D40 and D300 image quality

[robert_castiglione]

Hi there all,

 

My first post!

 

Ok I am a nikon D40 owner (with a background in cinematography) and am considering purchasing the

D300. I really like this camera and purchased it because I could use all F mount lenses on it including non

- ai lenses.

 

My question is entirely restricted to whether there is a substantial/noticeable difference in image quality

between the two cameras, particularly at ISO 200. Some background might be useful: I do mainly portraits

and natural light stuff and also quite a bit of macro. Indefensibly and somewhat eccentrically I only use

manual lenses so the AF functions of the camera are not of much interest to me. What I am interested in

determining is whether the D300 has noticeably better colour and dynamic range than the D40. Being able

to work with colour temperature in a more refined way is also important to me. The D40 is not good in

poorly lit rooms. I do quite a bit of cropping of photos for compositional purposes.

 

Is there anyone here who owns both cameras and is prepared to comment?

 

Many thanks,

 

Rob

[benbw]

I've used a D40 for about a year now, and recently got myself a D300.

In terms of image quality, you won't see much of a difference until you get to very large

print sizes, where the D300 will give you more detail. At normal print sizes there's not

much in it.

Saying that, the dynamic range of the D300 is an improvement, with less under-exposure

needed to preserve highlight detail. At default settings colours are also more saturated

and vibrant, but of course you can set up both cameras to suit your own requirements.

At ISO 200, both cameras are operating at their optimum setting, so noise isn't an issue

with either camera. The D300 is more useable at higher ISO settings though - ISO 1600 is

as clean as the D40 is at ISO 800.

You say you use MF lenses, which I think is reason enough to get the D300. I enjoy using

my old MF primes, and being able to meter with them again is great.

Of course, you get a lot more control over white balance (and everything else) with the

D300, so it's a better choice when you're working with difficult light.

My advice? Go for the D300, you won't regret it. I'd keep the D40 though - great little

camera, and you can use old non-AI lenses, which you can't on the D300.

 

Hope that helps,

Ben

[elliot1]

"...substantial/noticeable difference...at ISO 200"

 

No.

 

Any difference? Perhaps a little in color saturation as Ben mentions. But after processing, images from both cameras would likely end up looking pretty much the same.

 

"The D40 is not good in poorly lit rooms. I do quite a bit of cropping of photos for compositional purposes."

 

The D300 excels in these areas.

 

My suggestion? Try one out. You will likely be pleasantly surprised!

[robert_castiglione]

I did have a play with a D300 in a local photo shop and that is partly the problem! It felt very

good and most of the functions I would use are readily available and not in menus. The list

which says get it is getting longer!

 

Rob

[John Crowe]

I just got my D2X last week and I can clearly say that it's 12 MP makes a very significant difference over my 6 MP DSLR that it replaces. While the D40 is likely a bit better than my much older Canon 10D, the D300 is also supposed to be better than the D2X. Draw your own conclusion. I have found that going from 6 MP to 12 MP is similar to going from a cheap kit zoom to an ED prime.

[joe_a2]

Robert....What about a $900 used D200?? Very much like the D300, especially with AI/AIS lenses. Has very similiar controls to the D300, including White Balance. For half the price you only give up 2/3rds- to perhaps 1-stop of higher ISO performace.

 

I shoot a D300 and a D40, and previously the D200, in case you are curious about my point of reference.

[robert_castiglione]

Thanks Joe. I considered the D200 and for probably irrational reasons just cant

countenance getting it now that the D300 is out!! I would be for ever dissatisfied

thinking..."If only I had bought the D300.."

 

Thanks for the different points of view. It looks like my D40 is going to get a bigger

brother. I will definitely keep the D40 as I am very fond of this camera. I have a portraiture

shoot coming up in March and am really looking forward to practising with it and then

using it.

 

Rob

[elliot1]

Joe, I recently bought a used D200 in pristine condition with 3000 actuations for $800. So what? I still bought a D300. I will likely never used my D200 again (it will be used solely as a backup camera).

 

Robert, your thinking is correct. Get the D300!

[studor13]

"I have found that going from 6 MP to 12 MP is similar to going from a cheap kit zoom to an ED prime."

 

I really gotta get myself a better camera.<div></div>

[peter_k4]

I just have to ask andy, and to people who take these mountain top shots in general, How do you get back down the mountain if you're staying there until after sunset, or hiking to the top before sunrise? Wouldn't it be dark and dangerous and cold and full of bears and nasty things??

[russ_konrad]

Yes Andy - a D300 in the same situation will give you a better (higher resolution) image.

[studor13]

It's true, I admit it. I am somewhat envious of the D300 - never mind the D3 - owners.

 

Peter, yes it's dark but not so dangerous. As for being cold, well that's part of the package if you want clean air.

 

I sometimes use the phases of the moon when going up, or coming down. That is, the week after the full moon is good to get up the mountains before sunrise, and the week before for sunset shots, like the one above. But it really doesn't matter. You do or you don't.

 

Just remember to bring a mobile phone. The most important thing to remember though is not to underestimate the mountain and over estimate yourself.

 

Robert, get the D300 and the AF 50mm f1.8!

[nickc1]

Regarding the bears - get an F2 - it makes a better anti-bear club :)

[oskar_ojala]

I haven't used a D300, but I've played with D40s, D200s and a D3. I think the higher resolution, better noise handling and in general better image processor should give a significant improvement to image quality, provided that you know your post-processing and print large enough.

 

One thing that I would note for your application is the manual focus features of the D300 vs. the D40. The D300 has a much improved viewfinder and the live view feature permits very accurate focusing. I'm considering a D300 myself, in part because live view could be a very powerful feature for macro.