Well, I want to pick a few brains here. I shoot mostly wildlife, under natural conditions, meaning deep woods, a lot of early morning and late evening stuff, when wildlife is most active.
My go to bodies are a D2Xs, with a D200 and a D2h as back-ups. My most used lenses are a Nikkor 80-200 f2.8, and a Nikkor 80-400 VR. I can shoot up to ISO 800 with all three bodies before noise gets to be to much to clean up without degrading pic sharpness / detail.
I have used the 300 f4 AFS in the past, with an without a TC, and its a fine lens, under the right conditions. I found, however, that I was still better off with the VR feature of the 80-400 compared to the 1 stop increase in speed the 300 offered.
As much as I would like a new VR 300 f2.8, weight and cost come into play. I usually only carry a monopod, as I like to travel light thru the woods, so I figure my best option is a body upgrade, mostly for the faster, cleaner high ISO ability, as the auto focus and frams speed of the bodies I use now is not an issue. Its just hard to get consistantly sharp results when you are often at 300 / 400 mm and a shutter speed of about 90 -125 sec, even with VR and a steady rest.
I was thinking of the D700, but do not want to give up the crop factor of a DX body. It would be my guess that with the lesser pixel density of the D700 sensor compared to my D2Xs would have a negative effect on cropping? So now I lean to the new D300s, but I know I will miss my D series pro bodies. How many stops increase can I expect before noise becomes an issue? What I would really like to see is a camera built on the D2/3 body with a DX sensor, and the low light performance of the D3... Thanks in advance for your reccomendations.
D300s is a pro body, i don't know why people say otherwise. Look at the build quality, the AF system, and everything else. It is better in every way minus having a built-in grip, vs a D2XS... unless you don't want a vertical grip.... then it IS better in every way.
You would probably love a D300s. I do not think that there will be a full-body DX any time soon, if ever, from Nikon. Their FX sensors are so amazing, and the D300s delivers more than a D2XS already- there is just no point. I mean... 7fps 12mp 1.5 crop with video? That is awesome. Oh yeah and for less than $2000 new.
ISO1600 wrote:
D300s is a pro body, i don't know why people say otherwise. Look at the build quality, the AF system, and everything else. It is better in every way minus having a built-in grip, vs a D2XS... unless you don't want a vertical grip.... then it IS better in every way.
You would probably love a D300s. I do not think that there will be a full-body DX any time soon, if ever, from Nikon. Their FX sensors are so amazing, and the D300s delivers more than a D2XS already- there is just no point. I mean... 7fps 12mp 1.5 crop with video? That is awesome. Oh yeah and for less than $2000 new....Show more →
The problem is after adding a grip to the d300s or a D700 they become larger than an integrated pro body cam. Which is about the size as a D90 with a grip on it.
But the Focus motor in a D300 or 700 is weaker than in his D2x so af will slow down with his 80-400vr.
If they had a D2 body with the D300 sensor I'd be all over it and so would a lot of wildlife shooters I would think.
I second the D300 - great camera for wildlife. Good AF, fast frame rate, 1.5x crop sensor. Add a grip, and while it isn't like their D2/D3 camera, it's pretty good.
Unless you find yourself always around the 200-300mm mark right now, I'd say a D700 type body isn't a real good fit - unless you add some serious glass. You'd have to use a 600mm lens to get the same FOV you're getting @400mm with your 80-400.
Fishinfool wrote: What I would really like to see is a camera built on the D2/3 body with a DX sensor, and the low light performance of the D3... Thanks in advance for your reccomendations.
Doesn't the D3s have 1.2(5?) and 1.5 crop? I am pretty damn sure it does.
EDIT:
"The D3S now offers no less than three alternative crop modes, all masked automatically in the viewfinder. The photographer can now choose from 5:4 (30x24); 1.2x (30x20); and DX (24x16). The new crop mode is designed to offer a practical combination of lens magnification and slightly reduced file size."
ISO1600 wrote:
Doesn't the D3s have 1.2(5?) and 1.5 crop? I am pretty damn sure it does.
