Nikon D300s vs. D2xs in Focusing Performance

[glen_t]

<p>I have two Nikon D200s, and am still considering adding a body. The one thing that would be nice to have would be better focusing performance (both AF and MF) in low light. The D200 is not bad, but it could be better. Thus, I am considering the D300s and D2xs, as both are in my price range (used), and they are known to have solid AF performance. Which is better?</p>

<p>Some extra ISO performance would be nice, too...and I gather the D300s may get the nod there. I usually shoot up to ISO 800 or so.</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I have both a D2X and a D300; both are non-S but as far as AF goes, the D300 is the same as the D300S, and the D2X is the same as the D2XS.</p>

<p>While the D2X has very good AF, I would say the D300 is a bit better since it has far more AF points and I get better AF results with the D300. However, the D2X has 9 cross-type AF points that are more spreaded out across the frame. The D300's 15 cross-type AF points are very centered.</p>

<p>Concerning high ISO, forget about the D2X/D2XS; it is a step backward from the D200. The D300/D300S is about a stop better.</p>

<p>If you want better AF than the D200, which has the same AF module as the lowest grade D3200 and D5100 today, just about any current Nikon DSLR that is above the bottom-of-the-line ones will do. If you can afford the D7000, new or used, it will give you both much better AF and much better high-ISO results than the D200. The D7000's high-ISO results easily beats the D300/D300S.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>If you can afford the D7000, new or used, it will give you both much better AF and much better high-ISO results than the D200</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>But perhaps not as good as the D300. I say this because I really think it depends on the lenses being used. The D300 series uses a motor that has more torque, at least it feels that way to me. If I put an 80-200 f/2.8 ED lens on a D7000, it will hunt a bit. Definitely less snappy in the AF. Same lens on the D300 is much faster, the 300 just seems to "drive" the lens faster.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Besides a D2X and D300, I also have a D7000, but I mainly use AF-S lenses. AF on the D7000 is not quite at the same level as the D300, but it is close. I use the D7000 extensively to capture wildlife with long lenses without problems.</p>

<p>Just yesterday, I used a D600 to capture over 300 action/sports images. The D600 uses the same AF module as the D7000. I am quite impressed by the D600's AF capability. It is very good for action photography although the Multi-CAM 4800's 39 AF points (on the D7000 and D600) are not quite as spreaded out as the Multi-CAM 3500's 51 (on the D300, D3, D4, D700, and D800).</p>

<p>Concerning AF, the D300 is a bit better than the D7000, but the D7000 can give you another stop of high-ISO results. Both will be much better than the D200 the OP currently uses.</p>

<p>Being 5 years old, the sensor on the D300/D300S is quite out of date by now. Even the 2-year-old D7000 is not all that new any more.</p>

[glen_t]

<p>Shun: Thanks...I tried the D7000 recently, but it just was not for me. The body is too small and light. Also, in the test shots I took, I saw only a minor improvement over the D200. My testing was not extensive, but between the size/weight issue and what I saw in the shots I took, it was enough for me to return the D7000...and begin looking for something else.</p>

<p>John, et. al.: Your comment about torque is interesting. Many users like the focusing performance of the 300s. Is there anything to consider with regard to manual focus lenses? I have a nice collection of NPK and AI/AI-s glass, and getting that "in focus" dot to light more easily and more quickly would be great. Again, the D200 is not bad, but I would like better performance here.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Also, in the test shots I took, I saw only a minor improvement over the D200.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I find that hard to believe. If you only shoot at ISO 100, maybe you won't see much difference among the D200, D300, and D7000. At ISO 800 and above, there is a huge difference. At ISO 800, the D300 should be noticeably better than the D200 and the D7000 is better still. I have a D200 also.</p>

<p>However, the D7000 is definitely a smaller DSLR; some people like that or actually prefer the smaller size while some people don't.</p>

[glen_t]

<p>My shots at ISO 800 and ISO 1000 are what surprised me. With so much talk of the D7000 being so good at 1600 or even higher, I expected the D7000 to handle 800 and 1000 with ease, with noise free performance at these sensitivities. I said only a "minor" difference because I did not want to insult D7000 owners or stir up trouble. The fact of the matter is that, at 800 and 1000, I really did not observe much of a difference at all. The D7000 was clearly not "clean" or "noise free" at ISO 800 and 1000. All I had to do was look at the shadows. I saw what I saw.</p>

<p>With regard to weight/size/feel, having paid over $1,200 for the D7000 and grip, the D7000 does not feel like the expensive camera it is.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Glen, I forgot that you had already bought a D7000: <a href="00aqT6">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00aqT6</a></p>

<p>Underexposure leads to noise. Therefore, if you pay attention to shadow areas, i.e. underexposed areas, you can potentially see noise at ISO 100 on any DSLR. But at least I don't think that is the topic here. Instead, the question is whether the D7000 can produce better high-ISO results than the D200. For example, I have posted a few ISO 800 and ISO 1600 results from the D7000 on this thread, and I always include a pixel-level crop: <a href="00aT6J">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00aT6J</a><br>

