Not sure about the D300

[Loa]

Hello,

I don't want to start a flame war between Canon and Nikon, so please consider the bodies for what they are, regardless of the brand attached to it. And I know it's not a new debate.

I'm a long time Nikon user, so the step up from my D70 to the upcoming D300 seemed logical. But I've been reading up and comparing photos taken from the pre-production D300 and the new 40D. Basic (and old, I know) problem: high ISO noise.

Some pictures are available here: Nikon D300 High ISO Sample Images from an Expo in Paris « The Nikon D300 Journal

Just compare the full sized ISO 1000 from the D300 with any photos taken with the 40D, at ISO 1600.

The Canon wins hands down. Pure and simple. In the end, by taking a 40D instead of a D300, I save a couple hundred bucks, and loose nothing more than 2 Mpixels and a gorgeous LCD.

That's it? (And change my lenses, yes)

Now I know those are pre-prod bodies. But how different can high ISO noise images be from now to the final D300?

Is there more to the D300 that I'm missing? Anything that is ***significantly*** better than the 40D?

Thanks,

Loa

P.S. I don't care about Canon and Nikon: I just want to know if the D300 can catch up to the 40D in the high ISO department.

[Nikonfreak]

It really depends on the tweaks they make before final release. At this point, I would imagine there won't be many hardware changes, but software tweaks might very well be in the works.

Either one will do the trick.

Since high ISO noise seems to be one area Nikon is focusing on mentioning with the new releases, one would expect things to have been beefed up. I shoot high ISO pretty much all the time at concerts and I think the D200 did a great job of cleaning things up.

I'd say the differences in normal size prints aren't going to be noticeable.

Some other things are going to be much more important than the concept of who's got the best noise reduction in camera or which has the lowest noise levels. Getting the right exposure is one element that can't be overlooked as are in camera settings.

Focus on what you need for your shooting in the way of lenses and accessories and what is going to be the best fit for you.

Julio

Home

[KABeach]

First, I would never make a camera decision based on internet postings of a camera that has not been released yet...

Within hours if the D300 shipping, you will start to see some decent comparisons by a fairly wide variety of shooters - within a week, you should start to see some samples in a wide variety of situations...

At this point, my intent is to purchase a D300, but I'm going to wait to see what the final product looks like before I pull the trigger... Actually, I'll probably wait until 1st quarter next year to let them shake out all those v1.0 bugs that inevitably crop up...

Hopefully, the D300 will start shipping in only a few weeks and then you can decide which camera is best for you, based on real people using it in real world situations...

Cheers!
Ken

[Loa]

Originally Posted by Nikonfreak

Since high ISO noise seems to be one area Nikon is focusing on mentioning with the new releases, one would expect things to have been beefed up.

That's what I expected too. But seeing those pre-prods... argh. Makes me wonder if Nikon can really improve from those prototypes to the production models in such a short amount of time...

Let's hope they can, as high ISO is important for me.

Thanks for the comments guys.

Loa

[Sidebyte]

I won't buy the D-300 or any other Nikon camera as long as they continue to screw the public with their software offerings compared to a very workable software package from other manufactures. What a cavalier attitude, we know we can glean more money out of you if you want to use RAW etc.
Not the camera pricing I object to but the continued attitude of Nikon in general. If I liked Nikon lenses I would opt for the Fuji instead, that's basically why I had the Kodak 14n in the first place because of the excellent software package (jpeg's) and that still offered the best JPEG software package to date.
Nikon even approached a court battle with Adobe over their supposed proprietary code for Nikon RAW processing, that's the attitude I object to.

[Tom Swaman]

Different strokes for different folks...... Oh, I apologize, I meant different bodies for different cameras.

Well, just a stupid guess, but most likely Nikon has shipped the first match of D300 so I doubt that any big fix is included.

Second, as we all know, cameras work and feel differently and the users use them and treat them differently so you pays your money and takes your chances!!!!!

"Elementary my dear photographer. Elementary."

Tom

[Mr. Pickles]

I would NEVER make a camera purchase based on a look at noise levels at 100% or higher.

Noise is very much over-rated in my opinion. Is it a factor? Yes. Is it THE factor? Absolutely not, except for those that take all their images by candlelight.

Noise is an easy thing to trigger on and "flame" others with. You can't really argue the other more practical reasons to buy a particular camera, like it works with a bag of lenses you have, or it fits your hand like a glove, or the controls are laid out better for your hand, or they are laid out in a method that makes it easier for your brain to function around them, etc.

