david_ionescu

<p>Do you think that calling me "silly" honour you ? <br>

Frankly, could you leave this discussion forum and post to some other topics ?</p>

<p>Another comparison, maybe here D300s will be winning ?<br>

D300s +16-85 VR, ISO 1600, built in flash<br>

<a href="http://dl.fisier.ro/files/8p2bkbba22gddho/D300s_ISO_1600_DSC_0242.jpg.html">http://dl.fisier.ro/files/8p2bkbba22gddho/D300s_ISO_1600_DSC_0242.jpg.html</a><br>

Canon 40D + 17-85 IS, ISO 1600, built in flash<br>

<a href="http://dl.fisier.ro/files/fi2ddpan5gna885/40D_ISO_1600_IMG_6969.JPG.html">http://dl.fisier.ro/files/fi2ddpan5gna885/40D_ISO_1600_IMG_6969.JPG.html</a><br>

Tell me what you think in terms of noise/grain and AWB</p>

<p>@William Pahnelas "i doubt it employs a different sensor, but it must use a more robust processing engine, given the higher frame rates it can achieve -- probably similar to the D700's, which can crank 14-bit RAW images at 8 fps w/grip."<br>

D300s like the D300 still has 2,5 fps at 14 bit raw !</p>

<p>.. and Canon has lately begun to throw in too much megapixels. So the 50D, 7D.. not so good for me...<br>

IMHO: Most Nikon owners frustrated by the lack of megapixels go to Canon, and Canon frustrated owners go to Nkon particularly for the AF system, very good LCD and VF, body construction, clever custom options.etc.<br>

I found the D300s to be an EXCELLENT body, but I'm sorry for his final image quality- that matters the most to me</p>

<p>The idea was to have a second body to give me speed for action (5d has 3fps only), the much appreciated 51 point AF, covering a big part of the frame, a decent walkaround lens who is very sharp according to photozone tests... a different 14bit color response, 2 card slot, video was never of interest for me because of BIG limitations on SLR.<br />D300s was going to be that "backup camera" but I'm going to return it ...</p>

<p>What bothered me looking at that picture <a rel="nofollow" href="http://dl.fisier.ro/files/74b77nijffeii4a/DSC_0708.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://dl.fisier.ro/files/74b77nijffeii4a/DSC_0708.jpg.html</a>)<br />is that the colors are not so good (no comment on sharpness and noise, maybe some will find it OOF :p), and no matter what post processing I do to the NEF file, the results are not getting better. Skin tone, saturation, WB ... impossible to match those that the 5D got out of the camera (with my custom Picture Style of course).<br />A comparison between DPP and Capture NX in terms of adjusting saturation:<br />Canon DPP: <a href="http://dl.fisier.ro/files/g474hmlrg3d4jnc/Canon_DPP.JPG.html">http://dl.fisier.ro/files/g474hmlrg3d4jnc/Canon_DPP.JPG.html</a><br />Capture NX: <a href="http://dl.fisier.ro/files/8nreg31i5hnaa2k/Nikon_CAPTURE_NX2.JPG.html">http://dl.fisier.ro/files/8nreg31i5hnaa2k/Nikon_CAPTURE_NX2.JPG.html</a><br />WB is very poor in that kind light I must agree and a problem to most cameras...<br />I want just your opinions and to know how would you process the RAW file to give better output !</p>

<p>One more sample/comparison, one more challenge :<br>

(I agree, <strong>not really fair</strong> speaking of equipment in different class used !! but the NIkon could have dealt better with skin tones):<br>

<strong>Nikon D300s with built-in flash, </strong><strong>85mm, f/5.6, 1/60s, </strong><br>

<strong>ISO 200</strong> , <strong>VR ON, handheld</strong> <br>

<a href="http://dl.fisier.ro/files/74b77nijffeii4a/DSC_0708.jpg.html">http://dl.fisier.ro/files/74b77nijffeii4a/DSC_0708.jpg.html</a><br>

<strong>Canon 5D, 70-200 f/4 IS USM, 580EX II flash, </strong><strong>200mm, f/5.6, 1/200s, </strong><br>

<strong>ISO 100, IS ON, handheld</strong><br>

<a href="http://dl.fisier.ro/files/rmb43jlmg3jjgre/IMG_0436.JPG.html">http://dl.fisier.ro/files/rmb43jlmg3jjgre/IMG_0436.JPG.html</a><br>

Please do not "criticise" the framing, the photos are for testing the cameras, only judge "technical" quality - exposure, color, noise, sharpness.<br>

Can I say that the amount of light is somehow "balanced" between the two shots ?<br>

Of course the 580 ex II flash is more powerful, but at 1/200s not 1/60s, at iso 100 not iso 200, and at greater distance from the subject...</p>

<p>@<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=5189561">Wouter Willemse</a><br>

Onestly, I like very much your response., and yes, I seem to be a pixel peeper.<br>

@<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=330926">Aaron Linsdau</a> <br>

No tripod, VR ON, handheld, you can read the exif for the other settings.<br>

The exposure times were confortable as you can see.</p>

 

<p>If in your photos there are things like foliage, trees, or much noise because of high ISO, the size will grow... </p>

