of the D200. This is a good move in streamlining the choices and making it easier to use (more info further down in the AF section).
The new interface together with the new positions for the play button and the buttons for enlarging and reducing the photo may at first make you feel out of place, but after a few tries you will get used to the new workings and before you know it the new interface will feel faster and more natural in use.
Customizable buttons
The DOF preview button is now customizable! I don’t remember the last time I used the DOF preview, but I do remember thinking that it didn’t really offer me anything since I couldn’t make out what was sharp in my landscapes due to low light levels. So I was glad to hear that the D300 now offers the ability to assign new duties not only to this button, but to the AE-L/AF-L and Function buttons as well. Now I can assign flash value lock to the function button with Custom setting f4, I can disable the flash using the preview button thanks to Custom setting f5 and I can have the metering changed to Spot in an instant by pressing the AEL/AFL button thanks to Custom setting f6. I love this kind of customization and wonder why it wasn’t implemented many years earlier with such great cameras as the F5. So now I have the two buttons on the front of the camera handling my flash and making all my flash work such a better experience.
The best customization feature ever
Other cool customization features which I have been waiting for years are also available. With the use of custom setting f10 I can now reverse the exposure graph so that it reads in the more natural way of starting from minus on the left and gaining positive values towards the right. With f7 I can also reverse the rotation of the command dials so their rotation matches the direction of the graph. So when using Manual exposure mode, rotating either dial towards the right (away from the lens) will add exposure and left (towards the lens) will reduce the exposure. These adjustments add to a more natural way of using the camera. So even if you are used to the old Nikon ways, I urge you to try it and I’m sure you will enjoy the more natural and logical actions involved.
The MB-D10 battery pack
The “feel”, especially with the MB-D10 attached is much better than the D200 and it honestly seems like it’s another class of camera. Having used a D2x for a short period, I can say that it feels just as good. The battery pack design is a large step forward from the D200s MB-D200. What I like most is the ability to quickly remove the battery pack and continue using the D300 for those times when I need a smaller and lighter camera. This is really convenient compared to the D200 where you had to replace the battery door on the body as well as insert the battery. Now with just one action you are ready to go “light”. Power is drained first from the MB-D10 unless otherwise indicated in the Custom settings menu (d11: battery order) and this is the logical way of utilizing the power. I especially like how the top LCD shows the power level of the MB-D10 instead of the combined reading of the D200.
On reading the specs on the net in September, I was surprised that the MB-D10 was needed in order to achieve the advertised 8fps performance and later a little disappointed to find out that I also needed to purchase a new type of battery (EN-L4) and charger to get that performance. But thankfully this is not the real picture. The EN-L4 battery option is really intended for those who already have those types of batteries and chargers (D2x users). Of course, if you don’t mind paying, go ahead and buy them. Personally, I don’t see the value in it. As it is, the D300 can do 6fps easily and for my needs, I don’t see much difference between that speed and 8fps. Thankfully you can still have access to such high speed shooting without the need to buy the extra battery and charger. The MB-D10 battery pack comes with an AA holder which can produce that performance when using alkaline, lithium and rechargeable batteries. I searched my camera bag and found a set of rechargeable Duracell 1800mAh batteries which I use for my flashes. I installed them and the camera showed a half charge. I then proceeded to test its performance and it clocked in at 7.5 fps on average. I presume alkaline or lithium batteries might perform better. So now my rechargeable batteries have gained new duties by providing my high speed shooting needs.
Update: I just used a freshly charged set of Duracell NiMH 2300mAh batteries and the D300 constantly produced 8fps on a static subject.
Viewfinder
The 100% viewfinder is definitely a big plus but when looking through it, I can’t help but wish the view was larger and brighter (though still an improvement over the D200).
Screen
The new 3in screen with its true VGA resolution is fantastic and really a pleasure to use. There is also a navigation window within the main preview window when zooming into the picture so you don’t get lost. At first you might find it in the way and a little irritating but once you get used to it you will appreciate its usefulness.
Last words
Overall the build quality of both the camera and pack are first rate and I believe that anyone who gets the chance to handle the new D300 will immediately fall in love with this camera. Two weeks ago I honestly believed the D3 was king, but I now place the D300 slightly above the D3 for two simple reasons: the price and the crop factor for both of which I feel are important.
I also should point out that from my understanding; the D300 is not a D200 replacement, but a D2x replacement. Both the D300 and D3 are professional bodies serving the two formats - pick your format and you will have the best camera available, no matter which you pick.
