Nikon D300s 12MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera (Body Only)
Nikon D300S 12.3MP DX-Format CMOS Digital SLR Camera with 3.0-Inch LCD (Body Only) - 25464.../ Nikon D300s 12MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) / nikon d200
Accessory for..
Nikon D300s 12MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera (Body Only)
nikon d200
cheapest black friday online discount...
- 12.3-megapixel CMOS image sensor for high resolution, low-noise images
- Body only; lenses sold separately
- Nikon EXPEED image processing; D-Movie HD Video for cinematic 24 fps, 720p HD movie clips
- 3-inch Super-density 920,000-dot VGA LCD; one-button Live View
- Capture images to CF (Type I) and SD/SDHC memory cards (not included)
.../ Nikon D300s 12MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) / nikon d200
BEST DISCOUNT Nikon D300s 12MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera (Body Only)
nikon d200 for 2011 BLACK FRIDAY SALES...
Nikon D300s 12MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera (Body Only)
nikon d200 for ALL BUY BEST BLACK FRIDAY 2011 BEST SELLER!!!
Nikon D300s 12MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera (Body Only)
nikon d200
Special for
BLACK FRIDAY best price products
Customer Review :
A word of warning if you're buying a D300S for its video capabilities : Nikon D300s 12MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera (Body Only)
There are fullness of very good comprehensive reviews here of the D300S here already, so I'm instead of posting an additional one I'm going to exertion to focus on what I see as some of the pros and cons of the D300S versus other camera bodies in the Nikon line-up. The D300S has essentially same image capability to the $500 D5000 and the now quite old (in Dslr terms) D300 and D90; and it remains a small-format Dx camera while the next step up in price gets you a full-frame D700. Even so, my personal option for the majority of my photography is a D300S rather than any of those alternatives. I have also owned and shot with every other camera mentioned here: all are exquisite and I believe all can be determined good values for the money spent in today's market. perhaps some readers would find my perspective useful.
As far as I'm concerned, image capability from Nikon Dslrs has categorically been quite exquisite at least since the introduction of the D70. Of procedure there have been all kinds of incremental improvements since then, but comparing whatever since the D70 to the funky highlights produced by the earlier D100, for example, makes it clear that we have long since reached the point of diminishing returns when it comes to real, visible improvements in Dslr image quality. In terms of the finer points it will continue to improve, but either you buy a D5000, a D300S or a D700, the differences between the images you can make with the camera are going to be tiny compared with the differences in how you can use it - with the irregularity of the Fx-vs-Dx field of view, which is very important.
What I think most citizen will benefit from is determined assessing the features and corporal capabilities of the varied bodies, considering the types of photography they like to do, and selecting the best match for their particular needs. Budget, of course, enters the equation: but for many photographers the small, light D5000 would be the best option regardless of budget, while of procedure others will categorically wish the pro features of the more costly bodies.
D300S vs D700; Dx vs Fx - By far the most basic issue in camera body selection:
This is the one real variation between the shooting capabilities of any of the bodies I'm writing about here, and it affects every image you make with the camera once you buy it. I would strongly propose readers Not to look at format as a camera issue, but to look at it as a lens issue. Of procedure there are differences between the Fx and Dx bodies, even those closest in specification, and to some degree it's potential to equalize lens selection: but when you begin to look at the practical realities of lens option for Dx vs Fx formats, it is immediately apparent that they control in completely different worlds. I'm convinced that this should be one's primary notice when selecting a camera, assuming that your funds allows you a option between the formats.
The heart of the matter is that it categorically is much easier to make a great Dx lens than it is to make a great Fx lens. The basic physics guarantees it. The Dx format is 2/3 the linear size of the Fx format, meaning that, all else being equal, lenses will have to be 3.4 Times Bigger (1.5^3) in Fx format to exactly equal the optics on Dx of a Dx format lens. Because lens develop is a matter of careful compromise between many factors generally size, price, max aperture, zoom ratio, sharpness, and weight; real-world Fx lenses aren't made 3.4 times bigger, heavier and more costly than Dx lenses. They are instead made only considerably bigger, with compromises in other aspects of develop - so that they must give up some aspect of performance: zoom ratio, max aperture, optical excellence - to accomplish their develop objectives.
Because of this, there is categorically no Fx equivalent to the exquisite 16-85mm Vr Dx lens (the 24-120Vr is a fairly mediocre lens despite being physically larger). Likewise the 35mm f/1.8 has come out being a slightly good lens than the 50mm f/1.4G despite being smaller and lighter (though slower, unfortunately). Many exquisite wide zooms now exist for Dx cameras at affordable prices, while the option of Fx wide zooms has one selecting between obscenely heavy and costly exquisite lenses and "normally" priced midpoint lenses. This conundrum spans the entire range of ready lenses, and it is likely never to change or to rule in favor of Fx because it is driven by the basic physics of optics and their develop and manufacture.
