Buy Low Price From Here Now
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 *
Readmore
Technical Details
- 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)
See more technical details
2010-04-03
By John E. Showalter (Quad Cities Illinois Side)
Camera is excellent. Heavier than the D70 I have, but very manageable. Complex camera, you need to spend a lot of time learning the features and reading the manual.
2010-03-21
By Jack (USA)
I received this camera about a week or two ago and have so far been very pleased. I owned a D40x for the longest time and that was a wonderful intro DSLR (and have yet to really see the same quality in the D3000 or D5000 even though they may have more features). After being only ok'd by the D90 which lasted a few weeks before encountering the fatal F-- Error this camera has been very solid and without a hint of an issue.
The camera is a bit heavier, but you're moving into a more solid body compared to the intros and and even the middle grade D90. The ability to use remote flashes and take easily 6fps shots without thinking is wonderful. The 3D tracking system if you adjust the autofocus refresh time is amazing. This is the first camera that I've been wow'd with in a long time. I considered Canon's 50d and even looked highly at the 7d, but the D300s just felt like it was easier to control and easier to work with overall.
2010-03-21
By Jan Chen Blaagaard (USA)
Takes supior pictures. Sharpness and color very good. Easy to approach still maintaining the many options such a camera should have. The only drawback I have noticed - it will take picture immediately when you push the shutter to the bottom even if it has not finished perfect focus.
I have just upgraded to this camera from Nikon D70 and is very satisfied the camera is worth every cent.
2010-03-18
By Glenn Carpenter (Golden, Colorado)
There are plenty of very good comprehensive reviews here of the D300S here already, so I'm instead of posting another I'm 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 the 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. Even so, my personal choice for the majority of my photography is a D300S rather than any of those alternatives. I have also owned and shot with every other camera mentioned here: all are excellent and I believe all can be considered good values for the money spent in today's market. 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 earlier 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. In terms of the finer points it will continue to improve, 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 writing about here, and it affects every image you make with the camera once you buy it. I would strongly advise 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 it's possible to equalize lens selection: but when you begin to look at the practical 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, assuming that your budget allows you a choice between the formats.
The heart 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 it. 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 that they must give up some aspect of performance: zoom ratio, max aperture, optical excellence - to achieve their design objectives.
Because of this, there is really no FX equivalent to the excellent 16-85mm VR DX lens (the 24-120VR is a fairly mediocre lens despite being physically larger). 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 (though 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 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 of course be used on DX cameras, but that realization 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 it should be appropriately factored into the decision. Likewise FX cameras have larger viewfinders, which will probably never be possible on DX cameras: another luxury of FX shooting that does not directly translate to the images that can be produced.
Personally, having been a film shooter in the past, I find my needs more than satisfied by 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 for DX but I can live with their absence considering the cost, both financial and in terms of lost flexibility, 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. I do currently have a D700 as well.
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 the upgrade for me. 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-altered settings on the D300S (or the D90/D700) very quickly, while the D300 had me hunting through the menu system for far too long. This alone is a significant upgrade 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 can be done with the D40-style bodies. I think buyers of higher-end bodies probably consider this an unnecessary or amateur feature, but in my opinion, that is 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 of any experience level.
Other major differences between the D90 and D300S are, in order of approximate decreasing importance to me, are: 1) Better focus system on D300 and D300S, 2) External buttons and switches to quickly change focus and meter settings on D300 and D300S, 3) Usefully quicker continuous shooting speed on D300 and even quicker on D300S (4.5fps for D90, 6fps for D300, 7fps for D300S), 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-tuning 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 (or D700 for that matter), has two memory card slots, and I happen to 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 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, without any fancy file-download trickery. When not using this feature the second card can be set to duplicate or to overflow, although I would prefer there to be more flexibility as to 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, in 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 to go all-out 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. I personally enjoy the smaller cameras very much. I prefer their smaller size and only use the larger, heavier bodies because they have capabilities the smaller bodies lack, and those capabilities are important to me. If those capabilities are of questionable importance to you, consider your needs carefully before you encumber yourself with their extra weight and extra expense.
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 all 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 overflow their banks. 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 for my needs currently on the market.
2010-03-17
By 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.
Images Product
Buy Nikon D300s 12MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) Now
