used D300 or new D3300?

Hi Guys,

I need your advice.

Family trip is coming up to Grand Canyon, Zion, Bryce. I have a good old D100 and I guess it’s about time to upgrade it. I used to take lots of pictures always in RAW because the D100’s JPG was not very good. I was always happy with it.

A guy I selling his used D300 body + battery grip for $300 on craigslist , he said that the camera is in good condition with 50k actuations.

A brand new D3300 body is selling on Amazon for the same price.

I’d use it for mostly for landscape and family photography.

D3300 is a bit lighter –better for hiking- and brand new with warranty. But I'm leaning towards the D300.

What would you guys do?

I don’t want to spend more than $300.

I’m going to use my existing Nikkor lenses 50mm 1.4D, 18-35mm (3.5-4.5D), 70-300 (4-5.6D)

Thanks,

James

Simple, if you want features such as : weather sealing, higher frames per second, and a 100% viewfinder, go for the D300. If the absolute need is small size and image quality get the D3300. Although Af-d lenses won't autofocus on the 3300 ( or anything less than a D7x00 series body).

As I understand it, the D3300 would not autofocus with D lenses, ones that use the "screwdriver" connection between the lens and an autofocus motor in the body. So you couldn't use your lenses in autofocus mode.  (You could of course manually focus, but I suspect you'd rather not do that with all your present lenses.)  And since the D300 is more similar to the D100 you're used to, that's another reason to go with the D300, old as it is.

I keep using my D300.  The photos I take with it are no less good than when the camera was new. <g>

James Nagy wrote:

Thank you all for your quick response.

I didn’t realize that my lenses were not compatible with the D3300..

I don’t have a choice after all.

Thanks,

James

Nikon just had the D7100 refurbs for $499.  They will focus your lenses and are very capable with higher IQ than the D300.

So there are other choices! 

Yeah, I agree with 7100.    I know OP said 300 dollars limit, but the 7100 I truly believe is one of those "last cameras you'll ever need" deals.  I've seen them for 400 used also.

James Nagy wrote:

Hi Guys,

I need your advice.

Family trip is coming up to Grand Canyon, Zion, Bryce. I have a good old D100 and I guess it’s about time to upgrade it. I used to take lots of pictures always in RAW because the D100’s JPG was not very good. I was always happy with it.

A guy I selling his used D300 body + battery grip for $300 on craigslist , he said that the camera is in good condition with 50k actuations.

A brand new D3300 body is selling on Amazon for the same price.

I’d use it for mostly for landscape and family photography.

D3300 is a bit lighter –better for hiking- and brand new with warranty. But I'm leaning towards the D300.

What would you guys do?

I don’t want to spend more than $300.

I’m going to use my existing Nikkor lenses 50mm 1.4D, 18-35mm (3.5-4.5D), 70-300 (4-5.6D)

Thanks,

James

I would still go for the D300.

There is a reason I kept my D200 for all that time, resisting the lure of all the cameras that came before the D500, even though less expensive ones came along with more resolution.

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

Just took delivery of a used D300 in great condition from Adorama for $189 the other day. Shutter count is about 20k. Feels great to have a D300 in my hands again, this thing is a beast.

The D3300 doesn't have an in body focus motor. So you will lose AF with all of your screwdriver lenses with that camera.

The D300 has a strong AF motor that works well.

Drevis Neloren wrote:

Just took delivery of a used D300 in great condition from Adorama for $189 the other day. Shutter count is about 20k. Feels great to have a D300 in my hands again, this thing is a beast.

That's a good price. I got lucky a couple weeks back and got 1 for $218 but it only had 597 clicks on it fro KEH.

puttin wrote:

Drevis Neloren wrote:

Just took delivery of a used D300 in great condition from Adorama for $189 the other day. Shutter count is about 20k. Feels great to have a D300 in my hands again, this thing is a beast.

That's a good price. I got lucky a couple weeks back and got 1 for $218 but it only had 597 clicks on it fro KEH.

Finding one with under 1,000 actuations on it is amazing luck. I have bought a few used D300's in the past and have never seen one with a low shutter count like that. I believe after a certain number of shots the count rolls over back to 0 and starts over but I'm not 100% sure.

These things are amazing deals now, if you're patient you can grab one for under $200 or not much more. Another one was just on Amazon via Adorama for $179. For what you get it's an absolute steal. If you don't mind getting a camera that's a little dated you can do a lot worse then a D300 for around $200.

Drevis Neloren wrote:

puttin wrote:

Drevis Neloren wrote:

Just took delivery of a used D300 in great condition from Adorama for $189 the other day. Shutter count is about 20k. Feels great to have a D300 in my hands again, this thing is a beast.

That's a good price. I got lucky a couple weeks back and got 1 for $218 but it only had 597 clicks on it fro KEH.

Finding one with under 1,000 actuations on it is amazing luck. I have bought a few used D300's in the past and have never seen one with a low shutter count like that. I believe after a certain number of shots the count rolls over back to 0 and starts over but I'm not 100% sure.

Never heard of that, you might be thinking of the memory card files. I checked it with both photome and nikonshuttercount, both said 597. The camera did not have any marks of use on it so I believe the count. Some people buy stuff and never use it.

These things are amazing deals now, if you're patient you can grab one for under $200 or not much more. Another one was just on Amazon via Adorama for $179. For what you get it's an absolute steal. If you don't mind getting a camera that's a little dated you can do a lot worse then a D300 for around $200.

-- hide signature --

Confound it all. I was quite sure I was invisible, or at least transparent.

John Szeto wrote:

I still love my D300

That's a good reason

James Nagy wrote:

Thank you all for your quick response.

I didn’t realize that my lenses were not compatible with the D3300..

I don’t have a choice after all.

Thanks,

James

James,

Just to clarify something here. You're older lenses ARE compatible with a D3300, except for autofocus and possibly a couple of other, more advanced modes. The lenses will still mount, manually focus, and take great photos (assuming they're good lenses in the first place). The biggest, most obvious thing they lack is the ability to autofocus with anything under a D7x00-series camera. And there are a few other issues, things like Matrix Metering (IIRC), and similar technologies that weren't around when those lenses were designed.

That's one of the beauties of the Nikon system, IMHO: the ability to use lenses from as far back as the F-mount has existed, with VERY few exceptions. You won't necessarily have the full, modern functions of the camera with such older lenses, but they WILL mount and work.

Sam

puttin wrote:

Drevis Neloren wrote:

Just took delivery of a used D300 in great condition from Adorama for $189 the other day. Shutter count is about 20k. Feels great to have a D300 in my hands again, this thing is a beast.

That's a good price. I got lucky a couple weeks back and got 1 for $218 but it only had 597 clicks on it fro KEH.

puttin,

597 clicks?! Are you SURE that's all?! I don't mean to question, but that sounds ridiculously low! It's barely getting broken in, at that point! And I thought *I* had done well when I bought my D700 with around 4k clicks on it!

Sam