I wasn't going to post this, its a pre-prod model, shot in darkness, and not optimised to get the best out of the camera. Plus... I was drinking wine (one glass and I'm drunk... and I had two).
Bandwidth requirements restrict me from posting a larger size, so it is what it is. What it does show, as a happy snap in auto mode, this is VERY good.
1/30 sec, f2.8 , 55mm, USM'd a little in photoshop
Great job nikt, this is really some insider info here. People were thinking that the D300 would pale in comparison to the D3, but this proves otherwise. That shot is totally usable if you ask me... better than my puny D50 at 1600, that's for sure.
The D3 is of course better, we all expect it to be. Maybe it does pale, but that would only be because the D3 is just so good at it. But like you said Mike, it is very usable.
This would mean more if there was a D200 or D2H to sit next to it in comparison.
My one concern, is that I will no longer have ISO 100 with the D300. That is going to suck on very bright days outdoors. (know there is that special setting, but that is an interpreted ISO 100 the same way Hi.0 works right?)
DragonflyDM wrote:
This would mean more if there was a D200 or D2H to sit next to it in comparison.
My one concern, is that I will no longer have ISO 100 with the D300. That is going to suck on very bright days outdoors. (know there is that special setting, but that is an interpreted ISO 100 the same way Hi.0 works right?)
Right. I was disappointed about the base iso too. A base iso of 25 or 50 would be nice to have.
You guys must be spoiled lol... my D50's base ISO is 200, and I manage. I'm sure they had to make a compromise if the high ISO noise levels are so good. If they optimized the sensor for ISO 25 or 50, I doubt you'd get the same 3200 and 6400 performance. (Note: I say this, realizing that you want the low ISO so you can shoot wide open in daylight)
Mike Yam wrote:
You guys must be spoiled lol... my D50's base ISO is 200, and I manage. I'm sure they had to make a compromise if the high ISO noise levels are so good. If they optimized the sensor for ISO 25 or 50, I doubt you'd get the same 3200 and 6400 performance. (Note: I say this, realizing that you want the low ISO so you can shoot wide open in daylight)
It isn't being spoiled. My D1X was ISO 200 for its base, however, with the D200 they dropped the base to ISO 100. It seems a bit of a step backwards to loose an entire f/stop of ISO with a "newer" product.
For me, ISO 200 as a base isn't that big of a deal. I hardly *ever* hit the 1/8000th shutter speed at that ISO. I got along with ISO 200 on the D70 without problems. As for the 6400 on the D300... it looks pretty good.
So, Nikon... D300s with the D3 sensor, maybe? Not that I particularly care for 35mm FF, but the noise handling on that sensor is stunning, as we've all seen. Nikon needs a direct competitor to the 5D in body size and sensor.
"It isn't being spoiled. My D1X was ISO 200 for its base, however, with the D200 they dropped the base to ISO 100. It seems a bit of a step backwards to loose an entire f/stop of ISO with a "newer" product."
Good point, but do you think they chose to leave out that feature, or were they forced to make an engineering decision?
edymoreno wrote:
For me, ISO 200 as a base isn't that big of a deal. I hardly *ever* hit the 1/8000th shutter speed at that ISO. I got along with ISO 200 on the D70 without problems. As for the 6400 on the D300... it looks pretty good.
So, Nikon... D300s with the D3 sensor, maybe? Not that I particularly care for 35mm FF, but the noise handling on that sensor is stunning, as we've all seen. Nikon needs a direct competitor to the 5D in body size and sensor.
Has anyone seen a side-by-side of the D3 and D300 at ISO 6400? Is the D3 really that much better?
Mike Yam wrote:
You guys must be spoiled lol... my D50's base ISO is 200, and I manage. I'm sure they had to make a compromise if the high ISO noise levels are so good. If they optimized the sensor for ISO 25 or 50, I doubt you'd get the same 3200 and 6400 performance. (Note: I say this, realizing that you want the low ISO so you can shoot wide open in daylight)
I'm not sure what spoiled has to do with anything and having to just 'manage' is the point. I'd rather use a lower iso than slap a ND filter on the front. Hi iso has it's benefits as do lower ones.
DragonflyDM wrote:
Has anyone seen a side-by-side of the D3 and D300 at ISO 6400? Is the D3 really that much better?
OOH YEAH
it's definitely not like the D200 vs the D2x which seems more comparable. From what i've seen and tested the D3 is far superior to the D300. But maybe that's just because i'm a pixelpeep'n gearhead. It's between my ears maybe, but i totally flipped out when i get to test that D3, i didn't have that with the d300. However the focussing and grip and almost everything feels the same.
The D300 iso6400 looked like the D3's iso25600 and that is great usable stuff...
I was just completelly flabergasted by that D3 IQ. man out of this world really. Expect something never seen before...
oh hm and i fell in love with that D3's shuttersound clackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclack (That was the sound of 11fps )
sorry i can't help it :worried:
Sep 15, 2007 at 02:03 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
My one concern, is that I will no longer have ISO 100 with the D300. That is going to suck on very bright days outdoors. (know there is that special setting, but that is an interpreted ISO 100 the same way Hi.0 works right?)
grmedhat1 wrote:
I'm not sure what spoiled has to do with anything and having to just 'manage' is the point. I'd rather use a lower iso than slap a ND filter on the front. Hi iso has it's benefits as do lower ones.
Image quality from a sensor optimized at ISO 200 is going to be as good as the image quality from a sensor optimized at ISO 100. The primary disadvatage is that is bright light you may have to use shutter speeds that are rather high. This is easily solved with a good quality ND filter with no loss of image quality (note: I said a GOOD QUALITY ND). There are two practical sides to giving up the ISO100 to gain image quality @ 3200 and 6400.
1) In general, super bright light situations are more rare than low light stiuations. Additionally, bright light situations are easy to deal with (LO setting or a ND filter) Also for technical reasons, unless shutter speeds are insanely short, the LO setting should be an easier interpolation than a HI setting.
2) The market is demanding high ISO performance much more than low ISO performance (i.e. below 200). That combined with the fact that low light situations can be very difficult to deal with. Fast glass is large, heavy and expensive; and, only so fast. Flash is limited in range and sucks power like no tomorrow; not to mention the artistic downsides in certain situations.
If given the choice between a cam that went 100-1600 or a came that went 200-3200, I would take the 200-3200 any day. There is little I can do once flash and aperature are maxed out to improve low light performance. With bright light performace my 3-stop ND brings things down to ISO 25 Now that is SLLLOOOOOWWWWWW.
they should just let me do it and after that we can have some 
