where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Hi guys,
Can anybody here point me to a table which shows all the Nikon models with the differences between them shown? Failing that, can anybody summarise the differences between the D300 and the D300s?
Sounds lame, but it does irritate me that Nikon have not got that summary on their website (jeez I'm going to look stupid if I've missed it).
Thanks.
Do a google search and look at dpreview
What a fabulous website that is! Thanks Niko.
So the only difference is the movie facility which I personally find a complete farce in it's current form anyway. Bargain.
I think There are a few more differences than just the Video. :-)
but IQ is basically the same.
The D700 doesn't cost much more than the D300s and unless you really want video, why not just spring for the D700 which is a major step up? Perhaps the glass for full frame may be an issue. I hated the noise and lousy low light from my D300. I even preferred my D80 or D40X to my D300 to be honest..
kanuck said:
The D700 doesn't cost much more than the D300s and unless you really want video, why not just spring for the D700 which is a major step up? Perhaps the glass for full frame may be an issue. I hated the noise and lousy low light from my D300. I even preferred my D80 or D40X to my D300 to be honest..
Really? That's some tough words for the D300.
Well, according to the dpreview, video is the only difference and certainly it seems to be the only 'important' difference.
I think that there will always be a difference between the low light performance of DX and FX so to slate it for that is hardly shocking. There are enough upsides to DX for DX to sell well. The price of lenses for FX means that I would have to be a busy pro or find a pot of gold to go there.
My interest in a D300 is one of ergonomics and build quality. It seems to be a good camera with all the right buttons nicely to hand and they can be had used for not much more than a D90 (which runs it a close second). I meant what I said about the video so I don't consider that any kind of advantage between D300 & D90.
Maybe I should stop looking and get on with using my D5000 more until I get over the way it doesn't suit me.
clillja said:
I agree that the D300 isn't a perfect camera for low light. To prefer a D80 or D40X doesn't make much sense by the published numbers or my experience.
Low light, ha! You get noise at ISO200 in noon day sun with the D300. The D300 punishes you big time if you screw up your exposure.
Yes I don't mean to sound too harsh but I was not a huge fan of the D300 especially for all the money I spent on her. The noise I had to deal with was crazy even noise ninja, CS4, DxO Pro Optics and lightroom could not help my images sometimes. It could crank out the JPEGS with nice colors ideal for making deadlines when you didn't have the time for post processing, but I just liked the image quality of my D80 shots better. Maybe I was reaching with my D40x comments before. My point was that for about $600 (less if used) the D700 blows the D300s away. PBPM is correct you get noise at ISO 200 at noon with the D300 its astonishing. Exposure is completely crucial its almost like shooting Velvia 50 on my F100! D300 Dynamic range? What? Where? DXO ratings with the D300 at 26th and the D300s at 22nd are bang on and this should be a warning to potential buyers willing to spend $1200-$1600 on a high end camera.
Talk is cheap so here come the pics! :) Keep in mind these were shot at ISO 1600 death on a D300 but still it was midday, 2.8 glass, high shutter speed 1/1000 on one of the images and the other a 1.4 50mm lens! I used noise ninja on both of these but still awful noise grain. Makes me love my D700 all the more...
and other only shot at 1/200 but still a high light sucking 1.4 lens and got nasty noise. Again ISO 1600 but come on...
Don't get me wrong, I like shooting with the D300. You can get some great images, but I am hesitant to shoot at ISO over 800 and only use over ISO400 if I have to. That being said, I felt the same way about my D50, D80 and D90 as well, although less so with the D90. For the life of me I cannot figure out why the improvements seen in the D90's sensor didn't make their way into the D300s. Unless the D300s replacement is a big improvement in noise performance I'll be going full frame next time I upgrade.
Those of you who don't like the low light results from the D300 must never have really been into film photography. Used to be that Tri-X, with all it's grain, was wonderful. Ektachrome 64 (ASA 64 !!!) was the choice film for a lot of my photography.
So for me, the mild noise at ASA 800 (sorry, ISO 800), is almost heaven.
I love how people always bring up film, when we are talking about the results of a digital camera. Compared to film the D300 is great at almost any ISO, I know because I still shoot film. That's not the point though, I'm not shooting film in the D300.
Yes thats obvious I with you on this PB PM compared to film you can push the D300 to 2500 ISO. The point is for a digital camera I found the noise at even ISO 200 to be unacceptable and worse in the D300 than almost any other Nikon body. In fact the only Nikon Digital body I haven't tried is the D3X and D90.
OK, You're right. The topic is the crappy noise in D300 vs any other digital camera, not versus film. I'll help you out. Send me your D300 and you won't have to deal with the noise issue any more. :P
Err, actually, the topic was D300/D300s differences. It has morphed into a D300 AND D300s/DX noise bashing thread....
You haven't been reading our posts very carefully have you? All crop sensor cameras have noise issues. My point wasn't that noise in the D300 is terrible, but that the D300 punishes you a lot more so than some cameras if you don't nail the exposure in camera.
And that makes it different to the D300s how?
Out of interest, how does it compare to say a D5000 in that way?
As far as I know there is a slight improvement in the D300s, but not as improved as the D90. Then again the D90/D5000 use NR even when it is turned off in camera, so it is hard to compare.
I haven't used a D300, but I'm sure it's better noise wise than a D40 right?
If you guys have seen the workflow thread, I took a photo with the D40 at ISO 1600.
Here's a link.
warprints said:
Yeah. Whatever.
Very constructive response warprints. As Jonny said, all digital devices have noise, it's just the name of the game, so to speak. Be careful not to make more out of something than there really is. All full frame cameras have noise issues too, if you want to get picky.
You must log in to post.
