Shoot with Nikon D300 for a day. Impression!

I had chance to shoot with Nikon D300 yesterday. Lens used was Nikkor 18-135 kit lens and 50mm f1.8. Here is some first impression that I want to share with Canon user here. Nothing scientific, just some experience, some praise, some complain throughout the day. And I am NOT comparing image quality because I just know too little about the D300 IQ as of now.

Baseline of this comparison is my memory to Canon 40D, which I owned for about 6 monthes but now sold.

First, let me make some short comments on these two lens. Both lens are not very special by themselves. But compare to Canon counter part in same price range, these two Nikkors are much better build. Compare Nikkor 18-135 to Canon EF-s 18-55IS, The plastic used in the Nikkor seems to be batter quality, namey more solid feel. The zoom ring is better dump. It also has ring type AF motor and non rotating front element. Overall, I am quite impressed with this kit lens. The 50mm f/1.8 goes without saying. The Canon version is just build cheap.

Now onto the D300. First, what I don't like:
1. Location of the front dial. It kind of sucks. Holding the body with index finger on shutter (ready to shoot position), my middle finger is just below the front dial. If I want to change setting, I don't know which finger I should use. My middle finger is too close to the dial which left little room for index finger to grip onto the dial. If I try to use middle finger to spin the dial, the D300 body will be held only by my ring and pinky which feels very unstable. What I ended up doing is to shift my right hand lower everytime I want to use the front dial so that my index finger can spin the front dial properly.

2. Changing ISO require 2 hands. Left hand to hold down the ISO button, right hand to spin rear dial with thumb. This will be painful when using long/heavy lens like 70-200f2.8vr. Actually, change WB and quality also requires both hands, but if you shoot raw, you are not likely to change these two settings.

3. On the left side under the WB, ISO buttons, there is a dedicated dial that controls drive mode, live view, timer and mirror lock up. I think this is a better approach than Canon, but Nikon screwed it up by having a small lock botton which require fully to fully depress before the dial can be turned. This lock botton is placed in such a location which make it hard to have the whole action done with just left hand. If Nikon get rib of the lock botton and just use a dial with more discrete tactile feel, this would be a very good implementation.

4. Relative to #3 above. With such a dial control, I wonder if it is possible to use live view + timer, mirror lockup + timer. It seems not possible, but there maybe a setting in the menu which I didn't have time to study.

5. Live view activation is not as good as 40D. With D300, you first have to set the dial describe in #3 to LV, then when you half press the shutter, live view come on. But then you cannot deactivate live view UNLESS 1) take a picture 2) turn the dial to position other than LV. To make it worse, after taking a shot in LV, LV will be turned off. You have to half press shutter to activate LV again. I live the 40D method much better - press one butter to activate or deactive LV. Simple and intuitive.

6. The multi-directional button. It seems to be too much recessed into the body and have little feedback. I like the size of it but I like the overal feel of the Canon one better. Only if Canon can make its multi-directional butter a little larger, it will be perfect.

7. ISO indication for 100, 125 and 160. Nikon calls them L1.0, L0.7 and L0.3. I wonder why they just want to make it harder than it needs to be.

8. AF feel noticeabely slower than 40D. 40D snaps into focus quickly. D300 moves into focus in a very "calm" way. I have no comment on accurate at this moment. They seem to be about the same.

Now, what I like:
1. D300 is build better. This is just the feel of touch. Better door and CF door implementations are better than 40D. I can see why D300 is water resistant and 40D is not just by these two place.

2. Viewfiner. It is noticeably bigger than 30D/40D. Brightness is about the same. But they are not the reason I like it. Reasons are the amount of stuff it can display. Such as grid, batter status, and AF point selection. The last time is what I like the most. Nikon display a rectangle around the selected AF point at all the time. With 40D, the selected AF point only light up when AF is achieve or when you are in the process of selected AF points.

3. Dedicated metering mode and Focus & AF mode switchs. I can adjust them without taking eye off viewfiner even it is my first time with D300. In Canon, you have to press buttter, spin wheel. Nikon is just easier here.

4. Metering on time is customizable. This is a nice feature because there are quite a few important setting can only be change while the meter is on. I always feel Canon's meter on time is too short and it is not adjustable.

5. Number of frame left is always display on top LCD even when camera is power off. I wonder why Canon is not doing it.

6. In Av mode, you can set the min shutter speed when flash is used. A nice feature to avoid motion blur. In Canon, we have to use M mode to avoid shutter gets too slow in dark. Not big deal, but Nikon make it easier. But besides this, I don't see how Nikon flash system is better than Canon. They seem to be about the same to me.

