Mark Kenfield wrote:
Gary, a couple of suggestions to help you get the best out of the D300: Firstly, create a custom "Neutral" picture profile for yourself. I've played around with these a lot and I'm extremely happy with the colour-accuracy and tonal quality of my current settings (which I find notably more pleasing than any of the D2X profiles, which I almost never use):
I haven’t really explored picture controls yet, but your post made me realize where to find the sharpening setting. I noticed that it came set to +3 in the exif data, but I could not find how to change it, either by scrolling thru the menus or in the manual. I wanted to set it to zero for my last test, but could not find it. I can see where it would be very easy to create ones own picture control profile.
I find that I am constantly changing the EV values manually while out shooting in bright contrasty days. I’m not sure I’d want the current setting buried in the picture controls when I can change it on the fly with the EV button and the main control dial.
You have helped. Thanks.
--------
Gary
Will Fly for Food... and more Nikon stuff
Gary,
My experience with the D300 is at the moment limited to dreaming but Thom Hogan said in his review <www.bythom.com/nikond300review>
The critical change comes for matrix meter users: the D300 pays more attention to what's under the autofocus sensor being used than the D200 did. Enough so that you need to pay closer attention to your histograms. Some have said that the D300 exposes "hotter" than the D200, but that's not actually true in my experience. Nikon has changed the mid-tone gamma at the default settings, which gives the appearance of brighter images, but in a stable, moderate contrast scene with something neutral under the AF sensor, both my D200 and D300 give the same exposure. But be careful if you've got bright or dark objects under the focus point--you'll get more variation of the metering in such cases than the D200 gave
Depending on what program you are using to view the files. For instance in the Nikon software like Nx2 your raws will have the controls added, but you can revert back to original if need be.
If you use say aperture for example i do not believe it will display the modified raw. But I always use Nx2 so I cannot remember which ones see them and which ones do not. I think Cs3 will but don't quote me on it.
OP - If this is the type of shooting you will do primarily (under the sun and static objects), maybe look for a used D2X.
My point being (in this specific test) you're comparing to the strengths of the D200, and totally ignoring some of the strengths of the D300 (namely it's high iso capabilities and vastly superior AF capabilities, not to mention, a whole host of better features.)
Tim Ashton wrote:
The critical change comes for matrix meter users: the D300 pays more attention to what's under the autofocus sensor being used than the D200 did. Enough so that you need to pay closer attention to your histograms. Some have said that the D300 exposes "hotter" than the D200, but that's not actually true in my experience. Nikon has changed the mid-tone gamma at the default settings, which gives the appearance of brighter images, but in a stable, moderate contrast scene with something neutral under the AF sensor, both my D200 and D300 give the same exposure. But be careful if you've got bright or dark objects under the focus point--you'll get more variation of the metering in such cases than the D200 gave...Show more →
I read that, and have experienced that already just in playing around for a short time period around the house. The D200 worked as I expected. The D300 will take some trial and error to learn it, for me anyway. I’m more of a button pusher than a manual reader.
trenchmonkey wrote:
Sharpness tails off at f7.1 if that matters to you. Between f4 and 5.6 is the sweetest spot but what does the 'monkey know...
I'm always at f2.8.
Isn’t that more of a function of the lens, not the body?
MichaelMann wrote:
OP - If this is the type of shooting you will do primarily (under the sun and static objects), maybe look for a used D2X.
My point being (in this specific test) you're comparing to the strengths of the D200, and totally ignoring some of the strengths of the D300 (namely it's high iso capabilities and vastly superior AF capabilities, not to mention, a whole host of better features.)
My primary shooting is sports. Flowers, landscapes and so on are not my strong points, and I’m usually too busy with sports to shoot much of anything else. I am seriously considering selling one of my D2H bodies for a D2Xs. I do have some studio strobes, and the D2Xs would shine there, and in lots of other situations too. Eventually, the other D2H will turn into a D3, but I’m skeptical about FX, even tho I used film bodies since the mid 60's. The DX sensor has it’s strong points for a sports shooter over FX.
I’m not ignoring the strengths of the D300, merely playing with the camera and comparing it to a body I know. First impressions weren’t that great. I haven’t really begun to delve into the strengths of the D300 yet. It was instant love when I went from the D100 to the D200 tho. This is the first dSLR body I’ve had that I couldn’t just pick up and get it right off the bat, and if you look at my profile, you will see I’ve owned a few. It will get a workout tomorrow. 4 to 5 soccer games and 2 football games, and probably 700+ images.
--------
Gary
Will Fly for Food... and more Nikon stuff
Just a suggestion, why not shoot the proofs with greater depth of field to level out slight focus issues from one camera to the next.
I don't see where the shutter speed matters in the first test. If the shots were five minutes apart, the light could have easily changed from clouds, etc.
I'm purchasing the D300 in the next few weeks. Would love the D700 but it's better for me to spend the difference on glass, including the 18-200.
trenchmonkey wrote:
Sharpness tails off at f7.1 if that matters to you. Between f4 and 5.6 is the sweetest spot but what does the 'monkey know...
I'm always at f2.8.
Isn’t that more of a function of the lens, not the body?
Of course, my point is if you're going to compare/pixel peep why not use the best your lens delivers and go from there.
Gary, I also still have both the D200 and D300, shooting the D300 nearly all the time. However, I too do not find low ISO performance to be significantly different with the newer body. As a matter of fact, at ISO 200, the D300 is noticeably noisier than the D200 at ISO 100 (perhaps not surprisingly), and therefore does not give a huge improvement over what I could have gotten on a tripod with my D200.
Large prints (I print as large as 17x25) are indistinguishable if properly processed, at least at ISO 100 and 200.
There IS a difference though, by the time you get to ISO 400 and beyond, where the D300 does have a distinct advantage in image quality.
I also though have been somewhat frustrated with the difference in color between the two cameras. Specifically, light colors often seem overexposed. Not the word SEEM, as the meter is usually more accurate than expected, and the images are usually not clipped. The difference is a result of the tone curve.
