DPR struggling to find D300s cons? Here are a few more:

[Ayoh]

22. No white balance sensor; No full-correction incandescent preset

No camera currently uses a WB sensor. They were found to do more harm than good.

K-7 does,

I don't think so. No mention of it in the reviews, and nothing on the camera that looks like one. A WB sensor needs a white dome or port, bigger than the AF illuminator on K7.

with fine tuning available to either partially remove incandescent color cast or completely do so. It's the only digital camera I've ever had on which the auto wb actually works.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[john120588]

5. No in-body IS

does canon dslr offer one?

7. Proprietary RAW format

all raw are proprietary

9. Large and heavy

large and heavy, because it use more metal then cheap plastic

10. Contrast detect AF is slow and doesn't support subject tracking across the frame

even canon's contrast detech AF is also slow

11. AF assist light is of the bright white type, more annoying and less effective than the red-pattern type

both are annoying

12. 12MP is lower than the competition (though for most subjects the differences is minimal)

do you print all your shots to billboard size? or just store them in your pc or mac and never see the day of light?

13. No 1080p video; internal microphone is mono only

do you think 1080p is so much better than 720p? just download some of canon's dslr 1080p they are all soft and fuzzy and need super blue giant to decode the video. all professional camera even the one use in hoolywood are all mono sound.

14. AF microadjust doesn't support separate adjustment for the wide and tele ends of zoom lenses

if nikon provide great AF, you really don't need to touch this, this feature are designed for camera with poor AF system.

22. No white balance sensor; No full-correction incandescent preset

have you seen any camera has this? i only saw this in some kodak 560 camera

 

[nick_webster]

See pretty much any review of recent cameras. Which does seem to suggest that they don't perform much better, if at all, than cameras with no external WB sensor

Your statement "No camera currently uses a WB sensor. They were found to do more harm than good." seemed a little unfounded which is why I replied.

The first part is incorrect - or "technically incorrect" as you might put it

Do you have any evidence that they "do more harm than good" ? They might be useless but I can't see them doing any harm.

Nick

 

[Stu 5]

5. No in-body IS

does canon dslr offer one?

7. Proprietary RAW format

all raw are proprietary

9. Large and heavy

large and heavy, because it use more metal then cheap plastic

10. Contrast detect AF is slow and doesn't support subject tracking across the frame

even canon's contrast detech AF is also slow

11. AF assist light is of the bright white type, more annoying and less effective than the red-pattern type

both are annoying

12. 12MP is lower than the competition (though for most subjects the differences is minimal)

do you print all your shots to billboard size? or just store them in your pc or mac and never see the day of light?

13. No 1080p video; internal microphone is mono only

do you think 1080p is so much better than 720p? just download some of canon's dslr 1080p they are all soft and fuzzy and need super blue giant to decode the video. all professional camera even the one use in hoolywood are all mono sound.

14. AF microadjust doesn't support separate adjustment for the wide and tele ends of zoom lenses

if nikon provide great AF, you really don't need to touch this, this feature are designed for camera with poor AF system.

Perhaps you should learn a little bit more about the issue before making statements like that. It depends on lens/camera combinations rather than just the camera itself. Having good AF on it's own is not good enough.

22. No white balance sensor; No full-correction incandescent preset

have you seen any camera has this? i only saw this in some kodak 560 camera

 

[noirdesir]

Actually, the Leica was one of those cases where you needed LightRoom and ACR updates to get correct color out of the DNG.

For raw converters with more sophisticated color (P1C1 and SilkyPix both use internal spectral models) the raw converter still needs spectral data for each new camera to come out, so DNG or no DNG, there's still a wait.

Exactly, each sensor with its read and A/D electronics is proprietary and most likely will always be.

 

[Tom Christiansen]

15. Low value for money compared to most other cameras with similar build and image quality

Absolutely false.

False if you value specific features that the D300s offers and cameras such as the 50D or K-7 don't, but if you compare "build and image quality", the differences are not reflected by the huge price gap.

You're actually comparing the build quality of the D300 with the 50D?
It's worth it for the handling alone. Get a D90 if that's what you want.

