This is my principal camera, the Nikon D300. It exists in the professional DX/APS-C sensor-sized camera line. This lineage consists of the Nikons D100, D200 and D300. The D100 was the original prosumer/pro camera introduced in 2002 with many decidedly pro features, based on the N80 film body. The D70 was subsequently introduced as the "Canon Digital Rebel Killer" in 2004, and as their consumer camera of the time, did feature some improvements over the D100, but fewer controls on the body. The D200 came out in 11/2005, still as a semi-pro camera, now in a magnesium-alloy body, as befitting semipro/pro bodies. Now with the D300, Nikon has split this camera line and the D3 into their pro line, and they've filled in their consumer line (D40(x)/D50/D60) and prosumer lines (D80 and D200, still in production as of 3/27/08) nicely. The D300 replaces the Nikon D2x for those who wish to remain with the DX format. Nikon starts the full-frame sensor line with the D3, hopefully with other full-frame bodies at various price points (such as the price point of this camera) forthcoming.
The 12.3 megapixel D300 features a DX/APS-C sized CMOS sensor (23.6 x 15.8mm), which greatly improves power consumption over previous Nikon DSLR models, as CCD sensors have higher power requirements. One caution for those who perform "wet" cleans of their sensor: You'll need to switch from Eclipse solution to their E2 solution, as this sensor uses indium tin oxide, which is vulnerable to damage from a pure methanol solution such as Eclipse. I've never personally had to perform a wet clean, and have only manually cleaned using the Copperhill SensorSweep dry-brush method. This body is Nikon's first to feature self-cleaning by rapidly vibrating the AA filter to shake off dust, so perhaps the number of dry brush cleans I do (not that many) will be reduced. ISO signal-to-noise ratio has been improved some more in this model, and I would not hesitate to go above ISO 400 on this model if needed.
The D200 was absolutely no slouch and was more camera than I'm capable of taking full advantage of. I did get quite a few good pictures out of the D200 over the years. Initially I vowed that I was going to sit the D3/D300 generation out and wait for the next generation. My move, you could say, was to "keep up with the Joneses." I wanted to upgrade before the D200 value dropped too far down...I was able to get the price I was hoping for by selling the D200 just after getting the D300 on 3/27/08. I do stock photography, so the added pixels give a little greater cropping room. It wasn't hugely necessary, as 2mp extra over 10.2 isn't a huge margin. The overall rationale here is that of currentness...being in stock photography means that your pictures are available to a wide audience for purchase, and having the latest gear may give a leg up (photography/artistic skills aside...the D200 is plenty capable of accomodating any level of artistic capability, so I don't want to discourage anyone from buying a D200 second-hand to save some money.)
I love it not so much for just the major features, such as live view, nor the photo-finishing stuff like on-the-fly D-Lighting, nor inclusion of TIFF, nor uncompressed and lossless-compressed NEF Raw, nor is it sensor cleaning, nor even the 2 extra MPs...and not even that new-fangled AF system. That's not to say I don't appreciate any of those things. It's really all the small things. The D300 is much better at power consumption than the D200 (thanks to CMOS versus CCD technology.) This is probably my favorite of the "small things." I really love the keeper gaskets over the 10-pin socket and PC Sync...I don't know how many times I've torn off a corner of my fingernail unscrewing those little black caps which the D200 used...and then keeping track of those little things when I wanted to use my cable release. I love the additional viewfinder coverage...those extra 5% coverage does help and now I really know that what I see is what I'll get...no more tree branches or other supposedly outside elements creeping into the edges of my photos. The auto-CA elimination in-camera is pretty handy from time to time, though now I have the 14-24 2.8 zoom, which is far less prone to CA than the 20 and 24 2.8 primes I used to use on the D200. While I'm on "small things", another thing which influenced my switch was the inclusion of the free keycode for Capture NX.
The one major thing I have to balk about on the D300 is the lack of the dedicated BKT button...it got "kicked off" the body by the "Playback" button...in part because of a dedicated "OK" button...I'm not too OK with that! The designers of the D200 and professional D3/D2(x)/D1 thought it was serious enough to have its own dedicated button for. Not a deal-breaker as you can tell.
