Yeah, I know, I'm a turd for the title. Couldn't resist. Here's some low-light shots of my new D300 and comparison shots beside the D2H.

funny thing to note on the mega-screen on these puppies, the rep giving the presentation asked the engineers if it was possible to watch a movie on the screens, since they were so nice, the engineers, obviously japanese were a little dumbfounded at the question and stumped the translator, but the engineers and translator were kind of at a loss for words... the rep was, "oh no never mind " "just an idea"

How are you liking the focus with the screw driven lenses?

D300?!?!

Are you serious?? wait...when did this happen?? there's a new Nikon?? Have they got any plans on replacing the D2H/X?? those cameras, while good performers are starting to show signs of age. Hope the wait isn't too long, would be REALLY exciting to see what they come up with...

Please compare the screw-drive... At this point, thats the only thing nobody has mentioned and seeing that lens on there is killing me! haha

Zachs wrote:
Please compare the screw-drive... At this point, thats the only thing nobody has mentioned and seeing that lens on there is killing me! haha



I did mention it - perhaps you missed it. It is as fast as my D2x.

Zachs wrote:
Please compare the screw-drive... At this point, thats the only thing nobody has mentioned and seeing that lens on there is killing me! haha



OK I did so... I compared with three different screw-drivers (50mm and 85mm and 10.5mm) using (1) dark settings in dimly-lit rooms, (2) moving objects (cars going by on the highway), and (3) near-far low-light tests for infinity focus hunting speed.

Here's what I find...

(1) In dark settings the D300 has an unfair edge in the AF assist light so I disabled it. It's still better in low-light accuracy than my D2H! This blows me away - I never would have predicted this since the D2H is pretty well fantastic in low light. But if I pick a very low contrast subject (brown on black) on low light it is better able to find it. Amazing. Both are better than the D70s by a fair margin.

(2) It's really too hard to give an edge to which is quicker at AF-C tracking a car with a screw-drive lens, but I will say the D300 drives the lenses much smoother. It's almost liquid-assisted somehow, and less noisy. The 85mm f1.8 is not a quiet focusser, but it's definitely noisier on the D2H and D70s. Both were able to track continuously, and the D70s had some real difficulty here as might be expected. When I go from single-point to a dynamic area (set at 11 points by the way to be fair) I still believe the D300 is better with the 85mm than is the D2H.

(3) The D300 seemed to drive the lens in hunting situations faster from full-lock to full-lock! I honestly believe the motor is quicker than my D2H's, and again - I really did not expect this. Again, this is only based on a 20-minute test and anyone who knows me knows I'm a HUGE proponent of the Multi-CAM2000 system. It's early, but I'm thinking the Multi-CAM3500 in the D300 might actually be better in many ways.

I'll have to do some sports work to say I'd actually claim 3500 is better than 2000, but at this point I'm definitely impressed. If it can out-do my D2H, it will KILL the D200 for AF performance. I won't commit to it just after a 20-minute test, because I LOVE my D2H for sports and action for the AF performance alone, and it's the reason I got rid of the D200.

... I've just completed some basic ambient lighting high ISO tests against my D2H and D70s (unfortunately no longer have the D200 to compare to), and I'll go on record now saying the D300 is 2 full stops cleaner and more detailed than the D70s, and even more on the D2H when shooting jpgs. I know from personal experience the D2H is a stop or so better in raw captures vs. its own jpg's, and it's basically on par or ever so slightly better with the D70s. So a 2-stop gain for me... nice. ISO3200 is extremely good.

I don't want to bother with 100% crop posts right now, but I'll get to it.

ISO800

D70s

quote: "The 85mm f1.8 is not a quiet focusser, but it's definitely noisier on the D2H and D70s."

I actually found the 85mm f1.8 noisier on the D300 versus the D2x, but the speed seemed the same.

I do agree that focus accuracy is better on the D300 than any camera I have ever used.

I want to ask you about the "Battery compartment attachment" - What exactly is it? does it fit in the existing battery compartment and replace the original battery, or does it wire the batteries in series?

That was the review I was hoping for. Thanx alot. I like the way the grip looks on the D300. Users of the D200 complained about fit and finish. You mentioned finish. How does the grip fit with the D300? The best fit I can remember was the F100 and it's grip and the Canon XT with it's grip ( the better of the two ).

Looks like a great camera--my wife didn't flinch too much when I mentioned the D3 was about $5000--could be a good thing. But the D300 seems the logical step for me. Look for my D200 in the BS forum soon.