EDIT:
"The D3S now offers no less than three alternative crop modes, all masked automatically in the viewfinder. The photographer can now choose from 5:4 (30x24); 1.2x (30x20); and DX (24x16). The new crop mode is designed to offer a practical combination of lens magnification and slightly reduced file size."
Ah, i thought he was saying only 1.2 now. But still that's not as good as being a crop camera natively. If you want to shoot it at 1.5 99% of the time.
The world's leading wildlife photographer is Frans Lantig. He could obtain and use any camera/lens he wants. He shoots a D300, mostly for the reasons you mentioned. I use a D300, and am always happy with low noise at ISO 800 and generally happy with ISO 1600. Correct exposure becomes more critical. In a pinch, when I had to, I will go to ISO 3200. I have an 80-400mm VR, and the 70-200mm f2.8 VR. The first lens is a good general purpose lens, but has slow AF. The second lens is better all around (I use TC-17E for more reach,) but heavier and not as long. Nikon badly needs a 300mm f4 VR. I'd buy one tomorrow if it were announced. Buying an expensive camera like D3 and then shooting it on crop mode makes no sense to me at all. That would sort of like paying $5,000+ for a D80 to my way of thinking.
Two23 wrote:
The world's leading wildlife photographer is Frans Lantig. He could obtain and use any camera/lens he wants. He shoots a D300, mostly for the reasons you mentioned. I use a D300, and am always happy with low noise at ISO 800 and generally happy with ISO 1600. Correct exposure becomes more critical. In a pinch, when I had to, I will go to ISO 3200. I have an 80-400mm VR, and the 70-200mm f2.8 VR. The first lens is a good general purpose lens, but has slow AF. The second lens is better all around (I use TC-17E for more reach,) but heavier and not as long. Nikon badly needs a 300mm f4 VR. I'd buy one tomorrow if it were announced. Buying an expensive camera like D3 and then shooting it on crop mode makes no sense to me at all. That would sort of like paying $5,000+ for a D80 to my way of thinking.
Exactly, but if they made a Integraded body with a D300 sensor I'm sure a lot of people would shoot with them. Especially people like yourself who could benifit from the larger af drive motors in the big bodies on lenses like the 80-400vr.
Now the D3s would be the ticket, but the cost is way out there. I could buy D300 and a 300 f2.8 VR for that kind of $. I am going to have to get my hands on a new D300s and check out its low light abilities. It's time to come out of the dark ages, I guess. My bodies are about 3 years old.....Antiques..
Earlier this year I bought a D2X because I never was happy with my D300 body.
I liked the D2X better in almost every aspect but IQ and that's what it's all about.
After a few months i sold the D2X again and I'm happier now with the D300.
The D300s should be a little better than the D300.
For wildlife the D300(s) is the way to go.
The only real difference between D300 and D300s is video. If you don't think you'll use video, a used or refurb D300 makes a ton of sense. Camera values drop in price very quickly. Take advantage of that and buy one that's already had some of the drop. You should be able to buy a refurb from Cameta Camera for around $1,100 (eBay auctions.) With the $700 you save doing that you could buy Photoshop CS4, an SB-900 flash + Better Beamer, a decent tripod & head, or put the money towards a lens. The low light capability and image quality of the D300s is the same as the D300. Go as cheap as you can on cameras, put the money in more important things. If you like to photo wildlife but don't have a good ballhead (Kirk, RRS, AcraTech, Wimberly, etc.) then that's where to put at least $300. The other $400 will buy you a pretty good carbon fiber tripod. The tripod/head can make a big difference for wildlife photos, and will keep its value very well.
Two23 wrote:
The low light capability and image quality of the D300s is the same as the D300.
Not entirely true if you are a shadow noise snob.
The D300s's low light and image quality are much more closely related to the D90, which has slightly better controlled shadow noise than the D300.
For all intents and purposes the D300s actually has a bit of an advantage over the D300 in low light. It may not be enough for you to justify the price difference between the two bodies, but in my book every tiny bit of help you can get in the shadows for a Nikon processed sensor is well worth every penny.
