D300s

[Gaz Shilton]

Will this camera be available by September?

[Birder Ozzie]

it's available now!! B (:

[Gaz Shilton]

it's available now!! B (:

Thanks Birder Ozzie.
I have only looked on Warehouse Express.
They have it down as pre-order at the moment.

[Watts]

According to Grays of Westminster (Nikon specialists) sales of the D300S start 28 August.

Bill

[Gaz Shilton]

According to Grays of Westminster (Nikon specialists) sales of the D300S start 28 August.

Bill

Nice one, thank you.

[Duke Leto]

With Mifsuds selling the D300 at £1000 and the indicated price of the D300s being nearly £1500 I'm not sure that the differences are worth the £500 IMHO. I would either get a D300 and stick the £500 towards a lens or save it or wait for the D400.
£500 for a second memory card slot (SD) and video seems very expensive.

[Birder Ozzie]

in my mind, the only differences are the faster frame rate and video, neither of which I need.

[Derry]

don't think I will be running to the camera shop to move up from my D300,, just not that big of a jump and have never tried video so no desire for that,,

the D300 was and is a great camera,, If they had not added the video feature the amount improvements is fairly small for the cost over a E++ pre owned,,

Derry

[Duke Leto]

I have no connection to Mifsuds apart from the odd purchase which went very well but they are advertising the last chance to buy a D300 at £1077 (http://www.mifsuds.com/acatalog/Nikon_Digital_Cameras.html), if you do fancy one get em before they go up

[Andy Rouse]

Guys, Nikon are also improving the image quality throughout the range and have been tweaking many cameras. I just tested the D5000, an entry level camera, and the image quality was better than the original D300. So I think that the D300s may offer better noise performance, more on a par with the D3 and D700. Who knows until we see one and I should get one later this week to test out, reviews and thoughts on my BLOG for anyone interested.

[postcardcv]

Guys, Nikon are also improving the image quality throughout the range and have been tweaking many cameras. I just tested the D5000, an entry level camera, and the image quality was better than the original D300. So I think that the D300s may offer better noise performance, more on a par with the D3 and D700. Who knows until we see one and I should get one later this week to test out, reviews and thoughts on my BLOG for anyone interested.

please feel free to add any product review to our reviews section - http://www.birdforum.net/reviews/ I'm sure our members would find them useful.

[Duke Leto]

Not wishing to question a professional like Andy Rouse and I know I'm not worthy but.......
The only info that Nikon offer would indicate that the CMOS sensor in the D5000 is slightly different to the D300 and the D300s. The D5000 has 200K less usable pixels than its bigger brothers, so should I assume that the CMOS sensor is a new and improved one? If this was the case would not Nikon have used the newer one in the D300s as well?
I look forward to the reviews but at the moment I can't help but think that the D300s is on paper a buffed up D300.
Hope I'm wrong as it would be wrong for Nikon to increase the price by almost 50% for what is a very similar body.

[pduxon]

Not wishing to question a professional like Andy Rouse and I know I'm not worthy but.......
The only info that Nikon offer would indicate that the CMOS sensor in the D5000 is slightly different to the D300 and the D300s. The D5000 has 200K less usable pixels than its bigger brothers, so should I assume that the CMOS sensor is a new an improved one? If this was the case would not Nikon have used the newer one in the D300s as well?
I look forward to the reviews but at the moment I can't help but think that the D300s is on paper a buffed up D300.
Hope I'm wrong as it would be wrong for Nikon to increase the price by almost 50% for what is a very similar body.

I presume Andy is saying something Thom Hogan has referred to. He reports that Jpeg is slightly better in the d90.

Nikon are good at that. The d40x was supposedly marginally better than the d80 ditto d60 over 40x.

the same happened with the 6mp sensor that the d100 had.

[Andy Rouse]

Not sure what the "not worthy is about"

I think that Nikon do a lot that they don't advertise, I know for a fact that a lot of cameras are tweaked under the covers from model to model. I can also only report what I see and for my money the D5000 image quality was stunning. At this time we have no idea what new image processing or sensor enhancements they have put into the camera, it is all conjecture until we see some results. But knowing Nikon as I do now I would say that the D300s will have image quality improvements. Of course the main reason for it is the HD support, which I for one welcome as I need it. Canon are also concentrating on this area as they know it is a much desired and requested feature. So for my money I give them credit if they have got the HD right in the D300s as they will be the first. Just so you know a few people had the 5D MK2 on my recent Svalbard charter and they were all shooting video and loving it, clearly a popular feature for some but not all.

[Duke Leto]

Thanks Andy I look forward to seeing the results

[Andy Rouse]

Testing inconclusive as I have such an early model, it did well at Little Owls on friday, images on my BLOG if you want to see. Will try with something a bit closer when it stops raining - I live in South Wales now......

[Fozzybear]

Guys, Nikon are also improving the image quality throughout the range and have been tweaking many cameras. I just tested the D5000, an entry level camera, and the image quality was better than the original D300. So I think that the D300s may offer better noise performance, more on a par with the D3 and D700. Who knows until we see one and I should get one later this week to test out, reviews and thoughts on my BLOG for anyone interested.

That's really interesting - are you talking noise performance at high ISO? If so then that bodes well as I've always thought the D300 performed really well at high ISO for a DX body, not too well compared to the FX bodies but certainly very good for the type (astonishingly well in comparison to the old 3200 film I used to mess about with!). If Nikon are continuing to improve on that then it really is excellent news. You're right, there does seem to be a lot that goes on in the background that Nikon don't talk much about when new cameras are released, which is a shame as they could make more of some of these improvements.

I won't be upgrading either Derry, some small features like the virtual horizon are great to see in the D300s and the video shooting could be handy (I've turned around my feelings on video in DSLRs, used to abhor the thought but seeing the results from my brother's 5DII has been an eye-opener!). I always thought that unless it was released as a D400 then the changes would be small but if they've improved the image quality and added some toys then it's a pretty reasonable upgrade. Not one that would encourage many existing owners to upgrade but good for new buyers and as much of a change as you can expect given the economic climate. Shame about the price hike though!

[Jaff]

Not sure what the "not worthy is about"

I think that Nikon do a lot that they don't advertise, I know for a fact that a lot of cameras are tweaked under the covers from model to model. I can also only report what I see and for my money the D5000 image quality was stunning. At this time we have no idea what new image processing or sensor enhancements they have put into the camera, it is all conjecture until we see some results. But knowing Nikon as I do now I would say that the D300s will have image quality improvements. Of course the main reason for it is the HD support, which I for one welcome as I need it. Canon are also concentrating on this area as they know it is a much desired and requested feature. So for my money I give them credit if they have got the HD right in the D300s as they will be the first. Just so you know a few people had the 5D MK2 on my recent Svalbard charter and they were all shooting video and loving it, clearly a popular feature for some but not all.

But if the natural evolution of future DSLR's is better and better movie modes that must surely mean less money for the R&D of better sensors, AF systems and so on. Not to mention the lenses which Nikon still need to pull their finger out over, every year people wonder if the 300mm f4 will be blessed with VR.

I'm very wary of the fact that all future DSLR's simply must have a movie capability becuase it's the new trend for them to have that looks good on a spec list and means they can charge a little bit more for them.

Give me a noiseless sensor over a HD movie mode any day.
That's the way a trumped up little fart like me see's it anyway. (No pun intended :-O )
Adam

[Andy Rouse]

Agreed the D300 led it's class and to some respects still does. The D300s is not intended for D300 users to upgrade, very few will. Instead it is intended for the D80, D90 and lesser market as the next step up and providing HD is a good extra for these photographers. Trust me I am involved with Nikon on this and this is the thinking, which for my opinion is the right one. I think my point is that cameras have come a long way and now give everything that you could ever want, it is the photographer now that has to step up to the creative challenge. When I miss a shot, which I do as much as anyone, I do so because I am a **** and it is my fault. It is not the camera's fault or its lack of technology, it is the photographer's fault.

