D300s

[KenRC51]

I just read the announcement about the D300s, makes me want to buy one.

I am a little disappointed that Nikon did not give it a higher megapixel, like 15 or a little higher. I like the fact that you can also record hd videos. It also says that it can take up to 7 frames per secs. I am wondering if the new D300s takes clearer pic the the D300?

You think Nikon is going to make another non full-frame camera with a higher megapixel?

Is the D300s gonna get outdated fast? For example, Canon 40d got outdated very fast. The Canon 40d released on Jan 2008 and then the 50d was released on Aug 2008. That is only 8 months. If I owned the Canon 40d I would of regret buying it.

I really want to get the D300s but I am afraid of something like that might happen?

[herc182]

I doubt there will be ANY difference at all in the images from the D300 and the D300s.

Also, the Canon 40D is in no way outdated. Its just been superseeded by the 50D which has slightly different features. I very much doubt the quality between the two is vastly different.

I think if they update anything else, it will be the D700 (possibly with higher MP but thats just wishful thinking on my part, and have nothing to substantiate that claim!).

And the D700 is a FF camera which means FF lenses and generally more expensive. If you are in the market for a camera, and you want the D300s, you will NOT be disappointed.

Go for it :)

[K1W1]

I am wondering if the new D300s takes clearer pic the the D300?

That's primarily a function of the lens not the camera body.


Nikon is not Canon. The D400 will not arrive for 18-24 months (closer to 24). If you want to wait that long go ahead I just hope that you don't miss any great photo opportunities in the mean time.

Unless you actually have a reason to use the video capability for any more than a 5 minute trial to see how it works my suggestion is to go out and get a discounted D300 now rather than wait for the full price D300s models to arrive in a month or so. I guarantee that you will not be able to tell the differences in image quality from one body to the other in 99.9999999999% of photos.

[Rooz]

i wouldnt bank on a d400 for 12 months.

[VTEC_EATER]

I am wondering if the new D300s takes clearer pic the the D300?

I would imagine image quality is about the same for each camera. My guess is that the D300s got the D90 sensor, which is a variant of the original D300 sensor. So I would look at sample images from the D90 to get an idea of what kind of photos it will take.


You think Nikon is going to make another non full-frame camera with a higher megapixel?

Most definitely. I do not see DX leaving us any time within the next 5-10 years.


Is the D300s gonna get outdated fast? For example, Canon 40d got outdated very fast. The Canon 40d released on Jan 2008 and then the 50d was released on Aug 2008. That is only 8 months. If I owned the Canon 40d I would of regret buying it.

Maybe. Since this is just an "evolutionary" upgrade and not a completely new camera, I believe this is just intended to tide Nikon users over until they release the D400. I would agree with Rooz that a new camera body will be out in around 12 months.


I really want to get the D300s but I am afraid of something like that might happen?

Is there a question here?

I'm Ron Burgundy?

J/K

[XaiLo]

Nikon is not Canon. The D400 will not arrive for 18-24 months (closer to 24). .


i wouldnt bank on a d400 for 12 months.

I'll take D400 in 18 months Alex!

[photowerkz]

Don't get too hung up on what equipment you use. There are people who still use canon eos 20 and 30D's, who get their work published and take great pictures. It's really not that much about the camera, as it is the person using it.

If D300 cameras start to drop in price because of the totally useless D300S camera (thanks for nothing Nikon) is beeing released, then get yourself one ASAP. It's a brilliant camera.

And the 40D is in no way out dated. Not even the 400D is out dated. Camera's arn't mobilephones, even though canon/nikon and the rest are acting like it is to fool unassuming consumers to buy every new model they release because it has a 0,5" bigger LCD with a few more pixels on it, or a new sensor with a few more megapixels. It's just bullshit..

[Paradox]

I've got a 40D and I wouldn't trade it for a 50D - I have no interest whatsoever in any of the new features. It hasn't gone out of date in any way. It still has a more than ample resolution, it still has fantastic high ISO performance, it's still well built and in like-new condition. And I expect many more years of use until I eventually upgrade - Which will probably only be when I decide to go full frame. :)

If you buy a DSLR and expect to chase after every new camera that's released it's going to get very expensive very quickly. Buy the current model and be happy with it. ;)

[KenRC51]

I would imagine image quality is about the same for each camera. My guess is that the D300s got the D90 sensor, which is a variant of the original D300 sensor. So I would look at sample images from the D90 to get an idea of what kind of photos it will take.



Most definitely. I do not see DX leaving us any time within the next 5-10 years.



Maybe. Since this is just an "evolutionary" upgrade and not a completely new camera, I believe this is just intended to tide Nikon users over until they release the D400. I would agree with Rooz that a new camera body will be out in around 12 months.



Is there a question here?

I'm Ron Burgundy?

J/K

oops, it was a type-o. Yeah, your right they do have the same sensor but the D300 has a 16bit processor.


I've got a 40D and I wouldn't trade it for a 50D - I have no interest whatsoever in any of the new features. It hasn't gone out of date in any way. It still has a more than ample resolution, it still has fantastic high ISO performance, it's still well built and in like-new condition. And I expect many more years of use until I eventually upgrade - Which will probably only be when I decide to go full frame. :)

If you buy a DSLR and expect to chase after every new camera that's released it's going to get very expensive very quickly. Buy the current model and be happy with it. ;)

I already have a D90 and very happy with it. One thing I do not like about the D90 is the shutter speed, which is the highest 1/4000th of a sec. I fine that some times when I am outside on a sunnyday the 1/4000th is not fast enoguth for a wider aperture. Thats is why I am looking for another camera. I tought about the D700 but then I do not really want to move to full frame because of the crop factor (I like the 1.5x crop).