The grip feels much improved over the MB-D200, although I still prefer the solid 1-piece body in the D2's. I couldn't afford the D3 right now, so I have to live with a removable grip that will likely never come off just as my MB-D200 didn't. Still, this one is metal and it feels it when you hold the camera. The new d-pad is an excellent touch, as is the rubber base which the MB-D200 didn't have. It locks into the camera body much the same way as the D200's did, with a base screw that locks into the tripod mount hole. Beyond that, there's a pin-connector that grips into the base, and no long L-piece that fits into the battery chamber as it did in the D200. IE/ there's no need to remove the battery compartment door to fit the new grip. The offset of this is though that you can't use two batteries in the grip... instead the new grip holds only 1 battery, and will fit the standard battery, or the included tray for AA's, or an optional EN-EL4a. The good news is that I know the battery life on the EN-EL4a's is far superior to the EN-EL3e's, so that should help not being able to use 2. You can still keep one battery inside the camera (I'll keep the stock battery in there) and tell the camera via a menu selection in which order you want it to use the batteries (I'll go with the EN-EL4a first...)

Man, though, if you don't get a flinch for the D3's price tag and you don't need the extra DX reach for your preferred photography, I'd definitely be putting a downstroke on a D3! That thing is completely revolutionary... and boy do I love spending other people's money!

Okay... my last post of the day... sleepy here even with the new toys...

Some high ISO 100% crops... shot at F8, aperture priority, ambient light, tripod mounted and timer used, with a crop taken from a dark noise-typical area...

The original scene (ISO800 shots):

D70s

I have some questions as I wait for my D300 and grip.

1.When using the EN-EL4a in the grip do you still need a normal battery in the D300 (EN-EL3e)? Or does it not matter?

2. Is there still a percentage battery life gauge in the meniu much like the D200 had? Does this work with the grip and EN-EL4a?

Thanks!

Hi Patrick... you made a liar out of me... that wasn't my last post apparently.

1. No, you don't need to keep one in the camera... one in the grip is fine.
2. Yes, there's a very similar battery charge (%) / shots taken-remaining guage, and includes the D2-series' battery life indicator (scale of 1-4)... very nice.

hmm.. hmmmzz... while not looking very scientific, you are in some way the first to be able to show me something of the D300 which looks convincing to me
Looks pretty cool hm? the detail on that last 3200 shot looks pretty good. Heck it looks even better taht iso1600 on my D40, which happen to be my best hi iso cam at the moment . now go out and shoot a bad lit dark alley or a dark corner in a pub. What i want to know if i will be able to shoot in a (normally lit) restaurant without flash. or maybe a (normally lit) pub.

dammit!!!! i must resist upgrading.

very impressive.... makes me wonder if I really need the D3. I need an ISO improvement on my D200 for certain assignments and I really could use a better AF... all this makes me think the D300+grip could be a better choice than the D3 (price/performance ratio)

Guy

wow...i can't believe they stuffed that powerful motor in the D300 body. I take back everything I said! And that color accuracy on the Xbox is incredible. It really seems like the D300 is on par with my S5 as far as noise goes, but at only 100bucks more and look at how much more you get! Even more so, you get the Nikon colors. mehhhh haha

Thanks for letting us know about the motor...that part has really had me wondering.

Sorry folks, but DJ's results are terrible. Of course the D300 looks better, its exposed better then the other two. We know how underexposing tends to exaggerate the noise.

Those pictures look like there is a good amount of noise removal in camera on the D300 - can you disable it and shoot the same frame again on full manual so that the D300 shots are not exposed brighter?

It is interesting to me that even despite the fact that you dialed in +1/3 on the D2h and none on the D300, the D300 still metered much brighter at 1/2 versus 1/3 second.
That makes me a bit concerned .... I don't care which machine meters "better" but that two meter so differently bothers me. Coming from the world of Canon that was a pain. Basically you had to learn the metering of each body. So far the D2h, the D70 and the D200's I've had have been identical and I've been very impressed with the consistency and the reliability of the nikon line.

Keep the samples coming. Any chance for larger shots. At those sizes .... it makes me aware that even the old stuff is more than perfect enough.

I look at it a different way fellas. The D300 seems to expose brighter overall on matrix metering, but it's not blowing the highlights. I think it does a better job quite frankly at maintaining the brights yet getting the shadows with detail, and for some reason the D2H needs the +1/3 EV to get the same histogram spread.

My D100 underexposed consistently by 1/3, and I regularly dialed in a +1/3 comp. I leave the D70s at neutral, and usually go 0 or +1/3 on the D2H. I might have my first Nikon that I drop -1/3, but given that it isn't blowing the highlights and instead boosting the shadows somehow, maybe I'll just leave it.

Mr. Curtis, with due respect, I don't by that underexposing in and of itself "exaggerates noise". Underexposing and then fixing in post does. These are straight from camera. The scene itself is not badly underexposed - I invite you to open the ISO800 files yourself and check the histograms - they're nicely spread out on all three cameras. The difference is that the D300 definitely has more apparent DR, and picks up the details in the shadow areas a lot better. That to me is not a fault of the camera, but a bonus.

