B
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Does Nikon want us to jump ship?
- Thread starter ClickBoom
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nikon d300
OceanFroggie
Leading Member
Its a demand based free market. Buy the best value products fit for purpose. If somebody was ecstatic with the images they took with say a D300 four years ago, why not still happy now? Nothing has changed to fade or reduced the quality of those images. Just keep shooting. Marketing brain washing needs to keep raising our expectations so we will forever maintain a purchasing cycle of gear replacement.
Robert Cohen
Senior Member
>> The PROS have already switched. <<
Some have, many have not. I was shooting at a local event this past weekend and I saw two newspaper photographers. Both were shooting the same Nikon gear they've had for a while.
In the real world, lots of pros can't afford to switch systems on a whim any more than amateurs can.
Some have, many have not. I was shooting at a local event this past weekend and I saw two newspaper photographers. Both were shooting the same Nikon gear they've had for a while.
In the real world, lots of pros can't afford to switch systems on a whim any more than amateurs can.
Robert Cohen
Senior Member
I've also found that a used D700 complements my D300 nicely and I use whichever body seems to be appropriate.
When I want relative light weight and I'm not trying to deal with action in low light I'll use the D300.
When I need the best image quality (not always needed, especially if the photos will appear in print or on the web) or I'm dealing with action in low light I'll use the D700.
A few weeks ago I traveled to Raleigh, NC to shoot an indoor event and I took the D300. I got the results I wanted. The subjects were standing or sitting and not moving much. The D300 was fine.
A week ago I was in New York City shooting the Westminster Kennel Club dog show. I used the D700 and 24-70 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8. I got great results, especially compared with years before I shot the same event using the D300.
This weekend I was shooting a multi-day event called Dance Flurry in Saratoga Springs, NY. In prior years I'd used a D300 and often had to use flash instead of available light. This year I used the D700, just taking the 24-70. I didn't have to use flash except in one situation where they basically turned off the lights. I much prefer available light and this equipment worked well for me.
So long as this equipment is readily available I see no reason to switch to another brand, which would involve getting a new set of lenses and accessories.
Would a newer sensor and internal electronics have benefits? Maybe yes, but it's not necessary to be on the bleeding edge with photo equipment any more than it is with my car. I want my car to get me from place to place reliably and safely and carry what I need. Same principle with photo gear.
When I want relative light weight and I'm not trying to deal with action in low light I'll use the D300.
When I need the best image quality (not always needed, especially if the photos will appear in print or on the web) or I'm dealing with action in low light I'll use the D700.
A few weeks ago I traveled to Raleigh, NC to shoot an indoor event and I took the D300. I got the results I wanted. The subjects were standing or sitting and not moving much. The D300 was fine.
A week ago I was in New York City shooting the Westminster Kennel Club dog show. I used the D700 and 24-70 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8. I got great results, especially compared with years before I shot the same event using the D300.
This weekend I was shooting a multi-day event called Dance Flurry in Saratoga Springs, NY. In prior years I'd used a D300 and often had to use flash instead of available light. This year I used the D700, just taking the 24-70. I didn't have to use flash except in one situation where they basically turned off the lights. I much prefer available light and this equipment worked well for me.
So long as this equipment is readily available I see no reason to switch to another brand, which would involve getting a new set of lenses and accessories.
Would a newer sensor and internal electronics have benefits? Maybe yes, but it's not necessary to be on the bleeding edge with photo equipment any more than it is with my car. I want my car to get me from place to place reliably and safely and carry what I need. Same principle with photo gear.
Tony Beach
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,967
- Solutions
- 5
- Reaction score
- 7,035
No, nothing has changed, and that cuts both ways. I always felt like the D300 could use some more ISO performance and some more resolution, and that too has not changed.
FWIW, I think the D300 is fine for what it does, but that doesn't mean many wouldn't benefit from a camera like it with a better sensor in it. "Jumping ship" is problematic though since there isn't anything that completely replaces the D300 right now.
altair8800
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,000
- Reaction score
- 443
If somebody was ecstatic with the images they took with say a D1 fourteen years ago, why not still happy now? Nothing has changed to fade or reduced the quality of those images.
