• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Upgrade to a D300? (1 Viewer)

gasjkh2 said:
Just remember me when you have to keep charging those crap batteries on your D300's SUCKERS!

Oh did I mention the crop mode?

Amateurs again!!

KGTS
LOL.
Click to expand...

Which crap batteries are you talking about, oh you mean the ones that you also have to charge, or do you have everlasting batteries. No? Then you must be on SOLAR POWER. I have no problems with my Nikon batteries, the charge capacity nearly always outlasts my shooting sessions which are normally quite lengthy. I have 2 batteries for each body, I've only once managed to get through 2 batteries in one day, and that was on a wildlife photography holiday. In any case, if I'm really pushed I can re-charge them through the cigarette lighter socket in the car, don't you have one of those for your battery ?

Crop mode, ah yes, that's the mode that makes my 500mm lens a 750mm without having to use a converter. Great for wildlife! My 14-24mm zoom becomes a 21-36mm zoom, more than adequate for wide landscapes. Macro, no problem, my Tamron 90mm becomes a 135mm 1/1 macro, gives me extra working distance for butterflies etc.

The benefits of the D300S, well I haven't discovered them all yet, there's so many, having said that my D200 was a great camera also, fabulous results, almost on a par with the D2X.

nirofo.
 
Still waiting to see some proof of the wonders awaiting us in gasjkh2's gallery but like old mother hubbard I found the cupboard bare (just like his comments, without substance and full of air).
 
Perhaps it's time to stop feeding the Troll. He came into the thread weeks late and completely off topic.

By mentioning Ken Rockwell, the Troll obviously knows bugger all about Nikons. That's probably why he bought the camera he has instead of a D300s.
 
D300's for absolute amateurs.

Why don't you all step up to a quality Nikon outfit!

D2XS forever. PROFESSIONAL!
 
gasjkh2 said:
D300's for absolute amateurs.

Why don't you all step up to a quality Nikon outfit!

D2XS forever. PROFESSIONAL!
Click to expand...

I would but the D3X is too expensive for me, and the discontinued D2XS doesn't have the spec I need, so I settled for the D300S which fulfils all I require from a camera and is streets ahead of the D2XS anyway! That is until Mr Nikon comes out with the D400.

Incidentally, did you notice the date on Ken Rockwells original D2X review, it's 2006 !!! His opening paragraph states:
March 2008: The D2X has been superceded by the far superior D3 and D300. This review is now an historical artifact, mostly written back in 2005. 2005 is ancient history in digital camera years
Click to expand...
.
Forgive my memory lapse, but I thought this was the year 2010.

nirofo.
 
Last edited:
nirofo said:
I would but the D3X is too expensive for me, and the discontinued D2XS doesn't have the spec I need, so I settled for the D300S which fulfils all I require from a camera and is streets ahead of the D2XS anyway! That is until Mr Nikon comes out with the D400.

Incidentally, did you notice the date on Ken Rockwells original D2X review, it's 2006 !!! His opening paragraph states: .
Forgive my memory lapse, but I thought this was the year 2010.

nirofo.
Click to expand...


That makes you ancient!

Not as old as you Nirofo.
 
gasjkh2 said:
That makes you ancient!

Not as old as you Nirofo.
Click to expand...

You are obviously suffering from some sort of inferiority complex as you missed out the main part of the quote, you know, the bit where it says the D300 is far superior to the D2XS !!!

I'm certainly old enough to know that the D300S is streets ahead of the D2XS and therefore a better proposition for my money.

nirofo.
 
Last edited:
My goodness, what a pointless squabble!!!!

I say dont buy a D300 to try and hide the inferior Sigma lens!!! Rather buy a decent lens and you have no more issues.

Regards,
 
Love folks who live on a different planet. They are good for a laugh or 2. First d2x fanboy I have encountered in about 3 years.

Maybe he has a point - 400 ISO is probably all the world needs. Its a shame nobody told Nikon and Canon that they are wasting their time producing all these high quality products when all they had to do was just keep making d2x and the equivalent canon models.