However, I'll try to redo another test in full manual and post up the results.

I frankly don't care which way is the way you prefer .... my concern is using multiple bodies.
So if we take your word for it that this latest ...(and why is it always that people are desperate to tag any new product as superior at least for the first few months rather than objectively?)
is somehow magically overexposing the dark scenes but knows how to back off in bright scenes (I've always wanted a camera that reads my mind - glad its here) so nothing gets clipped - horay! But it is still a problem if it meters differenty than other bodies.

Funny, but the scene looks to be low light. The other two bodies seemed to capture it that way. The D300 caught it 2/3 of a stop brighter. How come?

OH ... and you are flat out mistaken about underexposure not causing noise in and of itself. The way a sensor captures data with little information in the lower quartertones means there is little detail there and much noise. Bumping the exposure up makes it stand out even more - but because it is there in the first place.

I've had Canon and Olympus systems aside from Nikon. I used to love how the Olympus folks would take pictures of a white cat on snow, overeposed two stops and show everyone who would listen "hey ... its all just Canon and Nikon hype! I don't see any noise in my iso 1600 shots! Olympus rocks!"
Yeah. except one only uses iso 1600 when there is little light. A dark room should to be exposed correctly take a lesson from the same exposure tips that the Dark cat in a coal mine heeds. It should look like a dark room. And then the noise hits you ... and always in the shadows.

So ... despite the mild difficulty in standardizing test (and I'm grateful for this one) lets make it standardized. Same exposure, same noise removal. That way we really see the measure of improvement. Some of us would like to know about the body, warts and all - rather than worship blindly at the god of new.
Suppose (and I know its heretical) that the D300, tested in exactly the same way as the poor old D200 showed only a half stop better noise characteristics? I mean after all the pixel sizes are smaller, so it stands to reason that gains are now in software - would the Nikon sky fall? It ain't a contest. We don't have to take questioning as some kind of insult or betrayal.

Btw .... I would swear that I'm now in the canon forum. We used to say around here that others were making too much a deal about noise - rather than getting out to shoot Heck ... I din't want to say it ... but the shots I've seen so far at 1600 and above strike me as looking strongly like the 20D look. Say it ain't so! We used to call it plasticy. But I won't say that ..... I know the sky would fall then.

Also, if you could please, disable the D-Lighting. Perhaps show us a high ISO shot with D-Lighting enabled, and one with it disabled. I betcha that's why it looks like there's more apparent DR.

Also, noise can be improved at the gain (prior to coming into the sensor) by using lower noise amplifiers or other signal conditioning mechanisms. It's not all in the DSP, though I'd say most of it is there (maybe 80%?). So let's turn off D-lighting and all NR and see what the sensor sees.

Although I'm not going to get a D300, it'd be good to know this information. And I must say thanks for the amount of time you've already put into it DJ

Thanks for posting your thoughts and the photos, DJ.

It's really tough making "identical" exposures on 3 different cams and then posting them. You're a braver man than I.

Pavel wrote:
But it is still a problem if it meters differenty than other bodies.

Funny, but the scene looks to be low light. The other two bodies seemed to capture it that way. The D300 caught it 2/3 of a stop brighter. How come?

Suppose (and I know its heretical) that the D300, tested in exactly the same way as the poor old D200 showed only a half stop better noise characteristics? I mean after all the pixel sizes are smaller, so it stands to reason that gains are now in software - would the Nikon sky fall? It ain't a contest. We don't have to take questioning as some kind of insult or betrayal.

Btw .... I would swear that I'm now in the canon forum. We used to say around here that others were making too much a deal about noise - rather than getting out to shoot Heck ... I din't want to say it ... but the shots I've seen so far at 1600 and above strike me as looking strongly like the 20D look. Say it ain't so! We used to call it plasticy. But I won't say that ..... I know the sky would fall then.



FWIW, what I've been seeing from d300 users on dpr is that the metering is different on the d300. It no longer "underexposes" the way most nikons have done in the past, plus preliminary indications seem to show that the sensor is more sensitive than the ISO rating. So, I'd guess that you're not going to like the d300 metering different than your d2h unless you want to use the fine tune feature to adjust the meter to give you the same behavior.

As for looking like canon shots, well, that's what people have wanted isn't it? I seem to recall that anyone posting high ISO shots that made them happy, being greeted with catcalls and being told that they're stupid if they think canon isn't better.

The biggest complaints have been about canon "superiority" in noise and then "underexposures". People wished for that and apparently now have gotten their wish on both counts. There is an old saying about being careful what you wish for, IIRC.

It will be nice in a few months after all the hoopla dies down and we can get back to: "what full frame lens" this and "what should I buy" that. lol

All I know is that all the BS will slow down and then sky rocket when the D3 comes out...le sigh.