If by ADR you mean Active D-Lighting you could always add it later in Capture or View NX, it is not 'Active' because you control it and not the camera.
As for sensor used in D3000 it is not just the sensor silicon that makes the image. Nikon has his own fab for packaging the sensors meaning adding RGGB filter and micro-lenses layer, IR filter and, on D200, optical low pass filter that could influence the performance. Surounding chip set, especially for less integrated CCD chips, can significantly add to noise for example. I am not saying the chips are exactly the same but they are very similar and made by Sony, and it is far less expensive to change all other components then the sensor itself though it is possible.
Ken Rockwell's D40/D3000 ISO comparison
(84 posts) (16 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Hi! I hoped the d3000 would be a lightweight update to my d40, maybe offering better metering, a stop of sensitivity, and what KR refers to as "Gen2" features (lateral colour fringe removal, ADL, more colour/wb adjustment, etc). Rockwell talked me out of it and I am looking for evidence that he's wrong.
I have read this thread, and I find a couple of things:
(1) It's been a month, and NOBODY has posted pictures showing that KR is wrong. Someone posted a that he claimed was "good enough", but who cares? The question is how the d3k compares to the d40, not whether the d3k is good enough for one random guy (an iphone is good enough for most people). PLEASE, if there's someone lurking this thread who has access to both cameras, can you try to reproduce KR's result? Everything else is kind of meaningless.
(2) There are a lot of ad hominem attacks against KR. Why is that?
(3) There are a lot of attacks against KR based on his being inconsistent. Fair enough--he constantly says stupid stuff like "this is the best" without saying _what_ it's the best for--but it's pretty childish to say "He's changed his opinion n times, therefore we will dismiss anything controversial." If he's made an overbroad statement that should only apply to what he's trying to do at that moment, why not accept the statement for the useful information that it contains? If you think he's wrong on a particular subject, can you prove it by designing and executing an experiment? Are you guys Republicans or something?
(4) A d700 is only better than a d40 if you aren't too tired to notice the good light, the best angle, the perfect moment. If you only photograph out of a car, carry a bigger camera by all means, but if you want to shoot things more than a few leagues from the nearest road, even the weight difference between a d3000 and a d90 is enormous. Some of us (and KR seems to be one) are frustrated by the attitude of "only beginners may have portable cameras." A d3000 with a better DX sensor (ie. a d5000 without the flippy screen) wouldn't weigh more. See backpackinglight.com: you truly can get your overnight base pack weight under 10 pounds, camera included! Yes, you'll have to cut the handle off your toothbrush :)
Sorry for the rant, but I'm stunned that this thread has gone on for so long without any data whatsoever. I've learned some useful things, of course--many of you seem very knowledgeable--but I am no closer to learning what I came here to learn.
Posted 3 years ago # -
So you're telling us that...???
Posted 3 years ago # -
OH no.... not this again.... NO COMMENT :^)
Posted 3 years ago # -
Welcome to NR fugue137: Just to stop this from going to get crazy. I think we most have to admit that we tried in vain to prove KR wrong on this one, yes Nikon should have used the same sensor as in the D5000 without charging more right. So either you step up to the D5000 or move over to similar offerings from Sony and Canon if you feel that they will give you a better value
Pete
Posted 3 years ago # -
How did I miss this reply before:
["If by ADR you mean Active D-Lighting you could always add it later in Capture or View NX,"]
NO YOU CANNOT D Lighting and Active D Lighting are not the same. They're two different features that perform a similar action with confusingly similar names.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Yeah I won't read all that stuff but I agree with Niko.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Hey Fuge - Go easy on us man. I don't think any of us own both a D3k and a D40, so a scientific comparison isn't really an option. That said, you would expect the D40 to outperform in the noise department due to its lower pixel density.
I stand by my statement that I'd be much more interested in a comparison of the D3k to the D60 or D40x.
Don't let Ken's noise comparison put you off buying the camera. All Nikon's are clean through ISO 400, and usable through ISO 800. If you can shoot inside those constraints (which are common to the D40 BTW), then the D3k is an amazing camera for the buck.
Its worth the premium over the D40 for the AF system alone. The extra resolution is just a bonus. Finally, I suspect (but can't prove) that the D3k's unaltered high ISO shots look the same as any of the 10mp series, and that the differences are just a function of differences in the noise removal settings in the camera. If you do NR in post, then it doesn't really matter.
Posted 3 years ago # -
While nI think willis hit the nail on the head on all fronts (mind you I haven't used the D40 enough to know if it's AF sucks sucks sucks) - the D40 bought used as a "get your DSLR toes wet and learn what you really want" is a hell of a deal.
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
