Nikon D300 Review

The summer surprise of 2007 was the announcement of a second "pro" camera along with the long-awaited and eagerly wanted FX-frame D3. What's this, Nikon users asked, a D200 replacement already?

As I wrote at the time, I considered the D300 less of a D200 replacement than an absolute take out of the D200 and D2x in one body. Say what you will, but Nikon has not been reluctant to obsolete their own products even before they come to their expected end-of-life cycles. We've seen plenty of examples of aggressive design decisions from Nikon in their eight years of DSLR making, but the D300 is amongst the most aggressive of all.

Consider for a moment: take the already well-regarded D200 and put in a better sensor than the D2x, faster frame advance than the D2x, (mostly) better autofocus than the D2x, faster card write speed than a D2x, and a much better color display than a D2x, and what do you get? Well, a D2x killer, as evidenced by the huge number of D2x bodies that hit the used market. Add other features sprinkled here and there, like autofocus fine tuning and Live View, and just on the basics, the D300 all at once rendered the D2x and D200 as completely old generation, behind-the-times cameras. (I'll have more to say about this at the end of the review, though; the low used price of a D2x puts a different spin on the story.)

The question on everyone's mind has been singular: is the D300 really that good? Short answer: yes. However, I'll eventually get to a long laundry list of things that Nikon didn't get right on the D300. The basics and image quality are all there and top notch; it's only in the details that you find some rough spots, likely caused by the short time frame in which new designs are being produced these days. Personally, I would have preferred a six month wait and have all the wrinkles fixed, but I'll take what we got, because what we got is better than what we had, and not by a small margin.

more : bythom