Reading mode: Light Dark

Wait till you see D300 high ISO images: WOW.

Go to last post
A bunch of us bought 40Ds for approximately $1100 with the IS lens. An equivalent D300 would be $2400ish, more than twice the cost ! For that it should be better, a lot better !

In reality, I bet its IQ won't measure up to the 40D. I think Nikon made a mistake moving the D300 from 10MP to 12MP. They should have stayed at 10MP and lowered the high ISO noise. Before you call me a Canon lover, my last camera was a D50.

I could have bought a D300. I bought a 40D with a 28-135 IS, 50/f1.8, 430EX flash and 85 f/1.8 for less than $1700. Nikon needs to lower the price of the D300 and improve the availability to compete.

--
40D, 28-135 IS, 50 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8, 430EX all on order.

I took over 10K images with my past outfit...
D50, 18-70, 50f/1.8D.
DK21M Eyepiece magnifier.
SB600 Flash

User of Gimp and Ufraw on Linux instead of Photoshop
 
I don't see shadow detail as good as the 40D, detail seems washed by heavy NR, don't know, have shot Nikon and Canon and don't see such a spectacular result from the Nikon. I'm not a brand loyalist but I do think the Canon IQ is much better than the Nikon, both are no doubt good cameras but I prefer the Canon, the IQ and sensor DR are better and the price point is very much in favor of the 40D IMHO.

Iso 3200 hand held very dim light:

 
Where can one buy a 40D with the 28-135 IS for $1100?

--
Misha
 
Dell list price is $1500 for 40D with 28-135 IS. 20% small business DSLR coupon + 10% stackable coupon ($17 for both on ebay) = $1080.

What are the pre order D300 bodies going for ? $2000, $2100 ? That's a $1000 difference plus the lens ! I loved the Nikon 17-80 but the Canon 28-135 IS is a step above it, mainly due to the IS.

--
40D, 28-135 IS, 50 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8, 430EX all on order.

I took over 10K images with my past outfit...
D50, 18-70, 50f/1.8D.
DK21M Eyepiece magnifier.
SB600 Flash

User of Gimp and Ufraw on Linux instead of Photoshop
 
The D300 and A700 ISO 1600 shots look quite similar, with more detail going to the Nikon, but even though I didn't look at the A700's ISO 3200 shot, the D300's ISO 3200 shot is a bit messy.

Certainly, the Nikon's ISO 3200 shot is very usable to say the least, but no more so then Canon's ISO 3200 shots have been for quite some time now.

It is rather interesting to see Nikon shooters discovering the joys of finally being able to use extremely high ISO's however.

--
bryan
--------
Oak & Acorn
http://www.flickr.com/photos/oakandacorns/sets/

New Zenfolio Gallery: http://bryanw.zenfolio.com/

Canon G9 Gallery: http://bryanw.zenfolio.com/f836894562/

 
And - on the strength of these pictures - a rather easily pleased one.

Seriously - it's easy to get low noise images: but what Nikon seem unable to do that Canon can, is get low noise and detail .

These are typical Nikon - low noise at the expense of any real detail.

Better than the D200, for sure - not hard - but nothing the 40D can't easily better.
 
Thanks for posting the samples, but frankly I believe the IQ in them leaves a lot to be desired, compared to the claims. When I first read all the hype about the d3 and d300, I thought maybe Nikon had actually bested the Canon offerings in terms of IQ. But if these samples represent the best the d300 can do, I don't think that's the case at all.

What I see is washed out photos - All of the Nikon samples I looked at your link show photos that remind me of post processing that includes severely lowering the contrast in photoshop. The colors are very pale and washed out. There is almost no definition in the blue and green of the peacock feathers. And you can see noise that is masked by all the blurring of the NR (even when the setting is NR off). Even in places like the grey background, there are lots of yellow splotches. My guess is that if you add back some contrast in post processing and/or increase saturation a little in order to get back some of the lost contrast, you'd see all the noise that is really there.

In the samples with high NR, the feathers are so blurred that their colors blend in with amber color of the guitar (or whatever that instrument is) so badly that the feather seems to lose all definition.

These appear to be quite a bit better results than from Nikon's previous cameras, but my gut feeling now is that Nikon has overstated its accomplishment. These might be on par with Canon's IQ, or may be not quite there. Possibly some better photos than these can be produced from the camera, if there is any truth at all to Nikons statements about these new cameras.

I'm curious why you chose to post this in the Canon forum. If you're not a troll, you give yourself the appearance of one by doing that.

That is my honest, objective opinion.

Tim
--

Gallery at: http://www.pbase.com/tim32225

 
me2000 said:
Dell list price is $1500 for 40D with 28-135 IS. 20% small business
DSLR coupon + 10% stackable coupon ($17 for both on ebay) = $1080.

What are the pre order D300 bodies going for ? $2000, $2100 ?
That's a $1000 difference plus the lens ! I loved the Nikon 17-80
but the Canon 28-135 IS is a step above it, mainly due to the IS.
Click to expand...
The D300 is $1800 and the 40D is $1300.

The Dell SB coupon is not available to the general public, so that isn't a good price comparison. It is an EXCELLENT deal, but not available to everyone. Purchasing the coupons on eBay sounds good, but is that "legal"?

Once again, there is a $500 difference in the retail cost of the cameras. If it is worth it to you, buy the D300; if not, buy the 40D. They are both excellent cameras.
 
