This topic is in the 2009 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2009the d300s killer
p.14 #1the d300s killer
chez wrote:
...........it's visible if you print large formats....haven't you heard of Genuine Fractal?
- The 7D has more advanced video options than the D300S, and if HD video is important for the user........If you knew video, you know that video on a DSLR has many problems to iron out, try panning with one(rolling shutter). At this point in time, its a toy feature to sell more cameras.
.....Longer reach.....reach from a crop sensor is a myth
I've never gained a thing arguing about camera specs. I've never seen a camera spec make a photographer better.
Canon fanboys must really be hungry for something to shout about.....when you forget about the hype...you realize the 7D is ever so slightly evolutionary, not at all revolutionary.It is significant for Canon to produce a high FPS, fast AF, durable build APS camera. Canon realise they had missed the boat when the D300 came out. The term revolutionary should perhaps in my opinion be reserved for real firsts such as the first sub £1000 DSLR (Canon) or first FF DSLR (Canon), or first IS DSLR lens (Canon), or first DO lens (Canon), or first DSLR with a print button (Canon). Still, we use 'legendary' to mean merely 'famous', such is the debasement of words by the advertising industry and others.
Longer reach from APS-C is not a myth, assuming the same pixel count in FF and APS-C.Or how about the first effective SLR system (Nikon) or the first SLR zoom (Nikon) or the first AF lens (Nikon) or the first DSLR (Nikon) or the first DSLR capable of >ISO3200 with good image quality (Nikon) or the first DSLR with >8 FPS (Nikon) ... I could go on. 
I must agree that Nikon hit a home run with the D300 and Canon missed the boat. Just like Nikon missed the boat 5 years ago while Canon was pounding away. It goes back and forth ... be happy, it's a good thing for both camps!Let's not forget the Kodak FF was introduced at the same time as the 1Ds. I agree Nikon hit it out of the park with the D300, AND the D700 AND the D3.
The 7D seems like a good camera. A D300s killer? I think not.Might not have killed the D300s...but it sure took any wind out of it's sails. To me, compared to the 7D release, the D300s is a so what release. The 7D surely has the stage at the momment.
Wind out of sails ... nah, but giving it a good race. Remeber, the D300 is a proven camera, the 7D is not. Let's talk again in 6 months or a year. Beside, give Nikon 18 month and the D400 will be out.
rhyder wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
LeifG wrote
rhyder wrote
Jorgen Udvang wrote
]- The 7D has more advanced video options than the D300S, and if HD video is important for the user........If you knew video, you know that video on a DSLR has many problems to iron out, try panning with one(rolling shutter). At this point in time, its a toy feature to sell more cameras.
.....Longer reach.....reach from a crop sensor is a myth
I've never gained a thing arguing about camera specs. I've never seen a camera spec make a photographer better.
Canon fanboys must really be hungry for something to shout about.....when you forget about the hype...you realize the 7D is ever so slightly evolutionary, not at all revolutionary.
Longer reach from APS-C is not a myth, assuming the same pixel count in FF and APS-C.
I must agree that Nikon hit a home run with the D300 and Canon missed the boat. Just like Nikon missed the boat 5 years ago while Canon was pounding away. It goes back and forth ... be happy, it's a good thing for both camps!
The 7D seems like a good camera. A D300s killer? I think not.
Wind out of sails ... nah, but giving it a good race. Remeber, the D300 is a proven camera, the 7D is not. Let's talk again in 6 months or a year. Beside, give Nikon 18 month and the D400 will be out.
Sep 12, 2009 at 09:18 PM
p.14 #2the d300s killer
monochrome wrote:
The wind out of it's sails, the stage, good grief. It's a camera, one that still hasn't seen retail.
chez wrote:
That is my point. Not one 7D has been sold, yet it has quickly quietened the D300s release. Even the Nikon board is talking about the 7D.
The 7D could be a dud, we don't know yet. Poor AF would be devastating not only to the 7D in particular, but to Canon's reputation as a whole (coming on the 1DIII AF debacle). OTOH, the D300 is a well regarded camera in every way and the D300s appears to be a modest improvement on an already very good AF. It's way too early to tell, and I hope the 7D is a good camera, but the 7D might end up being a "Canon killer."
The wind out of it's sails, the stage, good grief. It's a camera, one that still hasn't seen retail.
chez wrote:
That is my point. Not one 7D has been sold, yet it has quickly quietened the D300s release. Even the Nikon board is talking about the 7D.
The 7D could be a dud, we don't know yet. Poor AF would be devastating not only to the 7D in particular, but to Canon's reputation as a whole (coming on the 1DIII AF debacle). OTOH, the D300 is a well regarded camera in every way and the D300s appears to be a modest improvement on an already very good AF. It's way too early to tell, and I hope the 7D is a good camera, but the 7D might end up being a "Canon killer."