The continued holy grail of "better sensors" I see all the time and I wonder when it will stop. Right now the D3 / D700 and D3x are what I need, I could use the D300s in my professional life too without ever worrying. The sensors do everything that I ask of them in low and good light, the image quality is astounding (which is why I changed from Canon in the first place) and I really have no complaints. Trust me if I had a complaint Nikon would hear about it immediately and I would not back down. So for my money the quest for bigger sensors is just a pointless one, sure we need a D300 DSLR with a sensor around 20MP but that would be it for me, as for 99.9999999% of photographers having a sensor like this has no practical value.

Anyway I get my production version this morning to test for a few days so we will see, if it ever stops raining I might get out and test as well. The joys of Wales.

[Fozzybear]

You're right there, as a bunch we're never happy, but not always for practical reasons. No matter how good the sensor and how jaw-droppingly amazing a camera is on release, within a short while you can guarantee someone will say "if only it was a little bit better".

The ever increasing pixel count is getting a little concerning now, I worry that it will be increased to compete spec. wise, but will lead to a reduction in image quality. 12MP is plenty high enough for a DX sensor and going higher would seem a move too far, there really is no need for a higher pixel count unless you are shooting high quality landscapes... in which case a full-frame camera is a much better choice anyway. As Andy says, if a 20mp D300 with the same noise performance was possible then a pro might find it very useful but the average D300 user? I certainly wouldn't be that keen as the storage requirements for the files would be prohibitive and you would need very fast and expensive cards to shoot at six or seven frames per second. There would be an advantage in record shots of distant birds if the lens was good enough - you could crop right in and see what the bird was, but for real photography by an amateur - no, not needed.

My brother shoots wildlife with a 5D II and a 400mm f/5.6 and the 21mp has helped compensate for the full-frame sensor (and the quality is amazing - noise performance is pretty astonishing even at VERY high ISO), but he's found that he burns through cards and hard drive storage at a phenomenal rate compared to his previous 40D. I think he'd have been as happy if the mkII was 12mp, he just wanted clean images and a full-frame sensor for wide-angle work.

Hope the weather clears up for you Andy, have fun with that D300s!

[Jaff]

Anyway I get my production version this morning to test for a few days so we will see, if it ever stops raining I might get out and test as well. The joys of Wales.

You should try living up here, we're a magnet for the stuff!!! ;)

[Fozzybear]

Ah, but you do get a lot of interesting wildlife in Wales and the north west. I'm sure you are a hardy bunch and don't notice anything less than a torrential downpour unless your whippet gets carried away by the water. ;) Anyway the wet is a good opportunity to test the weather-resistance Andy.

Essex is reasonably dry, which is good as anything more than drizzle would see the chavs unable to drive their lowered suspension cars (moving stereo more like!) up and down the seafront at 3mph. |:D|

[rdspalm]

The video feature on these newer Nikons, is it any good? I recently bought a good Sony HD Handicam for my kids. Would a Nikon DSLR be anything remotely as good as this? You can buy a high end Handicam for £500 - £800, surely this is bound to be a better weapon than a DSLR with a video function?

[rioja]

The D300s now down to £1249 ar W.Ex, down from an opening price of £1490 ish a month ago and £100 less than 2 days ago.....when I bought mine !!!! Ah well, win some etc.

[Duke Leto]

Look forward to seeing Andy's 1st impressions

[rioja]

Look forward to seeing Andy's 1st impressions

Mine not good enough eh !;);)


PS You were partly responsible for me getting one too Steve !!!!!