Also, as has been mentioned I think, looking at pre-production images, or images made by a camera that isn't finalize and shipped yet, is NOT a great idea.

Canon is better at noise reduction. This does not need to be mentioned every time a new camera comes out. But, if you read a lot about what noise is and how it is reduced, you will find that there is a trade-off to more aggressive noise reduction. Other camera brands factor that into the image...

[cyclohexane]

The samples look okay to me, especially at 6400. Also, the images look at least 1/3-stop underexposed. Like everyone said, we're looking at internet samples.

How large are you printing?

I save a couple hundred bucks, and loose nothing more than 2 Mpixels and a gorgeous LCD.

Um, what about the 51-point AF system? In-camera time lapse capture without use of a computer? Obviously some features won't matter to you, but you can use the side-by-side comparison at DPReview to get a general idea of each camera's feature set.

as high ISO is important for me.

It's important to me too, but I still use a D2H. Seen that thing at high ISO before? =)

[Loa]

Hello,

Thanks for the added comments, and thanks for not starting a Nikon Vs Canon debate!

Beside photography, I also enjoy playing Irish folk music. That means that when I try to combine both passions, I find myself taking pictures of friends at Irish sessions or concerts, with a 1.8 50mm lens at 1600 ISO on my D70.

See why it's important to me?

I looked at the side-by-side, and yes the D300 is more feature-rich, but to *me* high ISO noise is more important than the focus system, 2 megapixels and incredible LCD. Yet I have 4 nikkor lenses that I don't feel like trading/selling.

Does Canon make anything better than the 40D, without going into the 4000$ plus territory? (I'm quite familiar with Nikon's line-up, not quite as much with Canon's).

Thanks,

Loa

[cyclohexane]

I find myself taking pictures of friends at Irish sessions or concerts, with a 1.8 50mm lens at 1600 ISO on my D70.

My cameras are frequently at ISO 3200, and one has inferior high ISO performance to the D70, which I also own.

Again, how big are you printing, and are you printing it at all?

[Loa]

Hello,

No printing yet, only web / personal computer viewing. But I should start working with a friend for her CD cover very soon.

But even for on-screen viewing, going from a sharp ISO 200-400 to a grainy ISO 1600 is a drastic change...

Loa

[cyclohexane]

No printing yet, only web / personal computer viewing

Noise looks way better in print. I don't see very much noise from my D70 or D2H up to 8.5x11 inches, even at ISO 1600.

[KABeach]

I also want to point out that good AF does make a difference - in dim light, my D70 struggles quite a bit - add a shallow DoF lens, and I start to get a lot more OOF shots... for example, in a dim gym, the D70 does fine with the 50/1.8, an OK job with the 85/1.8 and a downright crummy job with the 135/2... a D2h on the other hand, while the focus slows a bit in low light, does a MUCH better job at locking on...

I spend a lot of time shooting in low light situations, and am looking forward to something better than either the D70 or D2h (especially for theater work)... Noise is only a part of the equation...

Cheers!
Ken

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by Loa

Hello,

Does Canon make anything better than the 40D, without going into the 4000$ plus territory?

...only the FF 5D ($/€ 2.250-2.500) is between the 40D and 1D series...

Kindest regards,

Max@Home

[Loa]

Hello,

Thanks for the added inputs.

Michael, thanks for this info: I always thought that print would look more noisy than screen.


Ken: I've had a few problems with my D70 focusing in low-light, but not all that much. The D70 was a step up from my previous camera, the Coolpix 5700. That camera couldn't focus AT ALL in low-light. So the D70 is a dream come true for me in that department!

Max: I'll look it up, but it may be out of my budget... Thanks.

Loa

[cyclohexane]

Michael, thanks for this info: I always thought that print would look more noisy than screen.

Also, one should keep "normal viewing distances" in mind. Your viewers probably are not going to be staring at an 11x14 print with their nose an inch from the print; if they do, they will no doubt see some noise, even at lower ISO values. I made an 11x14 print from a cropped D2H JPEG shot at ISO 1000 and pushed nearly a full stop in post and it looked great from normal viewing distances.

[Loa]

Hello Michael.

Thanks for the added info. I'll keep it in mind when comparing shots from production D300. I really don't wanna "start-over" with another brand, but from the shots I saw on the web, it's a bit disconcerting...

Loa