Sep 12, 2009 at 11:23 PM
p.14 #3the d300s killer
rhyder wrote:
You have repeatedly posted assertions without deigning to give an explanation. Or is it that some cameras have magic pixies?Not all pixels are the same. There's nothing magic about it. How do you think the D3 (FF) and the D300 (1.5 crop) have the same amount of pixels? Ever notice that the D200 and the D300 have the same size sensor yet have a different amount of pixels? Its not just the size of the pixels that are different either. Do a little research, you'll see what I mean.
I don't need to do a little research because I know the differences. What I cannot understand is your mystical explanations and refusal to say what you mean. What on Earth are you on about?
The differences are dynamic range, and noise. The resolution is a function of the pixel density, no more, no less. Assuming a lens that can outresolve the sensor. Hence a crop sensor has more reach than a FF sensor, assuming the same lens, and the same pixel count.
No need for magic pixies here.
LeifG wrote
rhyder wrote
This assumes all pixels are created equal, which is not the case.I don't need to do a little research because I know the differences. What I cannot understand is your mystical explanations and refusal to say what you mean. What on Earth are you on about?
The differences are dynamic range, and noise. The resolution is a function of the pixel density, no more, no less. Assuming a lens that can outresolve the sensor. Hence a crop sensor has more reach than a FF sensor, assuming the same lens, and the same pixel count.
No need for magic pixies here.
Sep 13, 2009 at 03:21 AM
p.14 #4the d300s killer
Andre Labonte wrote:
Kodak? Who's Kodak?
(puts on asbestose suit and ... 
)
Apparently it was a company that used to grind up animal bones with water and silver, and create something called 'film', This commodity was then sold to people with anoraks, who stored it in elaborate and rather expensive metal boxes, the most expensive being made by a company called Leica, who decorated the boxes with alligator skin, opossum skin, and other exotic materials. The past is a very strange place.
Kodak? Who's Kodak?
(puts on asbestose suit and ... )Apparently it was a company that used to grind up animal bones with water and silver, and create something called 'film', This commodity was then sold to people with anoraks, who stored it in elaborate and rather expensive metal boxes, the most expensive being made by a company called Leica, who decorated the boxes with alligator skin, opossum skin, and other exotic materials. The past is a very strange place.
Sep 13, 2009 at 03:27 AM
p.14 #5the d300s killer
chez wrote:
Might not have killed the D300s...but it sure took any wind out of it's sails. To me, compared to the 7D release, the D300s is a so what release. The 7D surely has the stage at the momment.
As far as I can see they are pretty much the same, except the 7D has 50% more pixies. Let's see how they sell.
Might not have killed the D300s...but it sure took any wind out of it's sails. To me, compared to the 7D release, the D300s is a so what release. The 7D surely has the stage at the momment.
As far as I can see they are pretty much the same, except the 7D has 50% more pixies. Let's see how they sell.
Sep 13, 2009 at 03:28 AM
p.14 #6the d300s killer
LeifG wrote:
(puts on asbestose suit and ... )Apparently it was a company that used to grind up animal bones with water and silver, and create something called 'film', This commodity was then sold to people with anoraks, who stored it in elaborate and rather expensive metal boxes, the most expensive being made by a company called Leica, who decorated the boxes with alligator skin, opossum skin, and other exotic materials. The past is a very strange place.
Wow, those Cro-Magnons were funny people.
Andre Labonte wrote
Kodak? Who's Kodak? (puts on asbestose suit and ... )Wow, those Cro-Magnons were funny people.
Sep 13, 2009 at 05:28 AM
p.14 #7the d300s killer
LeifG wrote:
As far as I can see they are pretty much the same, except the 7D has 50% more pixies. Let's see how they sell.
I want more pixies to go with my next camera purchase! Preferably dressed like real pixies should, something skimpy and really translucent.... :-) Flying ability preferred, but not mandatory.
As far as I can see they are pretty much the same, except the 7D has 50% more pixies. Let's see how they sell.
I want more pixies to go with my next camera purchase! Preferably dressed like real pixies should, something skimpy and really translucent.... :-) Flying ability preferred, but not mandatory.
Sep 13, 2009 at 09:50 AM
p.14 #9the d300s killer
theSuede wrote:
I want more pixies to go with my next camera purchase! Preferably dressed like real pixies should, something skimpy and really translucent.... :-) Flying ability preferred, but not mandatory.
