I like the output of the d200 at low ISO. It's an excellent low ISO camera and withstood heavy processing better than prior cams I've used. Dunno about the d2x, but I would assume the same. Lots of folks have always raved about the d2x output at low ISO, so it is reasonable to conclude that it is as good as any. I know of a couple of people that have d300s or d3s, that kept their d2x for low ISO shooting.
IMO the d300 is probably just as good, if you don't use the heavy processing picture controls. Using the neutral PC or d2x PCs, aRGB, you have a very clean file and a lot of latitude, with good exposures. 14-bit gives you a little more latitude for pushing pixels around before you posterize the image. But, if you nail the exposure and don't need much processing, they're all good.
But, if I were to guess, my guess would be that "best" low ISO camera for pixel peepers, would be the d3x.
In a blind print test of normal sized prints, up to about 12x18, I rather doubt that anyone, could tell which photo came from which camera.
What are you doing with the camera? At this point virtually any Nikon DSLR is going to give you excellent results at 200 ISO. If you're doing full page spreads in Vogue, the selection might be a bit more limited...
chemprof wrote:
The D200 is better than the D300 at low ISO.
Gerald
I laughed when I first heard that until I was looking at a landscape photography magazine and noticed that ALL of the photos that were credited to a nikon camera were with the D200. This was really surprising to me when i realized this.
The D300 has noticable noise at the base iso of ISO200. Particularly blue skies. Mine does. Not to say it's not removable with NR software but it's always there in skies which is kinda annoying really.
Of course this is balanced by it's superb high ISO capabilities, esp. compared to the D200 (my previous camera).
I would think best body for low ISO work would be the D700/D3/D3x depending on your budget. If I didn't need the crop factor for birds then I would have already got a D700 or a used D3.
cadman342001 wrote:
The D300 has noticable noise at the base iso of ISO200. Particularly blue skies. Mine does. Not to say it's not removable with NR software but it's always there in skies which is kinda annoying really.
Of course this is balanced by it's superb high ISO capabilities, esp. compared to the D200 (my previous camera).
Andy
Are you shooting NEF and not using the picture controls like standard or vivid, active dlighting?
I don't see any significant difference between the low ISO shots of the d200 vs d300, or d700 for that matter. The cameras meter differently and have different tone curves and color response, but once you turn off the heavy PC stuff, the d300 looks fine to me.
gunner.sip wrote:
hi bsijani:
no price range, sometimes I hear the d2x offers the best low iso IQ of ALL nikon cameras.
I wonder if this is a general opinion.
bests
Having used most of the digital Nikons and even after only a few shots with the D3x...in my opinion the D3x wins hands down.
As for the D2x, although I still own mine and still use it sometimes it has issues even at low iso settings. It simply does not have the dynamic range because of shadow noise issues even at low iso settings. The D2x sensor is just not even close to being up to competing with the newer sensors. In a studio with controled lighting it is OK but take it out to the race track on a bright day and it will not come close to capturing the range of a scene. I will take files from my D3 any day (studio or ambient light).
Just my opinion after thousands of clicks....and I could be wrong...have been before.
stompyq wrote:
Isn't the base ISO indicative of how good the camera is in good light? D200 is ISO 100 while the D300 is ISO 200.
No. Base ISO is where the sensor is optimized to perform its best for all considerations, ie noise, DR, color fidelity, etc. The d300, d700, and d3 are all optimized for a base ISO 200, which gives them the headroom they need to optimize the higher ISO's. All of them have Low ISO settings, down to ISO 100. Supposedly, the L settings lose a little DR, but I can't tell the difference in that regard. I don't much like pixel peeping to the extreme, so I'm really not very good at that stuff......
For example, after reading the earlier comments about the d200 being better at low ISOs and sky noise in the d300, I took a couple of test shots. I shot NEFs and processed them in NX, turning off all of the PC stuff. I even overexposed the d200 shot slightly, to give it an edge, d200 3sec at f/5.6 and d300 2sec at f/5.6. I can't tell the difference between d200 ISO 100 and d300 ISO 125. They look almost identical to me.
Kerry Pierce wrote:
Are you shooting NEF and not using the picture controls like standard or vivid, active dlighting?
I don't see any significant difference between the low ISO shots of the d200 vs d300, or d700 for that matter. The cameras meter differently and have different tone curves and color response, but once you turn off the heavy PC stuff, the d300 looks fine to me.
Yep, RAW, nothing turned on. The sky noise of the D300 at ISO200 has been well documented and I notice it all the time. Sure it's correctable but it's there.
and yes, the D300 takes lovely pics but so did my D200 at lower ISO's.
