A brief D300s review v's the D300

An interesting review there, after reading that I'm still at the conclusion I made when it was first released- Why didn't Nikon just improve the D300 and do without the video recording capabilities?? :bonk:

I personally think that too much emphasis has been put into adding video functionality to keep up with the likes of Canon's 5D MK2, and not enough has gone into making the D300 a better camera....this is where the D90,D5000 should fit in and not a professional grade camera. I'll probably cause a rift on here saying this but I like a lot of people have got a camcorder for taking video...I buy a Digital SLR for taking photo's not video :D The D300 is an already proven camera...why slap video on it and bump up the price whilst adding very little else? I can't see Nikon keeping the D300 around for long now that the D300s is out, it was always rumoured that the D300 would be replaced by a newer model (in the same time frame that the D200 was replaced by the D300) I'm just disappointed by this latest revision and hoped for a lot more.

Mike.
 
Same here, although hasnt the 300s got AF on video, which means it should be far better than most camcorders bearing in mind the lenses we have?

As a D90 user I would be very keen to upgrade to a better d300 or d400 but the d300s has very little over the d300 bearing in mind it is almost £500 more.
 
Drpepper99uk said:
An interesting review there, after reading that I'm still at the conclusion I made when it was first released- Why didn't Nikon just improve the D300 and do without the video recording capabilities?? :bonk:

I personally think that too much emphasis has been put into adding video functionality to keep up with the likes of Canon's 5D MK2, and not enough has gone into making the D300 a better camera....this is where the D90,D5000 should fit in and not a professional grade camera. I'll probably cause a rift on here saying this but I like a lot of people have got a camcorder for taking video...I buy a Digital SLR for taking photo's not video :D The D300 is an already proven camera...why slap video on it and bump up the price whilst adding very little else? I can't see Nikon keeping the D300 around for long now that the D300s is out, it was always rumoured that the D300 would be replaced by a newer model (in the same time frame that the D200 was replaced by the D300) I'm just disappointed by this latest revision and hoped for a lot more.

Mike.
Click to expand...

100% agree.

I would avoid a DSLR with video over one that has not got video
 
Drpepper99uk said:
I personally think that too much emphasis has been put into adding video functionality to keep up with the likes of Canon's 5D MK2, and not enough has gone into making the D300 a better camera....this is where the D90,D5000 should fit in and not a professional grade camera. I'll probably cause a rift on here saying this but I like a lot of people have got a camcorder for taking video...I buy a Digital SLR for taking photo's not video :D The D300 is an already proven camera...why slap video on it and bump up the price whilst adding very little else?
Click to expand...

:agree:

Nikon are obviously hoping to steal Canon's thunder by introducing the feature first in their mid-range models, however to me at least, it comes across as another sign of desperation on Nikon's part.

The company seem to have no ability to innovate and the last few "new" features that have been added to their cameras (for example, dust reduction and Live View) have been "me too" reactions to Sony and Canon products, both of which brands are positioned as "value" rather than "quality" products (in pricing terms). Nikon would have been far better, as Mike suggests, to have concentrated on making improvements to the product that would attract more serious photographers, rather than pandering to the upgrading "sports-mom" types looking to ditch their A200 or 450D.
 
The problem may be that the professionals sont make it worthwhile financially. Pros know what is good and will buy accordingly. Average joe soap will see "features" and buy accordingly.

Its the 2mugs" that will make the companies money , so thats why they concentrate on them more.

Amy
 
debbiejo said:
100% agree.

I would avoid a DSLR with video over one that has not got video
Click to expand...

I think however that eventually every camera on the Nikon/Canon/Sony range will have video, as someone said on another thread once a camera has live view then it isn't much more of a push to have video.

Think about mobile phones, they have cameras and at first everyone thought it was just a gimmick but now every phone has one.

I agree with the fact that for the money over the D300 it isn't much of an upgrade but then most of the DXXXs / DXs upgrades aren't much of an update, take the D2Xs for example, all that had over the D2X was a different viewfinder and a few software updates.
 
debbiejo said:
100% agree.

I would avoid a DSLR with video over one that has not got video
Click to expand...

Why? Just don't use it.

Once you have Liveview functionality, adding video is a small step change addition so they are doing it. This could be the start of a step change in functionality that could change photography for ever. The next in the line from:

Film over plate
35mm
Colour over black and white
Auto exposure
Auto focus
Digital

Everything moves on
 
Has anyone actually used a DLSR with video function?

