- Messages
- 4,463
- Name
- Barry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Incidently, what camera did you use for the shot of the plane using that superb Nikkor 300mm f2.8. I want one of those!
Allan
Ha ha! Not even a Nikon (well, not a proper one ).... A Fuji S5 - a mangled D200.
There are so many points laid down in argument here. There is a always an argument for better glass. As for the points raised against the D300 I can't find one that is relevant, except cost.
Yes, I think I can tell the the difference between D40, D200 and a D300 at A4, all things being equal. The noise side of it alone is a no-brainer - the D300 leaves the rest in it's wake. Anyone tried "live-view" with macro and "hide" work for birds?
How about 51 point 3D AF focus tracking? If it's the difference between getting the shot or not..... the D300 is head and shoulders above the rest! So what if the glass is a little 'off'? If it aint in focus because the AF hardware is behind the times better glass won't get you the shot!
Having done a couple of weddings now with D300 compared to D200 - I wouldn't even get the D200 out of the bag in a church where the minister says "no flash".
To suggest that Nikon brought out the D300 because of money is a load of tosh! I can't imagine Canon thought of that argument. Did they not rule the roost with regard to noise and handling for more time than I care to remember? D300 and D3x are streets ahead at the moment and to suggest a D40 or even a D60 makes my mind boggle!