chris hughes

<p>My feeling on the D300/D700 issue is this:<br>

<br /> 1) There's nothing wrong with DX format. People who are dogged advocates for full frame are welcome to their opinions, but the notion that there's a VAST difference between the two is hogwash. Some people like the crop factor DX offers, some people like the traditional lens ratios. Both approaches are valid.<br>

<br /> 2) The D300 is a very refined body. There's practically nothing wrong with it. It's solid in ways that blow the D200 out of the water. The D700 on the other hand suffers from a number of 1.0 niggles that plagued the D200. It's not a refined body... yet. It's an initial run. For that reason alone, I'd strongly suggest the D300.<br>

<br /> Ultimately, both cameras offer advantages, but neither one is so far beyond the other to make the choice obvious. Personally, I'm choosing to stick with my D300 until a D800 comes out that brings the D700 up to the rock solid level that the D300 is at right now. I don't see any reason to bother with all the kind of niggles that the D200 threw at me. The D700 just isn't fully baked yet.</p>

The D200 is a great camera, but it has a lot of little, subtle niggles about it. The D300 is practically perfect in every way. I

went from the D70s to the D200 to the D300. Of the three, I was the least satisfied with the D200. If I were you, I'd jump

directly to the D300 rather than waste money finding out that there are things about the D200 that don't cut the mustard.

Capture NX sucks. It may be a good RAW converter once it gets the images open but it's

DEAD SLOW to the point of being practically unusable if you're going to process more than a

half dozen images or so. It's all about CS3 IMO.

Hmmm. You sure about that? Leopard was able to show thumbnails of all my D300 NEF files

before the 10.5.2 update. Now, if iPhoto would read them, all would be well...

It's always a balance. I've owned (in addition to numerous Nikon film bodies) a D70s, a D200

and now a D300. In my opinion, there's no comparison between the D300 and the others. It's

about as close as you can get right now to a digital F100, without a full frame sensor.

Personally, I'd never try to dissuade any competent photographer from buying a D300... IF

they already have good glass. That's really the key. If you have lenses you really like, upgrade

the body. If you're working with low to mid grade glass, upgrade that first and hold off on

the new body. Good glass will last you for years and many body upgrades. A D300, as cool as

it is, will be outdated within the next two years.

There's no comparison between the two. The MB-D200 is plastic and pretty flimsy feeling. It

marries to the camera pretty well but tends to feel a little loose. The MB-D10 on the other

hand has a metal frame and is just as substantial as the D300 itself. It marries to the camera

practically seamlessly, making the D300 virtually as solid as the D3. I have pretty big hands

so the MB-D10 is a must for ergonomics sake. I'd HIGHLY recommend springing for the grip.

It really is worth every penny, even though it seems expensive.

"I wonder, however, how many users really need RAW. It's certainly convenient to be able

to control white balance post-shoot, and to have some additional bits to manipulate to

recover shadows and/or highlights, and I've seen some sharpness advantages... but to say

that the difference is vast seems to me to be an overstatement. "

Not at all. Again, a RAW file is more like a traditional negative than it is a print. The

advantage to a RAW file is that it's a blank slate in terms of post processing. It allows you

to work with the actual data that came off the sensor. Additionally, RAW files are

processed in such a way that the original data is not changed. RAW editors save

manipulations to a text file that tells your photo editor what changes were made, but

doesn't touch the original data. When you're ready to save, you choose a format that works

best for you. The problem with TIFF and JPEG is that they're compressed formats. They

throw data away at the camera level and include edits (saturation, sharpness and so forth)

applied by the camera. In camera processing is fine if you don't want to post process your

images much. BUT if you do a lot of post processing a RAW file is necessary. You can edit

a TIFF or a JPEG and resave it but your processing options are limited by the in camera

processing and, more critically, resaving introduces another layer of compression and that

can lead to very unpredictable and unattractive results.

Agreed. I do some professional photo work from time to time and I have a couple of

clients who demand TIFF format images. No doubt that's not uncommon in the publishing

industry. Though I prefer to post process RAW files and save them out to TIFF for delivery,

it's very likely that some applications (paparazzi for example) don't need post processing

by the photographer. Being able to save as a TIFF directly from the camera would be a

major time saver for people who need to deliver unedited files in that format.

As far as RAW goes, it's vastly superior to JPEG because it doesn't throw away any data

when the file is saved. JPEG compression is particularly ugly when applied too aggressively. It's easy to see even in files where a small amount of compression was used.

