Discuss Nikon D300
Since the Nikon D300 has been launched, I can see there is no more more than a marketing ploy. You can only use it with JPEGs, which tells me it is almost certainly not improving what is captured before the RAW image is saved. Surely, all it is doing is to manipulate the information captured on the cell, so why not do it in Photoshop afterwards? Active D-lighting is not going to improve the dynamic range you can capture at the shooting stage. Surely that is the case?
With high dynamic range (HDR) alone probably being the deciding factor for me, I have been following developments in digital with very keen interest, especially the D300 and D3, expecting them to be at the leading edge for DSLRs approaching affordability. I am much fascinated with the technological wizardry as much as anything but still very wary about the benefits if, like me, you make a habit of taking high dynamic range shots and insist on the very best results in shadows and highlights simultaneously.
So how about a discussion as to whether I and those like me heavily into HDR really are best advised to stick to film or go digital? If I did take the plunge, it definitely would be for the Nikon D300 or possibly the D3 if I could afford it. With three good Nikon fit lenses and a liking for the very intuitive user interface with Nikon SLRs, I would hate to start over with another make.
With the two Nikon F80s I own along with three high quality lenses, the AF Nikkor 24-85mm f2.8-4 D, AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 G VR and the remarkable Sigma 12-24mm D f4.5-5.6 DG HSM, I can get very high quality prints to Super A3 with near perfect edge to edge sharpness, certainly good enough for landscape shots and street scenes with lots of detail in them. I tame the contrast with Fuji Pro 160 S choosing it because of its lowish contrast and saturation. In fact 40 years ago, I first started using this technique with black and white, then developing Ilford Pan F to low contrast in Beutler which gave excellent sharpness and superb gradation. (The demonstrator at prestigious classes in portraiture in Ealing (London, England) I went to in the 1960s said it was impossible to get a high quality 16″ x 20″ prints from 35mm but capitulated when he saw my results.)
I found it very difficult printing in colour, so five years ago after seeing Charlie Waite’s superb landscape prints at an exhibition in London and discovering that his prints were digital, I invested in a new PC, Epson 2100 printer (2200 in the US) and a Nikon Coolscan IV ED scanner and moved to digital printing. It is much easier to get high quality and good colour balance in digitally made prints.
So the choice is between the very considerable extra time, effort and cost with film to scan each shot or the equally large outlay for a D3 or D300. It would take quite a few films to equal the cost of either body! And what about the size and weight of the camera body? For me, it’s enough to have to put up with the F80 plus a fairly heavy lens - hardly miniature! If you want top quality in a truly compact and lightweight 35mm, it would probably have to be a Leica M series. Still Nikon D300 digital camera would be the best to buy!
Relative links about Nikon D300
Nikon New Introduce D300 Digital Camera
D300 is a Dream to Use and Hold