Wait till you see D300 high ISO images: WOW.

[John Sheehy]

I'd like to know your thoughts about the D300 and D3, if you could
get your hands on a RAW of those cameras. Especially, is Nikon's
14-bit as useless as Canon's? Also, it seems Nikon has gone CMOS for
the D3, don't know about the D300, but should it make a difference?

I have some RAWs from the D3, but none of the tools I have can parse it yet.

I'm going by the amount of noise reduction and the nature of the noise that remains, which indicate that Canon is still the leader in read noise (especially at high ISOs).

--
John

 

[clarkliu]

I'd like to know your thoughts about the D300 and D3, if you could
get your hands on a RAW of those cameras. Especially, is Nikon's
14-bit as useless as Canon's? Also, it seems Nikon has gone CMOS for
the D3, don't know about the D300, but should it make a difference?

I have some RAWs from the D3, but none of the tools I have can parse
it yet.
I'm going by the amount of noise reduction and the nature of the
noise that remains, which indicate that Canon is still the leader in
read noise (especially at high ISOs).

--
John

what indicates what? You dont have any logic. post some 100% crop and then speak ok? otherwise, shut up.

 

[AgentWD40]

That's now a £350 difference. £200 of that can be offset ( if it's
important to the purchaser ) to the integrated flash commander v. the
ST-E2.

I had the same thought about the cost of putting a flash commander on
the 40D until I realized that 9/10 times I would need an external
flash on the camera anyway, even if I was using a remote flash. The
lack of a built in flash commander isn't a big deal.

Then you need to compare the cost of the 580EX with the SB-800. You can almost buy 1.5 SB-800s for the price of one 580II. In your scenario, your two flashes at their UK cheapest will be about £464 for a 580EXII & 430EX or £610 for a pair of 580EXII for full flexibility. An SB-800 & an SB-600 cost £349 or £430 for two SB-800s. That difference makes the integrated commander 'worth' between £110 and £180 which is still a big slice of the 40D / D300 price differential. Plus, with an integrated commander you then get the option of using both flashes remotely and you can still use the D300's integrated flash at the same time.

And how much is the alternative focus screen with grid lines
for the 40D?

$25 on sale.
--

We were discussing UK prices and the cheapest I can find is about £20. Not a lot of course, but just another £20 if you want grid lines which is an integrated option on the D300. Even £20 erodes the differential a bit.

A correction on my earlier post though. The ST-E2 is around £119 at its UK cheapest. I thought it was a little more than that.

 

[saynomore]

... will be waiting for your assessment, if you have one planned anyway.

Hard to follow a good 14-bit/Nikon D3 discussion without all the forum noise.

I'd like to know your thoughts about the D300 and D3, if you could
get your hands on a RAW of those cameras. Especially, is Nikon's
14-bit as useless as Canon's? Also, it seems Nikon has gone CMOS for
the D3, don't know about the D300, but should it make a difference?

I have some RAWs from the D3, but none of the tools I have can parse
it yet.
I'm going by the amount of noise reduction and the nature of the
noise that remains, which indicate that Canon is still the leader in
read noise (especially at high ISOs).

--
John

 

[John Sheehy]

what indicates what? You dont have any logic. post some 100% crop and
then speak ok? otherwise, shut up.

The people who are saying that the D300 has low noise are the ones who need to shut up, because there has been no evidence that any significant improvements have been made, relative to Canon cameras. They are fooled by NR, in well-exposed images with the shadows flattened to hide their weaknesses.

The D300 images linked to in the first post are 100%; you can clearly see in them that there is significant noise reduction even in the no NR samples, and you can see the traces of the noise - pale low-frequency chromatic noise that is clearly the result of heavy chroma filtering.

It gets really tiring listening to all the optically naive masses gushing over heavy noise reduction (same with Fuji P&S cameras), crediting sensor technology, with no real strides in sensor noise occuring.

As far as comparing cameras are concerned, to date I know of no one who has access to both a D300 (or even a D200, and older cameras) and any Canon DSLR has ever taken the same shot with them in RAW with the same manual exposure, both under-exposed at high ISO, and made the RAWs accessible. In an ISO 1600 black frame, the noisiest recent Canon (400D) has half the read noise of the quietest recent Nikon (40D) at the pixel level, and thats with 10MP as opposed to 6MP.