I've posted a thread this morning regarding getting the D300 or D300s. I know the D300 is the better option due to the price, however the video option and quiter shutter option are tempting me purely because I remember reading on here that someone was blown away with the use of the DSLR video even though they were original sceptical about it. It would be handy to have it all in one and not have to carry a video camera around with me. Yes, its not going to be as top quality as a top of the range video camera, but for small clips it would be quite handy.

However, the only issue is the extra £400-500 :confused:
 
Harvey_nikon said:
However, the only issue is the extra £400-500 :confused:
Click to expand...

Which could be put towards a half decent camcorder capable of HD video and recording more than 5 minutes of footage, sure it's not as compact as having "it all in one" on a digital SLR but with that price margin it's hard to ignore and look at alternative ways of taking video for the meantime- in this case a camcorder. I guess having the ability to use different lenses might sway some people.

Mike.
 
It's not just the ability to use different lenses, it the selective focus effects and use of lenses such as perspective correction that open a whole field of creativity for those who see value in it. Check out the work of Vincent Laforete

Remember that most camcorders are the equivalent of a compact and not a D3 (who has an XL1-HD for home use?)
 
Drpepper99uk said:
...I personally think that too much emphasis has been put into adding video functionality to keep up with the likes of Canon's 5D MK2, and not enough has gone into making the D300 a better camera....
Click to expand...

I agree that there's a bit too much thought going into video technology on DSLRs for my liking as a photographer (and not a videographer) but the D300 is, as far as I'm aware (and judging by other people's comments) THE semi-pro camera, the benchmark in this sector. Like dpreview says, two years on and it's still in the enviable position of being better built than anything else, offering better IQ and lower noise for the size of its sensor, and being priced just at the right point - why would Nikon rush a 'new' model (like the expected D400) though when there's nothing to compete with it yet.
 
Nikon seem to be running out of ideas and just following other manufacturers. I agree that Nikon should have concentrated on improving the D300 rather than adding gimmicks just for the sake of it.
 
I think video is a serious area that Nikon should invest more time into. Definitely.

There's a market for digital stills camera videography and the Canon MKII is already being used for commercial use over the Red One (and this comes down to the lowest common denominator - cost).

Videography on photo shoots is common so an inter-changeable lens system at a reasonable price is an attractive option. The video quality of the D90, various issues aside, is fantastic. I'd love to see a high-end Nikon aimed at videographers.
 
Drpepper99uk said:
An interesting review there, after reading that I'm still at the conclusion I made when it was first released- Why didn't Nikon just improve the D300 and do without the video recording capabilities??
Click to expand...

It clearly is an improvement over the D300. Faster continuous shooting, better multi-controller, dual card slots, quiet shooting mode, the interactive info screen found on the D700, virtual horizon and video. So, it has been improved. If they did anything significantly more to it, it'd be the D400. Now is this worth the additional 300 - 400 quid? It's up to whoever is buying, I suppose. Get the D300, if it's not. Get the D300s if it is. People want video recording capabilities and you're not required by Nikon to buy it.
 
exactly...

anyway. this is a D300S...not a D400....so why not only have some revisions and tweaks to make it more competitive.

I don't have video on my DSLR and rarely use it on my compact.however, to have it might be more handy than not having it. much like liveview...rarely use it. but when I have it's been very helpful, one outstretched above head crowd shot leaps to mind
 
welly said:
People want video recording capabilities and you're not required by Nikon to buy it.
Click to expand...

Do they though - which "people"?

I'd love no video, but just the return of a dedicated bracketing button would be nice! But they just add more "numpty" buttons :)

I don't want video, and I don't want to pay a penny more on already expensive items for a "me too You-tube generation" feature.
 
My JVC hd video camera has the ability to take pictures so is there much difference if it's the other way round?

Out of interst has anyone heard of the latest Coolpix S1000pj which also act as a projector? Where will it stop?
 
debbiejo said:
100% agree.

I would avoid a DSLR with video over one that has not got video
Click to expand...


seriously, why? I don't use a lot of the functions on my camera but to not buy one just be cause it has video which does not impact on the fucntion of the camera is just plain stupid
 
POAH said:
seriously, why? I don't use a lot of the functions on my camera but to not buy one just be cause it has video which does not impact on the fucntion of the camera is just plain stupid
Click to expand...

Because its not "free" and we as consumer are paying for a feature I see no evidence the majority of folks want - look at the prices of the Nikon D5000 and D300s both which have this alleged feature compared to previous bodies. By my reckoning its adding £250+ to the price.

There are more important fish to fry.