I also want to see the image gallery the user has put together using his d2x. Actually, it would be better if he could provide just one link where a pro photographer advocates using the d2x over the d300 or d3 (for other than sentimental reasons)


Oh...btw.... Ken Rockwell links dont count
 
Last edited:
birdeast said:
Love folks who live on a different planet. They are good for a laugh or 2. First d2x fanboy I have encountered in about 3 years.

Maybe he has a point - 400 ISO is probably all the world needs. Its a shame nobody told Nikon and Canon that they are wasting their time producing all these high quality products when all they had to do was just keep making d2x and the equivalent canon models.

I also want to see the image gallery the user has put together using his d2x. Actually, it would be better if he could provide just one link where a pro photographer advocates using the d2x over the d300 or d3 (for other than sentimental reasons)


Oh...btw.... Ken Rockwell links dont count
Click to expand...



Yeh!!!!!

Well done Birdeast. At last.

Finally someone saw what I was intimating. All the fools that keep "upgrading" their camera just because Nikon bring out a new model, are being conned.

Save your money fools (or give it to a worthy charity) rather than waste it on the next commercial gizmo from a camera manufacturer!

Digital cameras have given manufacturers the opportunity to rip us all off!

Think before you buy!

This is my last link you will all be pleased to hear as I know most of you will disagree with me.
I was only trying to make a statement by showing how easy it is to pull at peoples strings ref there camera is better than his etc.

Point proven!!

Bye!
 
gasjkh2 said:
Finally someone saw what I was intimating. All the fools that keep "upgrading" their camera just because Nikon bring out a new model, are being conned.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely correct that there is a great temptation to buy the latest version with yet more bells and whistles many of which remain unused (or even undiscovered) by the average user.

But I'm not sure that's any worse than "upgrading" from a D200 to a secondhand (but still not cheap) previous generation digital just because you think it's a professional model.

Bill
 
gasjkh2 said:
Yeh!!!!!

I was only trying to make a statement by showing how easy it is to pull at peoples strings ref there camera is better than his etc.

Point proven!!

Bye!
Click to expand...

Absolutely not, you proved nothing but make yourself look foolish and belligerent, upgrade where an upgrade is a positive, my D200 to D300 was a natural, a D200 to a D2X would have been a waste of money as it would not have addressed my two fundamental requirements, a better sensor and a better AF system, neither managed by a move to a D2X

I have friends with D3's and 1DMk4's I do not consider myself handicapped and neither do I feel the need to rush out and upgrade.

When Nikon produce a body that offers me a similar upgrade path then and only then will I consider if its worth it or would a used D3s be a better option.

Please post some images taken on you D2Xs in the gallery, put your images where your comments are.
 
gasjkh2 said:
This is my last link you will all be pleased to hear as I know most of you will disagree with me.

Bye!
Click to expand...

Thank goodness he's gone, btw did I say that I think all these digital cameras are a waste of time, what's wrong with good old film;);)
 
I've had my D90 for a couple of years and have had some excellent results. I use a Nikon DX 18-105 VR and a Nikon ED DX 70 - 300 VR. I don't think I have the fine tune facility but then I have had no focus issues. The autofocus is quite fast and can be locked on half cocking on both auto and manual focus.
 
gasjkh2 said:
Digital cameras have given manufacturers the opportunity to rip us all off!

Think before you buy!
Click to expand...

He has a point here.

Digital photography is a game of two halves, correctly setting the camera and then pressing the shutter, after which the post-production of the image.

Both these elements are fraught with common mistakes, even by professionals.

Equipment factors can affect the final results, as well as photographic skills and technical expertise.

Every digital camera made will give you an acceptable image, as long as you obey the simple rules of photography and post-production.

Trying to push the limitations of the camera, and your post-production ability, that’s usually where the problems arise.

The choice of camera is down to the individual; the more expensive doesn’t always mean the best. The same could be said with different brands.

The 2DX is a fine camera, it has certain limitation, work within its parameters and its images results will stand-up.