For this reason, Dx cameras have gargantuan advantages if you want to shoot lenses that are reasonably priced, that give exquisite sharpness and comprehensive image quality, that have flexible zoom ranges, and that are light and compact sufficient to vehicle and use unobtrusively.
Fx, on the other hand, will be marketed as the premier format, and I think we can expect that most of the very best lenses made will continue to be Fx lenses. Very fast primes, f/2.8 zooms built to pro specifications, long telephotos and the best macro lenses will all be Fx. Fx lenses can of procedure be used on Dx cameras, but that realization leads to the other Fx advantages. While the Dx "crop factor" gives Dx bodies a presumed benefit in the telephoto range, it conversely gives Fx cameras a sizeable benefit within the "normal" ranges most citizen do most of their shooting at. A 50mm lens on Fx equals a 35mm lens on Dx in terms of field of view, but allows for much good control of field isolation than the Dx lens. Likewise, a "fast wide" lens on Fx such as the new 24mm f/1.4G becomes a much less exotic mammal on Dx, and probably rather pointless as a consequence. For portraiture, the option of lenses for Fx is wonderful, if expensive, whereas Dx shooters must compromise by using lenses not designed for their native format.
For photographers who shoot mostly in the normal ranges, who want to maximize their control of depth of field (especially towards the wide end), who don't mind paying a premium for the most costly equipment, and who are willing to put up with the weight and the conspicuousness of shooting with pro-level equipment as well as the compromises potential in Fx lens design, Fx will continue to be the only option.
There is one more benefit currently in shooting Fx, in that the Fx sensors are more light-sensitive than the Dx sensors, enabling shooting at gargantuan Isos, well above the Dx level. This will probably all the time remain so: the Fx sensor is bigger, and can secure more light. either this is important to a particular user categorically depends on the types of photography they like to do, but it should be appropriately factored into the decision. Likewise Fx cameras have larger viewfinders, which will probably never be potential on Dx cameras: an additional one luxury of Fx shooting that does not directly translate to the images that can be produced.
Personally, having been a film shooter in the past, I find my needs more than satisfied by Dx bodies, at least for the time being. A option of excellent, lightweight lenses suffices for the vast majority of my photography, while I can put up with the compromises potential in some parts of the range, especially for fast wide shooting. I'd like some fast prime lens options in the range of 16-28mm for Dx but I can live with their absence considering the cost, both financial and in terms of lost flexibility, of switching to Fx.
D300S vs D300 vs D90
My upgrade path went from the D40 through the D90 and D300 and then to the D300S. I loved every one of those bodies except, notably, the D300, which was in some ways a step backwards in comparison to the D90 and which I was never completely satisfied with. I do currently have a D700 as well.
The D90 is still a great camera, affording the vast majority of capabilities of the D300S, the exceptions being the potential handling and highlight advantages of the pro bodies. The D90 is also much lighter and physically smaller than the pro bodies, manufacture it a very pleasant camera to shoot, and I would still be using mine were it not for just a consolidate of relatively minor improvements that make the D300S worth the upgrade for me. The pro bodies let you define practice setting banks, so that I can switch between different types of shooting easily. Since I do this daily, this is very important to me. Switching from an indoor, tripod-mounted shooting configuration to an outdoor, hand-held shooting configuration on a D90 takes a lot of button presses and a consolidate of minutes, and there is all the time the very likely possibility of forgetting to change one considerable parameter and not realizing it until it's too late. No matter how serious a photographer you are, if you shoot mostly in similar conditions all the time, or in constantly changing conditions such that pre-defined shooting banks would be useless, then this highlight is probably meaningless to you. It happens to be very beneficial to me.
Likewise the D300S has a consolidate of features lacking in the D300 that allow for quick settings changes: any shooting parameters (not enough, though) can be changed speedily right on the rear Lcd as on the D40/60/3000/5000 bodies, which I find very useful. Also useful, the D300S' function buttons can be programmed to put you at the top option of a custom-defined menu. between these two features I can entrance and change practically any of the commonly-altered settings on the D300S (or the D90/D700) very quickly, while the D300 had me hunting through the menu principles for far too long. This alone is a considerable upgrade in camera handling for the D300S compared to the D300, and by itself would merit the upgrade in my case.
I wish any of these cameras could be programmed so that the Lcd info screen would come on automatically between shots as can be done with the D40-style bodies. I think buyers of higher-end bodies probably think this an unnecessary or amateur feature, but in my opinion, that is not so at all! Especially when shooting on a tripod, the info screen is a much quicker and more faultless facts reference than the top Lcd, and especially if All the settings could be set directly through it, this would be an additional one very considerable aid to quick settings changes. Today's cameras have so many settings, and they need to be changed so often to get the best potential image, that whatever Nikon could do to give users quicker entrance to more settings would be a step transmit for photographers of any sense level.
