D60, D80, D90 - image quality?

[BasilG]

I'm a traveller, and have ALWAYS my D40+18-200VR with me, whatever
place I am in. The D60 is the same as the D40 (weight and size), and
has ADL, and 10 MP.
If you want to save you some bucks, and are fine with 6MP, you might
choose a D40.

Nope, not fine with 6 MP. I occasionally print large.

Don't know how old you are, but I'm 58, and weight and size matter!!!

Oh, I'm young. I can carry the weight. It's more about the volume, actually.

BG

 

[BasilG]

My experience with nikon's 3 dx sensors is that one should pick
either the 6 mp or the 12 mp. For my money that would be the choices.
The D90 is definitely better than the 10mp sensor cameras and
basically equal to the 300. Get your hands on one and try it for
yourself and you should be able to easily see the difference. Don't
just trust what someone has posted on the web (me or anybody else).

So you think the DPReview test shots are not to be trusted?

BG

 

[BasilG]

reads like you've already talked yourself into a d80. in your place
i'd go for a d90 (in fact, i just did) or if funds are limiting, and
carry-weight is a consideration (i personally wouldn't fancy hauling
a d300 in a backpack for a month), the (unlisted) d40. skip the d60
-- it's neither-nor. the d40's battery is fine; the menu-diving isn't
irksome as almost everything you need is 2 presses of the info button
away and the IQ is certainly up there with the d80; as is the d90's
with the d300, despite rumours to the contrary.

d90 + 105/ 2.5AIS @f2.5, iso200 (all manual) jpeg, PPed in picasa.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3196/2957286859_92eb2e194b_b.jpg

Yes, anybody that thinks the d90 is incapable of sharp, excellent
output needs to take a look at a couple of your shots with that lens
Eric, great job

Come on. This is a web-sized image (even though it's a nice one). For that, even a 4 MP sensor would be enough...

BG

 

[RAL131504]

I didn't read back, but if I said dp review shots or any others shouldn't be trusted, I apologize. I would have intended to say that any test shots on the web are test shots done under the conditions, work flow and methods of those doing the tests with their computers and equipment which I have found in many cases do not produce the same results I get with my equipment and work flow and methods. That is probably also why different tests seem to indicate different results. If I make comparisons, I try to do it side by side on my own equipment with shots taken as near as possible at the same time and under the same conditions created with the same methods.

 

[ericBlair]

Come on. This is a web-sized image (even though it's a nice one). For
that, even a 4 MP sensor would be enough...

here's a bigger image from the same set -- 1600x1200 (and a 100% crop). i'm pretty sure i nailed the focus somewhere in this one altho that is likely to be a significant variable @f2.5. also bear in mind that at f2.5 we might be bumping against the resolving limit of the lens, even one as superb as the 105/2.5; also that this is an out-of-cam jpeg, with default in-camera settings (except d-lighting:normal), PPed in picasa with 1x unsharp, ie. there's room for improvement. all that aside, if you can show a significantly sharper sample from a d300 i'd be interested in seeing it.

d90 + nikkor 105/2.5 @f2.5



and 100% crop from the above



--
my web albums:
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/theabsurdman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/74185915@N00/

 

[BasilG]

I didn't read back, but if I said dp review shots or any others
shouldn't be trusted, I apologize. I would have intended to say that
any test shots on the web are test shots done under the conditions,
work flow and methods of those doing the tests with their computers
and equipment which I have found in many cases do not produce the
same results I get with my equipment and work flow and methods. That
is probably also why different tests seem to indicate different
results. If I make comparisons, I try to do it side by side on my own
equipment with shots taken as near as possible at the same time and
under the same conditions created with the same methods.

Alright. That makes complete sense.

BG

 

[ericBlair]

in-camera sharpening is at the nikon default and i've applied 1x unsharp in picasa afterwards. this is an out-of-cam jpeg, so i don't what the RAW would have lookedlike. i have pulled-up the shadows quite a bit to in PP accentuate the background which is probably the source of the noise you are seeing.