The point in Pa/Ps (Minolta term) or HyperProgram (Pentax term[..] You just flick the rear or the front dial and your immediately in A or S. It's much nicer than Program shift and quicker than the regular ways exposure modes are switched.

No, I don't see what you want. Either you want auto A, auto S, auto both, or auto neither. Sounds like you want auto neither.

19. No manual shift (AEL in M mode doesn't lock resulting EV)

You're wrong. What do you think this is, a stupid Canon?

You mean that if you hold the AEL in M mode and turn the dial the camera changes both shutter speed and aperture and maintains the same resulting exposure? If so, great. Feel free to mark it off the list

No, that's not what it does. It locks the exposure just as it says.
That means if you change shutter or aperture, then the ISO shifts
to compensate, of course. If you are in A when you lock and you then
change A, your S moves. If you are in S when you lock and you then
move S, your A moves. If you are in M and lock, and then move either
A or S, the ISO moves to match your held AE. This is perfectly sensible.
In M without AEL, a floating ISO will shift as the meter picks up changes.
Once you AEL the M, your ISO is also locked, but you can A or S twiddle it.
If you want to be able to flex-shift both A and S at the same time, you
can lock in P mode and then both A and S move together. You may
also move "the wrong one" to get EC going. So moving S in A or A in S.
And in P any EC may move both A and S. And M without AEL and
without floating ISO will be effectively EC; if you use EC, it rezeros
the meter.

This is the way the modes work. You have to understand what
your degrees of freedom are, what locking an exposure means.
Each of A,S,I can be given priority or locked, and the camera will
help you with all this depending on how much freedom you give it .

You seem to want something that doesn't make sense within this
framework, and I'm not convinced what you do want has any virtue
over the way the system currently works.

20. No user memory presets to quickly override all camera settings

You don't like 4 settings banks and 4 shooting banks?

I stand corrected on this one. I'll be happy to explore how they differ from other implementations in a reply to the post you dedicated to the subject.

Takes a long time, and it does you know good for me to read to you.
Get the D300/D300s manual and read what goes into a setting bank
versus what goes into a custom settings bank. And because these aren't
cripple-locked to a mode dial (we don't have a PSAM dial), you have
4 shooting * 4 setting * 4 PSAM = 4**3 = 64 possibilities.

That's why we think having just 3 and sticking them where they
lock out modes, sucks.

No preset can fully correct incandescent light. What are you thinking? Do you correct it to 2700K? To 3200K? There is no correct answer.

The correct answer is to offer more than one incandescent preset

You are a little bit too quick to get all overrighteously correct.
Nikon does offers 169 different incandescent presents, and each
of the four settings bank can have a different one of those. I'm
sure you'll whine about 676 take 4, but I'm not interested in listening.

That's just incandescents. Not counting four manual
presets, Nikon has 13**3 + 31 or 2228 possible WB settings
you can use set up in different shooting banks however you'd like or
even put extra ones on a card for virtually infinite possibilities.

I cannot believe you cannot get what you want with what the system
gives you. It's not a credible position. Learn what it does and stop
your noisome nattering.

1. Auto⁺ (≅3.5‐8kK)
2. Incandescent⁺ (≅3kK)
3. Sodium‐vapor⁺ (≅2.7kK)
4. Warm‐white fluorescent⁺ (≅3kK)
5. White fluorescent⁺ (≅3.7kK)
6. Cool‐white fluorescent⁺ (≅4.2kK)
7. Daylight white fluorescent⁺ (≅5kK)
8. Daylight fluorescent⁺ (≅6.5kK)
9. High temperature mercury‐vapor⁺ (≅7.2kK)
10. Direct sunlight⁺ (≅5.2kK)
11. Flash⁺ (≅5.4kK)
12. Cloudy⁺ (≅6kK)
13. Shade⁺ (≅8kK)
14. Kelvin (2.5‐10kK)
15. Manual Preset 1 from subject, light source, or existing photo
16. Manual Preset 2 from subject, light source, or existing photo
17. Manual Preset 3 from subject, light source, or existing photo
18. Manual Preset 4 from subject, light source, or existing photo

• ⁺ means these each take both a 13‐step amber‐blue–axis fine‐tuning −6 ≤ AB ≤ +6 where each value is about 5 mired and also a 13‐step green‐magenta–axis fine‐tuning −6 ≤ GM ≤ +6 where each value corresponds to an approximate CC filter value

2 and 4 are not the same, nor really even much alike. Figure it out.

