Nikon D300 vs D300s
Nikon has just announced the new Nikon D300s, so I decided to post a quick comparison between the old Nikon D300 and the new Nikon D300s.
Nikon D300s
Basically, the new D300s is exactly the same camera as the D300 in terms of features, except for the following:
- D300s will shoot HD movies at 720p resolution, 24 FPS with stereo audio. Maximum length is 5 minutes for 720p and 20 mins for lower video resolutions.
- D300s will be slightly faster than the D300, shooting 7 FPS in Ch mode (Nikon D300 is 6 FPS). With MB-D10 battery pack, it will shoot 8 FPS.
- A new release mode "Q" (quiet shutter-release) will be added to the dial right after Ch (continuous high speed).
- Dual card slots - the Nikon D300s will feature dual card slots to work with both CompactFlash and SD (SDHC-compliant) cards. Either card can be used as the primary card. Secondary card can be used for overflow or backup storage, or for separate storage of NEF (RAW) and JPEG images and images can be copied between cards.
- Active D-Lighting now has "Auto" and "Extra High" added. "Auto" is something expected, as both D700 and D90 have this mode. The "Extra High" is something new though.
- Nikon D300s is slightly heavier than the D300, adding 15 more grams of weight, weighing total 840g total.
- Nikon D300s has a dedicated "Lv" (LiveView) and "Info" buttons on the back of the camera.
Nikon D300s Back
Along with the new Nikon D300s, Nikon released an entry-level Nikon D3000 (which replaces D60) along with two updated lenses - Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 DX and Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II. I really don't care about the 18-200mm lens update, since I sold mine and I'd rather be shooting with quality primes instead, but the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II is definitely a worthy update that everyone has been waiting for. However, the 70-200mm price point left me scratching my head...$2,400 is too darn expensive! That's $500 over what the current version of 70-200mm f/2.8 is selling for.
Is D300s worth the upgrade? If you already have a D300 and do not care about the video feature (which kind of sucks, since I was expecting full HD at 1080p), it is not worth the upgrade. The sensor of the new D300s is basically identical to the older D300. It is nice that the D300s has dual slots and faster frame rate, but it is nothing extraordinary.
Related posts:
07/28/2009 - 04:33
How about the price?
07/28/2009 - 09:19
WebMonster: I believe the price will be the same as when D300 was announced, which is $1,800 for camera body only.
08/15/2009 - 09:08
when will Nikon announce the prince in Malaysia?
08/22/2009 - 07:49
Will the D300 price drop at all with the arrival of the new D300s?
08/25/2009 - 13:59
what about the differene between the older Nikkor 18-200 mm VR lense vs 18-200 VRII lense. what is the difference between the two? thanks
08/26/2009 - 01:36
myke: I have no idea, please check with your local Nikon rep.
Dee: Absolutely, it already has!
saqib: My understanding is that the only thing that got added to the new 18-200mm VR is the lock on the lens barrel to prevent lens “creep”. The older 18-200mm would creep when extended beyond 35-50mm both upwards and downwards, so the new update addresses this issue.
09/04/2009 - 23:18
I’m considering an upgrade for my D40. Would you recommend a D300 or a D300s?
09/07/2009 - 06:21
chy: I would recommend a D300s, since it is a newer/faster camera with more features.
11/23/2009 - 13:13
hi there,
I do have a D40 and have been thinking about upgrading. i’m curious as to which nikon you ended up getting?
11/23/2009 - 13:50
hi,
i ended up getting a D300 from cameta camera because it’s 400 dollars cheaper and i don’t really need the movie feature on the D300s. I’m loving the D300 now! :)
Emily
11/23/2009 - 14:06
Chy, congratulations with the purchase! :) D300 is definitely a great camera and I’m sure it will serve you well!
11/23/2009 - 14:08
Beezer, if money is not an issue, get a D300s. Otherwise, get a D300 and invest the difference in quality professional glass instead! :)
09/27/2009 - 10:03
I’m considering an upgrade for my D80. Would you recommend a D300 or a D300s?
09/27/2009 - 11:13
Wincent, get the D300s, as it has a much better frame rate and many other advantages over the D300.
10/12/2009 - 11:37
I am upgrading from D80 to D300 or D300s. D300s will cost 1750 the body. I can buy a friend D300 almost new with 3 batteries for USD 1000.00. Does 750.00 really worth the diference in get and shooting a really good picture? What will you do?