I bet if Nikon made a D300v with video, and a D300s without but for £100 less, no one would touch a theoretical D300v with a bargepole.
 
puddleduck said:
Because its not "free" and we as consumer are paying for a feature I see no evidence the majority of folks want - look at the prices of the Nikon D5000 and D300s both which have this alleged feature compared to previous bodies. By my reckoning its adding £250+ to the price.

There are more important fish to fry.

I bet if Nikon made a D300v with video, and a D300s without but for £100 less, no one would touch a theoretical D300v with a bargepole.
Click to expand...

I disagree. There's several camera companies at work and the latest craze is the RED ONE, it's what Che was shot on and what the upcoming District 9 will use. Commercial clients are always looking for a cheap videography alternative to digi-beta/HD-Cam or, a popular option, the Sony Z1. The Canon 5D MK II is testament to a very good video capture option. I've seen footage taken from a commercial job with a 85mm 1.4 prime and the quality is stunning (as you'd expect with such glass). The job's primary crew was a D.O.P and sound-man. Red are jumping on this bandwagon with their upcoming digital stills and motion camera bodies and I really hope Nikon do bring out a high-end stills/video hybrid aimed at the professional market. All we need is a better video codec and for full control over exposure.
I'm certain the next generation of cameras will introduce this....at least I hope they do.
 
You'd disagreed but then started talking about Pro videography?

Read what I said again "feature I see no evidence the majority of folks want". Joe Jessops isn't going to be shooting "Che Part III" on his D300s :)

Do you really think most folks would pay more for a "v" model if it came down to it vs a cheaper model without? If so why?
 
puddleduck said:
Because its not "free" and we as consumer are paying for a feature I see no evidence the majority of folks want - look at the prices of the Nikon D5000 and D300s both which have this alleged feature compared to previous bodies. By my reckoning its adding £250+ to the price.
Click to expand...

You'll be more knowledgable than me on this Andy, how did the D90 price compare to the D80?
 
sdb123 said:
You'll be more knowledgable than me on this Andy, how did the D90 price compare to the D80?
Click to expand...

I remember I paid £529 for a D80 when it came out on Day1.

I reckon the D90 probably came in around £150 more, but not sure on this tbh. Never been that fond of D80 / D90 class bodies, so didn't pay much attention :)
 
Must agree with Andy about this. I bought a D60 because I wanted a still camera, I may not use all the features but I do not need a Video option. I did however choose to buy a HD camcorder(This one but for less than £300 :D) which is fantastic.
 
I think it's a great consumer/prosumer and potentially professional feature to have and the number of D-Movies out there is testament to the point that it's certainly a nice feature to have (I put my hand up to it as well - great to take pics of the family, and have some really cool videos too).

I would definitely purchase a video-weighted DSLR, even as a back-up body. It's where the market is headed and you don't necessarily need to be able to make Che Pt III to use it. The RED ONE is raw video footage, the Canon 5D MK II is the low budget choice of videography and as for Nikon - if they sort out the codec and address manual exposure, it could be a killer product for sure.

Along with photography/home videos, I also like to dabble in short films. The last one I helped make was shot on HDCAM, with a PRO35 adapter and Nikon f-mount. I used a single prime (35mm f/2) and the footage is gorgeous. I have no doubts that this is where the stills market is heading.

Funnily enough a guy at work has been a director of photography for years and years and was repellent to the idea of a video/stills combination - in this case the Canon 5D MK II. I showed him the trailer for Searching for Sonny (http://searchingforsonny.com/), shot on the aforementioned, and he dismissed it before he had a chance to watch all the footage.

Turns out, he ended up shooting on that same camera because his client chose that over all the other options available to them. A cost implication for sure but still testament to its viability.
 
puddleduck said:
I remember I paid £529 for a D80 when it came out on Day1.

I reckon the D90 probably came in around £150 more, but not sure on this tbh. Never been that fond of D80 / D90 class bodies, so didn't pay much attention :)
Click to expand...


there is two years difference between the D80 and D90, there is also the impact of the worlds economy having on the price. thats where you price difference came from. the rrp of both models on release was the same.
 
I was very anti video on a DSLR, but if they have got it right,then I am warming to the idea. A little.......:cautious:
 
I love having video on my D90. If i'm out with the family and my kids start doing something funny, i can video it for a memory sake but i can also take stills while recording and have the best of both worlds.
If i'm doing more serious photography then i obviously don't need video but having a record button on the camera doesn't make it any less of an DSLR.

I don't see peoples problem with video. As already said i think it's going to be the norm for future models so we might aswell get used to it :)

The D300s looks great to me. I'd buy one if i had the cash right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top