Nikon D300s 12MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) | 
| Brand: Nikon
Category: Photography
Buy New: $1,450.00
as of 3/18/2010 17:24 CDT details
New (20) Used (3) Refurbished (1) from $1,399.00
Seller: fresh wind
Rating:  44 reviews
Sales Rank: 389
Media: Electronics
Autographed: No
Memorabilia: No
Batteries Included: Yes
Includes Software: Yes
Optical Zoom: 1
Connectivity: AV
Battery: 1 Rechargeable Li-ion
Maximum Resolution: 12300000
Shipping Weight (lbs): 5.6
Dimensions (in): 9 x 8 x 7
nv:Sensor: CMOS
Size: 23.6 x 15.8mm
Movie Resolution: 1280 x 720
LCD Monitor: 3 inches
LCD Pixels: 920,000 Dots
LCD Coverage: 100%
Shutter Speed: 30 sec.
Shutter Speed: 1/8000 sec.
Exposure Control: Shutter-priority Auto
Exposure Control: Aperture-priority Auto
Exposure Control: Manual Exposure
Exposure Control: Programmed auto exposure with flexible program
Exposure Compensation: ±5.0 EV range in 1/3, 1/2 or 1 EV steps
ISO Speed Range: 100 - 6400
White Balance Control: Incandescent
MPN: D300s Body Only
Model: D300s Body Only
UPC: 018208254644
EAN: 0018208254644
ASIN: B002JCSV6M
Release Date: August 28, 2009
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Features:
| • | 12-megapixel CMOS image sensor for high resolution, low-noise images | | • | Body only; lenses sold separately | | • | Nikon EXPEED image processing; D-Movie HD Video for cinematic 24 fps, 720p HD movie clips | | • | 3-inch Super-density 920,000-dot VGA LCD; one-button Live View | | • | Capture images to SD/SDHC memory cards (not included) |
|
| Accessories:
|
| Similar Items:
| |
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
12.3-megapixel effective recording * APS-C-size CMOS image sensor (23.6 x 15.8 mm) * high-def movie mode with sound * high-res 3" LCD (920,000 dots) with Live View for composing shots on-screen in real-time * pentaprism optical SLR viewfinder (with diopter adjustment) * Dynamic Integrated Dust Reduction System to keep image sensor clean for spotless photos * Nikon EXPEED image processor for fast, accurate shooting and longer battery life * 51-point autofocus system for rapid, precise autofocusing * 1005-pixel 3D Color Matrix Metering II for accurate automatic exposure control, plus center-weighted and spot metering modes * Active D-Lighting mode for better shadow and highlight detail in high-contrast shooting conditions * built-in flash and flash exposure compensation * in-camera image editing functions, including: edit movie, D-Lighting, image overlay, monochrome, NEF (RAW) processing and more * AVI movie files (Motion JPEG) up to 1280 x 720 resolution at 24 frames per second with mono sound *
|
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 1-5 of 44
 State of the DX art, better than FX for some March 18, 2010
Glenn Carpenter (Golden, Colorado)
There are plenty of very good comprehensive reviews here of the D300S already, so I'm instead going to attempt to focus on what I see as some of the pros and cons of the D300S versus other camera bodies in the Nikon line-up. The D300S has essentially identical image quality to the $500 D5000 and now quite old (in DSLR terms) D300 and D90; and it remains a small-format DX camera, while the next step up in price gets you a full-frame D700. Yet I have chosen to purchase and use a D300S rather than any of those alternatives, and have shot with just about every Nikon DSLR made since the D100. Perhaps some readers would find my perspective useful.
As far as I'm concerned, image quality from Nikon DSLRs has really been quite excellent at least since the introduction of the D70. Of course there have been all kinds of incremental improvements since then, but comparing anything since the D70 to the funky highlights produced by the early D100, for example, makes it clear that we have long since reached the point of diminishing returns when it comes to real, visible improvements in DSLR image quality. The fine details will continue to change, but whether you buy a D5000, a D300S or a D700, the differences between the images you can make with the camera are going to be tiny compared with the differences in how you can use it - with the exception of the FX-vs-DX field of view, which is very important.
What I think most people will benefit from is carefully assessing the features and physical capabilities of the various bodies, considering the types of photography they like to do, and selecting the best match for their particular needs. Budget, of course, enters the equation: but for many photographers the small, light D5000 would be the best choice regardless of budget, while of course others will absolutely require the pro features of the more expensive bodies.