Here are a couple of my first impressions, remembering I am very much a newcomer to photography and this is only my second ever D or SLR.
Compared to the price of a new D300 a couple of weeks ago, the extra features are certainly worth the money ( now only about £100 ) so I am glad I hung on in there.
1)I think the video feature will be great fun and in answer to those that say why not buy a video camera I think I have no real ambition to make long videos but little souvenir shots here and there will be ideal, plus I can stick a telephoto prime lens on the end too ! It seems very easy to operate, the quality looks very good in camera ( haven't tried transferring any yet) and I love the fact you can edit it in camera to cut out either end of the clip. You can also adjust other settings after the event too, just like a still.
2)The "quiet" shutter mode is actually pretty quiet. You can only take a single shot but the shutter sounds as if it's been taken at a slow speed, although obviously not. Useful in a hide ? Perhaps, but knowing how sensitive the hearing is of birds and animals it might not be that much use. However, a single shot at any noise level is less likely to upset an animal than the rapid fire selection ! Quiet mode is probably idea for weddings etc.
3)The 7 frames per second is only applicable to taking JPEGs, if you shoot RAW it's more like 2 shots. The difference in performance by using a battery pack is not worth (IMO) buying one although I realise some people like the feel and extra AF button.
4) The dual card slot is nice in that in some situations it's not easy to put a new card in the slot, but having one SD and one CF is a bit confusing. Is the writing on the wall for the CF format ? Which cards should I buy in future ? I have to buy SD cards I didn't need already as I have a reasonably large number of CF cards !
5) Nearly all the other features I presume are on the D300. It certainly takes a bit of getting used to, and as yet I have only had an hour or so to play but first impressions are I am delighted. BIF seem easy compared to the D200, the 51 focus points a big advantage. I even managed to get some decent shots using a 1.7TC on my 500mm, something I haven't achieved with the D200.
So, pointless reading my impressions if you already have a D300 but if you don't I am certainly glad I made the move. No doubt when the D400 comes around I'll want one of those too, but that might not happen for a couple of years so, why deprive myself in the meantime. Life's too short ! I am delighted to have a back up camera too as last time I had a problem I was without a body for 6 weeks whilst it went for repair.

[seaspirit]

3)The 7 frames per second is only applicable to taking JPEGs, if you shoot RAW it's more like 2 shots. The difference in performance by using a battery pack is not worth (IMO) buying one although I realise some people like the feel and extra AF button.

OK, I question the 2 Raw/s statement. My D300 will shoot the 5-6 Raw/s, at least till the buffer is filled up and it slows down. Still I get a minimum of 2-3 s of rapid fire if I need it.

I recently put a "battery pack" on my D300, but I call it a vertical grip. Very useful to have a 2nd set of control wheels and trigger in a ergonomically more pleasing position when taking portrait format shoots. Since one gets consistantly >700 frames from a battery charge the option of a 2nd battery is nice but not essential (having a 2nd battery on hand is, depending how trigger happy you are). Only drawback is the added bulk that makes it tricky to fit everything into the bag .....

Cheers

Ulli

P.S. The grip is a $90 Hong Kong knock-off that was discussed and recommended elsewhere here in the forum, and I have to agree with all what is said there. Good quality, firm and snug fit, everything works just fine.

[Duke Leto]

Rioja of course you're comments are welcome ;)

Glad you bought one, I too would challenge the claim on the RAW frame rate, never shoot anything else and find that as mentioned will happily run of at 5 fps until the buffer is full, god would that p people off if you sat in a hide and did that......
Check your settings see if you've got it flat out.
Wouldn't use 51 fp for bif shots, i still tend to use 1 or 9 but I suppose it depends on how fast your lens is, my sigma 500 gets a bit lost / confused when I point it skywards on 51 point AF..........
CF rules, look at the pro range all CF, SD is used as quite a few laptops / media devices and TV's take SD cards so video can be easily watched without a cable.
With a big lens on the grip MB-D10 is essential as it offers better balance and control. I have considered getting a EL-4 at trying out 8fps but its an expensive whim at the moment.
Agree re quiet shutter, if you were staking out a subject yourself in the wild and noise was an issue then fine, go it to any public hide and try and keep the noise levels down is impossible.
Look forward to seeing the results and at that price it would be a no brainer over a D300 as an upgrade from a D40,50,60,70,80 or 90........

