I will prove to you that Nikon D300 way overexpose / washout

Great post!... Helpful and well written...

To bad so many others felt the need to hammer this guy...I guess it makes others feel good when they get to talk down to SOMEONE...

As for this last post.. -- very nice.. Well written and im sure the op'er will get some good info from it.

landmarks4711 said:

So you mean if he focus right his picture here will not overexposed
Brilliant

Click to expand...

May be, may be not. But that is not what, me, Lil and some other are saying (I believe).

What I am saying is, if you are going to "prove that Nikon D300 way overexpose" then you must understand how metering works, and use appropriate methods and correct setting to take test pictures.

Taking totally OOF pictures and using Vivid and +3 saturation setting to test metering perfomance is not correct. Don't you think so?

Well, you did prove something. That you have no idea how to make an argument.

Your post is complete nonsense.

Hey

Thanks you all guys but I will send my camera back to Nikon for checking and this is a suggestion from Nikon tech support after a long trouble shooting. I totally don't agree with some of you saying that it has to do with tweaking before I can get good photo. I think at a default setting it should be able to give me a reasonable quality image. Anyway, this is a good topic because I know that some guys out there having the same problem with their new D300 and they don't have a chance to open up on the forum like this so I am glad that bring it out on this forum to get some good input although, some of you who consider a professional photographer or too smart doesn't seem to understand a simple defintion and the purpose of this forum, it isn't just for professional photographer, it's for beginer and amateur as well so I don't really know why some of you so frustrating about. If you don't like the topic don't make yourself so frustrating. You're too smart to make yourself trouble!!!

I don't have this problem with my D200. I have to max out fine tune exposure to -1 and exposure compensation to -1 to get a reasonable image under very normal light condition, something isn't right here. Max out everything to get a reasonable shot? Under the same condition D200 doesn't have this problem, the image come out not perfect but not much to complain, a little big underexpose but acceptable where this one is way too much.

The bottom line is that I will send it in no matter what since tech support suggest me to do so.

Those pictures weren't over-exposed! How many people have tried to tell you this, to explain, to whatever? You say "thank you for your responses" and ignore them. Spend some time learning the camera. We're too smart to "make ourselves trouble"? No. We were trying to explain. It seems that wasn't smart of us...
--

Regards,
Richard

Here's my camera result



look some spots still overexposed, as someone said above, the dynamic range was too high

camera model CS3

... but to be fair, the original posters intention was - according to his header - to prove that all the rest of us are wrong when we claim that we can get good results from our D300s. His knows perfectly well we don't tell the truth. His last pic has #145, so he also seems to have arrived at his conclusion by shooting what equals about four rolls of film with his new camera. Despite our attempts to help him by explaining that we can see no faulty camera from the posted pictures - only faulty camera settings that can be changed - he still insists on getting perfect shots out of the camera, no matter what extreme settings he uses. He seems to expect every shot to be tack sharp no matter the shutter speed and focus. And he wants the camera to be able to guess by itself when he wants the scene to be rendered darker in the final pic.

He is out of therapeutic reach, so let us quietly move on to something else.

WOW, you were able to get that out of what he gave you? Amazing. That makes a pretty good picture especially considering what you started with. Still don't care for the greenish and reddish tints though but maybe that is the normal colors for the room.

You guys have really gone out of your way to try and help this guy. Too bad he is so arrogant instead of being appreciative of your help but if he can't accept the fact the D 300 is not a P&S and try to learn how to use it, it could be a waste of time to try.
--
Don

Are these in the contest for worst pic ever shown on DPreview? Is the OP testing the exposure meter or showing how to torture a great camera into shooting horribly?

Either you're totally lost or having a laugh over this.

--
Regards, RHLPedrosa

Sure would like to see some of those perfect shots taken of this scene with the D 200. Maybe it was in Auto.
--
Don

Why in the heck you even posted these crappy pictures? They were all out of focus due to too slow shutter. Bad white balance. Bad subjects...why sticking some bars in front of the flowers? Shoot the flowers or shoot the chair or the fruits.

Shoot manual
Get the shutter up 1/60 or more
White balance it (not auto)

It's amazing you guys even go nuts responding. I hate reading these "overexposed" and some other iso problem with the D300. Those posts always come from crappy pictures.

--
Thy
D70 - Nikon 80-200 AF-D f2.8
D200 - Nikon 17-55mm DX f2.8 SB-800

I was thinking about moving up to a D300.

No way can I consider a crappy camera like that!

It's the operator. The D300 is NOT a crappy camera.

brian

Then I fully understand where the troubles come from...

Regards
Ole Thorsen
http://www.pbase.com/ole_thorsen

• OMNISCIENCE

Knowing what
thou knowest not
is in a sense
omniscience.
(Grook by Piet Hein)

attracts trolls as flies are attracted to shiit...

deeshooter said:

I was thinking about moving up to a D300.

No way can I consider a crappy camera like that!

Click to expand...

--
Ole Thorsen
http://www.pbase.com/ole_thorsen

• OMNISCIENCE

Knowing what
thou knowest not
is in a sense
omniscience.
(Grook by Piet Hein)

Yup, he never made a meaningful response. He never implemented one suggestion out of those we made. Btw, you'll notice that his bookshelf contains "The Fundamentals of English Grammar"! It's obviously there for a reason, reading his posts...

And now he's taking the camera back. I pity that D300; it's been very unjustly condemned. Anyone care to set up a rescue centre for traumatised cameras?
--

Regards,
Richard

good to see the assistance you are giving the O.P.

If this is sarcasm, as I assume it is, well... If you troubled to read the 4 pages of this thread you will see that he was given advice. Brusque, admittedly, but that was because of his rather nonsensical objection (those images aren't overexposed). He was told what to do, why xyz is as it is, what parameters to leave alone or to change, to take some more useful shots...the list goes on. What did he do? He doesn't appear to have tried to follow any of the advice given, changed his objection mid-thread (lack of "sharpness") and now he says he's taking the camera back. I'll admit that many, myself included, didn't treat him with velvet gloves. But just what does he expect?!
--

Regards,
Richard

I find this thread funny. I could only get half way down. But this post is a great example of someone buying a D300 and thinking it will make him a photographer just like the pro's. Perhaps the OP listened to all of the hype about the D300 or D3 and how much better than the D40 or soon to be D60. In many cases it is better to spend much less for a camera without all the bells and whistles to confuse and buy some books, take some courses and learn the basics. It seems that there is some basic knowledge of photography missing. And yes why post an original out of focus photo.
--
Laslo
http://www.digitalexpressionsphotography.com

I didn't read this entire thread - just to OP first post, but I would worry less about the exposures your getting with your camera - (by the way mine D300 exposes right on the money) and more about the crappy out of focus images your posting here. They are REALLY bad! Maybe the D300 is just too much camera for you?
--
Michael L. kirk