Here, read this short list that's left a lot of good stuff out:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=33688034

Download and read from cover to cover the entire D300s or D300s manual .
Don't come back talking about those camera models until you do.
Folks aren't here to read you bedtime stories. That's your job.
Go do your own homework.

--tom
--
colicky, havocker, picnicky, panicking, picnicking,
panicky, magicked, colicking, picnicked, bivouacking,
colicked, mimicked, frolicked, picnicker, demosaicked ,
garlicky, mimicker, havocking, bivouacked, demosaicker ,
havocked, panicked, mimicking, frolicking, demosaicking .

 

[Barry Pearson]

My suggestion is to put a con on every camera that only shoots DNG, because that encourages the acceptance of inferior color models.

How much are you attempting to influence the industry with your views about DNG? What do you do about it outside these forums?

Whatever its faults, it has unique characteristics that various people and organizations find important enough to encourage them exploit it. Examples:

• ISO is revising ISO 12234-2, (the nearest thing we have to an ISO standard raw image format, apart from its other uses). They are apparently basing profile 2 on DNG 1.3.0.0, to be used with extension DNG, and have an aim of backward compatibility with the Adobe version. (Sooner or later it won't be plausible to use the word "proprietary"). See 14f:

http://www.npes.org/pdf/TC130WG2N1363_Minutes-Beijing-Sept09.pdf

• An ASMP initiative, funded by the Library of Congress through its National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program, resulted in the dpBestflow guide (website, book, etc), singling out DNG compared with other raw image formats:

http://dpbestflow.org/

• DNG is becoming the raw image format of choice for niche camera models, (and some conventional but minority camera models). How else would they get widespread software support? If someone wants the equivalent of a spotting scope with built-in digital camera, what alternative do they have but to choose one that writes DNG? Camera (and back) models that write DNG appear to be launched at a higher rate than camera models that write one of NEF, or CR2, or ORF, etc.

Throwing rocks at DNG here won't make it go away, because there isn't a useful alternative. People with specific criticisms need to be influencing the development of the format.

 

[Barry Pearson]

As Joseph has pointed out, DNG is useless without the unpublished spectral data for the sensor, and it also suffers from a potentially inferior color model.

The many people (professionals and amateurs) who routinely use DNG, whether from in-camera or via conversion, would be somewhat puzzled by that "useless"!

What did you really mean by it?

 

[noirdesir]

And what would a WB module in the AF module assembly see different from the imaging sensor itself?

 

[Tom C11968]

Hi Steve

I don't know what goes into creating a RAW file and few here if any do, but I know it is possible to make a standard format if the camera manufactures would get together and either create one or use DNG. You can see what problems there are going to be down the road if they don't. I agree with MR who makes a living with photography and he has been screaming for a standard format for years. It you are young there is no point in saving your RAW files because at some point there won't be any software to convert them and that would be like throwing away your film negatives. I have six different formats now and some may have three times that number, twenty years from now there could be over a thousand or more.

People are making three copies of their family photos to keep them safe for their Grandchildren so they may look at them in the future but if you don't print them (and that is not really an answer) they may have no way to view them.

Just my opinion and a few others.

I would agree with you, if you can explain to me, assure me that, by moving to DNG we won't be giving up any flexibility we have with the native formats. I also don't want to give up performance or shooting speed, so I would need assurances there to truly support the concept of moving to DNG. It sounds nice in theory, but as with many things I think the devil is in the details.

Steve

and has a proprietary format should be a Con and then just maybe they will adapt the DNG format like Leica. We will be passing 1000 formats and the thirded party converters will become so bloated that it will take forever to convert your files or they will drop the older cameras, and in that case you will not be able to convert your old photos. You also have to wait (sometime months) to add a new camera to say Lightroom. You would also not have to upgrade the software every year or two like Photoshop ACR that Adobe will not update the older version, they want you to buy the complete package to get the new ACR.