What you need is some of these:
http://www.leifgoodwin.co.uk/Fungi/0__DSC6169%20Psilocybe%20semilanceata.jpg
LeifG wrote
As far as I can see they are pretty much the same, except the 7D has 50% more pixies. Let's see how they sell.What you need is some of these:
http://www.leifgoodwin.co.uk/Fungi/0__DSC6169%20Psilocybe%20semilanceata.jpg
Sep 13, 2009 at 03:12 PM
p.14 #10the d300s killer
Wind out of sails ... nah, but giving it a good race. Remeber, the D300 is a proven camera, the 7D is not. Let's talk again in 6 months or a year. Beside, give Nikon 18 month and the D400 will be out.
I don't think it will take Nikon 12 months to release the "D400" ......
Sep 13, 2009 at 03:50 PM
p.14 #11the d300s killer
Actually I agree (<12 months) since the 14.2MP Exmor is already in production. From what I've seen in the A550/A700 comparisons that's a really good starting point for the "D400".
If the Nikon version of the A550 sensor gives as much performance delta as there was between the A700 and the "Nikonized" same sensor base that went into the D300 we're in for another treat soon.
If the Nikon version of the A550 sensor gives as much performance delta as there was between the A700 and the "Nikonized" same sensor base that went into the D300 we're in for another treat soon.
Sep 13, 2009 at 06:34 PM
p.14 #12the d300s killer
chez wrote:
Might not have killed the D300s...but it sure took any wind out of it's sails. To me, compared to the 7D release, the D300s is a so what release. The 7D surely has the stage at the momment.
Well, I'm not very impressed with 18mp crammed in a crop body. I understand the marketing need to jack up mp but it sure doesn't help the image quality one bit. Frankly, I wish these camera manufacturers would get over their mp and video fetish and work on features that actually help photographers take good pictures - like improved dynamic range and even better high ISO performance.
Nevertheless, the 7D has some nice specs and an interesting AF system. Canon has a marvelous lens lineup but they have a long way to go to get me (a twice burned 1D Mark III owner) to give them a second look. I don't care how many mp they put out. Until they can figure out how to develop an AF system that tracks as well as Nikon's I'm not even close to interested.
Might not have killed the D300s...but it sure took any wind out of it's sails. To me, compared to the 7D release, the D300s is a so what release. The 7D surely has the stage at the momment.
Well, I'm not very impressed with 18mp crammed in a crop body. I understand the marketing need to jack up mp but it sure doesn't help the image quality one bit. Frankly, I wish these camera manufacturers would get over their mp and video fetish and work on features that actually help photographers take good pictures - like improved dynamic range and even better high ISO performance.
Nevertheless, the 7D has some nice specs and an interesting AF system. Canon has a marvelous lens lineup but they have a long way to go to get me (a twice burned 1D Mark III owner) to give them a second look. I don't care how many mp they put out. Until they can figure out how to develop an AF system that tracks as well as Nikon's I'm not even close to interested.
Sep 13, 2009 at 08:18 PM
p.14 #13the d300s killer
ghozer wrote:
Well, I'm not very impressed with 18mp crammed in a crop body. I understand the marketing need to jack up mp but it sure doesn't help the image quality one bit. Frankly, I wish these camera manufacturers would get over their mp and video fetish and work on features that actually help photographers take good pictures - like improved dynamic range and even better high ISO performance.
Nevertheless, the 7D has some nice specs and an interesting AF system. Canon has a marvelous lens lineup but they have a long way to go to get me (a twice burned 1D...Show more →
You mean improve you to take good pictures. There are people who benefit from more MP and movie mode you know.
chez wrote
Might not have killed the D300s...but it sure took any wind out of it's sails. To me, compared to the 7D release, the D300s is a so what release. The 7D surely has the stage at the momment.Nevertheless, the 7D has some nice specs and an interesting AF system. Canon has a marvelous lens lineup but they have a long way to go to get me (a twice burned 1D...Show more →
You mean improve you to take good pictures. There are people who benefit from more MP and movie mode you know.
Sep 13, 2009 at 09:20 PM
p.14 #14the d300s killer
trentchau wrote:
Well, I'm not very impressed with 18mp crammed in a crop body. I understand the marketing need to jack up mp but it sure doesn't help the image quality one bit. Frankly, I wish these camera manufacturers would get over their mp and video fetish and work on features that actually help photographers take good pictures - like improved dynamic range and even better high ISO performance.
Nevertheless, the 7D has some nice specs and an interesting AF system. Canon has a marvelous lens lineup but they have a long way to go to get me (a twice burned 1D Mark III owner) to give them a second look. I don't care how many mp they put out. Until they can figure out how to develop an AF system that tracks as well as Nikon's I'm not even close to interested.You mean improve you to take good pictures. There are people who benefit from more MP and movie mode you know.