TexasAg03 said:
The D300 is $1800 and the 40D is $1300.
Click to expand...
List prices. Cameras don't sell for list prices, they sell for whatever you pay for them. Pre ordered D300s are more than $1800 ! And I don't see Nikon offering the D300 with a nice IS lens kit. The 28-135 IS is a $400 lens on eBay. The 40D body in that regard is $1100, based on a $1500 kit.
TexasAg03 said:
The Dell SB coupon is not available to the general public, so that
isn't a good price comparison. It is an EXCELLENT deal, but not
available to everyone.
Click to expand...
Yes it is. General Dell customers can select a Home or SB shopping cart. I am not a business.

Purchasing the coupons on eBay sounds good,
TexasAg03 said:
but is that "legal"?
Click to expand...
If it wasn't, Dell would do something simple to limit it, like tag the coupons to the original owners.
TexasAg03 said:
Once again, there is a $500 difference in the retail cost of the
cameras.
Click to expand...
I don't care what the retail price of a product is, I care what I pay for it. As of right now, the body only price difference is about $1000. Throw in the IS lens and the difference is even more.

If it is worth it to you, buy the D300; if not, buy the
TexasAg03 said:
40D. They are both excellent cameras.
Click to expand...
The D300 hasn't shipped yet and hasn't been thoroughly reviewed. I suspect it will be a good camera, but it remains to be seen if it is excellent. Personally, I was a bit disappointed with the D200.

--
40D, 28-135 IS, 50 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8, 430EX all on order.

I took over 10K images with my past outfit...
D50, 18-70, 50f/1.8D.
DK21M Eyepiece magnifier.
SB600 Flash

User of Gimp and Ufraw on Linux instead of Photoshop
 
On the contrary, if flash was used, then these examples are even WORSE than I said. Flash always makes the colors more vibrant, and these colors look pathetic if they were shot with a flash.

Also, a properly exposed photo taken with flash should show virtually no noise at all, even at high ISO. It's not saying much if you shoot a flash photo that shows little noise - and these photos show a lot of noise, and a lot of detail smearing to try to mask it.

If flash was really used, then I'd revise my first comment on IQ and say there has been a lot less improvement in IQ, compared to the previous Nikon cameras.

In case anyone doesn't realize, you cannot tell by the exif on pbase, due to the bug in the flash line of the exif tables shown on pbase. That is a bug they still have not fixed.

Tim
Ken. said:
I guess that is why they look washed out. Besides, it's not the best
way to test ISO.

I am sure though that the d300 will be a great camera.
--
http://www.pbase.com/ken_5
Click to expand...
--

Gallery at: http://www.pbase.com/tim32225

 
The noise is acceptable in the highlight range. But do you examine the midtone and shadows the detail is gone and it is very noisy.

The pattern of the noise is very dominant and the chromatic nature of the noise is rather ugly.

Notice the lack of detail in midtone/shadow areas such as inside the flute or on the dark tips of the feather-nose on the mask.

An image shot on a tripod with the excellent Nikon 50mm at f11 i would expect much more detail and clarity.

Btw could you kindly post a better test with more midtone and shadow areas containing details. Since the one here mostly show highlight range.

--
Jon Angelo Gjetting
Website: http://www.gjetting.com/
 
Keith Reeder said:
And - on the strength of these pictures - a rather easily pleased one.

Seriously - it's easy to get low noise images: but what Nikon seem
unable to do that Canon can, is get low noise and detail .

These are typical Nikon - low noise at the expense of any real detail.

Better than the D200, for sure - not hard - but nothing the 40D can't
easily better.
Click to expand...
Absolutely the d300 samples is an improvement for a Nikon, and absolutely there would be more image detail and even less from an 5d. But that does'nt take away from Nikons achievement.

Come Keith, lets no cry fanboy or the likes whenever someone likes other camera brands.

There has been really-real fantrolls recently here let them pass or hit the complaint when necessary.

thw is a regular here who has at many times offered good comments.

--
Jon Angelo Gjetting
Website: http://www.gjetting.com/
 
The shots are in Adobe RGB form. You cannot view it properly from a web browser unless you're using Safari or a Mac.
TimR32225 said:
Thanks for posting the samples, but frankly I believe the IQ in them
leaves a lot to be desired, compared to the claims. When I first
read all the hype about the d3 and d300, I thought maybe Nikon had
actually bested the Canon offerings in terms of IQ. But if these
samples represent the best the d300 can do, I don't think that's the
case at all.

What I see is washed out photos - All of the Nikon samples I looked
at your link show photos that remind me of post processing that
includes severely lowering the contrast in photoshop. The colors are
very pale and washed out. There is almost no definition in the blue
and green of the peacock feathers. And you can see noise that is
masked by all the blurring of the NR (even when the setting is NR
off). Even in places like the grey background, there are lots of
yellow splotches. My guess is that if you add back some contrast in
post processing and/or increase saturation a little in order to get
back some of the lost contrast, you'd see all the noise that is
really there.

In the samples with high NR, the feathers are so blurred that their
colors blend in with amber color of the guitar (or whatever that
instrument is) so badly that the feather seems to lose all
definition.

These appear to be quite a bit better results than from Nikon's
previous cameras, but my gut feeling now is that Nikon has overstated
its accomplishment. These might be on par with Canon's IQ, or may
be not quite there. Possibly some better photos than these can be
produced from the camera, if there is any truth at all to Nikons
statements about these new cameras.

I'm curious why you chose to post this in the Canon forum. If you're
not a troll, you give yourself the appearance of one by doing that.

That is my honest, objective opinion.

Tim
--
Gallery at: http://www.pbase.com/tim32225

Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top