|
 |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Nikon D300 verdict It’s not surprising to learn the Nikon D300 is a highly capable semi-professional DSLR which succeeds in both traditional respects and the latest gadgetry. Like its predecessor the build quality and ergonomics are superb and while the look and feel are subjective, we’d say Nikon continues to lead the pack in this respect. The handling is excellent with swift and accurate autofocus, no shutter lag to speak of, and quick continuous shooting. The new 51-point AF system sounds like overkill, but in practice effectively tracks erratically-moving subjects without compromising the view. The D300 is certainly a confident camera for sports and action photography.
Composition and playback are also highlights with the excellent viewfinder and wonderful-looking screen. It’s great to have a viewfinder with 100% coverage without having to buy a top-of-the-range pro model and the continued use of on-demand grid lines makes the interchangeable focusing screens of rivals look prehistoric. The VGA screen won’t improve your picture quality, but it’s a delight to see this amount of fine detail in Live View and playback; even the menus look great. Live View is a mixed bag though. We liked composing with the detailed screen, but it was difficult to see at high angles or in direct sunlight. The manual focus assist was good especially zoomed-into 1:1, but the contrast-based AF was very slow; Panasonic’s Lumix L10 was noticeably quicker in this respect. We also found the lack of self-timer in Live View annoying, but in the truly unforgiveable category was the absence of a live histogram. Nikon says it involved too much processing, but that hasn’t stopped rivals from implementing it. In terms of image quality, the D300 produces very natural-looking results using its default JPEG settings which have few if any electronic artefacts to speak of. Some may find them lacking a little in sharpness and contrast, but both are easily fixed in-camera or with RAW files. In terms of exposures, the D300 meters to protect highlights from burning-out, which sometimes comes at the cost of the image subjectively appearing a little dark overall. Check the histogram though and there’s no complaints. Active D-Lighting can go some way to retrieve shadow and mid-tone details, but in our tests it was a subtle effect and one you could easily replicate with careful exposure and subsequent processing. The in-camera reduction of optical chromatic aberrations was certainly apparent on our DX 17-55mm f2.8 lens, although not 100% effective. Speaking of RAW, there was a noticeable tonal benefit to the 12-bit files, and a further subtle increase when switched to 14-bit. On the downside beyond the annoyances in Live View mentioned above, the new anti-dust system didn’t prove effective in our tests, but to be fair that’s no different from many rivals. The GPS connectivity would also have been nicer with a direct USB option for modern units. Nikon may also now bundle Capture NX – on initial shipments anyway – but the Capture Pro 2 software required for PC remote control is an optional extra, and sadly not even released at the time of writing. In contrast, PC remote control software comes free with Canon’s EOS 40D. Finally, for anyone with, say, a D80 or D200, the D300 isn’t a significant step-up from 10 Megapixels in terms of resolved detail – you’d be upgrading for build, handling and features. So as always before our final verdict, how does the D300 compare to its predecessor and rivals?
Nikon D300 final verdict There’s no denying the Nikon D300 is a highly capable DSLR which will delight enthusiasts and satisfy the demands of pros looking for a backup or ‘budget’ body. Certainly no-one does ergonomics like Nikon and despite a handful of annoyances, it’s also the most feature-packed DSLR of its class. But there’s also no denying it’s also comfortably more expensive than many rivals while not delivering significantly better image quality. Indeed in the case of the Sony A700, the image quality is essentially the same. If you’re after a big step-up in image quality from the Nikon system, you’ll need to look at the D3. So it’s a case of weighing up the D300’s features against its higher price. The D300 is undoubtedly a great camera to use, but are its features worth 40-50% more than the Canon EOS 40D or Sony A700? Only you can decide, but don’t go for the D300 over these models expecting significantly better image quality. The extra cash is buying you superior build, handling and features. The higher price also makes the downsides that bit more annoying, like the lack of a live histogram or self timer in Live View, and the requirement to buy remote control software and a special serial cable for GPS units when Canon includes the former for free and the latter could be solved with a direct USB link. It’s also a shame the anti-dust system didn’t prove effective in our tests. But ultimately the D300 remains a superb DSLR and one of the best we’ve tested at Camera Labs – it’s certainly a model we can Highly Recommend. But unless you’ve already bought into the Nikon system, we’d advise closely comparing it to the rivals mentioned above. The D300’s features may on the whole be a step-ahead of the competition, but you may not personally need them, in which case your money is better spent on a cheaper body with better glass.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