--
John

 

[Prestidigitator]

...I admire your very technical posts in the past even though my EE knowledge is really rusty now.

what indicates what? You dont have any logic. post some 100% crop and
then speak ok? otherwise, shut up.

The people who are saying that the D300 has low noise are the ones
who need to shut up, because there has been no evidence that any
significant improvements have been made, relative to Canon cameras.
They are fooled by NR, in well-exposed images with the shadows
flattened to hide their weaknesses.

The D300 images linked to in the first post are 100%; you can clearly
see in them that there is significant noise reduction even in the no
NR samples, and you can see the traces of the noise - pale
low-frequency chromatic noise that is clearly the result of heavy
chroma filtering.

It gets really tiring listening to all the optically naive masses
gushing over heavy noise reduction (same with Fuji P&S cameras),
crediting sensor technology, with no real strides in sensor noise
occuring.

As far as comparing cameras are concerned, to date I know of no one
who has access to both a D300 (or even a D200, and older cameras) and
any Canon DSLR has ever taken the same shot with them in RAW with the
same manual exposure, both under-exposed at high ISO, and made the
RAWs accessible. In an ISO 1600 black frame, the noisiest recent
Canon (400D) has half the read noise of the quietest recent Nikon
(40D) at the pixel level, and thats with 10MP as opposed to 6MP.

--
John

 

[Dejan Malikovski]

Where are your RAW's/NEF's from the Nikon camera, now? You lost them somewhere I guess... BTW I saw a test there D300 had 2.5 times less read noise than the 5D. So that makes your word against mine. (EYHO)

what indicates what? You dont have any logic. post some 100% crop and
then speak ok? otherwise, shut up.

The people who are saying that the D300 has low noise are the ones
who need to shut up, because there has been no evidence that any
significant improvements have been made, relative to Canon cameras.
They are fooled by NR, in well-exposed images with the shadows
flattened to hide their weaknesses.

The D300 images linked to in the first post are 100%; you can clearly
see in them that there is significant noise reduction even in the no
NR samples, and you can see the traces of the noise - pale
low-frequency chromatic noise that is clearly the result of heavy
chroma filtering.

It gets really tiring listening to all the optically naive masses
gushing over heavy noise reduction (same with Fuji P&S cameras),
crediting sensor technology, with no real strides in sensor noise
occuring.

As far as comparing cameras are concerned, to date I know of no one
who has access to both a D300 (or even a D200, and older cameras) and
any Canon DSLR has ever taken the same shot with them in RAW with the
same manual exposure, both under-exposed at high ISO, and made the
RAWs accessible. In an ISO 1600 black frame, the noisiest recent
Canon (400D) has half the read noise of the quietest recent Nikon
(40D) at the pixel level, and thats with 10MP as opposed to 6MP.

I will repeat:" what indicates what? You don't have any logic. post some 100% crop and then speak ok? otherwise, shut up."
--



2007 Digital Camera Satisfaction Study:
http://www.jdpower.com/electronics/ratings/digital_camera/dslr

 

[Kuivaamo]

Given your increasingly transparent agenda and lack of objectivity, and the number of knowledgeable posts John has made regarding RAW data, I'll pick John's word at this point.

BTW I hope the link in your signature is meant as a joke. No one who knows their L lens from a Lensbaby would take its contents seriously, at least.

So that makes your word against mine. (EYHO)

 

[Dejan Malikovski]

[nt]

 

[Joe0Bloggs]

While we laugh--not with you though!

 

[KM Glassman]

It gets really tiring listening to all the optically naive masses
gushing over heavy noise reduction (same with Fuji P&S cameras),
crediting sensor technology, with no real strides in sensor noise
occuring.
--
John

"Optically naive" or better informed than you perhaps? The Fujifilm Super CCDs sensors used in their P&S compact cameras have a unique hardware design which improves IQ at higher ISO's. They do not rely solely on noise reduction algorithms to achieve their superior low noise. Canon doesn't have anything to compare to the Fuji Super CCDs. Nobody else has it, just Fuji. Read and learn!
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1043202460.html
--
Glassman

 

[John Sheehy]

"Optically naive" or better informed than you perhaps? The Fujifilm
Super CCDs sensors used in their P&S compact cameras have a unique
hardware design which improves IQ at higher ISO's. They do not rely
solely on noise reduction algorithms to achieve their superior low
noise. Canon doesn't have anything to compare to the Fuji Super CCDs.
Nobody else has it, just Fuji. Read and learn!

