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.

Oh don't get me wrong anyone I like what I see out of the D300 (but it does look a bit like a canon type file to my mind) I just want to see how the files look in the exact same exposure settings. If it does expose differently I just want to know that. It is not so much a better or worse thing for me ... just a "what is" kind of thing.

I was surprised that the D2h needed 1/3 overexposure to still come up darker. I guess that is progress although it does not look like the exposure of the D300 file is correct but simply bright. I could run out and play with one when my shop gets one but that will be a while so I appreciate that users who already took the jump can show the rest of us.

I shots some scenes with the D2h when I first got it and also a neutral card. The exposure was a hair less than perfect but ... pretty close to the best calibrated meter I've ever used and almost identical to the D200 and D70.

To shoot in manual, center out the meter at the base iso and then shoot a wall would be of interest to me .... to see if the iso is accurate through the range and linear.

It is funny but I am at some point where I'm really tired of technology. I am finding that my digital stuff stays at home while I shoot film. So paradoxically since I shoot the digicams less I am interested in this crop. The thing is that I really could now live with either the D2h, the D200 or perhaps the D300 for ever. I find nothing lacking in the D2h. Nothing what so ever, eve noise and I shoot a lot at iso 1600 in caves. But the darn thing is so heavy and conspicuous and the ergos a bit different than the D200.

The D200 I only fault for feeling less precise and much poorer focus compared to the D2h. But the size is sooo nice now that I'm not shooting sports all of a sudden.

So I want two bodies, identical to each other. They won't get much use. Another D200 and I"m done .... or if the D300 really addresses the D200's shortcomings then I can wait for the next lens and buy two ... and sell the D2h and the D200. Hmmmm. But I need accurate info ... not the new leather seat smell euphoria.

You see, I've been around too long just like many of you gents ... and we all remember don't we. The D2h was the second coming of christ ... well until we discovered all of its flaws when the new model came out. The D200 was the perfect camera three stops better in noise over the D2h. Well at least two then! But funny, when I got mine and shot in identical scenes ... the difference was very little, nothing to get worked up about and certainly nothing that made me stop using my D2h for dim events. I was a bit bummed that the D200 was not going to save me ..... like I thought from what people claimed.

So is this the real coming of christ .... or just history repeating?
The suspense is killing me.

And then ... off to film ... and real noise! Thats where I feel the challenge now. After all ... didn't we all agree ... that its the photographer?

Pavel wrote:

The D200 I only fault for feeling less precise and much poorer focus compared to the D2h.


This is precisely the reason I ordered the d300. Fast, accurate focus isn't beneficial just for sports shooters. The reports that it is faster/better even with AF lenses is an unexpected bonus, if true. My 80-400vr will like that muchly.

I don't expect to see my d300 before the end of the week. I doubt that I'll get into comparison testing with my d200s and d70s and then posting my results. People that do that usually get trashed pretty good for not spending many hours on the tests, thus screwing up the tests and/or not posting the right photos or crops or something that doesn't give the viewers their money's worth.

I'm keeping the d200s and d70s, but converting one of the d70s to IR. The d200 is a pretty fine camera for lots of situations and mine still have the new leather smell.

Pavel, I'm pretty damn certain that the D3 is the second coming. lol

You're right though...I wish all this crap would just stop for a few years...both canon and nikon. Just leave us with the D3 and D300 for nearly a decade like they did with film. Spend that time developing something so revolutionary that 5-7 years from now the cameras will still be gems!

Pavel, I'm currently re-doing the test. I'll use manual settings to get equal exposures and see how much difference it makes. Hopefully that will get me off your doo doo list.

I think you're getting me wrong though... I'm not trying to sell D300's here (I don't get commission and don't have a shop), I was only posting a test I ran.and my initial thoughts on the camera.

I doubt I'll ever create the "perfect" test.. but I just took some shots with all NR off and all equal exposure settings...

Dj .... if you think I got you wrong ... you have me wrong .... because you are forgetting that I get most of it wrong!

I have little doubt that the D300 is a great camera. If Zachs ... a crazy but respected member says that its the second coming .... I believe. I believe!

I think I want one ... rather than two D200's. So ignore my grumpiness .... because subliminally I know I'm going to be ... but I hate being .... broke!

My dilema after visiting my local shop is ... D300 .... or .... FM3a ... in mint shape ... thought pricey. I keep imagining myself on a two week hike in the woods and no place to recharge batteries. But nobody is interested in my HP5+ vs Tri-X grain tests.

I am Pavel. Post them Just not in this thread

Pavel, I'm not even going to TRY to understand that first sentence, I just go crosseyed.

Truth be known I think I'm as sick of this high ISO non-ending over-hyped forum hysteria as anyone. I seem to have managed to make decent high ISO shots with my noisy D2H for a few years now, and heck, even made a little money with it (imagine that!) and high ISO sports...

But just processing the second go-round of this test so stay tuned for more vomitous subject matter! Wooo WOOOT!

Pavel wrote:
Dj .... if you think I got you wrong ... you have me wrong .... because you are forgetting that I get most of it wrong!



Sounds like a line from Forest Gump! "Stupid is as stupid does"