[rioja]

Quoting the Nikon users manual, even with a vertical grip ( or the MB-D10 Battery pack as Nikon like to describe it in all their literature) and an El-4 battery the maximum frame rate per second is only boosted from 7 fps to 8 fps shooting JPEG. They claim 2.5 fps RAW but this can be reduced on VR lenses. It also assumes your shutter speed will be faster than 1/250th too so, as I originally stated, unless you like the feel and the extra AF button it's not worth buying one ( for increased shutter speed).
Not sure why a battery pack makes for better balance with a big lens although I have heard this mentioned. For hand holding it makes it even heavier and I struggle as it is, on a tripod I can't see why there is a difference as I feel my outfit is well balanced already.
All IMO of course :t:

[Duke Leto]

Rioja its horses for courses, I find with my chunky hands that the additional height to the body makes it more comfortable, its also very easy to swing 90 degrees and still have full control comfortably.
What I do use the additional shutter release button for is more discrete photography, I can fire off shots with out having to place my hand on top of the body, when sitting very still and quite for extended periods, I find that my arm hanging is far more comfortable that higher up.
With the battery pack off I find that the lens is that much further back on the gimbal head or I have to move the plate so its further off the lens foot.
Agree its all down to personal preferences.
Just checked a sequence of Kingfisher shots I took at Lackford, shot in RAW I have a sequence recorded 4 frames in the same second, so my D300 definitely shoots in RAW at 4fps.

[Helios]

The D300 definitely shoots faster than the D80 in RAW, and that's rated at 3 shots per sec. I believe the max. rate without the pack is 6 shots per sec.

I consider the vertical grip essential just because my style is full frame if possible, so a lot of shots are taken in the portrait orientation. I take shots of relatively tame birds like Ducks, Chaffinches and Herons, as well as flowers and insects, so I try to avoid cropping.

I havn't bought the expensive holder and professional battery (EL4 ort something?) as 8 shots per sec isn't really important to me at this time.

[pshute]

1)I think the video feature will be great fun and in answer to those that say why not buy a video camera I think I have no real ambition to make long videos but little souvenir shots here and there will be ideal, plus I can stick a telephoto prime lens on the end too ! It seems very easy to operate, the quality looks very good in camera ( haven't tried transferring any yet) and I love the fact you can edit it in camera to cut out either end of the clip. You can also adjust other settings after the event too, just like a still.
Can you shoot video and stills at the same time? This might seem like an odd question, but my 3 year old Canon Powershot S3 can do it. It has a dedicated video button, so you can leave it in Aperture Priority mode, or whatever while shooting video, then press the normal shutter button whenever you want a still shot as well.

Many SLR people might be wondering what the point of adding video is, but given that your camera already contains all the components necessary for it, why not just add a bit of software and make it available?

I don't use it much (and have just upgraded to an SLR without video) but have found it useful when I come across something unusual. It's nice to be able to post a few seconds of video on YouTube for other people to look at. To be able to see how a bird moves might help someone id it for you, and might help people recognise that bird next time they see one for themselves.

[pshute]

The continued holy grail of "better sensors" I see all the time and I wonder when it will stop. Right now the D3 / D700 and D3x are what I need, I could use the D300s in my professional life too without ever worrying. The sensors do everything that I ask of them in low and good light, the image quality is astounding (which is why I changed from Canon in the first place) and I really have no complaints. Trust me if I had a complaint Nikon would hear about it immediately and I would not back down. So for my money the quest for bigger sensors is just a pointless one, sure we need a D300 DSLR with a sensor around 20MP but that would be it for me, as for 99.9999999% of photographers having a sensor like this has no practical value
Assuming a "better sensor" means not only more pixels but lower noise, then I think it's a good thing. It might not be of much benefit to SLR users, but the same technology can be used to improve small sensor cameras, which have the enormous advantage of not requiring big, heavy lenses to get usable reach, but currently have unacceptable noise levels.

[seaspirit]

Quoting the Nikon users manual, even with a vertical grip ( or the MB-D10 Battery pack as Nikon like to describe it in all their literature) and an El-4 battery the maximum frame rate per second is only boosted from 7 fps to 8 fps shooting JPEG. They claim 2.5 fps RAW but this can be reduced on VR lenses.

I still have a hard time believing that the D300s should be only capable of doing less than 3 frames /s when shooting RAW as stated above!
That would be a major step back from the performace of the D300 in this department. As a matter of fact most entry level consumer cameras will get up to that rate shooting raw.

