Reading mode: Light Dark

Wait till you see D300 high ISO images: WOW.

Go to last post
I've nothing against seeing Nikon images posted here. As long as the test shots are made in an appropriate manner and they are in context.

Still, I'm not seeing anything beyond what's been previously posted by 40D users, and not far removed from 30D/20D at 3200 either. At 3200 the 40D might actually be cleaner in the shadows, but we need a better side by side to conclude.
 
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?

Thanks as always. I agree with the noise reduction on the D300, by the way. Actually both cameras have lots of it.
John Sheehy said:
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.
John Sheehy 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.
John Sheehy 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...
John Sheehy 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

Click to expand...
 
Nikon use trying hard to convince people that they can shot decent pictures...

no need for canon user to do that because its a well known fact.

when you talk about photography ordinary people think of Canon...
thw said:
http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/d300a700a1007d_test&page=2

Extremely detailed and well-controlled noise.

The A700, on the other hand, is quite a disaster IMO.

-------------------------------------------
See the colors of my world in:
thw.smugmug.com
-------------------------------------------
Click to expand...
 
I don't think their any better that the D40, but there certainly is nothing wrong with matching (and I think they do match rather nicely) the 40D which a lot of people, including me, think was the standard on crop sensors. I was simply responding to jonangelos remark about the images (ugh unpretty). Thats kinda blind.

ANd the real laugh was someone calling THW a nikon fan boy, I almost dropped my pop on that one.
 
discussion about cameras without you falling instantly into your canon fanboy defense posture? Both these cameras take great shots, they will by far lead the rest of the industry, both in quality and sales.

I havent been able to decide which one I want, it will come down to the xmas bonus, but I sure couldnt go wrong with either of them.
 
D300 is acceptable but no giant killer.
--
Dave Patterson
---------------------
Midwestshutterbug.com
----------------------------------
'When the light and composition are strong, nobody
notices things like resolution or pincushion distortion'
Gary Friedman
 
Based on the explaination, Nikon's 3200 is more like actual 2500 or 1600 (it took twice the shutter time for the same iso rating). The 3200 image is truely amazing if it's indeed 3200.
 
Some weird colors going on due to nikon trying to remove all color noise. Some weird yellowing going on. Nasty.
 
I just don't see any point getting excited over the D300 vs 40D vs 5D battle or the D3 vs 1D mark III vs 1Ds mark III contest until reliable testers like dpreview and steves-digicams publish their tests. Reports from the more photographer oriented sites like the outback, luminous-landscape and galbraith sites will probably be even better.

Getting a few scraps of material from here and there seems to proove very little.
 
I particularly like the D300 at ISO 1600, very well-controlled. Up through ISO 3200, it's preserved gobs of detail. Great stuff.
 
sandy b said:
ANd the real laugh was someone calling THW a nikon fan boy, I almost
dropped my pop on that one.
Click to expand...
Quite surprised to see that myself. ;)

I simply call a spade a spade.

In the past, when Nikon folks are feverishly defending the image quality of the Sony 10 MP APS-C sensor, I will point evidence to the contrary.

But this time round, I am seriously impressed by the one on the D300. Especially since this is an increase from 10 to 12 MP.

I don't think Canon can ever claim to be the king of image quality anymore. The simultaneous release of the D3 and D300 have leveled the playing field. Throw in the gazillion features on the D3/D300, and we have a pair of very compelling cameras in the market.

If the D80/D40x upgrades spot the same sensor (and it most certainly will), I expect the bestselling Rebel series to be dethroned from the top of the sales charts in no time. I just don't see how Canon can compete especially since they are so used to crippling their non-1 series cameras.

If I am starting from scratch, I will most certainly get Nikon. The 18-200 and 105 f/2.8 macro are excellent lenses. And more importantly, Nikon entry-level cameras focus more accurately under dim conditions than their Canon counterparts.

-------------------------------------------
See the colors of my world in:
thw.smugmug.com
 
Very nice, I would have bought one if it weren't for the lack of range in prime lenses. I still think Canon lenses are a much better value, and hey, the body is only $1200 for a 40D (what a steal!). In a year (or less) when 7D or some FF alternative comes out from Canon, this is up for sale.