10/12/2009 - 18:04
Cherrerra: If you are comfortable with buying a used body, then you are better off with a D300 and more money towards buying pro-level glass (lenses). And the $750 difference is really not worth the difference, unless you are shooting sports and need the speed and/or movies.
10/13/2009 - 11:01
For a first time user/buyer, but highly dedicated learner,who is interested in a D300S, is this the camera for me? I have been learning a lot about DSLR’s and I have been researching the right camera for me. What do you think?
10/13/2009 - 11:06
Brendan, if you have never owned a DSLR, I highly recommend to start with a lower-end DSLR such as the Nikon D5000, simply because the D300s might be too much to get started. I also highly recommend reading my “DSLR Purchase Guide” here: http://mansurovs.com/dslr-purchase-guide
Instead of wasting your money on a high-end DSLR, I recommend investing in professional-grade lenses, unless you have some specific needs such as shooting sports, birding, etc.
10/13/2009 - 13:03
Thanks for replying, and I did read that article; very informative! Thank you. However, I am very serious about photography (more than I have ever been) and look to it as a very new hobby of my. I will not feed around the bush, and so I will be frank in saying I still want the 300s, even though you say go lower. Lol, And here is why. I hope to get a lot of use out of this, and quite frankly I am not satisfied with all of the specs and features in less expensive models. I also hope for this to be my main camera for a long long time. Also this one shoots in HD Video, which is astounding next to its photography features. Frankly, the D5000 did not satisfy me with it’s far less unsuperior modes, specs, “max’s and mim’s”, etc. as compared to a camera such as the D300s.
10/13/2009 - 13:05
Along with that I want to take a far leap into my new hobby and to blow people away with all that I already know and hope to know later on.
10/13/2009 - 14:32
Brendan, seems like you are getting into serious photography, which is great! But keep something in mind – when you say that you want to use the D300s for a “long time”, you probably mean 3-4 years max, since cameras get updated every 2 years. If this is your first DSLR, I would seriously suggest to either borrow a similar camera or rent it for a couple of days, before you make the final decision. Again, it is totally up to you and I am not trying to push you for a lower-end camera. I have just seen too many people that buy a professional-grade DSLR and then complain that the camera is “too much” for them.
You can blow people away with any camera – remember, it is not about the camera, but about what you can see as a photographer.
Just my 2 cents.
10/13/2009 - 15:47
thank you for your insite. My last question is if you were going to be serious and actually go out and learn all about photography, is this a good camera to have? That might be a stupid question, its just that I want to get serious so is this a “serious” camera?
10/18/2009 - 14:43
Hi, I m making an upgrade from a d90 to D300s i am still little confused that should I go with d700 as i know its alot better in ISO than d300s . I also came to know that Nikon is launching d700s in some timeso i didnt want to buy a high end d700 and then feel bad when they launch d700s. so what you guys suggest? I m doing most of my shoots for either Fashion/portraits and weddings.
10/19/2009 - 08:01
If I were in you place, I’d ask myself first why do I need to upgrade from a D90 to a D300s. A follow up question to that is what is it that I can NOT do / capture with my D90 that I’d be able to with a D300s, moreover, a D700 (…then a D700s). This would put things in better perspective.
Eventually, and I think the others would agree, spending your hard earned money on quality glass would be the better choice rather than getting a new camera body.
At the end of the day, it’s how you deal with your upgrade itch…you don’t really need it, you just want it. :) Whatever the case may be, good luck with your decision!
Cheerio!
10/19/2009 - 11:52
I totally agree with Chester. The first thing I would do is find out what your D90 cannot do that a D300s/D700 can for your needs.
On D700s – where did you hear that Nikon is releasing one? Wherever you read it from, it is a wild guess and we might or might not see a D700s. Sure, it makes sense for a D700s after D3s was released, but there is no guarantee that it will actually happen.
10/19/2009 - 12:00
Thanks MegaZ :)
I understand I dont see any much difference between d90 and d300s except some fency features. but I know with d700 its alot better on ISO than d300s and d90 and its a full frame. Amazon is selling it for $2450 it was $2700 few days back. About d700s its posted on almost every website that Nikon is launching it in October.
thats what is making me confused .. need a good help :)
10/19/2009 - 12:11
You are welcome! Well, one thing for sure, Nikon will NOT announce a D700s this month, since they already announced the D3s and Nikon never announces two different cameras in two separate announcements…
Like I stated above, I would not expect anything to be released at least until December. If you look at the release dates of Nikon D3 and D700, there was a 6 month wait until D700 came out. I expect the same thing for D700s, so probably another 6 months before it is released.
