I can't let all these "opinions" go unargued, either.... 
At 07:58 AM 3/26/2008, Renato Aranghelovici wrote:
> > Otherwise your comments sound like an unsupported rant and I am sure you
> > are more capable than that.
>
>What can I say other than no less than 3 fellows from my small local
>community sold their d300 after less than one month of evaluation and
>switched 2 of them to second hand D2X and one to other brand?
I'm sorry that those "3 fellows" were unhappy with the D300. I *can*
understand that many people have chosen to acquire a used D2X
*instead* of a D300. For many users the D2X makes better financial
and practical sense. Many, many, photographers never need ISO greater
than ISO 400, or which the D2X is eminently capable. All qualified
reviews that I have ever seen, however, note that for the D2X the
upper easily-usable ISO limit is ISO 800, while the D300 easily
surpasses ISO 1600.
As far as switching to another brand -- that is a specious argument,
IMO, unless we understand the needs and qualifications of the
switcher. I certainly wouldn't accept it as either an endorsement of
the switch to the other brand, or as a critique of the D300, without
knowing many facts which you have not presented. :(
>Are you feeling better if the camera that perform not so good in your hands
>has raving reviews? Do you believe all reviews?
I do not believe all reviews, but I do tend to give good weight to
reviews from people I know and trust, and whose working methods are
similar to my own. When those reviews then are substantiated by my
own tests, it doesn't make me "feel better" but it does help
understand that those of us with similar needs have evaluated the
equipment fairly and decided it suits us well.
>Personaly I advice anyone who want to buy a D300 to not buy without test it
>first, or having return choice.
How do you define "test it first?" Do you test a new washing machine
extensively before you buy it? Do you rent a car similar to the model
you're interested in buying and test it over a lengthier period
before you actually buy the car? (Many cars are sold without even
allowing the purchaser to test drive it.)
Certainly there are reviewers whose opinions and findings are suspect
and should not be relied upon (the ubiquitous K-R comes to mind ).
But when we see reviews from people like Thom Hogan, Phil Askey,
Moose Peterson, and others, praising the D300 (and D3) while also
noting some minor nits, and participate in forums with actual working
photographers who have put the new cameras through their paces (both
pre- and post- production), and read the praises far outweigh the
nits, it is, I believe, a fair indication of the overall quality and
worth of the camera(s).
I've participated in a couple of pro-photographer forums (or,
*supposedly* "pro photographer" forums :( ) where criticisms have
arisen about the D300 and/or D3 which were totally unfounded, and
came down to the photographer having *NOT* read the manual, and/or
*NOT* knowing how to make use of a particular feature.
For example, one person -- who actually bought and owned a D300 --
criticized Nikon because the controls didn't work the way he wanted
and because the exposure indicator in the viewfinder seemed
"backward" to him. He DID NOT KNOW! -- because he never read the
manual, apparently, and because he never experimented with the
camera, that there are Custom Settings for the D300 and D3 which make
those controls WORK EXACTLY THE WAY HE WANTS!
Another person, someone with 35-years of experience, claimed he
shouldn't have to experiment and learn how the AF system of the D300
and D3 work -- all he should have to do is point the camera at the
subject and it should (magically, IMO, I guess... ) guarantee him
perfect focus right out of the box.
As far as your earlier point about being able to produce -- in
post-production -- ISO-equivalency gains similar to what is
obtainable natively from the D300 and D3 -- it just isn't so! The IQ
(Image Quality) straight off the sensor of the D300 is superior to
the IQ obtainable right off the sensor of *any* previous Nikon DSLR.
Only the D3 exceeds it. And this IQ remains at any given ISO right up
to a very-usable ISO 3200 in the D300 and a very-usable ISO 6400 in
the D3. In-camera noise reduction has nothing to do with it. Boosting
gain post-production in Photoshop (or other editors) by tweaking
levels and brightness guarantees more noise, and using noise
reduction thereafter is not the same as starting with an image with
inherently better quality right-out-of-the camera (D300 and D3).
Even many Canon users, who scoffed at sneered at Nikon's previous
efforts, admit the IQ of the D300 and D3 are superb -- many of them
have even switched to Nikon (some came back to Nikon, others dumped
Canon). These are observable changes.
Are the D300 or D3 panaceas? Certainly not. In many ways they require
even more stringent operating procedures to wring the best results
out of them. One cannot use substandard lenses with them, for
example, and obtain top-notch results. Even though the D3 gives
demonstrably better dynamic range than previous Nikons, and Active
D-Lighting produces wonders with both the D3 and D300, that is no
substitute for good exposure technique in the first place..
I have -- still -- a Nikon D100, D70 D2H, D40X, D300, and D3. Each of
them was/is an excellent tool -- when used appropriately. I have many
13x18 (inch) prints made from D100 images -- and I've even made 13x18
(inch) prints from as little as 1/4 of the image area of the D100.
The D70 was a step up from the D100, if for no other reason than the
metering system was improved (it has the 3D Color Matrix 1005 pixel
RGB meter of the F5, for example). But it lacks the Nikon-built
grip/battery holder. But it does have iTTL, thus making it overall, a
"better camera" than the D100. OTOH, the D70 captures only in a
maximum of compressed NEF -- although Nikon calls it "visually
lossless" it is demonstrably visual, and in effect captures only ~9.5
bits of data instead of 12 as captured by the D100.
I've made many 24x36 (inch) prints from the D2H with its "only" 4.1MP
sensor. I've even made acceptable 13x18 inch prints from the D2H shot
at ISO 1600 -- supposedly a "no-man's land" ISO-wise. I still believe
it is a wonderful camera for many uses -- even put up against a D300
or D3 -- simply because many times a small file is preferable
workflow-wise, and we don't need to wring out the utmost from a
sensor-captured image.
The D300 and D3 also capture 14 bits natively, with the ADC
(Analog->Digital Converter) giving a choice of 12 or 14 bits in NEF
mode. And the truly lossless compression makes for decent-sized files.
>And don't forget early adopters surprises, like D70 BGLOD...
Perhaps one of these days they'll perfect fuel injection, and we can
get rid of carburetors in our cars. :( >:-} :-P 
.
mcgray.com