D90's picture quality better than D300's

[benjaminm]

Hello!

 

According DXOMark tests (http://www.dxomark.com) produces D90's sensor much better pictures than its counterpart

in D300. And there is a minimal difference between D200 and D300.

 

Any comments?

 

Benjamin<div></div>

[eric_arnold]

interesting, but i'd be a bit wary of making any consclusion simply based on these findings and these findings only. if you look at the dpreview d90 test (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/) , they speculate that the d90 has a weaker low-pass filter while concluding that the high iso results look similar, but are actually the result of smearing due to aggressive NR (which is different from having a native less-noisier sensor). i'm not surprised that later cameras tend to have increases in DR and decreases in noise (this is actually consistant with nikon's progression since the d100), but i wouldnt trade my d300 for a d90. if i was considering a d90, though, i'd have to be pretty juiced to thinkt hat a $1k camera might be on a par or even better in terms of IQ than a $1500 camera. interestingly enough, KR also came to the same conclusion, but everyone dismisses him as a wackjob.

[tri-x1]

Gee, a few days ago some were claiming those test show the D90 produced "slightly" better images in "some" situations. Now the D90 is producing "much better" images. I'm going to run right out and sell my D300 so I can get one of those "much better" D90s. And I can shoot movies,too!!!!!!

 

The trolls are out in force,

[photo5]

Eric,

 

I don't think it is a very good idea to print on this forum that Ken Rockwell, or anyone for that matter, is a "wackjob", regardless of your personal opinion of him.

[ShunCheung]

Photo.net currently has a D90 for evaluation. If I can get a hold of it, I'll definitely run some tests against my D300 so that at least in my mind, I can settle this question once for all.

 

But the bigger difference is AF capability. If you shoot anything that moves, AF speed and accuracy from the D300 will likely trump any small image quality difference one way or another.

 

You might also want to take a look at Thom Hogan's D90 review:

http://www.bythom.com/nikond90review.htm

[seismiccwave]

I sure hope Nikon continues to improve their camera. Otherwise they will have a hard time selling new cameras.

[CharlesBecker-Toronto]

I bought the D90 when it came out (about 6 weeks ago) and am very happy with it. I was aware of the D300's reputation but

went for the D90 based on price, weight, etc. No matter what camera I buy, there will be some that are regarded as 'better'

and others that are 'not as good' and I am not at all concerned as all I have to be is be happy with my choice and I am. The

D90 is more of a camera than I am a photographer and probably always will be. cb :-)

[tim_knight]

It is promising to read that the hobbyist can buy a camera with that level of quality. If I was a professional I would still go for the D300 based on the difference in the AF of the two cameras. A missed shot could be costly.

[lex_jenkins]

This is at least the third such thread this week on this subject. Is there some sorta mailing list folks are on that provokes these things? Because this is starting to resemble a "talking points" campaign.

 

I've read the DxO tests, in context, which includes the explanations for their testing data and methodology. Nowhere I've seen does DxO claim the D90 is "superior" or D300 "inferior". There are marginal differences in certain categories that are measurable, but probably not *visible* in actual photos.

 

These are two totally different types of cameras intended for very different markets. Choose the one that suits your needs based on the features that will matter in day to day performance, not on marginal differences that you will never see in actual photos.

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

I am with Lex here. I was starting to think this resembles DPR & the wars that get started there.

 

I really hope these threads are reduced. I'm sure the D90 is a great camera - that's what I expect out of Nikon, but you won't find me trading it in for my D300. The D300 has features I will not give up & the D90 wouldn't be my camera of choice for that reason alone.

 

JMHO

 

Lil :-)

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

So much had wringing over gear. Many cameras today are very good (at least) or excellent. But some are better suited to certain applications. The D90 is great general purpose camera, but I'd opt for a D300 for sports. Or a D700 if you also need exceptional low-light performance. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.

[landon wright photography]

Let's not forget the superior weather sealing and CF card slot on the D300. I have played with, owned, both and I would never

equate the D90 as an equal to the D300.

[eric_arnold]

dave, with all due respect, i was just pointing out that KR (who has been banished from the nikon forum--you can't

even post a link to his page) has been much-maligned, but came to the same conclusion as DXO. personally, i don't

have a bad opinion of KR--i find him amusing, and occasionally informative. but he does have a habit of insisting

whatever just came out is 900% better than last year's model without necessarily providing enough info/detail tests,

etc., to let others come to their own objective conclusions. to some folks on this forum, that makes him a wackjob. if

you prefer much-maligned to well, then, there you have it, but i just call 'em as i see 'em. besides, wackjob has kind

of a ring to it, don't you think? (no disrespect intended to any people with severe psychological issues out there.)