10/19/2009 - 08:23
Thanks :)
My only reason at this point to upgrade is to get a better camera body than the d90 as some one is buying my d90 in a very good price i m only loosing $100 on it. i want to go with a full frame and a high ISO as i face some issues with low light on weddings and enets i shoot. the only thing which is making me confused is the “so called” launching of new version of d700 so i dont want to buy a new d700 and feel bad in a month or so when Nikon launches the newer version of d700. I have noney to spare for a full frame at this point but not for a D3 series
10/19/2009 - 12:03
If you can wait for 3-6 months to see a D700s or a similar announcement, then go ahead and wait. If you need to sell your camera now and need another camera, get a D700 now and don’t look back.
I am not expecting anything from Nikon this year, but there might be a small announcement right before the holiday season. If it doesn’t happen, then the next announcement would be late Q1 of 2010.
10/19/2009 - 12:09
MagZ.. what you said makes alot of sense.
I guess i ll see for a week or so and then will go for a d700 as i need a full frame with high iso. if Nikon is going to take months before they can launch a new d700 then i guess i cant wait that long
Thankyou :)
10/19/2009 - 12:14
Yes, D700 is at least twice better than D300s in terms of noise. If you shoot in low light environments, you will be amazed by what D700 can give you. I never raise my ISO higher than 800 on my D300 and even ISO 800 is kind of pushing it, whereas on my D700 I can shoot ISO 1600 and sometimes even ISO 3200 and still like the results.
D700 is a steal at $2450 – I bought mine for $2999 right after it was announced.
10/19/2009 - 12:17
I guess then d700 it is :)
10/19/2009 - 12:30
You will not regret it! I absolutely love my D700.
10/23/2009 - 09:14
Hi, why are you not considering the D800?! (battery-pack attached to the body and of course the HD-film option)
10/24/2009 - 08:39
Here’s my two cents:
The “worth” or “value” of a camera — particularly for a novice — depends on where you start. I’m new to the SLR/DSLR world (July 2009). I purchased a d90 b/c I didn’t want to buy a d40 and, in six or eight months, be thinking that I should have bought a d90. For the past month, however, I’ve been looking at the D300 and D700. Why? I was taking photos at a family event and got a very practical appreciation for my camera’s ISO capability. The room wasn’t “dark” for human vision purposes; but it was dark for photography purposes (I didn’t want to use the on-camera flash due to the look it creates). “Dark” means that many of my shutter speeds were 1/30 and, for me, that is slow enough that many of the photos had too much movement (I had no tripod, either). Anyway, enough photos came out good (or good enough) because the ISO was around 800-1600; but I could notice the noise (now, you have to realize that for those of us who aren’t into photography and are at an event where they’re not expecting crystal clear photos, the noise in my photos wouldn’t even register as a complaint). But I’ve been thinking how much better most of my photos would have been had a camera with the capability of a d700. Now, why am I looking at a d300 if its ISO is equal (or a little less so) to my d90? Because I can look around and find a d300 (not a 300s) at a price much closer to that which I paid for my d90; by my reasoning, I get “another” d90 which can do a little more in some areas. Anyway, at the moment, I would say start with a d90; because if you get very comfortable with it (and I’m not talking about using Program or Automatic or other point-and-shoot modes) then you’ll really see/understand what the more advanced cameras can do for YOU. When you’re comfortable with it, you’ll better understand the various comments around the Internet about what the camera can or can not do. Let’s face it: most of the Internet commentary is rather cryptic and stated in absolutes; without being solidly grounded yourself, it’s hard to put a value on these comments. I would say I’ve been on a fairly fast learning curve (considering photography is not my day job, not do I intend it to be) because I’m very motivated
11/23/2009 - 13:59
Carl,
Thank you for sharing your story! I, too, started with a Nikon D80 (back then there was no D90) and then eventually got myself a D300, then a D700, which I’m using mostly today.
There are many things to consider when purchasing a brand new DSLR. I always recommend getting the most basic DSLR, because most people who never used a DSLR find it hard already to switch from an automatic point and shoot to a “serious” DSLR. Adding heavy price on top of that adds to the weight and some people might even get discouraged, thinking that photography is all about the best camera. As I have pointed out in several of my articles, a camera is just a tool – it’s the photographer that makes great pictures. That’s why I recommend to go with the most basic camera and rather invest in a quality lens instead. Glass is to keep, while a camera body is updated every two years.