Further, shooting JPEG strongly negatively impacts post processing. JPEG compression is

bad enough on its own. RE-compressing a JPEG after post processing can cause highly

unpredictable and unpleasant results. In simple terms, RAW is like a camera negative. JPEG

is like a print. If you want complete control over your final image, the only way to achieve

it is to shoot RAW and post process in an application like Photoshop (your virtual dark

room).

I agree that the best thing to do is just leave them on there, unless they're pealing off by

themselves.

"With long exposures just about any camera will see better than humans can in low light."

And?

That comment is meaningless. Do your eyes need a long exposure to see in low light? No.

Therefore a camera can't see as well as the human eye in low light.

Besides, this isn't a choice between very high ISO and increased dynamic range. Obviously

BOTH are desirable.

Increased dynamic range is the holy grail but reliable, noise free VERY high ISO is something I

think every creative photographer can use. I mean, just think about it. Your eye can see FAR

more than any current camera can in low light. The ultimate solution would be a camera that

can see as good or better than your eyes in low light. Just think of the possibilities. Imagine

the kinds of pictures you could take if you could capture images in near total darkness

without a flash.

Not to be a dick but... in my opinion, anyone doing in camera jpeg processing gets what

he/she deserves. You want good images? You have to do your own post processing. Same as

back when we were shooting film. You could go get a Polaroid or have the local FotoMat do

your printing but if the prints came out bad, you'd have no one to blame but yourself. With

digital, if you're not doing your own post processing in Photoshop or similar software then

don't expect excellent results from Canon OR Nikon.

People on that forum are FREAKING OUT about the email. Some are having a fit because they

didn't get it, some because they did. Tons of them are rushing to the phones to bother the

Ritz customer service people. It's really kind of embarrassing. Makes me wonder if Ritz

regrets sending out the email in the first place.

Tom: I disagree. Nikon hasn't had any issues recently filling pre-orders of new cameras. In

fact, even the D200 stocked up REALLY quickly. Everyone on Ritz's huge waiting list got one

in the first batch. Nikon has ramped up their production capability since the D200 release

and the demand for D300s is likely to be somewhat lower than demand for the D200 was. I

fully expect everyone who pre-ordered one from a large retailer to get one in the first batch.

I also expect to see the body on shelves and readily available in December.

Looks like there's been an official announcement for the Japanese release.

http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/jpn/whatsnew/2007/1031_d3_01.htm

Not sure if this means the US release will happen on the same day or not.

There are a lot of things that make this a big upgrade for me from the D200. My holy grail is

a digital F100. The D200 came close. The D300 seems like it may be the body I've been

looking for low these many years. Personally, I think that the D70S is a classic, but the D200,

as great as it is, has just a few too many niggling flaws to reach what I'd consider classic

status. As far as I can see, the D300 fixes all of them. If it's the camera it appears to be on

paper, I'll be very happy with the upgrade. Oh, and I'm particularly pleased with the new

battery grip. The MB-D200 feels like a toy. The MB-D10 looks like a much more substantial

and useful grip.

D300 looks like it has a lot of attractive feature upgrades. Better features across the board.

That said, I'll probably stick with my D200 for at least another year. It's a tank and I love it.

You find the D200 too large?? Really?? Compare its size to the F100 and other similar film

cameras. It's quite small, considering everything it can do. Sure, you can get the D40X but

you sacrifice features and build quality. Personally, I'd get the D200 if I were you.

Dave Lee: No, you're wrong. The D200 is significantly more rugged than either the D40 or the

D80. The build quality is much higher, including a metal chassis and weather sealing. Also, I

don't think I read his post wrong. I maintain that, as a person who knows his way around a

camera, he should seriously consider the D200. Yes, he may save money on the D40 that he

could spend on glass but I suspect that he'll grow out of that body in no time. The D200 on

the other hand is a camera that should last several years without restricting the photographer

at all.

Ben: Based on your last post, I'd strongly suggest considering the D200 if you can afford it.

You know your way around cameras and you'd enjoy its flexibility. It has comprehensive lens

compatibility and a build quality that far surpasses either the D40 or the D80. Just my two

cents.

More praise for the 18-70mm. It's a killer, all purpose lens. I've used it on a D70S and a

D200. It produces great images through most of its range. The wide end is a bit distorted

and shows a little falloff at the edges while the tele end looks a tad soft when the lens is wide

open but in both cases you don't see that until you approach the extreme ends of the range.

I pair it up with a 70-210mm. Until the 18-200mm VR becomes more readily available that

setup covers just about everything I need when shooting off the cuff.

"Not only do you NOT LOSE anything by using a non-DX AF lens on your camera, what you

GAIN is incredible when it comes to telephoto..."

This is true of DX and non DX lenses. It's a function of the sensor size in the camera, not the

construction of the lense.