PS1: I will be updating my blog with more info on the Autofocus system and the image quality soon, so keep checking.
PS2: I advise you to set Custom setting f9 to Release locked instead of Enable release so you can’t fire the camera when no card is inserted.
Cilck here for Part 2 which deals with the D300 Auto-focusing system
Feedback on this review:
:
[ 1] 2
 Re: Review: Nikon D300 by John Cazolis
1: January 12, 2008, 01:24:50 PM by eschurri very much enjoyed this article. One thing i'd love some more info on is how you use auto focus. I've had a D200 for two years, and i love it, but i've never figured out the real differences between some of the group/dynamic autofocus modes.
i've settled on locking the focus in the center area and using the focus lock when composing a picture. that doesn't mean i put my subject in the center of the picture (egad!) -- rather, i aim the center of the camera at the target image, focus, hold the focus lock (usually with the shutter half-depressed), and then recompose the image. I did this for all the shots i took of wildlife in Africa and it worked great.
In my experience, using the autofocus usually causes the camera to focus on something other than what i want. i find my method above faster than using my thumb on the selector dial on the back of the camera.
Re: Review: Nikon D300 by John Cazolis
2: January 12, 2008, 08:21:56 PM by Nikkoreschurr, I think maybe you missed the second part ( http://nikongear.com/nef/reviews/D300_JC/D300_review_2_John_Cazolis.php) which is about AF. Your observation about single point AF being easier to use and being more accurate more often is correct. Dynamic Area AF is for action scenes where we as photographers cant keep up. We all want a good camera that can cope at following the subject, but this is quite hard. Each model of camera has improved on the previous model, but AF is still a hard thing to master. A good understanding of the camera and its AF mechanism, some prefocusing, a bit of experience with all the hardware and the subject and a bit of luck is usually the best prescription for success. Happy shooting 
D300: 14 versus 12 bit
3: January 13, 2008, 12:29:09 AM by NikkorI've received a lot of questions regarding whether to upgrade or not and whether 14 bit is worth shooting over 12bit. So here is my take on the 14 bit issue. Enjoy  I only shoot RAW and it’s not so much for the quality but for the convenience as well. This is why I prefer compressed RAW for most of my photography. But even so, it’s nice to know that I have the choice to shoot a landscape or some other critical image in uncompressed 14-bit for maximum capture of tones giving me more leeway in post processing thus maximizing the output quality. And I say this even though I know that i cant really see any “practical” difference between 12 and 14 bit, or between compressed or uncompressed in the final print, let alone in publications. Sure if you go pixel peeping, the extra 2 bits offer some extra info both in the highlights (and in the shadows) as shown in the example pics on my blog, but I honestly think that 12-bit compressed is the way to go. If you think the extra info as shown is of use to you, then go ahead and select 14 bits. The examples have had 2 stops of exposure added to magnify the advantage of 14 bits. You may want to download both pics or open them in new tabs to compare them. http://nikonglass.blogspot.com/2008/01/d300-14-versus-12-bit.html
Re: Review: Nikon D300 by John Cazolis
4: January 14, 2008, 12:41:38 PM by NikosRYou have chosen to provide a highlight example, while I would expect than any perceivable difference would be more easily be manifested in the shadows. Any highlight gain might be somewhat evident when using lossy compression rather than losless or no compression at all, but a suitable test must be performed before we can distinguish any difference between 12 and 14 bits in the highlights and most importantly, in highlight recovery.
Re: Review: Nikon D300 by John Cazolis
5: January 18, 2008, 07:26:33 PM by paulcAs an adjunct to the 12 bit vs. 14 bit discussion, I am curious if anyone has any evidence of quality differences between "lossless compress sed" and "compressed?"
And yes I am aware that in many things, stuff measured with instruments can show very different results than just observation by the human eye. Our eyes really are amazing instruments that can automatically compensate for a lot of stuff. Thus there MAY be a defined difference if measured via instruments that can NOT be seen by the naked eye.
Re: Review: Nikon D300 by John Cazolis
6: January 18, 2008, 07:40:57 PM by ajAs an adjunct to the 12 bit vs. 14 bit discussion, I am curious if anyone has any evidence of quality differences between "lossless compress sed" and "compressed?"
If this is true lossless compression, there should not be any difference at all. The other compression option might show some difference.
