My first 'big boy' camera was the Nikon D80. I purchased it in September of 2006 and never looked back. While the D80 has been a great camera I was putting some serious miles on it. In August of last year Nikon announced the D3 and the D300. The D300 seemed to be the next logical step. It was a notch-up in just about every aspect and was a bit more rugged than the D80. In March of this year I upgraded :-)

Upon first impression you see that the D300 is a bit bigger and heavier than the D80 (Paul Stamatiou also noted this). The difference is more in the width of the camera than the height. I always mount the external battery grip so a big and heavy camera is nothing new to me. Below are some comparison shots of my D80 and D300 rigs.

I was able to take the D300 with me to London and was amazed at some of the shots I got, some of which are highlighted below.

The things that drew me to the D300 were:

More Rugged: Have I mentioned this before? The D300 is a descendant of the D200 and the D100, so it's sometimes referred to as a pro photographer's second camera. The thought is most serious pros own a D2x/D2h (or the D3 now) and the DXXX serves as a backup. Often the DXXX has the same internal workings as the pricier sibling, just a smaller body. While the D80 is great, all the trips and conditions were starting to show on the camera body.

On the D300 the subframe is magnesium and you can feel it. The entire camera is almost a grip and feels great. The strap hinges are also more robust than the D300. Back when I was deciding between the D80 and the Canon Rebels one of the issues I noted was that the lower-end Canons felt too-plasticy while the D80 felt sturdier. The D300 is a step above this, you 'feel' that value/quality. Yes it's a minor point compared to other aspects of the camera's performance, but it is an issue.

D3 in a Small Body: Not entirely true, but much of the D3 lineage is in the D300. Yes it's still a DX sensor rather than the new full-frame FX, but did I really need that? There are an increased number of focus points as well as a nice 12.3 MP sensor (not going into the megapixel myth here though). On the back-side there is the nice 3" LCD. It's one of those small things, you think well that's slightly larger than the D80, but once you use it, you look at the D80 and say, boy that looks small. Combined with decent glass I am amazed at the clarity and color I can get (see below)

Higher ISO: Both the D3 and D300 have stepped things up in the sensitivity range allowing you to shoot at even lower light conditions. You can max things out at 6400 ISO, but I mostly shoot at 1600 in low light. Many times I'm shooting at conferences with low-light and the D300 has been great for this.

The photos below are a great example of the all-around package of increased sensitivity and speed of the camera. These were taken with the D300 and the 70-200mm lens at night in a hand-held position (as in no tripod). Could they be a bit sharper? Perhaps, but without a tripod I don't think so.

Speed: This thing shoots fast which is great for action photography or as parents call it, every day :-) Setting the camera to Continuous-High and pressing the shutter button is a good parlor trick, people are amazed at the speed. The photo below would be good if it wasn't for the poor framing on my part, i.e. the guy standing in the background with the point and shoot, but it shows the action you can grab. The cyclist was taking part in a local criterium, i.e. riding rather fast :-)

Liveview: Honestly I rarely use this feature. Liveview mimics the standard LCD as viewfinder format that most point and shoot cameras have. I know some people have raved about it for setting up shots on a tripod, but I rarely use one. Perhaps one day I'll start doing more landscape with a tripod.

What are the drawbacks?

Weight: Yes it is heavier and bigger, but I think that just comes with the territory. However it is interesting to compare the D300 to the D40 or even the Nikon Coolpix S600.

Controls/Settings: Yes I am that guy that picks something up and tries to use it without using the manual. I did the same thing with the D300 and noticed quickly there was no green 'Auto' setting. At first I thought, wow this thing doesn't have an auto setting. Actually it's there. It's P for 'Programmed Automatic' :-)

What took me a week or two to adjust to was the minor tweaks. What I mean by this is rarely now do I just point and shoot. I think about what I'm shooting then dial-in the settings I want, take a few test shots then adjust. Yes it's a few more steps in the routine, but doesn't really slow me down.

Cost: This is a variable depending on your budget. The D300 retails for around $1800 so it is an investment, however it is a natural upgrade path for enthusiasts that have been using the D80 for a while and want to take the next step. With the more rugged build I would also assume the D300 would hold up better over time than the D80.

Of course the camera is only one part of the equation, I am fortunate to have some good lenses. With the D300 I carry around: 17-55mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8, 10.5mm f/2.8 and a 50mm f/1.4. Those lenses will always stay with me even if I upgrade cameras again. I also use the MB-D10 battery pack/grip. With the battery pack I rarely (as in never) run out of juice. I can shoot for a few weeks at a time without worrying about chargine. As of yet, I still have no external flash.

Going back to my post: Which Camera? D80, D40, D40x or D60? There is now a new model in the mix, the D300.

How does the D300 weave in? Well if you're serious about the hobby then it's a tough call between the D80 and the D300. If you're lucky, you have a friend that's looking to upgrade from a point and shoot...sell them your D40/D60/D80 and go for the D300 :-)

What's next? Well the D700 was just announced and there is always the big-daddy D3. The D700 brings the full-frame FX sensor to the D300 body for a cool $3000.00.