Other major differences between the D90 and D300S are, in order of approximate decreasing significance to me, are: 1) good focus principles on D300 and D300S, 2) External buttons and switches to speedily change focus and meter settings on D300 and D300S, 3) Usefully quicker continuous shooting speed on D300 and even quicker on D300S (4.5fps for D90, 6fps for D300, 7fps for D300S), 4) Decently weather-sealed body on D300 and D300S, 5) Rugged pro build capability on D300 and D300S (comes at a cost, though, much larger and heavier), 6) Af fine-tuning on D300 and D300S. There are many more differences between the cameras than these, but these are the ones that matter to me.
There is one more biggie. The D300S, unlike either the D300 or D90 (or D700 for that matter), has two memory card slots, and I happen to love the fact that one holds an Sd card and the other a Cf card. Most pros prefer Cf cards. I'm not a pro, and I prefer Sd cards. What I love about this feature, though, is that there is a setting which allows the camera to write a jpeg to one card and a Raw file to the other. I shoot jpeg most of the time but Raw some of the time, and this is by far the easiest way to go between jpeg-only and jpeg-plus-Raw, while Also getting all the Raw shots segregated from the jpegs so that you can later rule either to discard them, or to download them to a different folder, at a different time, without any fancy file-download trickery. When not using this highlight the second card can be set to double or to overflow, although I would prefer there to be more flexibility as to which card does what function.
While the D300S is the "best" of these bodies in many ways, the features it has over the D90 are just not going to matter to everybody, and the D90 is smaller and lighter sufficient that it's very seriously worth considering if you don't need them. The D90 is one of the best-positioned, best bang for the buck bodies Nikon has yet made, while the D300S is a superb camera but gives diminishing returns for the dollar, and by the ounce, in comparison.
D300S vs D5000
I know beyond any doubt that there are a lot of photographers buying pro cameras that would be much good served with a smaller, easier to use, easier to carry and cope and store body, and if you can't rule either to start slow or to go all-out with a pro body, you should categorically take a look at the D5000. In terms of its capability to capture any given image, the D5000 is the equal of the D300S, and only the time it takes to get that image, or the range of lenses you can use to do so, categorically differs. The handling of the D300S, with its multiplicity of features and settings, is going to slow down, not speed up, the process for citizen who don't use the camera often sufficient to stay fluent in the layout of its controls and functions. The D5000 gives you much of the flexibility, all of the image quality, and less size, cost, and weight. I personally enjoy the smaller cameras very much. I prefer their smaller size and only use the larger, heavier bodies because they have capabilities the smaller bodies lack, and those capabilities are important to me. If those capabilities are of questionable significance to you, think your needs determined before you encumber yourself with their extra weight and extra expense.
Conclusion
I'm going to give the D300S a rating of four stars. Clearly it is only intended to be a minor upgrade with respect to the D300, and it uses the same now-aging sensor used in all these cameras, so it's natural to expect that it is not a blockbuster on the new camera scene. It's not intended to be: Nikon has been busy developing Fx bodies and adding to its lens line over the past year or two. This particular projection of the lineup is getting a breather. It is a tremendously competent camera, the top Dx body currently ready from Nikon, and an exquisite tool for the job of photography under practically all conditions. It would be surprising not to see an improvement on the field of sensor technology within the arrival months or year, which would be incorporated into a successor in time. I do think Nikon needs to get to work figuring out ways to make the control interfaces of today's pro cameras more intuitive to use. good menu systems, more categorically accessed; more flexibility in the use of the rear Lcd to view and change settings; more flexibility in the enabling of practice menus and setting banks (which are beneficial but minute as currently implemented), would be high on my list of improvements. Nikon by its nature prefers to evolve its cameras incrementally over a period of years, and although that's a good strategy in some ways, other times it means we get stuck with "legacy" after-effects: backwards-reading meters, mechanical lens interfaces, and old style menu systems that have begun to overflow their banks. Some streamlining of the user sense would make the cameras easier, quicker and more flexible in use.
In a relative sense, though, those things remain nitpicks. The D300S is the best camera for my needs currently on the market.
CHECK LOWEST PRICES NEW or USED PRODUCT , UPDATE BEST DISCOUNT , VIEW IMAGES & COMPARE PRICES.. ABOUT Nikon D300s 12MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera (Body Only)
::nikon d200::ONLINE SHOPPING...
!!!!!~~CHECK HERE NOW~~!!!!!
AG1- Buy best-olds cutlass-automotive on sale
