Reading mode: Light Dark

D300s - surprising results at dxomark!

Go to last post
S

Stepanfo

Senior Member
Messages
1,277
Reaction score
405
Location
CZ
Dxomark has updated data for few cameras. Surprisingly, Nikon D300s is third behind D90 and D5000. If you compare graphs, it is almost identical to old D300.

I must say I am a bit surprised. I expected Nikon to improve D300s to level of D90, or slighly better.

Not so surprisingly (due to unreasonable pixel density), Canon 7D is on unlucky 13th place.

D90 is still the best.
 
Stepanfo said:
Dxomark has updated data for few cameras. Surprisingly, Nikon D300s is third behind D90 and D5000. If you compare graphs, it is almost identical to old D300.
Click to expand...
They are not the gospel, and many other sites came to different conclusions regarding comparisons between the D300 and D90. ;)
--
Lora

I've been on Dpreview since June 2006. Unfortunately, some posting history has been lost along the way...

 
Does it matter? My camera is still better than both the D90 and the D5000 since the only one DSLR I have is the D300s, so for me it is the best camera. Anyway, who cares which is best in a technical test? The one you have is always the best one because the one you have is a real one, everything else is just imaginary.
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/
 
The Review of the D90 here on dpreview did not indicate superiority to the D300 that I could find

when compared to the D300 shooting JPEG they came to this conclusion:

"This is a comparison that does show something interesting, however. The processing settings from the D90 and D300 can be swapped between cameras, suggesting the output intent is the same. Yet, for all the similarities in publically announced sensor specifications and consistent color rendering, there are clear differences in per-pixel-sharpness and contrast. Both are shot with the same lens but no amount of re-shooting could get the D90 to match the D300's output."

and shooting RAW this:

"Unfortunately, for those people hoping that the D90 would effectively be a half-price D300, the RAW results appear consistent with those from the JPEGs. Although the underlying silicon is likely to be closely related, it's not necessarily safe to assume that it shares the D300's multi-channel read-out, or downstream processing componentry (Nikon's Expeed branding doesn't refer to a specific processor). Most importantly, there is nothing to suggest that the D90 shares the same low-pass filter assembly (which can be more expensive than the sensor itself and would be an obvious place to reduce costs for a camera in this price-bracket), which would explain the difference in per-pixel-sharpness we see here."

So to say the D90 is better than the D300 - - - - not so sure

heck the review of the D90 even said the D80 has better per pixel sharpness shooting RAW

"With the effects of the camera's JPEG engine removed, the results from the two cameras are much more directly comparable. Despite the greater pixel count of the D90, there's essentially no resolution difference between the two, with the D80 perhaps edging its younger brother in terms of per-pixel sharpness."
lac111 said:
They are not the gospel, and many other sites came to different conclusions regarding comparisons between the D300 and D90. ;)
--
Lora

I've been on Dpreview since June 2006. Unfortunately, some posting history has been lost along the way...

Click to expand...
--
D200 x2
10.5mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4G, 105mm f/2DC, 180mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4,
70-300vr, SB600, SB800
 
I have the D90 and a friend has the D300. When we go out to take some photos and compare, we cannot tell the difference between the IQs. Only real difference is that he has more focused photos than I do when birding because of that 51 point AF. I got jealous enough that I ordered a D300s. After telling him this, he confessed that he ordered a D3s just before my call and was going to offer his D300 to me for a cheap price. Well, I could have saved some money but just did not have any patience. Oh well.

--
RomeoD

http://www.flickr.com/rcdizon
 
Take a D5000, a D90 and a D300s and put them all on a tripod, put the same lens on all three, shoot RAW at base ISO and take landscape photos with all three. My guess is that you will not be able to tell the difference between them. Then, put them at ISO 1600. Probably still can't tell the difference.

Now, take the same three cameras out to shoot distant birds-in-flight in crummy, low-contrast light and see which one gives you more keepers or great shots (hint: the D300s will win hands-down).

Easy conditions are not where you find significant differences between these bodies. It's when the conditions get more challenging or the techniques required get more advanced that the more sophisticated body shows it's advantages.

So, if you never need more than is required for easy conditions or don't know how to use more advanced techniques, get the D5000 and you will never miss a more advanced camera.

I shoot action sports at max fps sometimes in crummy light and the D300 is a noticeably better tool than the D90 or D5000 for that purpose.
--
John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com
Popular: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/popular
Portfolio: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/portfolio
 
Stepanfo said:
Dxomark has updated data for few cameras. Surprisingly, Nikon D300s is third behind D90 and D5000. If you compare graphs, it is almost identical to old D300.

I must say I am a bit surprised. I expected Nikon to improve D300s to level of D90, or slighly better.

Not so surprisingly (due to unreasonable pixel density), Canon 7D is on unlucky 13th place.

D90 is still the best.
Click to expand...
Where did you see the 7D at 13th? This page: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor/Camera-rankings shows it at 31st (well behind the D300s at 19th).
 
Stepanfo said:
Knute said:
Where did you see the 7D at 13th?
Click to expand...
13th in APS-C cameras. Why whould we compare it with medium format and full frame cameras?
Click to expand...
Are you new here? Comparisons are made between crop and full frame cameras every day on DPR. You don't think it's significant that many of Nikons FX cameras rank higher than medium format, or than the D90 is right up there with a Hasselblad and 1dsMKII? Or that the D90 and D5000 are ranked higher than the 5D? If you want to use the data, use all of it.
 
It's within their own margin of error of 5-6 points (meaning 1/3 stop difference, the usual error for photographic measurements). They say they report the measured values because otherwise there'd be camera groups, but that's what one should consider when reading their reports.

And there are tests that show some RAW treatment for D90, which shows in darker areas of frames some sort of artifacts, especially in high ISO. Maybe Nikon knows what they are doing not to mess with the sensor for D300s.

And 7D not that bad if you check the graphs. Final score suffers mostly because of starting DR (but it's better when ISO goes up) and CFA quality, a Canon issue lately, seemingly opting for weaker color separation to improve high ISO results.

Don't forget these are RAW specs, not final output, which will denepnd heavily on proper exposure and conversion technique (and conversion software used).

I doubt one will be able to see any of these differences in real life shooting.

DxO Mark shows Nikon has learned how to extract the best from Sony's designs and how to design great ones themselves (D3/D700). Let's wait for D3s' sensor test, I bet the high ISO marks will be be very high from wht samples have shown.
Stepanfo said:
Dxomark has updated data for few cameras. Surprisingly, Nikon D300s is third behind D90 and D5000. If you compare graphs, it is almost identical to old D300.

I must say I am a bit surprised. I expected Nikon to improve D300s to level of D90, or slighly better.

Not so surprisingly (due to unreasonable pixel density), Canon 7D is on unlucky 13th place.

D90 is still the best.
Click to expand...
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)
 
eclipsevv said:
I wonder how D90 and D5000 can be different: they share the same sensor!!
Click to expand...
A camera is more than a sensor and a lens. In the old days all you needed was film and with the same film in different bodies with the same lens you could get identical images. This is not the case any more, not even if you use the same "film".
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/
 
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