What to believe about Nikon?

MikeMcA²

There is plenty of evidence that the Nikon D3 will have a vast improvement in hi-ISO noise over anything currently in the lineup. I have spoken with shooters who have used them in pre-release and they are astounded.

My question, however, is regarding the D300. While all the ads say the D300 has the same processor, AF, and ISO capabilities of the D3, it is a 12+ MP, 1.5x crop CMOS/DX sensor, and many "internet experts" claim this will negate any ISO enhancement in reality (crowding 12+ MP onto a DX sensor will produce Nikon noise).

Since I have well of $12k in glass lol, I ain't switching to Canon, but want to ensure buying the D300 won't lead to the same frustrations as the D200 in low-light/hi-speed action photos.

Any clues? :scratch

sirsloop

If you want to be 100% sure... when the camera's come out just go to a store and look for yourself - or wait for definitive reviews...

swintonphoto

Well, I don't use Nikons, but my experience has been that people make a much bigger deal of noise than it really is. Noise is much more visible on the computer screen than if you make a print. I recently did a test on my E-500's (a camera that critics have been harsh about regarding noise), and when I compared my prints to the computer screen my 1600 ISO prints looked just like my 400 ISO image on the computer screen. I have always avoided anything above ISO 800 on my cameras, but I am positive that my clients would think those 1600 ISO prints look great. The noise is so unnoticeable they wouldn't even think to look for it. I showed them to my brother (Also a photographer) and he too was surprised. I was frankly amazed. So, I think people make way too much of a deal about noise. If you expose well - I think high ISO prints from the D300 will be fabulous. Just try it out - you don't have to take my word for it.

swintonphoto

sirsloop wrote:

or wait for definitive reviews...

Reviews look at ISO on the computer screen - not in print. I think that is one of the major flaws of most reviews.

sirsloop

swintonphoto wrote:

Reviews look at ISO on the computer screen - not in print. I think that is one of the major flaws of most reviews.

download the full res review shot and spend 2 bucks on a few prints

swintonphoto

sirsloop wrote:

download the full res review shot and spend 2 bucks on a few prints

Good idea. I wish they would comment on it though.

ziggy53

Our Harryb has been tracking the Nikon D300 and I think his assessment of the high-ISO improvements is as good as anyone's at this point:

http://dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=658600&postcount=131

MikeMcA²

ziggy53 wrote:

Our Harryb has been tracking the Nikon D300 and I think his assessment of the high-ISO improvements is as good as anyone's at this point:

http://dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=658600&postcount=131

Thanks Ziggy, great reading. I saw a link posted by HarryB of some images shot with the D300 and D3 on that thread. Excellent examples.

Harryb

MikeMcA² wrote:

There is plenty of evidence that the Nikon D3 will have a vast improvement in hi-ISO noise over anything currently in the lineup. I have spoken with shooters who have used them in pre-release and they are astounded.

My question, however, is regarding the D300. While all the ads say the D300 has the same processor, AF, and ISO capabilities of the D3, it is a 12+ MP, 1.5x crop CMOS/DX sensor, and many "internet experts" claim this will negate any ISO enhancement in reality (crowding 12+ MP onto a DX sensor will produce Nikon noise).

Since I have well of $12k in glass lol, I ain't switching to Canon, but want to ensure buying the D300 won't lead to the same frustrations as the D200 in low-light/hi-speed action photos.

Any clues?

Anytime a new camera is released there are two groups of "experts" you should not listen to. The first group are the ones saying "its the best thing since sliced bread". The second group are the ones saying "it sucks". The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

Both cameras will be improvements over the current Nikon offerings. The D3 has the potential to be a real ground breaker and the D300 should be an incremental improvement over the D200. The shots from the D3 look too good to be true (please, please let it be true!!!!!) and the D300 looks to have a 1 to 1 1/2 stop advantage over the D200.

I just served as the official shooter at a banquet where I shoot around 600 shots in fairly low light at ISOs 500-800 with my D200 and D2X. I was quite happy with the results from both cameras. I shot with the SB-800 and a monopod with the 10.5 mm fisheye, the 14mm 2.8, the Tokina 12-24 f/4, and the 85mm f1.4. When I nailed the exposure the shots came out fine. There was some shadow noise in the shadows that was easily handled in Capture NX or in PS CS.

We keep on forgetting that the pics are supposed to be printed and viewed at normal viewing range (around 50% in PS). If you view the shots at 100% or 150% you will see some noise but thats not the normal viewing for a picture on a wall or your online galleries.

MikeMcA²

Harryb wrote:

Anytime a new camera is released there are two groups of "experts" you should not listen to. The first group are the ones saying "its the best thing since sliced bread". The second group are the ones saying "it sucks". The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.quote]

Thanks Harry. As in all things, the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.

I was speaking with a stringer for Gannett who does a lot or work for NY area newspapers, and his experience with the D3 was that at ISO 1600, the images were better than on his flock of D2h and D2x bodies at ISO 400.

I realize that exposure and even focus have much to do with the amount of noise, just want to ensure that if I drop the $1800 for the D300 I will not kick myself for not going the other $3k and getting the D3. Still not sure which is the one I'll end up with, but to me it would be a waste to spend $3k extra to just get the full-frame sensor, but it's more of a waste to spend $1800 first and then $4900 lol. It is clear, however, that it will be more than a matter of full-frame vs. DX sensor. Just not sure it's worth the $3k given the nature of my photography.

Mike

Harryb

Hey Mike, Since you seem to be a sports shooter I'm sure you know that the D3 was designed for sports and PJ shooters.

LiquidAir

Harryb wrote:

I just served as the official shooter at a banquet where I shoot around 600 shots in fairly low light at ISOs 500-800 with my D200 and D2X. I was quite happy with the results from both cameras. I shot with the SB-800 and a monopod with the 10.5 mm fisheye, the 14mm 2.8, the Tokina 12-24 f/4, and the 85mm f1.4. When I nailed the exposure the shots came out fine. There was some shadow noise in the shadows that was easily handled in Capture NX or in PS CS.

One thing to be aware of is that high ISO noise is very sensitive to white balance. At 2800K the blue channel is significanly underexposed and being amplified in the raw conversion which quite dramatically increases noise. Often using a flash reduces the noise just by letting you set the WB to 5000K instead of 2800K even if you leave the ISO the same.

Harryb

LiquidAir wrote:

One thing to be aware of is that high ISO noise is very sensitive to white balance. At 2800K the blue channel is significanly underexposed and being amplified in the raw conversion which quite dramatically increases noise. Often using a flash reduces the noise just by letting you set the WB to 5000K instead of 2800K even if you leave the ISO the same.

For most of my shots I used a Kelvin setting as opposed to the camera presets.

KRFamiliar

MikeMcA² wrote:

Since I have well of $12k in glass lol, I ain't switching to Canon, but want to ensure buying the D300 won't lead to the same frustrations as the D200 in low-light/hi-speed action photos.
Any clues?

I think if you had 'frustration' with the D200, you should either switch to canon, or pay for a D3. Otherwise, the D300 is probably the best you can do noise- and focus- wise for nikon.