 

regardless, shun is right that the d300 has a lot of other things which set it apart from the d90, and i havent heard too

many d300 owners gripe about image quality or noise, for that matter. as stated in my previous post, you may want

to reread the

dpreview of the d90 again carefully, particularly the part where they discuss the high ISO test results and the

possibly weaker low-pass filter.

[leif_goodwin8]

There's more to a camera than small differences in the sensor, as measured by some online site. Auto-focus, mirror-lock-up, durability and robustness, operation with MF lenses, frames per second, flash sync speed, and I am sure there are more.

[andre_noble5]

We are in the bottom portion of a steep curve of this new technology called digital capture.

 

Expect camera A, that came out 24 months ago at $5,000 street to be surpassed in image quality by

new camera B that costs $2,500.

 

My strategy is to buy only a single digital body of any particular make. In three or 4 years down the

line, buy one that's much better but at same price.

[andre_noble5]

DxO gives a Low Light ISO score of 2300 to the Nikon D3 & D700. The Nikon D300 scored only 700.

 

However online tests of real photos show that the D3 and D700 get only a one stop low light ISO

advantage over the D300.

 

These real world test of one stop was the reason I went with the less expensive D300. Give me three stops of real

world advantage, and I plunk down the extra dough.

[johnw63]

I'd be looking hard at a D90, if I didn't have so many MF lenses, and try to shoot landscape, and would like the mirror lockup feature. Coming from the F4s, I would probably prefer the extra heft of the D200 or D300.

[ilkka_nissila]

Well, you get more stops with FX than 1, as you can use fast glass at wider apertures while retaining good definition, thanks to the lower sampling frequency of the sensor. At f/2 the D3 at ISO 3200 gave a more detailed image than the D200 did at f/2, ISO 200 (tripod used, lenses: 50/1.4 ZF for FX, 35/2 ZF for DX). This is because the image definition is mostly lens-limited not sensor limited at these apertures. Stopped down to optimum apertures, DX is quite good. If you're willing to shoot with primes and deal with the possible limitations of shallow depth of field, the advantage can be many stops in some situations. Of course, if you're shooting with a tele, the situation is different as you'll be able to use a faster lens like the 200/2 on DX vs. 300/2.8 on FX, so in this case the playing ground is more even.

[Richard Williams]

Interesting comparisons of actual images from the dpreview D300 and D90 tests:

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page29.asp

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page33.asp

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page34.asp

 

'Both are shot with the same lens but no amount of re-shooting could get the D90 to match the D300's output.'

 

'Unfortunately, for those people hoping that the D90 would effectively be a half-price D300, the RAW results appear consistent with those from the JPEGs.'

 

'The level of detail retained seems comparable with the D300 at ISO 1600 and above (presumably because noise reduction is blurring away any of the super-fine detail that the D300 captures but that eludes the D90).'

 

It all depends what you're measuring, of course. I suspect nobody could tell the difference at normal magnifications in most real world shooting situations.

[stephen_worth]

I don't really see a heck of a lot of difference between those test shots at dpreview. In everyday practice, I think those

results would be essentially identical... as long as you're not trying to read the fine print on liquor bottles from across the

room.

[cmulcahy]

While the differences are slight between the two, there are differences. DP's test contradicts that dxomark test. But I don't think that Dxmark test is doing the same tests. DX seems to consider all factors such as price when scoring their results.

 

I do see noticeable differences at ISO 800 and ISO 1600. The D300 does seem to perform better at those two ISO's...but it seems the D90's noise reduction really kicks in at 1600, because after 1600 the results look very similar. I don't think anyone is going to be shooting at ISO's higher then 1600 with those cameras anyway. In any event I think Dp's revies clearly show a slight improvement in image quality w/ the D300. (very slight, but it's there)

 

I think the key difference is the build and the AF performance. That is were the extra cost factors in. It's up to you if you think it's worth the difference in price.

[k_i]

<p>The D90 is better at high ISO than the D300, and comparably close to the D700.<br>

<br />See below:</p>

<p><a href="http://deadsailorproductions.blogspot.com/2008/09/iso-test-d90-d300-d700.html">http://deadsailorproductions.blogspot.com/2008/09/iso-test-d90-d300-d700.html</a></p>