In your situation in a dim environment, if you were prohibited from using flash, then yes, a Nikon D700 might have produced better-looking images. But remember, it’s all about your technique and light. You could always tell your subjects to freeze, you could try to stabilize your camera by leaning against the wall or holding the camera properly, etc. If flash was allowed, you could create some amazing pictures that would look tons better than an image without a flash – by simply bouncing the light off the ceiling. So if I were given a choice of only owning a single D700 versus a D90/D300 with a flash unit such as SB-800/SB-900, I would definitely pick the latter with a flash.
Here are some of my articles that I recommend:
http://mansurovs.com/dslr-purchase-guide
http://mansurovs.com/how-to-take-sharp-photos
http://mansurovs.com/how-to-take-good-pictures
Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Nasim
01/27/2010 - 09:32
Short of the Video, D300s kind of reminds me of D70s where there was hardly any upgrade from the non-’s’ version. I had a D70 and upgrading to D300 has been worth the effort. Maybe, sometime in 2011, when they have a D400, I may get tempted. For the moment I’d love to pick up a few lenses. I wish Nikon introduced a F/4 series of Nikkors, a la Canon.
01/27/2010 - 17:42
uspandey, I totally agree with you! I’m not upgrading my D300 to D300s either and I too wish Nikon had a bigger selection of affordable lenses :)
02/03/2010 - 14:46
Which camera manufacturer HAS the largest selection of affordable lenses?
02/05/2010 - 02:39
Without a doubt, it would be Canon. That’s the biggest weakness of Nikon at the moment…
02/13/2010 - 18:43
thanks for the explanation, I really don”t care about the video. So I will buy the d300.
I have a canon ,but I love the nikon colors, could you help me with lenses, I need for portrait I’m so confuse with the nikon series and my budget is limited, but I really want a very quality lens .
ps: I’m a photographer student and English isn’t my frist language! sorry my poor grammatical Thank you again.
02/14/2010 - 01:13
Liz, the best lenses for portrait photography are Nikon 50mm f/1.4G and Nikon 85mm f/1.4D. You can also take a look at Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II, but it is not cheap…
Hope this helps.
02/14/2010 - 19:36
Thank you for your quick response! I’ll definitely check those lenses.
02/15/2010 - 14:39
Liz, you are most welcome!
02/17/2010 - 01:44
right now im using d40x…bt now i wanna upgrade it…..bt now im confused wat to buy….is it d300,d300s or d700….im not dat much interested in vdo….n ofcoz i want a cam dat is defintly better in noise reduction for lowlight photography…as d700 is better in dat case,bt its more expensive dan d300…..bt is it worth buying?
02/17/2010 - 12:40
Chupachup, the Nikon D700 is a full-frame camera, which means that it will have much lower noise in high ISOs than D300 or D300s. It is a superb camera and I use it for all of my landscape and lifestyle photography needs.
And yes, it is definitely worth buying!
10/13/2009 - 17:35
Brendan, you are welcome!
Absolutely, D300s is a serious professional camera. There are only two cameras in Nikon line above the D300s – D3 and D3x, but they are very expensive and are considered to be “top” professional gear.
01/20/2010 - 20:43
Brendan, I really don’t mean to be rude, but as was said earlier. Its not the camera. Its obvious by what you have said, you really have no clue about any of the equiptment. The camera contributes to the photo, but not as much as the photographer & lense does. Don’t buy an expensive camera to impress your friends. Even the D90 will do EVERYTHING that anyone is capable of. You are biting off more than you can chew. Even the D5000 can do things that will take you months or longer to comprehend. I am also a bird hunter. I can’t tell you how many people go out and spend many thousands of dollars on a shotgun that they couldn’t hit the ground with. They just wanted people to see an expensive shotgun in their hands.
I’m not trying to be rude, but you eally don’t even need a camera that has RAW capabilities. You still have to learn how to process your images. Go slow, you will enjoy it MUCH more.
10/17/2009 - 14:02
I think you missed the D700.
@Brendan: In my opinion, most if not all Nikon DSLRs can get the job done whether you’re serious about photography or not. I think what MegaZ is suggesting is if you’re just getting started, might as well get an entry-level DSLR and invest more on the glass since cameras get upgraded every so often…putting your money in quality glass is a better investment. Goodluck!
10/18/2009 - 00:24
Chester, you are right, I forgot about the D700 :) Sorry about that!
Thanks for clarifying my point!