Reading mode: Light Dark

Wait till you see D300 high ISO images: WOW.

Go to last post
comparing best case Canon price against a yet to be released worst case Nikon price is fair, I also want to add to me2000 comparison.

Don't forget that you would have to add the optiona (and not cheap)l Nikon battery grip to get the FPS up - and by the way, I wouldn't want to shoot in 14 bit RAW with that Nikon :)

Continuous shooting * • With built-in battery: up to 6 fps
• With AC adapter or MB-D10 pack and batteries other than EN-EL3e: up to 8 fps
• 12-bit RAW at full speed, 14-bit RAW only 2.5 fps

--
Rachel
CATS member #51 > ^..^
Hummingbird Hunter #6
 
According to the poster comments on the pbase gallery studio flash was used. If that is the case then the colour virbrancy and detail would be greatly improved and noise would be reduced. I am not impressed by these examples given studio flash was used.
 
TimR32225 said:
Thanks for posting the samples, but frankly I believe the IQ in them
leaves a lot to be desired, compared to the claims. When I first
read all the hype about the d3 and d300, I thought maybe Nikon had
actually bested the Canon offerings in terms of IQ. But if these
samples represent the best the d300 can do, I don't think that's the
case at all.

What I see is washed out photos - All of the Nikon samples I looked
at your link show photos that remind me of post processing that
includes severely lowering the contrast in photoshop. The colors are
very pale and washed out. There is almost no definition in the blue
and green of the peacock feathers. And you can see noise that is
masked by all the blurring of the NR (even when the setting is NR
off). Even in places like the grey background, there are lots of
yellow splotches. My guess is that if you add back some contrast in
post processing and/or increase saturation a little in order to get
back some of the lost contrast, you'd see all the noise that is
really there.

In the samples with high NR, the feathers are so blurred that their
colors blend in with amber color of the guitar (or whatever that
instrument is) so badly that the feather seems to lose all
definition.

These appear to be quite a bit better results than from Nikon's
previous cameras, but my gut feeling now is that Nikon has overstated
its accomplishment. These might be on par with Canon's IQ, or may
be not quite there. Possibly some better photos than these can be
produced from the camera, if there is any truth at all to Nikons
statements about these new cameras.

I'm curious why you chose to post this in the Canon forum. If you're
not a troll, you give yourself the appearance of one by doing that.

That is my honest, objective opinion.

Tim
--
Gallery at: http://www.pbase.com/tim32225

Click to expand...
 
TexasAg03 said:
Once again, there is a $500 difference in the retail cost of the
cameras. If it is worth it to you, buy the D300; if not, buy the
40D. They are both excellent cameras.
Click to expand...
Thats actually not true in the real world, even ignoring various discount vouchers and the rest.

Here in the UK, I can go into a shop and purchase a 40D body only for £749 , with a £50 cashback from canon making it £699. That is the current normal price, not sale, not coupons, just current market price.

I can pre order a D300 for £1299 from the same shop.

Thats £600 difference, £550 if you ignore the current Canon cashback rebate.

Or $1200/$1100 difference at current high street prices.
 
rachp said:
comparing best case Canon price against a yet to be released worst
case Nikon price is fair, I also want to add to me2000 comparison.

Don't forget that you would have to add the optiona (and not cheap)l
Nikon battery grip to get the FPS up - and by the way, I wouldn't
want to shoot in 14 bit RAW with that Nikon :)

Continuous shooting * • With built-in battery: up to 6 fps
• With AC adapter or MB-D10 pack and batteries other than EN-EL3e: up
to 8 fps
• 12-bit RAW at full speed, 14-bit RAW only 2.5 fps
Click to expand...
Well, 6 fps is almost equal to 6.5 of the Canon, and 8 fps is an optional bonus. And I don't think you are losing much if you have to shoot 12 bit instead of 14 bit ONLY in the high-speed drive mode, so these two arguments are a bit artificial (but the price difference is quite real - even at "normal" street prices).
--
Misha
 
valetman said:
TexasAg03 said:
Once again, there is a $500 difference in the retail cost of the
cameras. If it is worth it to you, buy the D300; if not, buy the
40D. They are both excellent cameras.
Click to expand...
Thats actually not true in the real world, even ignoring various
discount vouchers and the rest.

Here in the UK, I can go into a shop and purchase a 40D body only for
£749 , with a £50 cashback from canon making it £699. That is the
current normal price, not sale, not coupons, just current market
price.

I can pre order a D300 for £1299 from the same shop.

Thats £600 difference, £550 if you ignore the current Canon cashback
rebate.

Or $1200/$1100 difference at current high street prices.
Click to expand...
The 40D probably was more than £699 on preorder too - wait till the 300D actually starts selling in stores.

--
Misha
 
misha said:
valetman wrote:
The 40D probably was more than £699 on preorder too - wait till the
300D actually starts selling in stores.
Click to expand...
BTW (if the prices hold) that would make the Canon almost same price as in the US, while the Nikon is 40% more expensive than in the US.

--
Misha
 
misha said:
The 40D probably was more than £699 on preorder too - wait till the
300D actually starts selling in stores.

--
Misha
Click to expand...
The 200D STILL sells for £799 , or more than a 40D.

So I dont think that is a factor.
 
They are indicated on image titles. David said the tungsten lighting was the equivalent of a gym or concert hall, it is by no means bright lighting. Just look at the shutter speeds and corresponding iso's.
 