Just checked my D300 manual. Camera with the standard battery pack will take 6 frames/s in RAW or RAW + JPG, until the camera buffer is full (initial buffer capacity on my D300 when shooting raw shows 16-17 frames , i.e. good for ~3 s of high speed shooting). Then the frame rate will go down as new frames can only be taken as buffer frees up as frames are written to the memory card. At this state you may have to live with 2 frames/s if you keep hammering away. From my own experience and observation this claim is realistic. However, one has to set the continous shooting mode to C High , as C Low will put the breaks on.

With grip and the ENEL4e batteries the frame rate of the D300s remains at 6 frames/s, and only with alkalines or the large battery pack it will get boosted to 7 frames/s.

That long exposure time will cut down the frame rate is a no brainer as the mirror has to go up and the shutter has to open for every frame. Can't take 6 frames a second if a single frame is exposed with 1s .....
Same is true if AF is trying to get a new fix between frames or VR has to do the same. But this applies to all cameras, not only the new D300s.

[Gentoo]

I still have a hard time believing that the D300s should be only capable of doing less than 3 frames /s when shooting RAW as stated above!
That would be a major step back from the performace of the D300 in this department. As a matter of fact most entry level consumer cameras will get up to that rate shooting raw.

Just checked my D300 manual. Camera with the standard battery pack will take 6 frames/s in RAW or RAW + JPG, until the camera buffer is full (initial buffer capacity on my D300 when shooting raw shows 16-17 frames , i.e. good for ~3 s of high speed shooting). Then the frame rate will go down as new frames can only be taken as buffer frees up as frames are written to the memory card. At this state you may have to live with 2 frames/s if you keep hammering away. From my own experience and observation this claim is realistic. However, one has to set the continous shooting mode to C High , as C Low will put the breaks on.

With grip and the ENEL4e batteries the frame rate of the D300s remains at 6 frames/s, and only with alkalines or the large battery pack it will get boosted to 7 frames/s.

That long exposure time will cut down the frame rate is a no brainer as the mirror has to go up and the shutter has to open for every frame. Can't take 6 frames a second if a single frame is exposed with 1s .....
Same is true if AF is trying to get a new fix between frames or VR has to do the same. But this applies to all cameras, not only the new D300s.I think they may have meant if you're shooting in 14 bit RAW your frame rate will slow down. The D300 does just fine at 12 bit RAW but in 14 bit, is slows down to 2.5fps.

[Duke Leto]

Good point Gentoo, I'd forgotten about 14bit RAW

[rioja]

You could be right about that Gentoo, the manual isn't very clear as it doesn't differentiate between 12 and 14 bit RAW's.
I seem to remember reading the shutter is meant to be good for 150,000 actuations. What worries me is that I rattled off 700 in the first outing all down to FPS .Still, it gives me more justification for getting a D400 when it arrives !!!!!

[rioja]

Can you shoot video and stills at the same time?
The short answer is No !

During recording a movie the minute you click the shutter button it returns to stills.A nice feature is you can edit the stop and start position of your film in camera so you can get rid of the unwanted bits.

[Birder Ozzie]

just to let you know I have just tried it and you can still get 7 fps in RAW.

[rioja]

just to let you know I have just tried it and you can still get 7 fps in RAW.
I think Gentoo cracked it, you get 2.5 fps RAW, 7fps 12 bit compressed RAW.

[Gentoo]

I think Gentoo cracked it, you get 2.5 fps RAW, 7fps 12 bit compressed RAW.Uncompressed as well, that's how I shoot. The fps difference is when you shoot 14 bit rather than 12 bit. It only slows down in 14 bit.

[stbear]

Ask at the shop where you bought your D300s for the lower price. A lot of shops will give you the lower price if it has only been a few days.

[Jonwil]

Another consideration with the Nikon D300s is the firmware for the camera which allows it to use larger capacity CF cards such as 32gb and 64gb. Probably not a consideration for some but for those who use the raw shooting mode I'm sure they will appreciate this ability. CF cards fill up very quickly once you begin firing off raw files. I know from experience that other Nikons ie. Nikon D3, D700 and D300 are not compatible with 64gb CF cards (they do work with the 32gb cards, though).