That does not apply to the small sensors. That is how the Fuji S* DSLR series works. The P&S Fujis only have one element per photosite. Even the DSLRs only have their headroom extended by the dual elements; it doesn't increase sensitivity or lower the SNR.

--
John

 

[photo nuts]

"Optically naive" or better informed than you perhaps? The Fujifilm
Super CCDs sensors used in their P&S compact cameras have a unique
hardware design which improves IQ at higher ISO's.

Only to some extent.

Canon doesn't have anything to compare to the Fuji Super CCDs.
Nobody else has it, just Fuji. Read and learn!

I am surprised you did not know that the Fuji S5 has the same horrible high ISO performance as the D200. Read and think!

 

[RichNS]

Now dye your hair orange and wear a red nose and you can start calling yourself a professional.

 

[thw]

should be a good indicator of what you're talking about since most cameras offer ISO 3200 as a push/pull of ISO 1600.

-------------------------------------------
See the colors of my world in:
thw.smugmug.com

 

[The Davinator]

n/t

 

[Dejan Malikovski]

Nice of you to point that out. You might even use a few technical words, like John does. It will make you look more professional.

It gets really tiring listening to all the optically naive masses
gushing over heavy noise reduction (same with Fuji P&S cameras),
crediting sensor technology, with no real strides in sensor noise
occuring.
--
John

"Optically naive" or better informed than you perhaps? The Fujifilm
Super CCDs sensors used in their P&S compact cameras have a unique
hardware design which improves IQ at higher ISO's. They do not rely
solely on noise reduction algorithms to achieve their superior low
noise. Canon doesn't have anything to compare to the Fuji Super CCDs.
Nobody else has it, just Fuji. Read and learn!
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1043202460.html
--
Glassman

And hear is why I was laughing, about. Someone figured it, not just flaming me for my statement.

--



2007 Digital Camera Satisfaction Study:
http://www.jdpower.com/electronics/ratings/digital_camera/dslr

 

[Oak and Acorn]

I firmly believe that Nikon has two very definite winners on their hands right now with the D300 and D3.

It would be best to wait and see how they fair in the hands of every day users. That will be the true test of these cameras' abilities and overall IQ.

Personally, I think they are going to WOW their users, same as the new 40D has WOWED so many of its users, including myself.

It's a win-win situation all the way around for everyone involved. Dslr quality has drastically improved very quickly, and can only get better from here.

Let's just wait and see how the new Nikon cameras do in the hands of those that truly look forward to using them, and will use them with a passion, not merely for testing purposes.

Just saw this direct comparison between the D200 vs D300:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=25515548

It CLEARLY shows the D300 does NOT have any noise advantage over the
D200. Zip, zilch, nada.

So, if the D200 was 1 stop worse than the 400D, it remains that way.
Sigh...

Sorry. My bad.

-------------------------------------------
See the colors of my world in:
thw.smugmug.com
-------------------------------------------

--
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/

 

[Patco]

"Optically naive" or better informed than you perhaps? The Fujifilm
Super CCDs sensors used in their P&S compact cameras have a unique
hardware design which improves IQ at higher ISO's.

Only to some extent.

Canon doesn't have anything to compare to the Fuji Super CCDs.
Nobody else has it, just Fuji. Read and learn!

I am surprised you did not know that the Fuji S5 has the same
horrible high ISO performance as the D200. Read and think!

I am surprised you think the S5 is a P&S compact camera ;-) Read & think?

--
Patco
A photograph is more than a bunch of pixels

 

[AlvinL]

This thread....

Canon is the DSLR to choose for high ISO performance. I cant believe threads like this still exist. Just do a quick search (if it is working) on "Canon vs Nikon High ISO" or something similar. You will laugh your @asses off because you will see very similar responses in those old threads.
--