john_. Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Have you noticed a major difference? Any good or bad things? I am debating whether to jump up a model... also, I primarily shoot in Raw, I currently use picasa, or lightroom for the conversions... If I do decide to make the short leap to the D300, do I have to use Capture NX to do the conversions? or can I use the same software... thanks to all in advance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_a2 Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Is the $900 difference in price worth it? I do not think so, but you are going to get a lot of opposition to that opinion. For reference, I have shot quite a bit with the D100, D70, D40, D200 and D300. I currently own the D100, D40 and D300 (the D100 keeps telling me it wants to go dedicated infrared). I love the D300 and it is a great camera, but I do not think it is money well spent if you already have a D200. I sold my D200 in August when the D300 was announced and I got $1300 for it, so I did much better than is possible today. Even with that I still don't think the D300 is a required upgrade. If you shoot wildlife or sports and can benefit from the improved autofocus, it does start to make more sense. The D300's AF is clearly the major improvement, and I think it's because of the additional cross sensors. But many of the other changes from D200 to D300 will not make our pictures magically better. High ISO is improved, but I see it as a 1/3rd or 2/3rds stop improvement on average with equal detail/noise reduction. I do not agree with online reports of two or more stops improvement. I know it kinda sounds like I don't like the D300. That's not true. But I am not the kind of person who needs to justify a purchase by endlessly praising it in a forum. It's a great tool with some key advancements, yes. But the D300 is $1800 and your D200 is worth $900. Unless you're rolling in dough, the $900 difference is better spent on optics IMO. What lenses are you shooting on the D200? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_. Posted February 16, 2008 Author Share Posted February 16, 2008 I have a 17-50 tamron , which is on its way out due to build quality , thinkin about getting a24-70. I also have a 70-200 2.8 vr a 12-24 tokina, a fisheye, and a 50 1.8 - I shoot weddigns and want to do more available light... i was thinking of just getting it because i am already invested in nikon stuff or, possibly pickign up a cheap canon with a zoom for the available light stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_a2 Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 You certainly seem set in the lens department. Selling the 17-50 Tamron and getting the 24-70 sounds like a great plan for the future, and I'd tend to recommend that over the D300. As I said above, I think some people are overstating the high ISO improvements on the D300. Out of the camera things initially look better, until you realize there is more noise reduction applied in any given setting in the D300. The noise is gone, but so is the detail. If you either ease the NR on the D300, or boost the NR on the D200, you get very similar results as far as noise-to-detail goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonybeach Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 "Out of the camera things initially look better, until you realize there is more noise reduction applied in any given setting in the D300. The noise is gone, but so is the detail. If you either ease the NR on the D300, or boost the NR on the D200, you get very similar results as far as noise-to-detail goes." > That is wrong in two ways. The D300 has less noise than the D200, and it has more detail. The difference is a stop with no NR and that is measurable. In the side by side examples below you can see that the D300 has less noise and more detail than the D200 images -- they were converted from RAW shots taken under identical conditions with NR disabled.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterh Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Anthony I am just wondering if there is any sharpening applied in the D300 images. Let us look at the ISO 800 image of the D300. The "saline solution" ellipse shows some edge effect that is missing in the corresponding D200 image. It looks like a sharpening effect to me. To expand the discussion of image quality differences: Is there any demonstration that the 14bit versus 12bit sampling gives any practical improvement. If so what are the conditions where this shows? I am aware of the theoretical advantages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonybeach Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Walter, I was methodical in applying the same settings to the files from both cameras. If there was sharpening (and I cannot recall), it was applied equally to all the files, that means that noise is equally affected for all for the shots. These are 100% crops taken under ridiculously demanding circumstances involving MLU with a remote cord. The D200 ISO 800 shot may have suffered from vibration, but it was sharpened exactly the same as the other three shots. I originally showed these test shots in another thread where this exact same issue was raised, after that I tossed the RAW files to save room on my hard drive and I am probably not going to re-do this test as I am satisfied that the D300 noise performance is genuine and not achieved by some application of NR that degrades detail. The files show quite clearly that the D300 files are less noisy and have more detail than the D200 files, and the noise in the D200 ISO 800 shot looks nearly identical to the noise in the D300 ISO 1600 shot. I generally shoot 14 bit with the D300, but any differences with 12 bit files are not visible to me at less than 300% enlargement of the pixels (that's extreme pixel peeping); whereas I do see an improvement of 12 MP over 10 MP at 100% enlargement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