While the background dark areas are not totally noise free, I think the subjects turn out reasonably well at ISO 1600 on the D7000.</p>

<p>And you can see how poorly the D200 does at ISO 1600: <a href="00aCuv">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00aCuv</a></p>

<p>Frankly, if you cannot get at least two more stops of high-ISO results from the D7000 compared to the D200, most likely you are doing something wrong. Going to a D300 will only set you back from the high-ISO results you are getting from the D7000.</p>

<p>I currently own a D2X, D200, D300, and D7000. It would be fairly straight forward for me to do an A/B side-by-side comparison between the D200 and D7000 to show you the big difference between their high-ISO results. And judge cameras by their results. Needless to say, the D2X is the heaviest among them, and it is the one I would no longer use.</p>

<p>Moreover,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I really did not observe much of a difference at all. The D7000 was clearly not "clean" or "noise free" at ISO 800 and 1000. All I had to do was look at the shadows. I saw what I saw.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Could you post your resutls so that all of us can also see what you saw?</p>

[glen_t]

<p>I have tried to upload photos here, but the size limit is very small, 3mb. Most of my jpg files are 4 mb or more.</p>

<p>I do not want this thread to turn into a D7000 thread, as I am trying to decide between the D300s and D2xs (I have already tried the D7000, too). I will say, though, that I was expecting much more from the D7000. With all of the hype about this "less expensive" DSLR option, I did not see much difference. Going by what people have said, I was expecting to see noise-free shadows at ISO 800, and I did not. I have been shooting for ten years, and the shots I took with the D7000 were not underexposed. And even if they were underexposed, I could easily adjust this, as I shoot RAW and use Capture NX2.</p>

<p>To me, there is too much hype and bragging going on in regard to these newer cameras. Sure, they may be better in some ways, but I have yet to observe the night and day differences that so many have been raving about. The most notable differences I have observed in photography have come as a result of the guy (in my case) behind the camera. There is just no substitute for skill, experience, instinct, and, of course, good lighting. A good--prime--lens can help, too (I do not own a zoom).</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<blockquote>

<p>To me, there is too much hype and bragging going on in regard to these newer cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The best way to avoid this is to post unexpected, interesting results so that everyone can see what you are seeing. You could upload a compressed jpeg so that we see can the whole thing, and also upload an uncompressed crop of the area where the noise occurs. I understand that you don't want to turn this into a D7000 thread, but if you don't seen an improvement with the D7000, surely you won't with a D300. If you leave the EXIF data in, someone should be able to figure out what is wrong.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I have tried to upload photos here, but the size limit is very small, 3mb. Most of my jpg files are 4 mb or more.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Glen, did you read this thread I mentioned earlier? I posted no fewer than four different ISO 800 and 1600 images from the D7000 there: <a href="00aT6J" rel="nofollow">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00aT6J</a> Each images includes a part of a 100%, pixel-level crop.<br />Why can't you do the same thing I did?</p>

<p>But since you are not posting your images, I took the trouble to capture the same night scene with the D200, D300, and D7000. I set each camera to ISO 1600 and used the same 50mm/f1.4 AF-S lens at f8, 0.4 second on a tripod.</p>

<p>The crops are from the area indicated. However, since the D200 is 10MP, the D300 is 12MP, and the D7000 is 16MP, therefore, each 700x700 pixel crop covers a slightly different area. Magnification is the highest on the 16MP D7000.</p>

<p>Take a look at the green metal gate. The D200 version is a lot noiser than the D300 version, and the D7000 is of course the best among the three. The D200 version is also much noiser in the dark area on the top left of the crop. That is why Glen's comment that he cannot see much difference between the D200 and D7000 puzzling. Rather than blaming it on hype on the D7000, have you considered maybe your comparison was wrong? But if you are not posting your images, there is no way for us to tell.</p>

<p>But regardless, if you are not happy with high-ISO results from the D7000, considering the D300 makes absolutely no sense. I have never used the D3200, but otherwise, the D7000 produces the best high-ISO results among Nikon DX-format DSLRs. If you want results better than the D7000, you need to go to FX.</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>D200 version</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>D300</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>D7000</p><div></div>

[francisco_salaquanda]

<p>Have you considered a used D700? Body of the D300 with the sensor of the D3. The pricing is slipping down to $1500 here and thats a great price. Since the new RRP of the D7000 is equivalent to $900, new, in most markets, there is a hole that Nikon needs to fill at about $1200 or a bit more. If there is an upgrade to the D7000 or D300 at that point, then the D7000 will reduce in price even further. Thom talks about this too in his review of the D3200.</p>