This speedlight is part of Nikon's Creative Lighting System. I purchased this, since generally speaking, most of the on-board flashes are not sufficient for anything other than fairly close-up lighting. Some examples of creative lighting that I've employed with this are as follows:
This is the ultra-wide 14-24mm zoom lens. I got this to replace both the Nikkor 20mm and Nikkor 24mm primes. Once I got the 20mm prime, I wasn't using the 24mm so much, so it just sat in my bag for a lot of the time. Thus I had considered selling it for some time. Lately when using the 20mm, I'd wish I could get even wider. I put together money I had obtained from my stock photography along with what I could get from selling the 24 and 20mm primes, and that's what spurred me to get this one.
From what I've seen on my D300 so far, the results are incredible and beat out the quality of both the 20mm and 24mm primes quite handily. It took quite a while, but nowadays, zoom lenses are capable of matching or beating image quality from primes.
This lens is quite a bit heavier (over 2 pounds) than any of the wide angle primes I mention above, and cannot accept filters. That big bulbous front element can be a bit worrisome as a result. One may also scoff at the narrow zoom range, but every millimeter of focal length is more significant for field of view at such small focal lengths. You won't see the Nikon marketing team touting the fact that this is a 1.7x zoom lens. Also, I'm not overly crazy about the fact that this is a G lens and lacks the aperture ring.
Looking at the images produced from this lens makes me conveniently forget about any of the negative issues I have with it, and the Nikon marketing team has little to worry about.
There really isn't too much one can say about this focal length, except that you actually get the same field of view as a 75mm lens when it is used on Nikon "DX" format digital cameras such as the D40(x)/D50/D70/D80/D100/D200/D300/D2x. A fixed focal length like this feels rather "cramped" to me when shooting indoors, so the real compelling reason to have any of the "50's" around is because of the speed, sharpness and relative lack of distortion. Still, at 75mm, it approaches the portrait range, and I use it as a telephoto lens of sorts. On 35mm, many photographers say that this lens represents the field of view of the eye, but others debate this point.
This lens performs quite well at its larger apertures from f/1.4 on upward. With the 50 f/1.8, the corners of images were quite soft from f/1.8 until f/2.8, where it gets quite close to this lens in sharpness. It was best used stopped down to f/4 and beyond. Still, there is a bit more vividness to the color rendition with this 50 f/1.4 optic, and the bokeh is more pleasant. I was able to get this for quite a nice eBay price, and this is one of the better "Made in Japan" versions of the 50 f/1.4.
The lens is capable of 1:2 life-size reproduction, and with the PK-13 extension tube, 1:1 life-size reproduction. It is compatible with almost every Nikon camera, from the Nikon F all the way to the Nikon D300 and D3 cameras.
Examples of pictures from this lens:
There is noticeable barrel distortion and a bit of vignetting at 18mm, so I try to avoid using that part of the range when it's important to keep straight lines showing as straight near the frame edges. Other than that and the somewhat smaller aperture, I have few complaints about this lens.
In the scheme of more pro-oriented optics I own, this is the most consumer-oriented lens I have, but I'll keep it, as it proves to be useful from time to time.
At the time, this camera had one of the highest resolutions (1536x1024 when most offered only 640x480 VGA) and one of the first to offer USB support. It is a fully automatic camera, thus it offers little control (no focus and no aperture control.) This camera is rather SLOW by today's standards. Besides a 1-second shutter lag, it took as long as a Windows boot-up when first turned on. Thus it was a bad camera for action shots at the airshow.
The initial set of rechargeable NiCad batteries weren't of very high capacity, as I found out whenever I would use the LCD viewer to see the results of my shots. Digital cameras were not in the mainstream yet. So all my relatives would crowd around the camera to look at all the pictures I took, marvelling at this new toy, then *POP*, the screen would shut off, the zoom would retract, and the battery would show empty, and I'd have to send everyone away...
A later set of NiMh batteries proved to be a fix to this problem.
