(If this has been posted before I apologize, I couldn't find it here.)
These images are from a dpreview thread comparing the low ISO results from the D2x, D300, and D3. - if you'd like more details about the images I'd read through it. I found the comparison to actually be exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. So I wanted to share it.
I can see that the D300 and D3 are cleaner, but the D2X still might have a slight detail edge. Of course, the D3 and D300 have no native ISO100 so they're at a "boosted" setting here. Maybe that should be taken into account.
chemprof wrote:
My monitor is calibrated. Take a look at the detail in the shadow areas of the tree bark and the house siding above the window in the second set.
Gerald
I agree too, I too have a calibrated monitor (lousy expensive setup ) and yes there is more shadow detail BUT , I think it's contributed by the fact that light bounces at anything and there are many leaves on the tree and if the leaves were moving, it can vary the light from one shot to another, also, the light source could also vary, depending on the clouds that may have had interfered during the shoot.
At low ISO 100, most of the DSLRs (almost any brand) will do fine. If you are a low ISO shooter, you can spend $1K or less for a DSLR and you still can take great pictures (especially in capable hands--as some of you have demonstrated).
Obviously any of the D2X, D300, or D3 above can take great pictures at low ISO. What sets the D3 apart is because of its FF and versatility in difficult (low light) situations among other features. I have used all of the above and even if you pixel-peep, IMHO, the D3 is still a winner
danjacquitaylo wrote:
At low ISO 100, most of the DSLRs (almost any brand) will do fine. If you are a low ISO shooter, you can spend $1K or less for a DSLR and you still can take great pictures (especially in capable hands--as some of you have demonstrated).
Obviously any of the D2X, D300, or D3 above can take great pictures at low ISO. What sets the D3 apart is because of its FF and versatility in difficult (low light) situations among other features. I have used all of the above and even if you pixel-peep, IMHO, the D3 is still a winner ...Show more →
That's actually not what the comparison was about. Some people have claimed that the Lo1 setting on both the D3 and D300 are inferior to the 100 ISO setting on the D2X. This set of comparisons is meant to prove / disprove this. We all know that the Lo1 setting is a compromise in terms of dynamic range and contrast compared to ISO 200 (on the D3 and D300). The bottom line for this comparison appears to be that even if it is, the results are just fine.
Justin Huffman wrote:
the seat o' the pants meter says D2X. Interesting for sure.
Depends on if you like higher contrast and warmer colors. All of that stuff is customizable on the D300 and D3.
I really think that with close examination it's a wash. This is a very, very good thing for all of us, actually. That includes those staying with the D2x, as well as those upgrading to or adding a D300 or D3 series camera.
nikt wrote:
I won't pixel peep, so I'll just say I'll take all of them.
I agree, it's a wash detail wise for me. All are excellent.
Perhaps the slightly higher contrast is leading to a perceived increase in detail with the D2x. I'd rather have the more open shadows on the newer bodies (which I too can see on my calibrated monitor)
I bought a D300 yesterday, my first Nikon body in... well forever. I've already shot 2 events with it, a SB-800, and a 17-55. The 3D focus mojo is simply unreal. I can't believe how well it tracks. Jaw dropping really.
) and yes there is more shadow detail BUT 