D300S vs D700; DX vs FX - By far the most fundamental issue in camera body selection:
This is the one real difference between the shooting capabilities of any of the bodies I'm discussing here, and if affects every image you make with the camera once you buy it. I would strongly advice readers NOT to look at format as a camera issue, but to look at it as a lens issue. Of course there are differences between the FX and DX bodies, even those closest in specification, and to some degree you can equalize lens selection; but when you begin to look at the realities of lens selection for DX vs FX formats, it is immediately apparent that they operate in completely different worlds. I'm convinced that this should be one's primary consideration when choosing a camera if your budget allows you a choice of formats.
The crux of the matter is that it really is much easier to make a great DX lens than it is to make a great FX lens. The basic physics guarantees this. The DX format is 2/3 the linear size of the FX format, meaning that, all else being equal, lenses will have to be 3.4 TIMES BIGGER (1.5^3) in FX format to exactly equal the optics on DX of a DX format lens. Because lens design is a matter of careful compromise between many factors; mainly size, price, max aperture, zoom ratio, sharpness, and weight; real-world FX lenses aren't made 3.4 times bigger, heavier and more expensive than DX lenses. They are instead made only considerably bigger, with compromises in other aspects of design, so they must give up some aspect of performance - zoom ratio, max aperture, optical excellence - to achieve their design objectives.
For this reason, there is really no FX equivalent to the excellent 16-85mm VR DX lens (the 24-120VR is a fairly mediocre lens). Likewise the 35mm f/1.8 has come out being a slightly better lens than the 50mm f/1.4G despite being smaller and lighter (and slower, unfortunately). Many excellent wide zooms now exist for DX cameras at affordable prices, while the selection of FX wide zooms has one choosing between obscenely heavy and expensive excellent lenses and "normally" priced average lenses. This conundrum spans the entire range of available lenses, and it is likely never to change or to ever resolve in favor of FX because it is driven by the basic physics of optics and their design and manufacture.
For this reason, DX cameras have tremendous advantages if you want to shoot lenses that are reasonably priced, that give excellent sharpness and overall image quality, that have flexible zoom ranges, and that are light and compact enough to transport and use unobtrusively.
FX, on the other hand, will be marketed as the premier format, and I think we can expect that most of the very best lenses made will continue to be FX lenses. Very fast primes, f/2.8 zooms built to pro specifications, long telephotos and the best macro lenses will all be FX. FX lenses can be used on DX cameras, but that leads to the other FX advantages. While the DX "crop factor" gives DX bodies a presumed advantage in the telephoto range, it conversely gives FX cameras a sizeable advantage within the "normal" ranges most people do most of their shooting at. A 50mm lens on FX equals a 35mm lens on DX in terms of field of view, but allows for much better control of subject isolation than the DX lens. Likewise, a "fast wide" lens on FX such as the new 24mm f/1.4G becomes a much less exotic creature on DX, and probably rather pointless as a consequence. For portraiture, the selection of lenses for FX is wonderful, if expensive, whereas DX shooters must compromise by using lenses not designed for their native format.
For photographers who shoot mostly in the normal ranges, who want to maximize their control of depth of field (especially towards the wide end), who don't mind paying a premium for the most expensive equipment, and who are willing to put up with the weight and the conspicuousness of shooting with pro-level equipment as well as the compromises inherent in FX lens design, FX will continue to be the only option.
There is one more advantage currently in shooting FX, in that the FX sensors are more light-sensitive than the DX sensors, enabling shooting at tremendous ISOs, well above the DX level. This will probably always remain so: the FX sensor is bigger, and can gather more light. Whether this is important to a particular user really depends on the types of photography they like to do, but should be factored into the decision.
Personally, having been a film shooter in the past, I find my needs more than satisfied with DX bodies, at least for the time being. A selection of excellent, lightweight lenses suffices for the vast majority of my photography, while I can put up with the compromises inherent in some parts of the range, especially for fast wide shooting. I'd like some fast prime lens options in the range of 16-28mm but I can live with their absence considering the cost, both financial and in terms of lost flexibility in other types of photography, of switching to FX.
D300S vs D300 vs D90
My upgrade path went from the D40 through the D90 and D300 and then to the D300S. I loved every one of those bodies except, notably, the D300, which was in some ways a step backwards in comparison to the D90 and which I was never completely satisfied with.