<p>We also see the D300, used, falling to $500 from Nikon dealers with a one year warranty. That's a lot of camera for the money. If you shoot in the day, its tremendous value.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>AF is vastly improved in the D300 over the D200 (the D300 has the same AF module as the D3/D700).</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>Going by what people have said, I was expecting to see noise-free shadows at ISO 800, and I did not..... And even if they were underexposed, I could easily adjust this, as I shoot RAW and use Capture NX2.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You do realise that pushing exposure in any RAW editor will also bring more noise, right?<br>

Personally, I don't think these cameras are overhyped, but your expectation might be too much. My D300 is not noise free in shadows at ISO800. But it's visibly better than the D80 I had before. And realistically, that's what I could expect - so that's what you could expect for a D200 to D300s upgrade. No miracles, but a decent step forward.</p>

[glen_t]

<p>I appreciate the replies.</p>

<p>Shun: your comparison shots are interesting--thanks. I would never consider a D3200, as Nikon does not offer a vertical grip for it. The aftermarket grips use a goofy wire, too.<br>

<br />With regard to pushing in RAW, I rarely have to adjust by more than a third, plus or minus. Thus, there should be no problem here, and I have yet to notice any problem with noise whatsoever in going up or down a third of a stop.</p>

<p>Elliot: thank you--you have given me the most useful reply here.</p>

<p>Indeed, there are no miracles with these cameras--I could not agree more. Much of the marketing and talk seems to be describing something like a miracle, though.</p>

[glen_t]

<p>After reviewing the comments here, I am going to give at least some consideration to the D600. Since its introduction, two things have been an obstacle for me with regard to this camera: 1) the price, and 2) the camera's impact on my manual focus lens collection. With regard to lenses, I do not mean here some type of issue with resolution, as my NPK/AI/AI-s collection produces fine results. What I mean is the FX effect on my manual focus lenses. I am concerned about falloff in the corners. If I spend nearly $2,500--that is the price for me, as I do not shoot without a vertical grip--I would not want to start seeing falloff. I just love this aspect of the DX format.</p>

<p>The 1/4000th top ss is also a bit of a downer. Does the camera show both ISO *and* remaining shots in the vf display? This is a "minor" thing that is of importance to me, too.</p>

[glen_t]

<p>I just did a quick search for D600 pricing and availablity, and I see it reflects the typical current Nikon strategy: be sure only a few sellers have it, offer no incentives or discounts, and make sure that useful acessories, such as the battery grip, are hard to find, too. It is very disappointing to see a "1-3 month" wait at Amazon, and only two sellers offering the high-priced MB-D14 (and one has only two units left).</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Just by chance I captured the attached image yesterday, with a D600 at ISO 2000. I was a bit surprised that it is fairly noisy, with Nikon's latest FX-format DSLR with a modest 24MP. I think the problem is that it is somewhat underexposed, not by much, but as I wrote earlier, underexposure lead to noise. It was outdoors at a pumpkin patch slide, around 6pm. Therefore, it was not that bright any more. The bright yellow slide might have caused the matrix meter to underexpose a little.</p>

<p>Nikon D600 at ISO 2000 with 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR II at 116mm, f3.5, 1/1600 sec.</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I just did a quick search for D600 pricing and availablity, and I see it reflects the typical current Nikon strategy: be sure only a few sellers have it, offer no incentives or discounts, and make sure that useful acessories, such as the battery grip, are hard to find, too. It is very disappointing to see a "1-3 month" wait at Amazon, and only two sellers offering the high-priced MB-D14 (and one has only two units left).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Glen,</p>

<ul>

<li>B&H has the D600 in stock: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/892427-REG/Nikon_D600_Digital_Camera_Body.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/892427-REG/Nikon_D600_Digital_Camera_Body.html</a></li>

<li>Adorama has the D600 in stock: <a href="http://www.adorama.com/INKD600.html">http://www.adorama.com/INKD600.html</a>.</li>

</ul>

<p>It is a brand new camera just introduced a month ago. In this case I think Nikon manages the supply quite well. And if you expect deep discounts immediately on a brand new camera, I am afraid that you are asking for a little too much.</p>

[glen_t]

<p>Thanks for posting the shot, Shun--this is helpful. I would say it is underexposed, but not by much. The noise I had seen was more blotchy and random--almost exclusively in the shadows. The noise patterns I observed in the D200 and D7000 are similar. The D200's is just a bit more heavy-handed. I cannot say I have seen this issue in outdoor shots, at least the ones I take. Perhaps there is noise somewhere in those shots, but it certainly does not jump out at me. Likewise, at normal magnifications, my well-lit indoor shots seem pretty nice.</p>

<p>Thanks for the seller suggestions, but I tend to avoid the two you mentioned. If I am going to use a New York (metro area) seller, I prefer Cameta. I think they are in stock there, but I do not know how adequate their stock is.</p>

<p>With regard to discounts, I can remember introductory offers and other promotions, and the stock seemed to better. The D7000 introduction is more typical of the current Nikon approach. Not only was stock a serious issue upon release--and for months if I recall correctly--but I also recall some type of bug or issue with the early production.</p>