Thom Hogan's assessment of a D400

Started Apr 8, 2013 | Discussions thread
yray
Contributing MemberPosts: 881
Like?
Re: Thom Hogan's assessment of a D400
In reply to seahawk, Apr 13, 2013

seahawk wrote:

But jump to what? As the D700 is of the same generation as the D300 and also eol, there is no current FX camera from Nikon that can really replace the D300. D4 could but it is in a different price range.

-- hide signature --

hobby aviation photographer

Explain to me how could D4 replace D300? I have D3s for reference purposes, and I don't see it replacing D300 when I need "reach". D4 has slightly higher pixel density than D3s but not by much. So, if you want to put all those pixels on your target you need a longer lens than with a D300. Let's say you can afford and justify spending on a 200-400 f/4. I have a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 which works great with 1.4 TC giving me nearly the same as 200-400 for a whole lot less money. This said, if light is relatively plentiful and I can stay under about ISO 1600, I would much rather bring my D300 with a smaller/lighter lens. The trade-off is DOF, but I often can live with it. As a result I can get away using a much more portable system that I can hand-hold and carry around for a very long time without feeling like I'm also getting a serious workout. When you're shooting in the range where D300 performs at a high level, the quality of its output relative to top end systems is very comparable. I would guarantee that most people wouldn't tell a D300 shot from a comparable D3s shot in a whole lot of instances. Of course, when the light is getting scarce, then you need D3s or D4, or at least a D700. (not bringing up D800 here because I don't know it and because in my mind it is meant for different applications).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow