April 10, 2020
#378
Gentle reader,
I have been into photography since I was a kid in the 1960's when my parents gave me a green plastic Sears roll film camera.
Economics prevented me from having another camera until my first child was born, all we could swing was a JCPenney 110 camera.
And no, I did not use the green one in the interim. I could not afford a "real" i.e., 35mm SLR, camera until April, 1995. Which was an Olympus OM10 I found at my first trip into a pawn shop. Camera, lens and flash was $100.
I used to collect film cameras, eventually having over 500, but not all at once. I never came across a JCPenney 110 in all those years, but this Minolta gives you an idea what it looked like.
Previously, in 2017, I wrote about upgrading from my first Nikon DSLR, a D70S to the D200:
I am not going to go into the specifics of the D200 verses D300, I will put links to two professional articles written when the D300 came out at the end of 2008 at the end of the article.
Both cameras have the optional battery pack that doubles batteries and adds controls so that when the camera is flipped vertically, one still has the same controls under your fingers.
The only sign of wear the D300 shows is the "300" has been worn off.
The left side door is now one piece on the D300. The battery pack on the D300 has a drawer that slides out.
The viewing screen is much larger on the D300, I have ordered the genuine Nikon screen protector for it.
Rear controls are almost identical, with the wider screen, the grip on the right of the D300 is a little narrower, but still effective.
Right sides are nearly identical. The battery pack's shutter button and on/off switch is seen here.
Aside from the stylized shape of the flip-up flash and round verses not-round buttons behind the shutter/on-off switch on the D300 (right) and different uses for the rotating switch on the left, they function and look almost the same.
The battery packs are shaped differently, and the D200 one has a stuck on label while the D300's is molded in.
The D200 specs from one of the articles:
- Announcement Date: 2006-02-23
- 10MP - APS-C CCD Sensor
- ISO 100 - 1600 ( expands to 3200)
- Nikon F Mount
- 2.5" Fixed Type Screen
- Optical (pentaprism) viewfinder
- 5 fps continuous shooting
- No Video Mode
- 920g. 147 x 113 x 74 mm
- Weather Sealed Body
- Replaced Nikon D100
The D300 specs from the same article:
- Announcement Date: 2008-03-12
- 12MP - APS-C CMOS Sensor
- ISO 200 - 3200 ( expands to 100-6400)
- Nikon F Mount
- 3" Fixed Type Screen
- Optical (pentaprism) viewfinder
- 6 fps continuous shooting
- No Video Mode
- 925g. 147 x 114 x 74 mm
- Weather Sealed Body
- Replaced Nikon D200
Note that the lowest ISO for the D300 is 200 verses 100 in the D200. This speaks to the fact that most consumer lenses are zoom models which do not have fast (low number) apertures. Thus, will need a higher ISO in order the capture images.
Also note the D300's higher pixel count and CMOS verses CCD sensor.
The best part to me about this particular D300 is that I got it for $87.50 WITH the battery pack and two Nikon batteries, which is MUCH cheaper than most D300s on eBay.
I had sold my beloved Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 camera with the intent of upgrading to the LX7 which has a faster Leica lens. But others are willing to pay more than I am.
I realized that my FZ200 camera (below) has SO many more features than the LX5 and I have not even made 1000 photos with it yet, so decided it made more sense to invest in a better Nikon.
Why am I upgrading and why an eleven year old camera? The D200 has problems focusing. It works fine otherwise. So far, every shot I have made with the D300 has been tack sharp. And, being retired and on a fixed income (and my Scottish ancestor's genes) force me to live and spend economically.
Oddly, since neither Nikon can record video, the D300 has live view on the screen. One cannot shoot that way, so I am not sure why they offer that.
The manual is 452 pages long! Granted, they are small pages, but still. My cameras have way more features than I will ever use.
Now, since the main differences I have encountered and that I have not already related is with their battery packs.
On the D200, one removes the battery door, it comes off easily, and the pack's shaft slides into the battery compartment. Well, what would you call it?
Spring loaded pins on the shaft press against terminals inside the body of the camera. These link all the controls on the battery pack to the camera.
Nikon uses a PAC-Man icon to indicate opening doors. Odd that there is a symbol for a multi-function switch, but no switch or control.
Open the door and there are the batteries. Both cameras use the same type.
Genuine Nikon batteries, like all of their items are more expensive, so I bought a generic second one.
And there "are the quirks and features" of the Nikon D200 battery pack. Doug DeMuro fans will get that quote.
And now, for the very different D300 battery pack.
To start off, it has no massive shaft nor the need to removed the battery door. The battery stays in place, the pack adds a second battery.
See the "L" shaped rubber piece on the pack (left)? That is storage for the seal over the camera's terminals. Clever.
Since cameras and so many more products are sold in countless countries, symbols play an important role. PAC-Man, arrow and battery symbols explain on the left end of the pack.
Drawer disengaged and partly slid out. The stuck-on label and serial number are on top of the battery pack.
Remember that I pointed out the multi-function label on the D200 battery pack?
Well, below, you can see that the D300 pack does have the control so that one can go through the menus with the camera vertically. Clever.
Again, a symbol shows which way to slide the battery in. The PUSH is on the lever that locks the battery in place.
Both bodies with all of the lenses I have. Only one is digital-specific: a Sigma 18-125mm zoom on the left. Nikon 50mm f1.8 "normal" lens in the center, and a Sigma-made, Quantaray branded, (once a Ritz Camera store brand) 28-300mm zoom on the right and the beast in back is a Tamron 200-400mm zoom.
Impressive zooms.
The two Sigma lenses fully engorged, I mean zoomed out.
And at their widest ends. The 28-300 on the left, 18-125mm on the right.
The new face of Nikon for me. One cool factor about Nikon and Pentax SLR film and digital cameras, is that in both cases and ONLY in their cases, film lenses from the 1950's onward can mount on digital bodies and be used, albeit without automatic factors beyond aperture closing and opening.
Thus, any Nikon (and Pentax) autofocus lens can be mounted and used on (their respective) digital bodies and be completely compatible and usable.
I understand some of the less expensive late model Nikon DSLR cameras require lenses which have a focus motor built-into the lens. These two cameras have focus motors in the camera that mechanically couple to the lens's focus equipment.
As I stated, only one of my lenses is digital-only. Due to the digital "crop-factor" 35mm or full-frame lenses are cropped by the APS-C (film) sized sensor.
Thus, this 50mm lens has a focal length of 75mm. Which is why wide angle lenses for digital bodies are so expensive, being that sensors require the light to hit them straight on, unlike film which doesn't care what direction the light hits it.
As a result with the lenses I have, their cropped focal lengths are: (18-125mm): 37-187.5mm, (28-300mm): 42-450mm and (200-400mm): 300-600mm in 35mm or full frame digital sensor.
A selection of some of the Nikon mount lenses I have owned in the past.
I am showing that every single one of these lenses would mount on and be usable on my D300.
And now the links to those two articles I told you about. Interesting to me is that both bodies retailed for over $1,000 in their day.
Thank you for taking the time to read my humble blog, your kind words and comments, here or on Facebook are what keep me writing and shooting.
Scott
April 10, 2020
#378
No comments:
Post a Comment