There was the ability to control shutter speed and exposure value, and a scripting language allowed one to perform such functions as exposure bracket. These programs were uploaded from the computer to the camera through the included software (or WinXP which can recognize this camera without additional software.) There was no aperture control, and no real manual focus. A Wide/Tele rocker switch and a built-in flash rounded out the feature set. This was a consumer point-and-shoot camera all the way. I still do use this camera once in a while, such as for taking pictures of my latest camera equipment. The picture size comes out to a convenient "web page"/eBay ad size, instead of downsizing the really high-rez pictures from my Nikon.
I really can't say that I "did photography" with this camera, rather that I merely "took pictures."
I have some pictures taken using this camera in a few of my galleries, namely the "Maritime DC260 Edition" and "REALLY OLD Stuff" galleries.
This picture was originally part of a sale ad for this camera, but given that I probably wouldn't get more than $50 for everything shown here, I'm probably just going to keep the Kodak as a backup for taking eBay ad pictures and small web page photos.
As a result of the cheap construction and relative lack of quality control, light leaks abound, and no two cameras have the same optical characteristics. People are known to seal these up with black gaffer tape to seal out light leaks, and others just let them in.
There is a legendary cult status around these cameras. The pictures are typically vignetted, soft, often out of focus, and show signs of light leakage. The results are often ethereal and dreamy looking, with the center in some degree of focus and more blurry towards the edges. In the right hands, this thing can produce fine art.
I haven't used this camera lately, as developing the (uncommonly used) 120 format film is a lot more expensive than a typical roll of 35mm film. It was great for a novelty though. I understand that you can get a lot of the Holga effect on modern digital cameras by getting one of the Lensbaby lenses which sell for about $100. And also I managed to find some Photoshop actions which simulate some of the unique optical characteristics of the Holga...though light leaks are not included.
The lens is the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 by Nippon Kogaku (the old name for Nikon way back then.) The word "Auto" on the lens ring refers to the fact that when the shutter is released, the aperture is automatically stopped down to the one chosen on the lens ring (This was considered an innovative and novel SLR technology back in 1959.) Otherwise, these are manual focus lenses. A fork-like attachment on the aperture ring couples with a pin in the Photomic viewfinder (under the "Nikon" logo) to mechanically transfer the aperture setting to the meter.
Unfortunately, the initial lens that came with the camera had fungus inside and oil on the aperture blades (yeck!) which made the action sticky. Rather than try to get the lens serviced (lots of $$$ to disassemble, clean then reassemble the whole thing precisely) I simply chose to get another 50mm f/1.4 lens from eBay for $46...problems solved!
The other issue is that of the meter. Back in 1962, when on-camera metering was being refined, many of the first meters required a mercury battery to provide 1.35 volts. Mercury batteries also had a nearly constant voltage slope throughout battery life. Unfortunately, mercury batteries are illegal in the US and many other countries. A viable substitute is to use a 1.55v alkaline battery, however, the increased voltage throws off the metering, so either you need to get the meter recalibrated, or compensate with a different ISO setting. These days, I prefer to use a separate hand-held meter to figure out my exposure. The alkaline batteries also degrade in voltage steeply near the end of battery life. Zinc-air batteries (hearing aid) can provide the correct voltage, but once they're exposed to air, they only last a few months at most before they dry out and die. Silver-oxide batteries require a fairly expensive adaptation process, but is regarded to be perhaps the most elegant solution. Personally, I like to have a hand-held meter around. Also, metering was not through-the-lens. Incident metering is provided by a small screw-in translucent disc which is affixed to the meter "eye" next to the large "F" on the viewfinder. I currently feel as though the Photomic viewfinder/meter is clunky (in both looks and usage), and would ditch it for the standard Nikon F meterless eye-level prism viewfinder if they weren't so expensive, since I use a Weston hand-held meter with this camera.
Several accessories accompanied this camera, including a threaded cable release, a tripod (old kind with screw-lock legs), a Nikon Yellow filter for B&W shooting, a Honeywell Tilt-a-Mite flash, and a Vivitar 85-205 f/3.8 zoom lens.