If AF is one of your primary concerns... you won't be disappointed with either... they're #1 (Multi-CAM3500) and #2 (Multi-CAM2000) in Nikon's best IMO. I'd give a slight edge to the D300... and that's based on a couple thousand D300 sports shots and many thousands using the Multi-CAM2000 in my D2H. It's hard to say there's anything wrong with the D2's AF, but I have to admit that the D300's is even a little better.
As for the viewfinders, they're equal in my books. Truth be known I actually kind of like the extra info that's shown in the side of the D2 VF, maybe moreso because I've become used to it. You won't be able to pick one or the other camera based on VF quality in my experience, they're both very good.
They aren't stupid questions at all, honestly, but they're questions you'll be able to answer if you handle both cameras back-to-back.
I'm a big fan of the build of the D2's. The extra LCD and control layout is a big part of the reason they get labeled as so perfect ergonomically. The integrated grip just feels right, and it's slightly smaller than the D300 plus MB-D10 combined.
Having said that, that's just about where the D2's advantage ends in most terms. At low ISO they're both phenominal. But jack things over ISO640 and the D300 starts running away. If that doesn't matter to you, and neither does the added feature set (lens fine tuning, bigger better LCD, dust removal, native ISO3200, CLS commander built-in, more speed, etc) then I'd say you have a tough choice.
If you spend most of your time at very low ISO's and prefer the integrated grip, and don't need the biggest LCD and these features, the D2X might be worth the coin. Plus, keep in mind that to get the D300 in comparable form - really comparable - you'll want to add the grip, the EN-EL4a, the BL-3 cover, and a charger, which will bring them a little closer in price.
But based on overall capability, the D300 is a steal. It does quite a few things the D2X doesn't, quite a few things better, and not much at all not as well.
Ha... good... well, the truth is they're both awesome.
I just think that - aside from the actual ergos of the machine - it's awfully hard to find arguments for the D2's any more, except for my sentimental ones. The D300 is just newer to the point where Nikon has put good learning into practice. The new CMOS sensor is plain better once you get to ISO800, like a ton better.
Hey, I love using my DK-19 eyecup on the D2H in bright light... it doesn't fit on the D300... there's a reason!
no question about it, I'd still take an Xs over a D300 anyday. My S5 lives up to everything the D300 is for me (minus the focus system and frame rate), but you just can't replace the D2 body. Period. (except with the D3 body). I love an intergrated grip with digis too much!
Justin Huffman wrote:
DJ your making my D300 or D2X decision more and more difficult
Thought you guys might like to see an ISO2500 shot from the D300. This was shot in shade, around 5:30 in the dusk, on my front porch. We are facing east, and the sun is behind us sinking below the tree line and the horizon. The only thing done to the pictured image was a resize. NOTE: Noise reduction is OFF.
Model = NIKON D300
Exposure Time = 1/250"
F Number = F4
Focal Length = 130mm
Exposure Program = Aperture priority
ISO Speed Ratings = 2500
Noise Reduction = OFF
Lens = Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR
i have both too and i like the D300 so far. A lot is said already, what i like to add is that i love the way my D300 drives my non af-s glass. Those screw driven lenses suddenly became a lot less noisy . I notice a slightly faster focus too with those lenses, but i can't back that up with scientific research. So it might be all between my ears, but that works for me
I would agree whole heartily again. As much as I love the D300's feel, the D2's are really awesome. Shooting them side by side is when you might feel the difference, otherwise you wouldn't know.
I can't recommend a D2x anymore; unless it's $1400.
R. Francois wrote:
i have both too and i like the D300 so far. A lot is said already, what i like to add is that i love the way my D300 drives my non af-s glass. Those screw driven lenses suddenly became a lot less noisy . I notice a slightly faster focus too with those lenses, but i can't back that up with scientific research. So it might be all between my ears, but that works for me
Is that true about the D300 drive the non AF-S glass better I got the D300 + Grip last Sat and shoot in studio side by side with my D2x last night. D2x drive the 85 F1.4 and 105 F2 faster. But D300 is a bit quiter and slower. That's what I feel. I ordered the BL-3 and waiting to test the D300 with EL-4 battery. I hope it do better than my old D2x with non-afs glass.
Beside the intergrated grip on D2x. I will pick everything from D300. No way for me to put more money on D2 series than the D300 now. :-) I love the D300 51 AF point. It simply rock!!
Keith
keithf wrote:
Is that true about the D300 drive the non AF-S glass better I got the D300 + Grip last Sat and shoot in studio side by side with my D2x last night. D2x drive the 85 F1.4 and 105 F2 faster. But D300 is a bit quiter and slower. That's what I feel. I ordered the BL-3 and waiting to test the D300 with EL-4 battery. I hope it do better than my old D2x with non-afs glass.
Beside the intergrated grip on D2x. I will pick everything from D300. No way for me to put more money on D2 series than the D300 now. :-) I love the D300 51 AF point. It simply rock!!
Keith ...Show more →
hmm like i said: it's between my ears . i've used 8 AA's in my grip. maybe that's why. but once again: no scientific research to back it all up. it feels fast enough...
R. Francois wrote:
hmm like i said: it's between my ears . i've used 8 AA's in my grip. maybe that's why. but once again: no scientific research to back it all up. it feels fast enough...
Ah, here you go... 8 AA batteries will do... that's why I like to have the BL-3...
I'm (as usual) with Ray here... I can't back it with stopwatch data, but I feel that the D300 drives the non-AFS lenses a little quicker, and far quieter. They almost feel liquid smooth, where with the D2 they definitely feel more mechanical, if that makes any sense. The D2's are so good at AF with those lenses (I'm speaking of the 85mm, 50mm, 28mm, and 10.5mm here) that it's hard to say the D300 is quicker, but definitely no slower, and much smoother. I use the EN-EL4a's FWIW, and don't know that it makes any AF speed difference.
dj dunzie wrote:
I'm (as usual) with Ray here... I can't back it with stopwatch data, but I feel that the D300 drives the non-AFS lenses a little quicker, and far quieter. They almost feel liquid smooth, where with the D2 they definitely feel more mechanical, if that makes any sense. The D2's are so good at AF with those lenses (I'm speaking of the 85mm, 50mm, 28mm, and 10.5mm here) that it's hard to say the D300 is quicker, but definitely no slower, and much smoother. I use the EN-EL4a's FWIW, and don't know that it makes any AF speed difference.
I think the 8 AA or EL4a did better. That's what I read from the other forum. I am only using one battery in the D300, the Grip is empty last night. I do think the EL-4a give more power to the screw driver motor to drive the lens. :-)
How does the D2X compare to the D300 in IQ and handling? I am curious since I have seen some stellar work with the D300, as well as the D2X. Currently I have a D2X and a D700.
I got the D300 + Grip last Sat and shoot in studio side by side with my D2x last night. D2x drive the 85 F1.4 and 105 F2 faster. But D300 is a bit quiter and slower. That's what I feel. I ordered the BL-3 and waiting to test the D300 with EL-4 battery. I hope it do better than my old D2x with non-afs glass.