--
rs

I'm a Nikon fan turned Canon convert. I now use a Canon 40D, 16-35 II 2.8L, 50mm 1.2L, 85mm 1.2L, and I'm not looking back.
 
the D300 and A700 shots. The D300 has by shutter and aperture a full stop more exposure. By visual on my monitor it appears to be probably 2/3'd of a stop. For this reason I don't think this is a valid test as it does tilt the tables slightly in favor of the D300.

Bob
thw said:
http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/d300a700a1007d_test&page=2

Extremely detailed and well-controlled noise.

The A700, on the other hand, is quite a disaster IMO.

-------------------------------------------
See the colors of my world in:
thw.smugmug.com
-------------------------------------------
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
My PBASE page is new and growing so please be patient.
 
Congrats to Nikon for FINALLY catching up in the area of high ISO, but it really is interesting to see Nikon shooters so gleeful> > >

As a former 30D owner (and regular Nikon user), I know that the D300 samples shown show about the same noise...perhaps a bit worse/better, but nothing very different from the 30D. ISO 3200 prints a beautiful 8.5X100 print and so does the 30D and 40D if you've exposed properly and avoided cropping. End of THAT story.
The D300's advantages for FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS MORE are as follows:

1) Totally professional Auto Focus. Same module used in the D3.
2) Faster frame rate potential

3) The ONLY pro LCD on the market. That's right, PRO LCD. Once you see it on a D3 or D300 you'll realize that the rear LCD has been a missing tool for some time.
4) Higher MP
5) FULL 100% coverage viewfinder
6) HDMI Out
7) Weather Sealing
8) Custom focus adjustment for lens issues
9) Functional AF system while Live View is activated
10) On demand grid lines
11) 100 shot buffer (Not sure about this one yet)
12) Higher rated shutter life (By 50'000)
13) Advanced Wireless commander function built in

I'm sure a few things are off on my list, but that's the jist of it. Is all of that worth 500 bucks? That's up to you. Yapping about ISO differences is fun, but in real world shooting I've done fine with the D200, 30D, and D80. They were all quite close when I did my job right. So those features above are more of what the D300 is all about and why it costs more. NOT the ISO range. For the price, the 40D is utterly fantastic. But the D300 is a higher end camera and will do more for SOME people. If that's not "you" then you saved 500 bucks. Nikon and Canon did not build the 40D and D300 to compete head to head. The Canon beats everything in it's class, such as the aging D80 and D200. Nikon slotted the D300 between the 40D and 5D. It has no real battle to win at it's price point. And the 5D, 40D and D300 are all VERY viable cameras....at their respective price points. For MY usage, the D300 beats them both. That's the great thing here. We all get to pick out what suits us.

Cheers,

Thomas
 
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.
Click to expand...
No mistake. 12mp cameras can sell for more than 10mp cameras. Everyone knows that.
me2000 said:
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.
Click to expand...
They could have done that but it wouldn't have been a profitable thing to do. In fact, Nikon D80 has lower noise at high ISO settings than D200. So they had indeed done that.
me2000 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Canon's own 12mp camera is a full frame model and it costs more than the D300. So, there is no incentive for Nikon to lower prices.
 
Yes I know as read that too.

When you do a test of this magnitude you need to do your homework first by testing the sensitivity of each body to determine proper exposure settings. Worse yet David apparently just allowed each camera to meter the scene and use the resultant EV even though they were a full stop different. I assume he was doing a nosie test not a metering accuracy evaluation.

I feel for him as this test was a lot of time and effort and it is unfortunate the results are not as useful as they should be.

Bob
sandy b said:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=25513384
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
My PBASE page is new and growing so please be patient.
 
me2000 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree. IMO with current available technology 12 MP belongs on a FF sensor but maybe Phil's D300 review will change my mind. I was pleased and impressed that Canon stayed with 10 for the 40D and did not bow to market pressure. People can say what they like but one area Canon does not compromise on is overall IQ.

Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
My PBASE page is new and growing so please be patient.
 
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