So my suggestion is to put a CON on every camera that shoots RAW and is not in the DNG format.
--
Tom

--
Tom

 

[exdeejjjaaaa]

We will be passing 1000 formats and the thirded party converters will become so bloated

Tom, why don't you just take a source code of dcraw, compare 2 sequential releases to see how much of a new code was actually added to support reading the raw files from several new cameras and then stop making such stupid statements... the real work is to profile the camera and DNG will not help developers there - if you are making a good raw converter you profile the camera/sensor yourself anyways regardless of what camera manufacturer does (share any info or not... if they want to share that information they share regardless of the format and if not - there are plenty of ways to put undocumented information into DNG format as well, there are tags exactly for that)... and I am not talking only about color profiles - but settings (default) for NR, sharpening, etc...

--

 

[exdeejjjaaaa]

It you are young there is no point in saving your RAW files because at some point there won't be any software to convert them and that would be like throwing away your film negatives.

source code (dcraw) is open, that means it will be available forever

--

 

[exdeejjjaaaa]

Whatever its faults, it has unique characteristics that various people and organizations find important enough to encourage them exploit it. Examples:

Barry, you are repeating those few examples for years, aren't you tired ? good thing you did not start as usual to cross reference your web site to make that look more solid ;-)
--

 

[exdeejjjaaaa]

And what would a WB module in the AF module assembly see different from the imaging sensor itself?

if you are talking about Pentax K7 one of the goals as far as I understand was to help with Phase Detection AF dependency on the spectrum in some cases... that is why... for example my Pentax FA 50/1.4 when tuned to focus normally under the regular daylight will need correction again for BF/FF under the tungsten light and vice versa on Pentax K20D (and K10D)...

--

 

[Eike Welk]

Aw, now you told the secret! Where is that clever Russian guy when I need him (I want a free program to remap the pixels on my D300...heck, I'd even pay a bit to get it.

The clever Russian guys of today seem to prefer Canon, unfortunately.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK

 

[Barry Pearson]

I don't know what goes into creating a RAW file and few here if any do, but I know it is possible to make a standard format if the camera manufactures would get together and either create one or use DNG.

They did get together, and the result is ISO 12234-2 (TIFF/EP), ratified and published in 2001. (It also supports non-raw images). DNG was based on TIFF/EP. So, in fact, (partly) was NEF, and perhaps some others.

ISO 12234-2 is out-of-date and undergoing revision. They are basing their new raw image format (profile 2) on DNG 1.3.0.0, with the intent that it will be used with the extension DNG. (Adobe submitted DNG to them years ago for this purpose).

 

[Barry Pearson]

Barry, you are repeating those few examples for years, aren't you tired ?

• dpBestflow was launched on 11 November 2009.

• ISO decided to base profile 2 of 12234-2 on DNG version 1.3.0.0 after they became aware of that version! Which was presumably in the last year.

• Carl Zeiss's Photoscope (a sort of spotting scope with built-in camera using DNG) was launched earlier this year.

If I've been repeating those examples for years, I must have precognition!

 

[exdeejjjaaaa]

Barry, you are repeating those few examples for years, aren't you tired ?

• dpBestflow was launched on 11 November 2009.

• ISO decided to base profile 2 of 12234-2 on DNG version 1.3.0.0 after they became aware of that version! Which was presumably in the last year.

• Carl Zeiss's Photoscope (a sort of spotting scope with built-in camera using DNG) was launched earlier this year.

If I've been repeating those examples for years, I must have precognition!

oh, mea culpa - I am glad that you finally have something to quote other than endless cross referencing to your website ... btw - see my reply to your posting about dpBestflow... will you put that on your DNG website ?

--

 

[Thakur Dalip Singh]

Re: Thanks, interesting points raised, you say cons or whatever.
http://landscapesofindia.com/
http://landscapesofindia.com/images/fullsize/pic_12.jpg

 

[denniswms]

I feel bad for any grown man who finds a 300Ds to be large and heavy . That's just pathetic.

Hopefully that con was missing the end of the sentence, i.e. large and heavy for a five year old to shoot with for 6 hours .