Talk:Nikon D300

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The D300 is not yet available other than pre-order so it cannot ever have been 'often used as a backup' for anything. It's high technical spec may also mean that it will be preferred over 'high end' (but old and technically inferior) D2 models meaning it wouldn't be any use as a backup for those models, leaving only the new D3. Shane.Bell 10:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The D300 is not the D200's Successor.

The D300 is a new segment camera. It is designated as the Flagship DX format camera. Also, the D200 will continue to be made and sold concurrently with the D300, albeit with a slashed price. Perhaps there will be a D200x in the future? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.154.193.137 (talk) 15:16, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

I don't have information as to whether the D200, which I currently own, will be kept in production. I think that it's safe to say that this is a replacement for the D200, otherwise, why keep the two cameras in production? That would require two separate production lines and possibly more costs for Nikon. Canon just introduced the D40 so, with them, it appears obvious that that camera is a replacement for the D30. Despite the fact that I will have to sell my D200, when this new camera comes out, I do look forward, either to this camera or the New D3.--MurderWatcher1 18:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

D300 is not in the same segment as D200, I'm not even sure it should be called "semi-professional". 219.78.89.16 (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The main advantages over the D40, D50, D70 and D70s, D80 and D200 cameras

Auto-dust clean and Liveview should include, and change to CMOS should also be mentioned. Matthew_hk tc 17:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It is because the LiveView is the main feature of Olympus and Canon followed, and dust clean is also the feature of Olympus, and Canon, Sony, Pendex followed again. Matthew_hk tc 17:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the camera writes very fast to the memory card. I was able to take 86 pictures and only 3 didn't come out correctly. I'll bet this camera would be great for wedding photography which I had done in the past. In every way, it is so much better than the D200.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] importance and technical tags

Would the editor who placed these tags at the top of this article please explain what is different about this article than other articles about various digital and film camera in wikipedia that are not tagged as such? --rogerd (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That's really the wrong question; sort of like the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument; you shouldn't use the sorry state of other articles to justify defects in the current article. So, better question: whoever placed the tags, please explain better what improvements you have in mind. Dicklyon (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, in regard to the {{technical}} tag, what does Beeblbrox want? You can't talk about cameras without using technical terms. Maybe we should just delete all of the articles about any photography equipment except the entry level equipment. How is the reader going to know the difference between a D40 and a D3 if we don't use some technical terms. If you don't know some of the technical terms mean, most of them are wikilinked. --rogerd (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, somehow I overlooked that I had tagged this. Here's how you could figure out "what I want". Get somebody you know who knows nothing about photography to read this article. Or just read this sentence to them: "Multi-CAM 3500DX autofocus module with 51 sensors in normal mode; Single Servo and Continuous Servo focus modes, advanced focus tracking modes, selectable Single Area AF, Dynamic area AF, Group Dynamic AF, and Closest Subject Priority Dynamic AF" Why is there a whole section listing every single detail of the camera's various features? It is overwhelming. The lead section is almost incomprehensible to someone unfamiliar with what a DX or FX sensor is, and sections 4.1 and 4.2 are just catalog entries on the accessories available. This is an encyclopedia intended for a general audience not just photographers. Beeblbrox (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to have to "figure out" what you want, I want you to tell us. Or better yet, why don't you fix what you perceive to be wrong instead of just tagging it? Without using technical terms, I guess you could say "it is a really cool camera, and it makes better pictures than a D40". Are you in favor of just deleting the features section because some readers may not instantly recognize some of the terminology? --rogerd (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Your remark goes right to the crux of this problem. I haven't fixed it myself because I don't know how. I keep trying to explain that a person who is not a photographer can't make any sense of this article, nor can they tell why they should care about all these features. This whole article reads like a review in a photography magazine, not a general encyclopedia. My hope was that one of the creators of this article could put it in English with some context other than it winning an award from a photography magazine that makes it clear why this camera is so fabulous that it warrants it's own encyclopedic article. Beeblbrox (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)