Ken Rockwell's D300 (and others)

[nikolo5]

To comment the Ken Rockwell's site.

 

Yes, he proposes sometimes an interesting/critical/provoke point of view, but..

 

I stop to consider his site as an objective one, since almost any statement there looks like "I love this.. since it is a Nikon made.. Canon do it great too but Nikon does better. And Im sorry for those who using Sigma/Tamron/Tokina/Fuji/etc crappy stuff".

 

Well I dont want to listen how somebody's bride beautifull is, since there are many other girls and I know it. (And yes I AM a Nikon user and I like Nikon too!)

 

N.

[juan_parm_nides]

Objectivity is a difficult variable to trust for. Ken Rockwell is, most of the time, too emotional and biased for my taste.

 

Regards

[pierre_jolicoeur]

I like Ken Rockwell's site because he has is own personality & point of view & it's a breath of fresh air compared to all the beige reviews out there.

 

He shows that the D300 produces "normal" colors on page #1 of his D300 review with the image with the caption "Nikon D300 at STANDARD setting".

 

He is clear about the fact that he likes vivid colors and tweaks the camera to get them: "I'm getting deliciously psychedelic colors when cranked".

 

So I don't understand why the OP wrote: "the output of the D300 seems nothing at all like reality".

[r_johnston]

Shun Cheung, I'm retired, living full time in an RV, traveling to take pictures. Mostly staying in State and Federal Preserves when we can. Taking lots of Mallards in the early morning, love the natural colors in the irredecent greens to purples. But, once tried the MORE Vivid settings, and happened to set if for RAW & JPG. Hated the jpg's and deleted them. Id rather make them look the way I see them, so others can see them that way...

 

Liked your sample, as the greens are _almost_ that vivid at times...

[ian4c]

I have to say that I have enjoyed Ken Rockwell's reviews for cameras and lenses. Whilst I agree his idea of heavy saturation is perhaps a bit over the top, there are times when it really works for me. And for those who say his reviews are sort of rubbish. Well, in that case don't read him. Yet you all seen to read his reviews!

 

I really like Phil Askey's reviews but up to now he has not bothered to publish his review on the D300.

 

Thanks Ken. You do a a great job

 

Ian

[markko]

"> Manh Le asked, "I'm new to digital camera and have a question. The color setting

(vivid, portrait, ...) does not affect raw image. Is this correct?"

 

Sort of. It does not "technically" affect the underlying RAW image details but if you

open the file in Capture NX and not in ACR or Lightroom, etc. the settings are

entirely intact and you can override them as you see fit. For example, I usually set

it to "Vivid" when doing landscapes and then turn sharpening down if necessary or

alter the colour mode or saturation settings if it's too over-the-top. Or, if I am doing

candids I stick it on B&W so that the preview and thumbnails are B&W as that is

how I was "seeing" when I was shooting. If you are processing with a third-party

RAW program then you might as well leave it on "Normal." However, I suspect you

may spend a lot more time fiddling with the image and I hate to say it, but it seems

like 9 times out of 10 photographers are worse "raw processors" than their cameras.

 

By the way, I love how people get so upset about Ken Rockwell. My feeling is that

as usual, people take everything they read on the internet way too seriously. It's a

blog for Christ's sake and he's having some fun. Not too mention, some of his

photos are outstanding (his 4X5 work in particular).

[russ_konrad]

<b>"...I really like Phil Askey's reviews but up to now he has not bothered to publish his review on the D300..."</b>

<p>

Yes he did:

<p>

<a href=http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/><b>D300 Full Review</b></a>

[Mary Doo]

I do like the Fuji Velvia look, whether in film or digital.

 

Photography "lies". As photographers, we sometimes attempt to make the mundane look spectacular, by way of composition, lighting, or other techniques. For example, we may not want to show all the clutter and distractioins surrounding a pristine wildflower. So we try to use the proper depth of field, angle of view, lighting, etc., etc. to "hide" the clutter. It is not reality. So, IMO, exaggerated saturation is OK if it appeals to one's sense of beauty.

 

Mary