I don't see what you are except maybe the 6400. These are not very well lit and the images are 34" wide, with no noise reduction. i think they look fine. Show me a 40D image at that size, dim light and noise reduction turned off and then we can discuss how bad these are.
 
is not that these are bad shots, at least from my pov, but that Canon cameras have been capturing images like this, including from lesser models like the xxxD, and xxD series of cameras, for a long time now. Great shots using higher ISO's is nothing new to users of Canons in this forum. :)

At the same time, there is nothing groundbreaking about these high ISO shots from the D300 either, and certainly not from the A700.

Congrats to Nikon for FINALLY catching up in the area of high ISO, but it really is interesting to see Nikon shooters so gleeful over what many on here in the Canon forums have been enjoying for a long time now - high ISO shots that are outstanding and very usable!

--
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/

 
misha said:
rachp said:
comparing best case Canon price against a yet to be released worst
case Nikon price is fair, I also want to add to me2000 comparison.

Don't forget that you would have to add the optiona (and not cheap)l
Nikon battery grip to get the FPS up - and by the way, I wouldn't
want to shoot in 14 bit RAW with that Nikon :)

Continuous shooting * • With built-in battery: up to 6 fps
• With AC adapter or MB-D10 pack and batteries other than EN-EL3e: up
to 8 fps
• 12-bit RAW at full speed, 14-bit RAW only 2.5 fps
Click to expand...
Well, 6 fps is almost equal to 6.5 of the Canon, and 8 fps is an
optional bonus. And I don't think you are losing much if you have to
shoot 12 bit instead of 14 bit ONLY in the high-speed drive mode, so
these two arguments are a bit artificial (but the price difference is
quite real - even at "normal" street prices).
--
Misha
Click to expand...
I guess the importance depends on the individual making the decision.

For me, I am not too concerned about 14 vs 12 bit - but if I paid more for Nikon and found out Canon could do 14bit without cutting into my fps, I wouldn't be happy.

The optional grip would be a problem for me if I were shooting Nikon - I wouldn't want to pay the extra cost but I would feel like I had to to make the most of one of the cameras high points - so, add that to the cost of the D300 and it keeps getting further from the 40D.

With the D300 being so much more expensive than the 40D, I would expect 8fps (without grip) and 14 bit without cutting into the speed.
--
Rachel
CATS member #51 > ^..^
Hummingbird Hunter #6
 
This past summer a D2x was 4000.00

I think most Nikon boys are happy to get it for 1800.
 
Very good comparison on this subject. Wow, indeed. Shows how much the D300 is better in terms of saving detail and IQ wile shooting at the highest of ISOs. Much better than anything else on the market, obviously.

I know all of you are thinking this words, but are too scared to say them. Look deep down inside your heart and stop lieing to yourself, only then you can see how good this samples really are.
John Sheehy said:
Hard to tell from these samples. Even the "NR-OFF" images have heavy
noise reduction. I can't see any detail or color in the high-ISO
shadows.
Click to expand...
I really had a good laugh on this one! :) Nicely put. Look at the pictures next time.
--



2007 Digital Camera Satisfaction Study:
http://www.jdpower.com/electronics/ratings/digital_camera/dslr
 
Dejan Malikovski said:
Very good comparison on this subject. Wow, indeed. Shows how much the
D300 is better in terms of saving detail and IQ wile shooting at the
highest of ISOs.
Click to expand...
There is no IQ in the shadows.
Dejan Malikovski said:
Much better than anything else on the market,
obviously.
Click to expand...
If it were, it wouldn't need the level of noise reduction that these images have.
Dejan Malikovski said:
I know all of you are thinking this words, but are too scared to say
them. Look deep down inside your heart and stop lieing to yourself,
only then you can see how good this samples really are.
Click to expand...
Dejan Malikovski said:
John Sheehy said:
Hard to tell from these samples. Even the "NR-OFF" images have heavy
noise reduction. I can't see any detail or color in the high-ISO
shadows.
Click to expand...
I really had a good laugh on this one! :) Nicely put. Look at the
pictures next time.
Click to expand...
I looked at the pictures. That is where I saw the noise reduction.

You are very gullible.

--
John

 
me2000 said:
A bunch of us bought 40Ds for approximately $1100 with the IS lens.
An equivalent D300 would be $2400ish, more than twice the cost ! For
that it should be better, a lot better !

In reality, I bet its IQ won't measure up to the 40D. I think Nikon
made a mistake moving the D300 from 10MP to 12MP. They should have
stayed at 10MP and lowered the high ISO noise. Before you call me a
Canon lover, my last camera was a D50.

I could have bought a D300. I bought a 40D with a 28-135 IS,
50/f1.8, 430EX flash and 85 f/1.8 for less than $1700. Nikon needs
to lower the price of the D300 and improve the availability to
compete.

--
40D, 28-135 IS, 50 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8, 430EX all on order.

I took over 10K images with my past outfit...
D50, 18-70, 50f/1.8D.
DK21M Eyepiece magnifier.
SB600 Flash

User of Gimp and Ufraw on Linux instead of Photoshop
Click to expand...
Where can you get a 40D for 1100 with the lens??
 
I'm trying to look at the one in your tag without laughing, and noticed your bear an uncanny resemblence to Will Ferrel in 'Blades of Glory'. :-)
--
 
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