2.7Mp and 1.5 fps should be enough for anyone! Marketing brainwashing indeed!
OceanFroggie
Leading Member
Good one
But I did say "four years ago" which is relevant in terms of cycle expectations.
fishy wishy
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 9,358
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 6,647
- people are not operating "in a vacuum". Whether you are in the press pack, a studio off the high street or trying to win an amateur competition, you have competitors. If you submit a grainy or soft picture or indeed couldn't even take a picture at all because the camera couldn't capture the moment, you lose out to somebody else. The world ain't just enthusiast photography. (Sorry)
And yeah, reporters everywhere are still eking out D300/D700 instead of buying the D4 like Nikon wants.
n057
Veteran Member
Surely, you jest? If what you say is true, I would be happy to shoot low-light concerts with my Coolpix 995 (bought in 2001). How comes I was not able to get the images I wanted from the Coolpix 995? 3 Mp, 2.5 fps. Worked beautifully for flowers in sunlight, started to crumble with action in good light, and was a disaster in low light.
I was extatic many moons ago when I got my first tricycle. I don't think it is just marketing that made me want something with more modern features
The D200 (bought in 2006) was much better. I can still eke nice low-light images from my D200 at ISO1600. But I happen to shoot moving subjects and want to keep all of the D200 features, with an extra two stops of low light hi-ISO.
The D7100 has the extra two stops. But it downgrades almost every other feature!
If I was influenced by Marketing, I would have been trying to get the extra two stops with a D300, a D90, a D300s, a D7000, a D7100, not counting all the FX bodies (which I don't want) but then would have to give up too much for that, in features or money. And many in the same picture taking situations feel the same way.
JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers
altair8800
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,000
- Reaction score
- 443
Just stretching what OceanFroggie wrote to even more absurd conclusion.
Guess you did not believe I jest!
To make it clear, I want D400 or 7DII to have 30Mp, 10 fps and pro AF. I will buy which one comes first.I was extatic many moons ago when I got my first tricycle. I don't think it is just marketing that made me want something with more modern features
The D200 (bought in 2006) was much better. I can still eke nice low-light images from my D200 at ISO1600. But I happen to shoot moving subjects and want to keep all of the D200 features, with an extra two stops of low light hi-ISO.
The D7100 has the extra two stops. But it downgrades almost every other feature!
If I was influenced by Marketing, I would have been trying to get the extra two stops with a D300, a D90, a D300s, a D7000, a D7100, not counting all the FX bodies (which I don't want) but then would have to give up too much for that, in features or money. And many in the same picture taking situations feel the same way.
altair8800
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,000
- Reaction score
- 443
Guess you did not get the joke.
n057
Veteran Member
Oops, sorry.
When I feel that the type of camera I like is put down, I set brain aside and go like this:
JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers
OK - you're right. They, like any respectable company, wants all customers to leap.
OceanFroggie
Leading Member
Competitors? Eh? My camera is a tool for private use! I couldn't care less what other folk choose to do with their cameras. I'm competing with no one, just capturing content for private family use.
n057
Veteran Member
Then you definitely have more than enough camera for that, based on your current gear list. It has even more bells and whistles than what you say is more than enough.
So, who do you care that we are here to discuss what we do with our cameras? Which is not even the same type as the one which is more than enough for you? Marketing drew you here? Oh feeble mind, succumbing to the lure of the marketeers ...
JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers
Turnerx5
Member
Nikon needs to pay attention to complaints like this one (which are legitimate), as consumers are voting with their feet. Take a look at the top selling DSLR pages on Amazon, B&H, and Adorama - Nikon is getting creamed by Canon right now (in both entry level and mid level/serious DSLR sales). I'm a long time D300 user with a fair amount of money in Nikon glass, but I'm very disappointed with the absence of a D400. While the sky isn't falling, EBay makes it much easier to dump and run.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum