I have had the pleasure of owning Nikon DSLRs since the D1x, and have owned the following Nikon DSLRs: D70, D80, D200, D2h and the D2x. What I have noticed that every time I upgrade a camera the difference between the previous camera has been less and less, let’s put the case of my first upgrade, from the D1x to the D2h, besides the resolution everything else was worth the upgrade, better AWB, lower noise, at least 3 times more shot on 1 battery, ergonomics to name a few. Now let’s compare it with my upgrade from the D70 to the D80, yes I did gain 4 more megapixel, but I lost the higher sync speed, noise (for my own taste) was acceptable on both, battery life was slightly better on the D80 (not double the amount of shots). This seems to be that digital technology is reaching its peak and advances are getting smaller and smaller, so this leads me to do this test to determine, in my line of work if the newer camera is worth buying to replace my main camera, the D2x. In this case the D300 is the new camera on the block, which I had the opportunity to use for a few shoots already (courtesy of a friend).

In my work, my main source of income comes from shooting commercial photography (studio, fashion, advertising and editorials). I also do events and weddings, but this probably supplements my income to only about 15%. So my choice of camera has to fit my type of photography.

I will go through the criteria when I choose a camera.

1. Resolution – More resolution means larger prints, as simple as that, so in my commercial work this is very important. For events though, clients rarely require large prints so for as long as they are at least 5 megapixels they will work as good.

a. D2x – 12 Megapixels

b. D300 – 12 Megapixels

2. ISO – Every time a new camera is released, the very first thing people seem to ask is what is the highest ISO? Or how clean are the high ISO shots? Indeed having very clean high ISO is heaven sent, specially to events, its either you no longer need to use a flash and create natural looking photos or you can shoot faster with your flash, since it doesn’t need to fire as much thus recycling is much faster. The D300’s ISO that can go as high as 3200 without the need of boosting is just astonishing, and if needed it can even go up as high as 6400 with boost (HI 1), now compare that to the D2x where ISO is only up to 800 and 3200 with boost (HI 2). Comparing the noise of both cameras, I wouldn’t hesitate using the D300 all the way to ISO 1600 and know I will have acceptable (to my standards) images, but with the D2x I try to keep it at ISO 640 or below. Though in commercial photography, I rarely go past ISO 200, and actually even prefer ISO 100, why? Since lighting (strobes and flash) are almost mandatory in commercial photography, having a lower ISO means being able to use a larger opening for my lens, to give me the creative freedom I need in terms of playing with Depth of Field (DOF), cropped sensors are already at a disadvantage of having wider DOF compared to full frame cameras, so being able to use larger aperture can help compensate for this. Shooting outdoors under strong ambient lighting together with strobes and large aperture will require you to have a very low ISO to avoid overexposing your subject. This is the area where the ISO 100 of the D2x is better than the D300 ISO 200. The D300 may have a low boost to simulate ISO 100, but after testing it, I did notice that I tend to lose some details, so unless really necessary, I will try to avoid using it. If only the D300 had a higher flash sync speed to compensate for the ISO 200, but both D2x and D300 share similar flash sync speed of 1/250 sec. So as far High ISO is concerned, hands down the D300 is the clear winner, but for Low ISO, the D2x still edges out the D300.

3. Auto White balance (WB), frames per second (fps) and auto focus speed (AF) these three functions are probably the least important in my main line of work but a life saver for an event photographer. Let me explain, when I shoot the very first thing I do is set my WB to custom then shoot an 18% gray card, after which I will shoot 1 frame of the gray card itself, this is so I have a reference when I do post processing or at the least RAW conversion. I shoot the gray card every time I change a layout (lighting) to give me a WB basis every layout. So 99% of the time my cameras is set to custom (preset) white balance and almost never shoot on Auto white balance. In an event though, where lighting condition can change so fast there isn’t just enough time to create a custom WB, so shooting on Auto is the fastest way of doing it. AWB has improved so much since I started shooting digital, that the D1x AWB was a joke to use, you were better of shooting using cloudy setting and correcting after rather than the unpredictable AWB. Recently or since the D200, AWB was now a very acceptable means of getting close to the color that you would want and every incarnation of a new DSLR model kept improving on this. Between the D2x and D300, both performed beautifully under available light but D2x showed its weakness when using a flash and under mix lighting often exhibiting an orange cast. The D300 on the other hand performed much better when under this situation.

The D2x will shoot 5 fps at 12mp and 8 fps at 6.8mp crop mode while the D300 will shoot 6 fps at 12mp and 8 fps at 8mp with the optional vertical grip and EN-EL4a battery. Just by looking at the specs the D300 is indeed a better fps camera, but is it practical? The D300 can shoot 8 fps with the vertical grip and a different battery that comes with the camera, the cost of the grip, EN-EL4a battery, cover for the battery and charger can easily cost 25% of the camera itself if not more. So personally I don’t think its practical to spend that much for a mere 2 fps. Even with majority of events the fps of both cameras are fast enough, and to a studio photographer irrelevant since when I shoot fashion and commercial, I pause after every shot. So as long as a camera can shoot 2 fps, I am fine.

Both cameras have superb AF, but they are good in different aspects. The D2x has 11 points that are widely spread out to cover more or less half the frame, 9 of which are cross hair. The D300 on the other hand has 51 points but are spaced tighter to each other thus covering a similar area of the frame as the D2x. The D300 also has more cross hair sensors at 15, though they are more they are spaced so closed together that they only cover the center part of the frame. So in this case more may not necessary be better, since subjects are not always stay in the center of the frame. Nikon has yet to move all its AF motors to its lenses, thus speed when using lenses without AF-S motors still rely on the built in motor of the body, in this case I feel that the D2x seems to have a slightly torquier motor, which can move heavier lenses faster and much more responsive.

In conclusion, I find the D300 a slightly better camera for my line of work, but the slight upper hand of the D300 will not make any of my work any faster or better so a change from my current camera is not needed. Though if circumstances are different, and I am not using a D2x camera, I would get the D300 in a heartbeat. I am already slowly increasing my events and weddings, and so the D300 may be part of my kit sooner than later. To those who shoot events more, don’t even think about it and run to your nearest camera shop and get the D300 now!