Is the D300s a good buy?

Live_free · May 25, 2010

I have a D90 right now and have enough to buy a brand new D300s, what I'm wondering is, is it worth it? Or should I wait to see if nikon updates their line up or even just skip the D300s and save up a bit more and get the D700? Thanks.

sothoth · May 25, 2010

It depends on what you want in a camera. The other option is to keep the D90 and save up for nicer lenses.

Live_free · May 25, 2010

sothoth said:
It depends on what you want in a camera. The other option is to keep the D90 and save up for nicer lenses.

I already have some nice lenses. I just don't list any of my equipment. Well I am going to need a waterproof DSLR before summer is over, going on the tiger cruise with my father, and the last thing I want to worry about it getting my camera wet. Also I want to be able to shoot while not having to be OCD about water, lol. My thing is should I buy the D300s or wait a bit and see what they come out with or get the D700 with a bit more saving.

AlexL · May 25, 2010

If you need a prosumer body and waterproof DSLR, D300s should be a decent upgrade!

cfusionpm · May 25, 2010

If all you're looking for is weather sealing, remember that you need weather-sealed lenses for it to have any sort of real impact. That aside, the D300s is a great camera, and Nikon's best crop sensor body. But if you don't need the burst speed, extra focus points, or other advantages and features, with such a similar sensor and without weatherproof lenses, it doesn't seem like a huge necessity to upgrade.

Also, if you have a D700 in your sights, remember you'll have to replace any DX lenses with FX (or keep them to use on the D90 as a second body).

sothoth · May 25, 2010

You may consider something like this if waterproofing is a serious issue for you. While I rarely discourage camera upgrades, it's tough to justify for a single trip. Plus, the upgrade may not solve to problem fully. Or, upgrade AND buy this!!

Underwater Housing for Nikon D-90

IgsEMT · May 25, 2010

& my 5cents...
I love D300s. I had 2 D300(s) one primary and one back up, when d90 came out, ended up selling one of them and getting d90. Worked out great b/c quality of the image is still good and my wife can stop developing tendinitis after every job we shoot. Few months ago, I got 300s and put D300 on the back. It works great. Love the images it produces. I think its metering is more accurate then D90 and D300. Don't expect a lot from video quality, its ok but NOT great. But I mostly use video for on-the-job-notes like ("groom didn't want specific pose") - thus I have record of what happened on the job later on.
I didn't go for d700 for few reasons. If $ weren't an issue, I'd be on Fx right now but here's my paranoid thinking of buying used camera - D700, in my opinion, is one of the best cameras out there. Thus I can't image anyone buying a $2500 body (or w/e it costs today) and selling it w/o any reason other then SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH IT (I'm paranoid). It's the only reason why I didn't get used D700. Same paranoia I have with other used gear. Unless I know where its coming from and who used it, chances are I don't buy it. NOW LENSES - being more mechanical and less electronic (not all of course) I feel more comfortable with used lenses.
but thats me

Live_free · May 25, 2010

cfusionpm said:
If all you're looking for is weather sealing, remember that you need weather-sealed lenses for it to have any sort of real impact. That aside, the D300s is a great camera, and Nikon's best crop sensor body. But if you don't need the burst speed, extra focus points, or other advantages and features, with such a similar sensor and without weatherproof lenses, it doesn't seem like a huge necessity to upgrade.

Also, if you have a D700 in your sights, remember you'll have to replace any DX lenses with FX (or keep them to use on the D90 as a second body).

I planned to go FX anyway at some point in my photographic hobby, so I never bought an expensive DX lens.

I have a weather-sealed lens so It'd be 100%.

The way I look at it now is I like the D300s because it has
-weather sealing
-faster burst (Mainly for jets taking off) But there are other reasons.
-Extra Focus points

So now I can either get a D300s + the 24-70 2.8 I have been wanting or the D700. Does the D700 really have that much better noise and ISO levels?

Derrel · May 25, 2010

cfusionpm said:
Also, if you have a D700 in your sights, remember you'll have to replace any DX lenses with FX (or keep them to use on the D90 as a second body).

Actually, that's not quite right. Unlike Canon, where EF-S lenses will not even mount onto any of their full-frame bodies, and some of the earlier cameras, ALL Nikon DX lenses will mount onto ALL Nikon d-slr bodies. The camera will then automatically use the DX lenses in DX mode, meaning there is no need to replace the lenses. Also, some DX Nikkor lenses will work acceptably well on FX bodies in full-field mode, or in the 4x5 aspect ratio that the D3 series bodies use. The 10.5mm fisheye DX Nikkor for example, can be used on FF if the lens hood is permanently removed, and multiple other lenses will cover the FX field from the long end of their zoom range, down toward the low end of their zoom range, but will vignette at the absolute shortest focal lengths.

So, no, replacing DX format lenses is in no way a requirement when one moves to a full-frame Nikon body: Nikon already figured that out, years ago.

Live_free · May 25, 2010

sothoth said:
You may consider something like this if waterproofing is a serious issue for you. While I rarely discourage camera upgrades, it's tough to justify for a single trip. Plus, the upgrade may not solve to problem fully. Or, upgrade AND buy this!!

Underwater Housing for Nikon D-90

Its not just for a single trip, I really hate water around my camera and it has limited my photographic ability tremendously because of where I live is rainy yet beautiful.

Rainy as in everything is always wet. lol

KmH · May 25, 2010

No one makes a waterproof dSLR.

However, you might want to read some of these stories:

Nikon User Weather-Related Experiences

Live_free · May 25, 2010

KmH said:
No one makes a waterproof dSLR.

However, you might want to read some of these stories:

Nikon User Weather-Related Experiences

I know it's not "waterproof" what I was referring to was it was 100% of what it will get for the camera. Thanks for the link, I wouldn't be shooting in like rain storms, lol, I just meant like I wouldn't have to be worried about over spray when the ship rocks, and also be able to shoot in more areas without being limited where I live.

cfusionpm · May 25, 2010

Derrel said:
ALL Nikon DX lenses will mount onto ALL Nikon d-slr bodies. The camera will then automatically use the DX lenses in DX mode, meaning there is no need to replace the lenses.

That's pretty neat; didn't know that. Though it sucks to bring the sensor down to 5mp in DX mode. =/

Live_free said:
I have a weather-sealed lens so It'd be 100%.

The way I look at it now is I like the D300s because it has
-weather sealing
-faster burst (Mainly for jets taking off) But there are other reasons.
-Extra Focus points

So now I can either get a D300s + the 24-70 2.8 I have been wanting or the D700. Does the D700 really have that much better noise and ISO levels?

Since Nikon has a little different lineup than Canon, I really don't know what real advantages the D700 has over the D300s besides a full frame sensor. There's no extra resolution, and from image tests I've seen online, the high ISO is better, but not phenominaly so. I guess if you can afford it, it's the better camera. But if you don't need or want a full frame, the D300s is great.

I'm in similar shoes now with the 7D, but there's no non-1.6 camera that fits my needs besides a 1DIV, which means the 7D is my only forseeable upgrade (not that that's a bad thing by any means!). While I wish Canon had a full frame speed camera at a reasonable price, it makes my upgrade path pretty straightforward.