titospna Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Assuming that the test above is accurate, then why did anyone ever rave about the D200? Because at ISO 800 the image quality above for the 200 is pretty crappy, IMO. I know I've seen better clarity at 800 on my D50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterh Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Tito did anybody rave about the ISO performance of the D200? I do not recall this :-P I remember many threads with complains about the ISO performance. Now the D300 is close to an entry level canon EOS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_a2 Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Anthony.....If all settings in your test were equal, can you explain why your D200 ISO 1600 shot is sharper than your D200 ISO 800 shot? My experience with the D200/D300 ISO is in all-around shooting, not an underexposed test shoot of a plain white label. Textures and skin tones and subtle shadings get crushed by the heavier-handed NR of the D300, and none of that is going to show itself on a plain white label. As I said in my follow-up post, turn the NR up in the D200, or turn the NR down in the D300, and they are very very close together because "High ISO NR - Normal" in the D300 is 'stronger' than "High ISO NR - Normal" in the D200. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 I would rather look at it this way. For John, what are the primary shortcomings for the D200 that you would like to improve? IMO, if one is looking for a better camera, he/she should be able to identify in which ways their current camera is hindering their photography. To me, the improved AF and higher frame rate (8 with the MB-D10 grip and 8 AA batteries) on the D300 make a huge difference. Since I shoot wildlife and surfing, those are important features. In fact, I prefer the D300 over the D3 because I use long lenses frequently. To me, it is very annoying that my 500mm lens is suddenly "shorter" once I put it on a D3. Depending on your usage, the D300 may be a much better camera than the D200, as in my case, or there isn't much difference. For some types of photography, such as weddings as I mentioned in another thread, the D3 could be considerably better than the D300. For me, at least when I am not shooting weddings, the D300 is "better" than the D3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 I have had my D300 for a week. Focus accuracy and speed appears better (much better). Overall IQ is much better. The monitor is much better. There are other positive differences. But is there a major difference? Can't answer that yet but I would have to say no at this point - probably not a 'major' difference. But there is a difference. Is it worth the extra money? Yes, but being that the D200 is an awesome camera, you really can't go wrong with either one. Is it worth the extra money? Yes, if you have it. $800 buys a lot of lens! For a pro who knows what he is doing, the end result, except under extreme conditions, will be about the same. I am getting the 24-70mm lens I ordered next week. I will be conducting a 'scientific' test between the D300, D200 and 5D in the near future and will post the results. Like me, you can probably guess what the results will be when it comes to high ISO IQ (my guess is 5D/D300/D200). If I had to pick between the D200 and D300, the D300 wins hands down. I use my cameras partially for work. For a personal camera, I get fantastic shots from my D40! All Nikon DSLR cameras are great. As are Canons's. FWIW, Low light + fast lens + tripod = great IQ with just about any camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rombon Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 D300 has a much more accurate AF. It is dead on most of the time. It was not the case with D200. The D300 is quite a different beast in essentially the same package. I do not use Capture NX for conversions because the program is computer resources hog, has abysmal user interface and is not oriented for easy workflow with hundreds of files. I use Lightroom and I am aware that for low volume work NX might be a better choice. Regards, Marko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisa_b4 Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 I think that it is nearly impossible to expect someone who has upgraded to a D300 from the D200 to not extol the virtues of the D300 in order to justify the purchase at nearly double the price--it's just human nature! At $900 for a lightly-used D200 from an "upgrade junkie" you just can't go wrong! Remember 1 year ago when everyone here RAVED about the D200?? It is an amazing camera, and if you can't get EXCELLENT results with it then there is something wrong with you--not the D200. For me personally, I shoot almost exlusively outdoor photography, mostly landscapes, street scenes, etc. I use a tripod at least 50% of the time, and I can't remember that last time I shot over ISO400 (which explains the tripod use....lol!) The D200's 11 focus points are more than enough for me--I looked through a D300 viewfinder and my head started to swim with the 50+ focus points it has--way too many for me! There is no magic bullet that is going to suddenly transform your photography. Yes, there are those few photographers who work on the edges in terms of ISO/shooting conditions, etc. but IMHO they make up less than 1% of "real world images." Nonetheless, about 90% of us feel the need to buy a camera that would suit their needs..............isn't marketing and hype wonderful? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_a2 Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Nearly impossible, but I do exist. :) It's like I said in my top post, and Shun and Marko repeated. The AF is the real improvement in the D300. Don't get me wrong, the D300 has lots of little changes that make it a better camera. But the question is how much better. Do you need fast, intelligent AF? If not, the move from a D200 to a D300 (as I did) is probably not justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack flannery Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Well, I have a D200 and have fondled a D300 for a bit. I found the low light autofocus on the D300 is much better. But there is no way I would trade up right now. The D200 is a great camera, with capabilities much more than my skill. I really like the thing but if you were going to buy a new camera, the D300 really is a few hundred bucks better than the D200. But, I'm keeping it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim_Tardio Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 I would sell the D200 while you can get a decent price for it. Then I would buy a D60. Then I would wait for a full-frame version of the D300. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonybeach Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 For Joe: "Anthony.....If all settings in your test were equal, can you explain why your D200 ISO 1600 shot is sharper than your D200 ISO 800 shot?" > I already explained that, it is a matter of shooting under very demanding conditions and the setup probably vibrated slightly during the D200 ISO 800 shot, it was a quick series of test shots intended to show that the D300 was getting better noise performance without loosing detail. The test shows precisely what you claim the D300 cannot do. "My experience with the D200/D300 ISO is in all-around shooting, not an underexposed test shoot of a plain white label." > The shot is only "underexposed" if you ignore that there were other things in the larger shot, as I said before, this was a 100% crop of a larger frame that included a color checker. The exposure was the same for both cameras (exactly the save EV). The label is not plain white, it has colored areas with white text on them, which was precisely why I selected it for this test. I shoot both cameras in the real world too, and I can make both cameras look the same up to about ISO 400. However, in the real world the differences that were hiding in the minute details at lower ISOs start to become apparent to the naked eye above ISO 400, but the only way I can demonstrate that here is with some stupid test shots of a static subject. Regarding your experiences, they are different from mine in part because I leave NR turned off on both the D200 and D300, shoot in RAW, and do most of my conversions with Capture One (not Nikon NX or Nikon Capture). You clearly made a mistake buying the D300 and I would be the first to say you and Lisa should stick with the D200; my strong suspicion is that John would benefit from a D300. For Lisa: "For me personally, I shoot almost exlusively outdoor photography, mostly landscapes, street scenes, etc. I use a tripod at least 50% of the time, and I can't remember that last time I shot over ISO400 (which explains the tripod use....lol!) The D200's 11 focus points are more than enough for me--I looked through a D300 viewfinder and my head started to swim with the 50+ focus points it has--way too many for me!" > Maybe you missed John's second post. He shoots weddings and wants to shoot more with available light. His mileage varies from yours and your advice is not useful to him because he does not always have the luxury of using a tripod and keeping ISO at or below 400. It was John's expressed need and Joe's misinformation that motivated me to post in this thread. I find dispensing gear advice tedious and get much more satisfaction out of this forum helping others better understand their gear and occasionally solving a problem someone may be having with their camera. As for the D300's 51 AF points, I have never seen them all at once in the viewfinder, in fact I only see one at a time unless I am in AF-S focusing mode using Auto-area AF. With the D200 I see 7 AF boxes or even 11 AF boxes, and I cannot turn them off. Dispelling such misinformation is my second biggest motivation for replying to these threads since I fear that some unsuspecting person might read your post and presume things about the D300 or D200 that simply are not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_a2 Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 We'll agree to disagree. :) I did see your reference to the camera shake. I was just confused because you also said you were very methodical. Yet all things clearly aren't equal in your test, so it's hard for anyone to form an accurate conclusion. For the record, I said I do not think the D300 has the magic 2- or 3-stop improvement over the D200 that I have seen mentioned online. I said I feel it is perhaps a 2/3rds stop improvement on average. I love my D300, Anthony. I've said that several times. The dim light AF performance is amazing. The sensor shaker seems to work so far, and I change my AI/AIS/AF lenses a lot. The invisible viewfinder/AF fields are great as you said. But the OP's question was whether it was worth moving specifically from a D200 to a D300, and unless you shoot moving targets, I still don't think there's $900 worth of difference mainly because the D200 is a great tool, too. Now let's all go out and shoot! Any ISO allowed. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonybeach Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Hi Joe, I said, "I was methodical in applying the same settings to the files from both cameras." The purpose was to show that there is no loss of detail in the D300 shots, and no amount of care in eliminating vibrations will dramatically improve the lesser detail in the D200 shot. Regarding ISO performance, differences between the two cameras starts out being truly minimal and it is about one full stop at ISO 800 on the D200 compared to ISO 1600 on the D300 -- I never said 2 or 3 stops improvement, that sounds more like the D3. Another consideration is enlargement of noise, and taking this into consideration contributes to the D300 advantages. I have a comparison of that which can be seen here: http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/mypicturesfolder/sharing//D70-D200-D300_ISO%20Comparison.jpg I think I will skip shooting today, the light here has turned bland compared to yesterday. http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/mypicturesfolder/february2008//C1_AB06602.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/mypicturesfolder/february2008//C1_AB06600.jpg Perhaps tomorrow for me; best of luck for you and everyone else today though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisa_b4 Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Anthony, That I'm aware of you're not capable of determining whether my post was "of value to John" or not--because you're not John! Kindly refrain from playing "forum god" thank you. Lisa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonybeach Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Lisa, Why don't you read John's posts and then frame your replies in accordance with that. He said he wanted to get a camera that did a better job than the D200 at low light photography, I didn't imagine it. Also, regarding your very brief hands on experience with the D300. I am still perplexed by your comment that the 51 AF points made your head swim. Why? You don't actually see them all at one time. Are you aware that you can configure the D300 to only use 11 AF points? One more thing, and that regards your unwelcome comments about "upgrade junkies" and the implication that extolling the virtues of the camera are so much smoke and mirrors to justify a purchase that is really only useful to "less than 1% or real world images". Speak for yourself please, I bought the D300 because we needed another camera (my son and me), so it made perfect sense to upgrade to a D300. Professional photographers are also not "upgrade junkies", indeed far from it; and it appears that John is considering either buying the D300 or a Canon because he needs something for his work. I'm not playing moderator or "forum god" here, but I will challenge BS claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_koralis Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 John, you might find this user report on the D300 an interesting read http://nikonglass.blogspot.com/2008/01/im-currently-residing-in-remote-village.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisa_b4 Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Everyone is entitled to their opinion Anthony--even you. I work mostly in foreign aid and disaster relief. Most of the families I work with average about $10 a day in terms of income and they usually don't get enough to eat. The WHO estimates that roughly half the planet (over 3 BILLION people) live that way. Sorry, but when I hear people prattling on about this and that new fancy doo-dad, I think about the 3 billion people who didn't get enough to eat today, and suddenly 11 vs 51 auto-focus points and pixel-peeping shots of eye drop bottles to verify minuscule improvements in high ISO performance really doesn't seem very important in the grand scheme of things...... I stand by my "unwelcome" comment about there being no magic bullet/camera that will transform your photography--any good photographer knows this and yet so many just aren't happy unless they have the latest and greatest....... Lisa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonybeach Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Lisa, Based on your posting history you have over $3000 worth of camera gear. Calling others "upgrade junkies" (you are now doing it in other threads) or implying that they are posers for buying gear you don't think they need makes you a hypocrite. Invoking good works and starving people only suggests to me that you should sell all your gear and give the money to charity. Ironically, when your D70 was stolen you didn't NEED to upgrade to a D200; if you had asked me, I would have given you one of my old D70 cameras. I am a generous person and have sacrificed mightily for my beliefs and principles -- but you don't know that about me because you only know the persona that posts in this gear forum. People come to this forum to get answers about questions they have about their gear; not quips about "it's the photographer and not the camera". If you really believe that partial aphorism you are spouting here, then buy a P&S and start posting in the non-equipment related forums at this website like Casual Conversations, Philosophy of Photography, Digital Darkroom, etc. I post in those forums too, and just recently posted twice on the subject of love and photography: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00OQFc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now