[Cyberwlf]

D300 vs D300s IQ may be identical in terms of sensor but the expanded features of the D300s could provide potentially greater IQ, not significantly so, but things like bracketed D-Lighting/Auto-D-Lighting and Extra-High will at times make a difference. That said, if it was me, i'd jump at a D300 right now if i didn't own one and wanted something like it if you can get the kind of prices the D300 may go out the door at.

D400 in 18mths? Not a chance. Maximum 12 months. D300s represents just a refresh of the D300, it's not showing any of Nikon's cards for their next gen high-end prosumers/pro cams only updating it to match what Nikon's lower end to middle range now offers.

D700/D3 now being the oldest models in Nikon's current line-up and the D40/D40x (with D3000/D5000) and D80 (with D90) being the most recent models phased out and replaced with next generation models. My guess is order of future updates will be D700 to D700x/s, then D3 to D4 and after that D300s to D400 (around similar timing to D3/D300 launch time differences I imagine).

Also Canon's 40D was a superior offering to the 50D, 50D was Canon rushing to market something to try and combat the D300, but failing miserably, the 50D had worse noise than the 40D even.

[K1W1]

What are you trying to take photos of? I don't think I have ever used 1/4000 sec even in the middle of the Australian summer.

Edit: I do remember taking some shots at 1/2000 and thinking how bright the light must have been then realising I had the ISO at 16000.

[TheWengler]

One thing I do not like about the D90 is the shutter speed, which is the highest 1/4000th of a sec. I fine that some times when I am outside on a sunnyday the 1/4000th is not fast enoguth for a wider aperture. Thats is why I am looking for another camera. I tought about the D700 but then I do not really want to move to full frame because of the crop factor (I like the 1.5x crop).

Getting a ND filter would be much cheaper. A CPL would also be good for 1 or 2 stops.

[KenRC51]

What are you trying to take photos of? I don't think I have ever used 1/4000 sec even in the middle of the Australian summer.

Edit: I do remember taking some shots at 1/2000 and thinking how bright the light must have been then realising I had the ISO at 16000.


Like portirat where I show some times at f2.8 and some times at f4. Usually on a bright sunny day I use the lowest iso L1.0 or max at 200 ISO (this is on a d90).


Getting an ND filter would be much cheaper. A CPL would also be good for 1 or 2 stops.

Yes, nd filter would work. Just looking for an excuse to buy another camera, haha. Ill probably wait for the D400, hehe.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

+2 for filter instead of body.

[KenRC51]

+2 for filter instead of body.

Hoya has a nd4 or nd8. I know that nd4 or nd8 does not make it is 4 to 8 stops less. How is it calculated? For example, I was taking a pic of my friend with flash on 1/200th sec shutter speed and f 11, what filter would I need to get this shot at f2.8-4? I don't think this is possible is it?

[achuang]

ND2 is 1 stop, ND4 is 2 stops, ND8 is 3 stops. So to get from f11 to f4 you'd need the ND8 as that is 3 stops.

[fionndruinne]

Buying a new camera just for a higher max shutter speed would be plain stupid. Pardon my bluntness, but it is about the most absurd reason I've ever heard for getting a new body. ND filters exist for just this reason, and as was mentioned before, a circular polarizer will work to an extent as well. If you don't have one of those, you should.

Let's be reasonable here. Spending a couple thousand dollars for the option of using a wider aperture maybe a few times, when you can get a filter for the purpose for probably under $100? Who takes serious portraits in the middle of the day anyway?

[TheObiJuan]

Our newspaper has a good sized budget for gear, and fiscal year 2010 is about to kick in, bringing new money to spend.
I see myself not being inclined to replace the d300 with a d300s.
I don't need video, we have an xl2 for that (not hd), but I do think another D700 would be nice.

Personally, if I were to swap to Nikon, I'd go for the D300s just because I would like to experience with the video and I know the D300 interface better than the back of my hand.

Too bad Nikon asks so much for their new 70-200VR. I might have been able to replace our 80-200 if it weren't so ridiculously out of the ballpark.

[KenRC51]

Buying a new camera just for a higher max shutter speed would be plain stupid. Pardon my bluntness, but it is about the most absurd reason I've ever heard for getting a new body. ND filters exist for just this reason, and as was mentioned before, a circular polarizer will work to an extent as well. If you don't have one of those, you should.

Let's be reasonable here. Spending a couple thousand dollars for the option of using a wider aperture maybe a few times, when you can get a filter for the purpose for probably under $100? Who takes serious portraits in the middle of the day anyway?

Just an excuse to buy a new camera.


Our newspaper has a good sized budget for gear, and fiscal year 2010 is about to kick in, bringing new money to spend.
I see myself not being inclined to replace the d300 with a d300s.
I don't need video, we have an xl2 for that (not hd), but I do think another D700 would be nice.

Personally, if I were to swap to Nikon, I'd go for the D300s just because I would like to experience with the video and I know the D300 interface better than the back of my hand.

Too bad Nikon asks so much for their new 70-200VR. I might have been able to replace our 80-200 if it weren't so ridiculously out of the ballpark.

Yeah, the new 70-200 lens is freaken expensive. It's like 2300 right? Man, I can buy a d700 with that.

That is the only thing i do not like about Nikon. That 70-200 lens for nikon cost 1800 and for the canon 70-200 f2.8 IS cost 1300. For this reason, I some time want to get a canon. Other then the price of the lens, I love Nikon, the menu interface and how it feels on my hands.

Who do Nikon charge so much more for their lens then the competitors?

[Rooz]

Who do Nikon charge so much more for their lens then the competitors?

cos they're assholes