Re: Review: Nikon D300 by John Cazolis
7: January 18, 2008, 08:49:18 PM by NikkorYou have chosen to provide a highlight example, while I would expect than any perceivable difference would be more easily be manifested in the shadows. Any highlight gain might be somewhat evident when using lossy compression rather than losless or no compression at all, but a suitable test must be performed before we can distinguish any difference between 12 and 14 bits in the highlights and most importantly, in highlight recovery.
The way I see it, i can shoot with 12bit lossy compressed and have a small and "fast" file that still gives me all the benefits of RAW or 14bit uncompressed with maximum performance. I don't concern myself with the in-betweens because the two extremes are all that matter to me. Of course such a test of all combinations would have some interest, but I wont bother it since the differences between the two extremes is so small. Also, my two comparison images are targeted at the highlights since this is what concerns me the most and probably the only reason for ever using 14 bits in the first place. If 14bits can give me more detail in the shadows is of little concern to me (unless it helps reduce noise). What I want in the shadows is less noise, and the D300 has managed that to some point (its better than the D200). As for the testing methodology, it works for me since for I'm a photographer and not a scientist
Re: Review: Nikon D300 by John Cazolis
8: January 18, 2008, 08:55:17 PM by NikkorAs an adjunct to the 12 bit vs. 14 bit discussion, I am curious if anyone has any evidence of quality differences between "lossless compress sed" and "compressed?"
And yes I am aware that in many things, stuff measured with instruments can show very different results than just observation by the human eye. Our eyes really are amazing instruments that can automatically compensate for a lot of stuff. Thus there MAY be a defined difference if measured via instruments that can NOT be seen by the naked eye.
Technically and numerically there is a difference , but who cares? I think we over concern ourselves too much with such issues. Yes, there is a difference but is too small to concern ourselfs with it. You can shoot and print images (both 12 or 14 bits, compressed or uncompressed) but in the end, no one will see the difference because the viewer is looking at the image and not the pixels. So in practical terms there is no difference. Yes, you are correct, the human eye is indeed a fine instrument Happy shooting 
Re: Review: Nikon D300 by John Cazolis
9: January 19, 2008, 03:50:57 AM by NikosRThe way I see it, i can shoot with 12bit lossy compressed and have a small and "fast" file that still gives me all the benefits of RAW or 14bit uncompressed with maximum performance. I don't concern myself with the in-betweens because the two extremes are all that matter to me. Of course such a test of all combinations would have some interest, but I wont bother it since the differences between the two extremes is so small. Also, my two comparison images are targeted at the highlights since this is what concerns me the most and probably the only reason for ever using 14 bits in the first place. If 14bits can give me more detail in the shadows is of little concern to me (unless it helps reduce noise). What I want in the shadows is less noise, and the D300 has managed that to some point (its better than the D200). As for the testing methodology, it works for me since for I'm a photographer and not a scientist You twisted what I've said. The jist of what I said amounts to that if you don't care about shadow detail (and shadow noise BTW, since it seems from samples I've seen that read noise is much better on 14bits) don't bother with 14bits at all. Looking at highlights they way you have will not provide you with any appreciation of the differences. Highlight recovery should be influenced much more by lossy vs lossless than 12 vs 14 bit. Is this photographically clear?
Re: Review: Nikon D300 by John Cazolis
10: January 19, 2008, 07:43:01 AM by NikkorLooking at highlights they way you have will not provide you with any appreciation of the differences.
How can this be? I tested the two extremes (compressed 12bit & uncompressed 14bit) and showed a small but noticeable difference. To me its really not worth the trouble but i may use it as i said for a landscape shot or some other critical image, maybe even a wedding portrait. So looking deeper into the other two options seems like a mute point. Highlight recovery should be influenced much more by lossy vs lossless than 12 vs 14 bit. Is this photographically clear?
You are referring to Nikon's lossless compression that is not really lossless since it sacrifices some bits from the highlights. But testing has shown that the data removed cannot be noticed by the human eye, so in effect and in practical terms its seen as "lossless". On the other hand 12 vs 14 bits can show a "noticeable" difference, yet very small to consider worthwhile. So the bit difference compared to the compression difference seems to offer more noticeable results. So photographically, a landscaper has more to gain moving up to 14 bits than just going from compressed to uncompressed. I hope this clears matters
[ 1] 2 |
Review: Nikon D300 by John Cazolis