Nikon D300 12.3 MP Digital SLR Camera - Black (Body Only)

Since 2006 I have owned a D200 for serious shooting situations and I got a D40 in early '07 for everyday shots (an awesome camera - I give it SIX stars! - a whole separate review is needed!), and after hearing about the D300 release in late 2007 I debated over whether to get one. I was really happy with my D200, which I took on some overseas trips and it performed perfectly. After demo-ing a D300 in stores and reading some online reviews, I decided to take the plunge. It was a big investment but now I have no regrets - if not for the entire package, then for one thing: COLOR! Or one more thing: what Nikon calls 'Active D-Lighting' (translation: a significant change in the processor's realistic rendition of contrast, highlights, shadows, etc. - the entire package of "TONE"). Also - can an LCD rear-screen get any better than this?? In Jim Cramer-parlance I have to say that this model is definitely "best of breed".

Pluses and minuses: (note: edited every once in a while since I've used it for almost 6 months now and thousands of captures - last edit was done on 4/9/08)

PLUSES:

- Incredibly vivid, pleasingly, really surprisingly saturated color reminiscent of Velvia (high-saturation Fuji film used in slides, etc.) is now made possible by selecting the "Vivid" option in the "Picture Control" menu and cranking up the "Saturation" option - there are three levels beyond the default "0" - which sets it just about at the highest possible saturation that could be set in the D200. Even boring photos of things around the home, outside, etc. seem interesting and... well, exciting and vivid... with it set at +2 or +3 (although the +3 setting is a bit extreme for people photos, and renders their skin color a bit more intense than appears naturally). At the +3 setting even blase photos of ordinary things approach purposely-understated "art" in a MoMA-like way. For people I am finding Vivid+1 or Vivid+2 a bit more natural indoors with natural light, as the Vivid+3 saturates just a bit more than I prefer. Just like Velvia, these settings also do not warm the cool colors - one of the minuses of other cameras' 'vivid' settings - this is what's best (your cool blues, greys, greens, etc. stay cool, while the reds, yellows, oranges, bright blues/greens/etc. - watch out!) (Edited note: after about 3,000 shots I saw that indoors it might be best to do a manual white balance preset off a white wall or carpet or something and then shoot in vivid mode, since in the automatic WB mode the reds tend to get boosted quite a bit under typical indoor light and some of my subjects looked like they had a very dark suntan, or even a sunburn, in the middle of December! Careful with this... also tried standard - i.e. not vivid - color settings with +1 or +2 saturation, and these were very realistic, although the backgrounds can be dull if you're intent on vivid colors all-around. Maybe best to use those on portraits only. Try them all out and see what works best.)

- On-board so-called "Active D-Lighting" renders shadows and highlights in an very realistic manner, with no raising up of delicate shadow tones to mid-levels (as my outstanding, near-perfect-in-its-class Nikon D40 tends to do) - this really must be seen to be believed. Coupled with the color quality (and deep saturation noted above), the detail in the highlights is excellent. The D40/D200 have this feature in post-capture (i.e. you adjust the captured image yourself) but this seemed rather crude; her

I have used both a D200 and D2xs for the last few years and enjoy both of these cameras very much, however after using a camera with a 3 inch monitor I decided it was time for an upgrade in this area. I have found the D300 to be an updated D200. The added pixels, dust cleaning feature, live view on the monitor and the great 3 inch monitor are all very nice additions. The fact that the basic controls are nearly identical to the D200 also make the transition easy. Only a quick skim through the 421 page manual was necessary to identify and learn changes. The D300 is not however in the same league as the D2xs for quality of build and overall feel. I still consider it an upper end camera for the advanced non-professional or a good back up for a pro. Since I am a non-professional it fits my needs very well.

I moved up to the Nikon D300 after owning a D200 for about two years. Prior to the D200 I had a used Nikon DX1, which produced excellent images, but weighed a ton. I've been a photographer for more than 30 years and have always owned and used Nikon cameras and lenses. They have never let me down.

The D300 is huge advance over the D200. Better resolution, better low ISO performance and improved auto focus and metering functions. The camera fits my hand perfectly and all the controls are easy to reach and operate, even in low-light shooting situations.

I have a lot of money invested in Nikon pro lenses and the D300 really takes advantage of that high quality glass to produce superb images.

I considered moving to an FX body - D700, but I'm more than satisfied with the D300 for my professional and personal work and I'm planning to soon add another D300 body as a back-up. I also shoot professional video, but have no desire or need to have a video capture feature in my still camera.
The D300 meets all of my requirements. I also considered a D90, but I need the build quality of the D300 for a wide range of assignments.

The D300 is a bargain now and will be even cheaper as soon as Nikon announces the D400 to replace the D300s.

If price is a factor, consider a Nikon factory refurbished D300. You'll save some serious bucks.

If you are seriously interested in photography, the D300 is an excellent choice. It is a highly capable camera that provides you with the means to take outstanding photos. This camera is the big bang for your bucks deal. Beware, it is not intended to be a point and shoot, you have to invest a little time in learning it. It is capable of shooting as a p and s, as well as completely manual and everything in between. This camera is well built and will provide you with years of reliable use. They are only available used now, so look for a low usage camera, get lots of memory cards and go for it. I have two now, passed on newer more "modern" Nikon SLR for this model, No regrets. Also, invest in decent lenses, you only need two or three to do 98% of your shooting and of course a Nikon Speedlight, I like the SB-600, there are several to choose from.

I recently switched to Nikon after being a Canon digital SLR advocate starting with the D30, going to the D60 and then most recently the 20D. I have only had this camera a few months but have been impressed with its versatility especially in relation to sharpness and ability to adjust autofocus fields. My biggest complaint about the Canon was the lack of sharpness in the images. I shoot predominantly in the RAW format (both Nikon and Canon) and feel the overall image quality is superior with the Nikon. I thought my 3MP Canon had better images than the 8MP 20D. The Nikon requires you to set more parameters than the Canon although the menus are straightforward and easy to use. The Nikon is well balanced and appears durable although I have no interest in testing the latter. I still have much to learn about using the Nikon but am glad I made the switch considering the investment in lenses, flash, etc. I had made in Canon. I gave my daughter the Canon and she is very happy with it so I am sure that you can find advocates for either line. At this point I do not regret making the switch and would do it again based on what my experience has been.