The D90 is still a great camera, affording the vast majority of capabilities of the D300S, the exceptions being the inherent handling and feature advantages of the pro bodies. The D90 is also much lighter and physically smaller than the pro bodies, making it a very pleasant camera to shoot, and I would still be using mine were it not for just a couple of relatively minor improvements that make the D300S worth upgrading to. The pro bodies let you define custom setting banks, so that I can switch between different types of shooting easily. Since I do this daily, this is very important to me. Switching from an indoor, tripod-mounted shooting configuration to an outdoor, hand-held shooting configuration on a D90 takes a lot of button presses and a couple of minutes, and there is always the very likely possibility of forgetting to change one critical parameter and not realizing it until it's too late. No matter how serious a photographer you are, if you shoot mostly in similar conditions all the time, or in constantly changing conditions such that pre-defined shooting banks would be useless, then this feature is probably meaningless to you. It happens to be very useful to me.
Likewise the D300S has a couple of features lacking in the D300 that allow for quick settings changes: several shooting parameters (not enough, though) can be changed quickly right on the rear LCD as on the D40/60/3000/5000 bodies, which I find very useful. Also useful, the D300S' function buttons can be programmed to put you at the top selection of a custom-defined menu. Between these two features I can access and change almost any of the commonly changed settings on the D300S (or the D90) very quickly, while the D300 had me hunting through the menu system for far too long. This alone is a significant leap in camera handling for the D300S compared to the D300, and by itself would merit the upgrade in my case.
I wish any of these cameras could be programmed so that the LCD info screen would come on automatically between shots as is the case with the D40-style bodies. I think buyers of higher-end bodies probably consider this an unnecessary or amateur feature, but in my opinion, not so at all! Especially when shooting on a tripod, the info screen is a much quicker and more complete information reference than the top LCD, and especially if ALL the settings could be set directly through it, this would be another extremely valuable aid to quick settings changes. Today's cameras have so many settings, and they need to be changed so often to get the best possible image, that anything Nikon could do to give users quicker access to more settings would be a step forward, for photographers at any experience level.
Other major differences between the D90 and D300S are, in order of approximate decreasing importance, are: 1) Much better focus system on D300 and D300S, 2) More external buttons and switches to quickly change focus and meter settings on D300 and D300S, 3) Usefully quicker continuous shooting speed on D300 and D300S (7fps vs 4.5fps for D90, 6fps for D300), 4) Decently weather-sealed body on D300 and D300S, 5) Rugged pro build quality on D300 and D300S (comes at a cost, though, much larger and heavier), 6) AF fine-tune on D300 and D300S. There are many more differences between the cameras than these, but these are the ones that matter to me.
There is one more biggie. The D300S, unlike either the D300 or D90, has two memory card slots, and I for one love the fact that one holds an SD card and the other a CF card. Most pros prefer CF cards. I'm not a pro, and I marginally prefer SD cards. What I love about this feature, though, is that there is a setting which allows the camera to write a jpeg to one card and a RAW file to the other. I shoot jpeg most of the time but RAW some of the time, and this is by far the easiest way to go between jpeg-only and jpeg-plus-RAW, while ALSO getting all the RAW shots segregated from the jpegs so that you can later decide either to discard them, or to download them to a different folder, at a different time, from the jpegs, without any fancy file-download sorting or trickery. When not using this feature the second card can be set to duplicate or overflow, although I would prefer there to be more flexibility in which card does what function.
While the D300S is the "best" of these bodies in many ways, the features it has over the D90 are just not going to matter to everybody, and the D90 is smaller and lighter enough that it's very seriously worth considering if you don't need them. The D90 is one of the best-positioned, best bang for the buck bodies Nikon has yet made, while the D300S is a superb camera but gives diminishing returns for the dollar, and by the ounce, by comparison.
D300S vs D5000
I know beyond any doubt that there are a lot of photographers buying pro cameras that would be much better served with a smaller, easier to use, easier to carry and handle and store body, and if you can't decide whether to start slow or start whole hog with a pro body, you should really take a look at the D5000. In terms of its ability to capture any given image, the D5000 is the equal of the D300S, and only the time it takes to get that image, or the variety of lenses you can use to do so, really differs. The handling of the D300S, with its multiplicity of features and settings, is going to slow down, not speed up, the process for people who don't use the camera often enough to stay fluent in the layout of its controls and functions. The D5000 gives you much of the flexibility, all of the image quality, and less size, cost, and weight.