Very nice (natural) skin tones. It is however a bit oversharpened imo.
But that's not what I wanted to ask. I wanted to ask about the noise
in the background. Is it there in RAW as well or is it a
JPEG-compression thing?
--
http://www.klaastuin.nl

--
my web albums:
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/theabsurdman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/74185915@N00/

 

[BasilG]

here's a bigger image from the same set -- 1600x1200 (and a 100%
crop). i'm pretty sure i nailed the focus somewhere in this one altho
that is likely to be a significant variable @f2.5. also bear in mind
that at f2.5 we might be bumping against the resolving limit of the
lens, even one as superb as the 105/2.5; also that this is an
out-of-cam jpeg, with default in-camera settings (except
d-lighting:normal), PPed in picasa with 1x unsharp, ie. there's room
for improvement. all that aside, if you can show a significantly
sharper sample from a d300 i'd be interested in seeing it.

It's not about sharpness. It's about detail retention. You can sharpen things up, but you can't add detail that the sensor didn't capture. For that kind of thing, I generally find landscape shots more telling.

BG

 

[ericBlair]

It's not about sharpness. It's about detail retention. You can
sharpen things up, but you can't add detail that the sensor didn't
capture. For that kind of thing, I generally find landscape shots
more telling.

sorry, i'm not into landscapes so i can't help you there, but i'll rephrase it.

in the sample i posted, an out-of-cam d90 jpeg, which has much room for improvement, you can count the hairs on his nose or the micro-capillaries in his eyelid, but if you can show a significantly more detailed sample from a d300 i'd be interested in seeing it, seriously.

--
my web albums:
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/theabsurdman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/74185915@N00/

 

[georgeorwell]

D90: Expensive at the moment (because it's new), while (apparently)
not delivering much more than the D80 at low ISO.

what? D90 for many people has also a better Iso performance then D300 , and you think its worst then D80???

D90 has sure 1 or 2 stop advantage on high iso over D80

and maybe also half or 1 stop over D300

IQ in other area is 100% as D300

 

[Waldo_O]

reads like you've already talked yourself into a d80. in your place
i'd go for a d90 (in fact, i just did) or if funds are limiting, and
carry-weight is a consideration (i personally wouldn't fancy hauling
a d300 in a backpack for a month), the (unlisted) d40. skip the d60
-- it's neither-nor. the d40's battery is fine; the menu-diving isn't
irksome as almost everything you need is 2 presses of the info button
away and the IQ is certainly up there with the d80; as is the d90's
with the d300, despite rumours to the contrary.

d90 + 105/ 2.5AIS @f2.5, iso200 (all manual) jpeg, PPed in picasa.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3196/2957286859_92eb2e194b_b.jpg

Yes, anybody that thinks the d90 is incapable of sharp, excellent
output needs to take a look at a couple of your shots with that lens
Eric, great job

Come on. This is a web-sized image (even though it's a nice one). For
that, even a 4 MP sensor would be enough...

BG

Maybe you need to quit worrying about pixel counts and upgrade your monitor...

 

[garyking]

Hi all

For an upcoming trip (one month through Thailand), I'm trying to
assemble a kit with a good "performance to weight" ratio. I have a
D300, and I'm really very tempted to bring that thing along. However,
having a slightly smaller and lighter camera would be nice too.

A reasonable thought.

The D90 sounded like the perfect ticket, but it seems that the IQ is not
up to snuff with the D300, and not really better than that of the 10
MP D80 (I couldn't see much of a difference in the dpreview crops
anyway).

Now how you came to this conclusion is a mystery to me. I have followed closely the intro's of all of Nikons cameras after the D50. I have seen thousands of shots from each camera at all kinds of settings and the poster who thoguht there may be an image difference due to the sensor has it right IMHO. While all of the D40-D80 shots are very good, they all have an "intensity" to them - sorry but that is the best I can do. The D300 shots were not as "intense" and most of the D890 pics are even less "intense" which to me leads to what to me is a more realistic image. I find a "depth" to the images of the D300 and D90 that is not as readily apprent in the other cams.

NOW HAVING SAID THAT;

The differences are only obvious when viewed in the kinds of volumes we have here on this web site. Such "differences" would not usually be visible sitting in a living room sifting through snap shots or at a photo on a wall.

So, I respectfully specifically disagree that the D90 images are not up to snuff compared to the D300.

gk
--
'I'm not as smart today as I will be tomorrow.'

 

[Patco]

D90: Expensive at the moment (because it's new), while (apparently)
not delivering much more than the D80 at low ISO.

what? D90 for many people has also a better Iso performance then D300
, and you think its worst then D80???