<p>There are cameras on the market who deal very well with noise, D300s is not one IMHO, some like his output, no problem with me... or don't care.<br>

"I think the 5D shots are really a class in front and would suggest you get a second one if you need a second body and just sell the D300." I prefer this answer :)</p>

<p>Maybe they're OOF a little. For me, the big problem is the noise.<br>

It is not possible !!<br>

A compact camera (not a usual one, one with a 10x or 20x zoom lens !) is completely beating<br>

the D300s at noise and sharpness. and think about their lens and the size of their sensor.<br>

The standard has been set by compact cameras, look here:<br>

<a href="http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/canonsx1is_samples/originals/img_0169.jpg">http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/canonsx1is_samples/originals/img_0169.jpg</a><br /><a href="http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/canonsx1is_samples/originals/img_0159.jpg">http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/canonsx1is_samples/originals/img_0159.jpg</a><br>

@<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=4802905">Andrew Lynn</a> "The grain is low enough for almost anything"<br>

Not agree, not for me. Even if I resize them at 6MP, it is stll a problem.</p>

<p>Yes, the AF was set to Auto. Why ?</p>

<p>definitely not worth the money the d300s, imho,<br>

I have it, see my samples and my latest thread, this is my conclusion.</p>

 

<p>Hi all,<br>

My question may seem silly, but is this possible :<br>

<a href="http://dl.fisier.ro/files/ida7oclc3jpcggr/grave.JPG.html">http://dl.fisier.ro/files/ida7oclc3jpcggr/grave.JPG.html</a><br>

Sorry for the "subject" of this photo, but look at the focus points.<br>

For a strange reason all points are lighted, except one :) Photo taken at 16mm with 16-85 VR at a 45 degrees down angle.<br>

The focus points are not supposed to be "lit" if they are in the same plane ? Or "almost"? Is the DOF important here ?<br>

My knowledge seems limited in this area, I would like a pro opinion.<br>

But still, why there is a point who didn't light up ?</p>

 

<p>@gogu<br>

Salutari :) from Romania :)<br>

I agree, it's grain. I said it...I also agree that full frame cameras have lower noise levels.<br>

But what I see in thpse samples seems uinacceptable to me... I did bought a top of the line DX SLR camera not a compact. </p>

<p>They don't have "banding" effect or horizontal lines - at least on my LCD monitor fortunately :) Only noise...</p>

<p>@<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=5056768">Kenneth Rosenstroem</a><br>

Sorry, just look for example at the DSC_0902.jpg, at FULL SIZE, in the shadow areas and not only there is plenty of grainy noise ! And remember, this is ISO 200...<br>

Is the camera faulty ? Is it me too "pixel-peeper" ?<br>

Look also at this image: <a href="http://dl.fisier.ro/files/35maip8ad32j2jg/IMG_0472.JPG.html">http://dl.fisier.ro/files/35maip8ad32j2jg/IMG_0472.JPG.html</a><br>

This is what I call noise free, razor sharp. from the good old 5D (yes, Canon) and 70-200 f/4 L IS USM.<br>

Maybe I am comparing apples and oranges but the difference is HUGE.</p>

<p>Forgot to mention:<br>

ADL is set to OFF, HIgh ISO NR Low (iso 200 or 250 or 400 is not high , right ? ), JPG from 14 bit raw exported with Capture NX2, Sharpening 3 in Picture Control Standard</p>

<p>OK, here are some direct links, the zip contaied all samples:<br>

<a href="http://dl.fisier.ro/files/jboe7iojhrhp37o/DSC_0393_2.jpg.html">http://dl.fisier.ro/files/jboe7iojhrhp37o/DSC_0393_2.jpg.html</a><br /><a href="http://dl.fisier.ro/files/nea2m7mbga3d8hk/DSC_0902.jpg.html">http://dl.fisier.ro/files/nea2m7mbga3d8hk/DSC_0902.jpg.html</a><br /><a href="http://dl.fisier.ro/files/h5omdm8317rof4p/DSC_0715.jpg.html">http://dl.fisier.ro/files/h5omdm8317rof4p/DSC_0715.jpg.html</a><br /><a href="http://dl.fisier.ro/files/72d77rpnkl1r7or/DSC_0380.jpg.html">http://dl.fisier.ro/files/72d77rpnkl1r7or/DSC_0380.jpg.html</a></p>

<p>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width="100%">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td ><br /> </td>

<td width="100%">

<p >Hello,<br /><br />Here is a link to zip file with some full resolution samples with D300s and 16-85 VR.<br /><br /><a href="http://dl.fisier.ro/files/arnmr3cf31mjijo/My_Pictures.zip.html" target="_blank">http://dl.fisier.ro/files/arnmr3cf31mjijo/My_Pictures.zip.html</a><br /><br />Please tell me what you think in terms of noise and sharpness,<br />there are some ISO 200 samples which I found to be very noisy and not sharp and I don't like them... I am worried.</p>

<p >Standard picture control, developed from raw with capture NX2, save as full quality jpeg.</p>

<p ><br />Thanks.<br />David</p>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</p>