I think any upgrade of camera does have to have a logical reason for purchase. But, like all hobbies there’s an obsessive element to have the latest, I can’t criticise that, as I’m just as guilty, m’lud.

But, I do think that Nikon have cleverly played on our weakness a bit too much recently, and maybe we are due a change of camera which their range is certainly short of.
 
I'll be the first to agree that the latest model isnt required in order to take good photos. I will also say that when making a point regarding one's point of view a poster need not be belligerent. For the record, I dont buy the story that what we just witnessed was all done in the name of proving a point.

I upgraded from a d50 to my d300 and it was a nice step-up ISO wise (and in many other ways)

This past week I was in Malaysia shooting birds. On one particular morning, several photographers congregated in one location. As the bird action commenced, I and other d300 users found ourselves at 1/40 or some other terribly slow shutter speed while pushing ISO to the max around 1000. At the same time there was a D3s user that was getting very good shutter speed (more than 1/200ish) with his ISO at 12,500. He was getting nice photos.

I will categorically state that the next evolution of the d300 (if its sensor is anywhere close to d3s) will be purchased by me as that would be a phenomenal increase in performance for what i need.
 
gasjkh2 said:
If I dropped your D300 and then dropped my D2XS, which one would survive? - nuff said PAL! You get what you pay for.

Pro camera v amateur camera.

End of!
Click to expand...

You will find most of the more recent plastic bodied DSLRS to be surprisingly robust and that this will often survive a 6' drop on to concrete I know this as I have done this with cheaper cameras than the D300, the reality now is that there are DSLRS costing around £500 that will give a D2X a run for its money and probably deliver equal or better pictures if used by a professional, much of this is down to the march of technology, the reality is that a modern camera something costing just over £1,000 like the D300 will greatly surpass the D2X in almost every area, frustrating for someone who paid £5,000 ir so for a D2Xa few years ago but a fact of life nonetheless, this does not mean that the D2X.s successor is not a superior camera to the D300, but for the average user the savings may well be the difference between owning a DSLR or being stuck with a coolpix P6000 superzoom as a certain person's two gallery pictures appear to have been taken with. :-O:-O

As for the "cheap" Sigma lenses, there appear to be plenty of excellent shots that have been taken by Sigma and other "cheap" lenses.

SW
 
I have a D300 and a D80. The D80 is, according to Thom Hogan, one of the worst cameras that Nikon made. However if I'm honest, I see no difference between the images taken between the two, once they've been proceeded and put up on BF. I shoot almost always between ISO 400 to 800. Noise-wise my D300 is a little better than the D80, but not by much. I prefer the D80 at ISO400 to the D300 at ISO800.
 
Helios said:
I have a D300 and a D80. The D80 is, according to Thom Hogan, one of the worst cameras that Nikon made. However if I'm honest, I see no difference between the images taken between the two, once they've been proceeded and put up on BF. I shoot almost always between ISO 400 to 800. Noise-wise my D300 is a little better than the D80, but not by much. I prefer the D80 at ISO400 to the D300 at ISO800.
Click to expand...

I upgraded from a D80 to a D300 and would agree that there's not a lot between them in terms of picture quality. Where I notice a difference is in the autofocus with my notoriously slow Nikkor 80-400mm lens which is much improved, but still a long way from perfect, with the D300. I usually try to buy the latest "obsolete" equipment such as the D300 after the 300s had been around for a while and prices had dropped. That way I can have my boys toys without breaking the bank.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 14 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

W
Considering a Partial Camera Upgrade - D500 w/ 200-500mm lens
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
BriLee
B
H
Eyepiece comparability
Replies
1
Views
655
kwikstaart
K
shrek48
Thankyou , I took the plunge
Replies
0
Views
422
shrek48
shrek48
E
Upgrading from Sigma 150-600 C to Nikkor 500mm PF
Replies
4
Views
2K
rezMole
rezMole
R
don't know what it fits.
Replies
5
Views
396
richard866945
R

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top