Conclusion
I'm going to give the D300S a rating of four stars. Clearly it is only intended to be a minor upgrade with respect to the D300, and it uses the same now-aging sensor used in all these cameras, so it's natural to expect that it is not a blockbuster on the new camera scene. It's not intended to be: Nikon has been busy developing FX bodies and adding to its lens line over the past year or two, this particular corner of the lineup is getting a breather. It is a tremendously competent camera, the top DX body currently available from Nikon, and an excellent tool for the job of photography under almost any conditions. It would be surprising not to see an improvement on the subject of sensor technology within the coming months or year, which would be incorporated into a successor in time. I do think Nikon needs to get to work figuring out ways to make the control interfaces of today's pro cameras more intuitive to use. Better menu systems, more easily accessed; more flexibility in the use of the rear LCD to view and change settings; more flexibility in the enabling of custom menus and setting banks (which are useful but limited as currently implemented), would be high on my list of improvements. Nikon by its nature prefers to evolve its cameras incrementally over a period of years, and although that's a good strategy in some ways, other times it means we get stuck with "legacy" after-effects: backwards-reading meters, mechanical lens interfaces, and old style menu systems that have begun to burst at their seams. Some streamlining of the user experience would make the cameras easier, quicker and more flexible in use.
In a relative sense, though, those things remain nitpicks. The D300S is the best camera I've used, and for my purposes it is the best camera currently on the market.
 Good camera! March 17, 2010
M. Herpers (Europe)
I bought this camera in october 2009, and took it right with me on a road travel thru Tanzania. I read all the reviews from ppl who found it useless to upgrade from a D300 to this D300s. I can agree on those comments, but if you do not have a D300, but lets say a D80 (like i did), then this will be an upgrade wich realy brings you much more. I took this camera with me thru rough weather, exposed it to rain (without soaking it), faced dusty dry regions, and brought it back home without one single failure/ problem. Ofcourse it is not all about the camera, the making of pictures start with the lens, the camera itself is just the tool to make the best out of the light, and this body did the job for me.
I did not buy it because of the HD video function, but i used it a lot to film some wildlife, and must say i am very satisfied with the results. Full HD would have brought this camera a level higher, no arguing on that.
I am very satisfied with the picture quality wich ofcourse can't go without the use of a good photo shopping programm if you work with RAW. I do use Lightroom and CS4 to get to my results and get the results i want.
Twice the camera compared to the D200 March 13, 2010
B. Heimos
I owned a D200 for a few years and really loved the camera and the quality of the images. Many reviews don't give the D300s the credit it deserves compared to the D200. The D300s has many new features that increase the users ability to capture amazing images.
I recommend purchasing David Busch's "Nikon D300s Guide to Digital SLR Photography" to learn all of the new features and to get the most from the camera. His book is an easy read, though rather thick. The illustrations are large and very useful. He has a sense of humor and reading it is fun while you learn about the camera.
I've not spoken to any photographer who owns a D300s that doesn't love the camera. You won't be disappointed.
Superior to most camera bodies in this class March 10, 2010
Thomas B. Wright (Woodstock, Maryland USA)
This is a very good body, it is very important to learn how to use it. I HIGHLY recommend this body as a DX (APS-C) platform, the only advise I can give you is to read the manual cover to cover. This camera has quite a few advanced shooting capabilities and it can take a little time to get used to all the features and where they are in the extensively deep menu system. I would say that the only downfall is the high ISO performance, although for an APS-C sensor it does very well it is still an APS-C sensor and thus has limitations at higher ISO.
Impressed February 24, 2010
Tim Todd (Kingston, WA)
First, I did not buy this for video. I am a photographer. If video was my main concern then I would have bought a video camera. The rolling shutter issue commonly mentioned does happen but only when moving or shaking the camera so fast it would make anyone watching the video dizzy or sick. I have played with the video for the fun of it and non of the videos have had the rolling shutter issue so I really don't think it is much of a problem. I would like to see video dropped so that real useful functions can be added like built-in GPS, voice memos, and built-in wireless data transfer just to name a few.
Without getting long winded in trying to explain every technical detail I can tell you that this camera will offer incredible creative control. My D300s replaced a D200 and I am in awe at the improvements the D300s has over the D200. The two cameras are not even a close comparison. The D300s is faster in every category and has great high iso noise reduction, especially for a DX sized sensor.
I shoot a lot of winter sports and the D300s has great battery life in cold weather. I am also happy with how quick and accurate the autofocus tracks a fast moving subject. I should mention though that autofocus is noticeably slower when using a Sigma or Tamron lens. The Nikon lenses are lightning fast.
All the controls are logically placed and understandable. The menu is incredibly easy to navigate. I especially like how well you can customize nearly every button on the camera to do what ever suits your needs.
Another feature I like is how well it controls multiple flash units. This handles the Nikon Creative Lighting System with precision. I could keep rambling on about how much I am enjoying the D300s but I am tired and will stop here.
I would highly recommend this camera! It makes me smile every time I use it.
Showing reviews 1-5 of 44
|
|
|