I don't see where he said anything about worse; he said, "not delivering
much more than the D80 at low ISO". Big difference.
Compare for yourself the D90 vs D80 high ISO (at 1600 and less) here:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

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

 

[ken burke]

I would definetly recommend the 16-85VR lens. Great lens and small. Good IQ.

ken

--

Nikon D50, 16-85 VR, 18-55 mm DX, 18-135 DX, 50mm f/1.4, 70-300 VR. PS Ele 4; PS Ele 6; 8 books on editing photos, and two books on the D50. SB-600.

 

[BasilG]

D90: Expensive at the moment (because it's new), while (apparently)
not delivering much more than the D80 at low ISO.

what? D90 for many people has also a better Iso performance then D300
, and you think its worst then D80???

Did you read what I wrote? LOW ISO.

and maybe also half or 1 stop over D300

One stop over the D300? I'd like to have that confirmed.

IQ in other area is 100% as D300

DPReview says otherwise. Do you have both? And compared them side-by-side? I'm really wondering about that DPR verdict...

BG

 

[BasilG]

I would definetly recommend the 16-85VR lens. Great lens and small.
Good IQ.

I think I'm covered in the mid-zoom range. The 18-135 DX does things surprisingly well, and for quality at the wide and long ends, there will be two fairly nice lenses with me on the trip.

BG

 

[TFergus]

So, the pro/con arguments are as follows:

D300: Weather sealed body, does everything I want, and more. Best
image quality. Best AF. Probably best viewfinder. A bit of a brick.

32 oz.

D90: Expensive at the moment (because it's new), while (apparently)
not delivering much more than the D80 at low ISO.

25 oz.

D80: Price/performance winner. Can be gotten used for fairly low
prices. No dust buster.

24 oz.

Well after your cons of the D60 let's rule that out (btw I agree).

So you own a D300 with weather sealing and achieves better images than the D80/90's... and you list everything else that is better also... and are considering buying another camera to save the 7 oz. weight difference ??

Why wouldnt you put that money into better lenses ? Nice dinners ?

 

[Arree]

May this year I bought the D60 and after 4 weeks of shooting in Thailand the sensor was dirty deu to hot and humid conditions there, dispite the cleaningmechanism(the sensor was very dirty).

Photoquality is good but I was dissapointed and dicided to buy a D300 cause it's sealed.
I work with a 18-200 mm which i concider still the ideal backpackers lens.

If you decide to buy some glass you might want to look around in Bangkok.

I can recommend you PANTIP PLAZA(5th flr) where you can buy all the Nikon lenses and body's you can affort.

MBK is a nice place too, It helps immensly if you bring a tonacious thai who can lower the prices for you ;-)
On Silom road 12 you can find the NIKON CENTRE(official prices)
Hope this helps.

Regards,

Arree

Like to see some pic's ?
http://picasaweb.google.nl/Arretje56/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/13935871@N04/

 

[TonyS22]

I would take the D300 with a nice light lens. Having a light lens will make more of a difference with the weight anyway, at least that's what I've found. The 18-135 would be great and would cover a nice range, and is also really light. To me it doesn't make sense to buy another camera for this, unless you wanted someting really small, like a D40... but still I'd go with the D300.

 

[ericBlair]

super pics of Nong Khai. i crossed into thailand there across the friendship bridge from laos many years ago. great memories. you are making me want to take up landscapes now!

May this year I bought the D60 and after 4 weeks of shooting in
Thailand the sensor was dirty deu to hot and humid conditions there,
dispite the cleaningmechanism(the sensor was very dirty).
Photoquality is good but I was dissapointed and dicided to buy a D300
cause it's sealed.
I work with a 18-200 mm which i concider still the ideal backpackers
lens.

If you decide to buy some glass you might want to look around in
Bangkok.
I can recommend you PANTIP PLAZA(5th flr) where you can buy all the
Nikon lenses and body's you can affort.
MBK is a nice place too, It helps immensly if you bring a tonacious
thai who can lower the prices for you ;-)
On Silom road 12 you can find the NIKON CENTRE(official prices)
Hope this helps.

Regards,

Arree

Like to see some pic's ?
http://picasaweb.google.nl/Arretje56/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/13935871@N04/

--
my web albums:
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/theabsurdman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/74185915@N00/