7. Shutter sound. Not sure how to describe, but Nikon sounds better to me, quieter, less intrusive sound. Canon's shutter sound seems to be dominated by the flap of mirrow. Nikon's is dominiated by the sweep of the shutter. In other words, Nikon seems to have quieter mirror.

8. Didicated AF assist lamp. Why Canon doesn't have one. When not using speetlite, Canon use flash pulse as AF assist which I think it is very annoying.

9. Flash commander mode actually works. In Canon we have to buy a bulker $200 ST-E2. To me, the $200 is OK, but the bulkiness of the ST-E2 almost defeat the purpose. I may as well just use 580EX. If Canon were charge $200 more for for a body with a internal built in ST-E2, I will for sure have it.

10. LCD. I didn't it make much of difference until I use it. The higher resolution LCD really pop. Now I am glad Canon is having it in newer body.

Other comments, which I dont really care:
1. Pop up flash relase. Canon use a electric motor, Nikon just spring loaded switch directly commet to the release button. Canon seems more fanzy here.

2. D300 as EC in manual mode. Kind of a strange feature.

3. Contrast detect AF in live view. I used it once only. It is way too slow. It is nice to have but really not very pratical.

4. The bigger top LCD in D300. I used to think this is a advantage, but after using it, I feel it is too busy. It seems to display things that I don't care and this make the useful setting smaller. So I think they are about the same for this one.

These are all I can think of. Obviously, I didn't explore all options and setting of the D300. All these are just my observation after using it for a day. Overall, I am impressed. It is a good camera. If I were to get in DLSR, I will sure give it a serious look. But would I sell my Canon for Nikon, as of now I have no plan for that. I don't see enough advantages of switching.

Recent price reductions on the D300, and a sort of high introductory price on the 50D are creating inevitable comparisons. The two big selling points of the 50D in terms of Canon's marketing are high ISO performance and fast AF. Both of these have become muddled is a sea of confusion.

As for the OP's observations regarding ergonomics, I believe this is really an area of personal taste. Anyone who wants to can learn either system and use it well.

From what I have been able to dig out of tests and my personal experience with Canon, Nikon excels in consistency of how its automation works. That would be better or more consistent AF, AE and Auto ISO. With a skilled photographer I believe either make will provide great IQ. There are days when my plastic bodied XSi provides IQ that needs no improvement, and I seriously think it has a lot more to do with how tuned in I am, the subject matter and the light.

Many around here make a big deal about Canon glass being better or at least a better value. It sometimes looks that way, but I believe it depends a lot on what the individual needs. There are some great third party lenses out there like the Tokina 11-16 which are real equalizers. I actually find the Nikon 16-85 to be very attractive. Due to the slightly lower multiplier, 16mm on a Nikon gives a 24 mm (relative to 135) FOV, something you can not do on a Canon crop body with a standard zoom. Furthermore, the Canon 17-85 is sort of a dog. I don't shoot sports or birds, so the "great whites" don't figure in my plans prominently.

I have not made up my mind yet. The XSi is on Craigslist, and I do not have a big collection of glass anchoring me.

I switched from an XTi to the D300 and have similar praises and complaints. In particular, the front dial has very unfortunate placement that is just too close to the middle finger. I like having 2 dials, but if Nikon had moved that dial up 2mm it would have been perfect (I have slim fingers, so those with bigger hands probably have it worse).

The multidirection button is mushy and has no feedback. The center press on the multidirection is also very poor feeling and there's a good chance you'll press a direction while pressing it.

Changing ISO, in my opinion, is a little better than the XTi because it isn't a menu, but the button placement is a little awkward. Same for WB and Image Quality, though I don't change those settings often enough for it to be a big deal. I shoot RAW, and either use Auto or custom WB. Auto ISO is very useful, but I don't understand why Nikon decided to bury that option into the menu system.

Nikon's menu system is much worse than Canon's, period.

Nikon's shutter/mirror is incredibly responsive and crisp, but I've found it to be very loud in comparison to the XTi. Dunno how it compares to the 40D, but I thought the 40D was quieter than the XTi.

I do like the build quality. It is solid and well sealed at the battery compartment, card slot, and cable connections. Supposedly it has decent sealing at the seams, and under buttons.

I've found the focus to be much faster and much more "sure" than the XTi. Not sure how it compares to the 40D. It focuses very consistently, and focuses well in low light.

ISO performance is very good. Quality at 3200 is impressive, and 6400 is quite usable with some processing.

I prefer Nikon's build quality on their cheaper lenses. The 50 1.8 is actually built fairly well, and has a very smooth focus ring with precise travel.
Their higher end lenses are comparable in build quality to Canon L's, and many new Nikon lenses have a sealed mount.

Really, a lot of things are personal preference, and the rest are comparable between Canon and Nikon. I don't regret switching, but I would probably be just as happy either way.

wow, the OP covered pretty much everything and i agree on pretty much everything!

one thing to note about AF is that the D300 is as fast as a 20D. having played with a 50D recently, that thing has amazingly quick AF, and that was with the 18-200 lens! i cant imagine how blindingly quick a 17-55IS would be on a 50D.

on the other hand, the 3D tracking on a D300 is so fun to use, tracking subjects almost becomes video game-like. sometimes i found myself just watching the different AF points light up trying to keep up with the subject.

no sRAW with the nikons, but 40D users shouldnt worry about file sizes anyways. now, 50D users... sRAW may come quite handy for them!

the D300's optional grip is much better than canon's bg-e2. seamless connection with the D300 (or D700 for FF upgrading later on!), and even has the AF multi-selector for use with vertical shooting. nice touch.

one more selling point with nikon is their US warranties for lenses: 5 YEARS!

bottom line, anyone entering the DSLR world right now is in for a treat no matter which camera they get...happy shooting!

After using the D3 for a while I am very happy with my choice
Can't stand the way it works, and the AF sucks by comparison...

Yeah for you.... only one detail.... no one is comparing the D3 to the 1D mk III. But other then that, we are all very happy for you.

50d, xsi, and 5dmkii have contrast detect af, so canon already countered you there.
and for 5., why? Canon already tells you how many images are left to write to the buffer, and you don't need to know how many shots are left on the card when you turn it off, so why waste battery keeping the lcd active?

Well done review. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

mark

basroil wrote in post #6450446
50d, xsi, and 5dmkii have contrast detect af, so canon already countered you there.
and for 5., why? Canon already tells you how many images are left to write to the buffer, and you don't need to know how many shots are left on the card when you turn it off, so why waste battery keeping the lcd active?

So you don't run out the door thinking you have an empty card in the camera only to find out your forgot to download the last bunch of shots. Not a huge deal, but a nice touch. Hardly a deal maker or breaker.

I am going to have to say that you are correct on most things you went over.
Three things I dislike about nikon are-

1. Nikon has the top LCD always on unless you have the battery out. It always annouyed me, but that is just me.

2. The D300 has better tracking abilities then my 20D, but it is slower to focus with equal lenses on it. With they 70-200mm F2.8's on it, the canon is far faster. The new 50D I played with was the fastest focusing body I had. It was with a 300mm F2.8L IS, it was focused before I pressed the half press of the shutter release, that fast.

3. I also don't like the lack of a good feeling in the shutter release. There is no real good stop between half press and full press.
Nick

Croasdail wrote in post #6450645
So you don't run out the door thinking you have an empty card in the camera only to find out your forgot to download the last bunch of shots. Not a huge deal, but a nice touch. Hardly a deal maker or breaker.

I just prefer to dump cards right after an event because everything gets cataloged and keyworded, some captions, before the day is out to make sure nothing slips through the crack before culling and editing... Hence don't really understand a need/want for that thing

I was expecting the 50D to be the upper cut to Nikon fortheir D300 and well... it sure as hell wasn't. I was ready to buy the 50D, I thought Canon would answer Nikon, instead, more of the same..

Instead of jumping ship I bought a used 1D Mark II N, but Canon really needs to answer Nikon's D300.

Contrast detect AF, after using D300, I personally think it is highly overrated. It is extremely slow. It is a nice to have feature only if it can be switch back to mirror-drop type of AF. Otherwise, it will make LV unuseful.

#5 is just a nice touch. I do wish Canon can do it, but if not, I won't switch to Nikon because of that.

basroil wrote in post #6450446
50d, xsi, and 5dmkii have contrast detect af, so
canon already countered you there.
and for 5., why? Canon already tells you how many images are left to write to the buffer, and you don't need to know how many shots are left on the card when you turn it off, so why waste battery keeping the lcd active?

Why is it that some people refuse to accept that Nikon will ever do something good?

radiohead wrote in post #6451561
Why is it that some people refuse to accept that Nikon will ever do something good?

It seems most people who have already responded in this thread are just offering their preferences (e.g. do/don't like the always on LCD). How does that translate into refusing to accept that Nikon will ever do something good?

e-k