And there are people that don't. Those people are getting short shrift as camera manufacturers worry more about mp and video than dynamic range and other useful features. When was the last big jump in DR? How about HDR imagery? No one has innovated in those areas. Instead we have everyone and their mother coming up with video and seeing how many mp they can cram on a APS-C sensor.
ghozer wrote
chez wrote
Might not have killed the D300s...but it sure took any wind out of it's sails. To me, compared to the 7D release, the D300s is a so what release. The 7D surely has the stage at the momment.Nevertheless, the 7D has some nice specs and an interesting AF system. Canon has a marvelous lens lineup but they have a long way to go to get me (a twice burned 1D Mark III owner) to give them a second look. I don't care how many mp they put out. Until they can figure out how to develop an AF system that tracks as well as Nikon's I'm not even close to interested.
And there are people that don't. Those people are getting short shrift as camera manufacturers worry more about mp and video than dynamic range and other useful features. When was the last big jump in DR? How about HDR imagery? No one has innovated in those areas. Instead we have everyone and their mother coming up with video and seeing how many mp they can cram on a APS-C sensor.
Sep 13, 2009 at 09:38 PM
p.14 #15the d300s killer
ghozer wrote:
Well, I'm not very impressed with 18mp crammed in a crop body. I understand the marketing need to jack up mp but it sure doesn't help the image quality one bit. Frankly, I wish these camera manufacturers would get over their mp and video fetish and work on features that actually help photographers take good pictures - like improved dynamic range and even better high ISO performance.
Nevertheless, the 7D has some nice specs and an interesting AF system. Canon has a marvelous lens lineup but they have a long way to go to get me (a twice burned 1D Mark III owner) to give them a second look. I don't care how many mp they put out. Until they can figure out how to develop an AF system that tracks as well as Nikon's I'm not even close to interested.You mean improve you to take good pictures. There are people who benefit from more MP and movie mode you know.And there are people that don't. Those people are getting short shrift as camera manufacturers worry more about mp and video than dynamic range and other useful features. When was the last big jump in DR? How about HDR imagery? No one has innovated in those areas. Instead we have everyone and their mother coming up with video and seeing how many mp they can cram on a APS-C sensor.
Actually the D300 and D3 achieved considerable improvements in DR. They are on par or better than most film and are capable of more DR than prints are able to show.
Regarding HDR support, I agree. There must be a way to make HDR easier.
While you or I do not care about video, there are a lot of customers, both consumers and professionals, out there who do. At this point, video on the DSLRs is somewhat lacking and is more a sales tactic than anything, but give it time.
trentchau wrote
ghozer wrote
chez wrote
Might not have killed the D300s...but it sure took any wind out of it's sails. To me, compared to the 7D release, the D300s is a so what release. The 7D surely has the stage at the momment.Nevertheless, the 7D has some nice specs and an interesting AF system. Canon has a marvelous lens lineup but they have a long way to go to get me (a twice burned 1D Mark III owner) to give them a second look. I don't care how many mp they put out. Until they can figure out how to develop an AF system that tracks as well as Nikon's I'm not even close to interested.
Actually the D300 and D3 achieved considerable improvements in DR. They are on par or better than most film and are capable of more DR than prints are able to show.
Regarding HDR support, I agree. There must be a way to make HDR easier.
While you or I do not care about video, there are a lot of customers, both consumers and professionals, out there who do. At this point, video on the DSLRs is somewhat lacking and is more a sales tactic than anything, but give it time.
Sep 13, 2009 at 10:09 PM
p.14 #16the d300s killer
Video on DSLRs is on the same path autofocus was over two decades ago. It will end up being as omnipresent and probably as often used as autofocus is today on modern DSLRs and film SLRs. Dismissing it as a gimmick misses its inevitability, just as in hindsight, questions about autofocus are relics of history (not to say that manual focus is somehow inferior, because of course it isn't; everything has its place).
Sep 13, 2009 at 10:13 PM
p.14 #17the d300s killer
ghozer wrote:
Well, I'm not very impressed with 18mp crammed in a crop body. I understand the marketing need to jack up mp but it sure doesn't help the image quality one bit. Frankly, I wish these camera manufacturers would get over their mp and video fetish and work on features that actually help photographers take good pictures - like improved dynamic range and even better high ISO performance.
Nevertheless, the 7D has some nice specs and an interesting AF system. Canon has a marvelous lens lineup but they have a long way to go to get me (a twice burned 1D Mark III owner) to give them a second look. I don't care how many mp they put out. Until they can figure out how to develop an AF system that tracks as well as Nikon's I'm not even close to interested.You mean improve you to take good pictures. There are people who benefit from more MP and movie mode you know.And there are people that don't. Those people are getting short shrift as camera manufacturers worry more about mp and video than dynamic range and other useful features. When was the last big jump in DR? How about HDR imagery? No one has innovated in those areas. Instead we have everyone and their mother coming up with video and seeing how many mp they can cram on a APS-C sensor.
I think HDR is gimmicky personally, so to me it's like video to you.
Obviously we all have needs.
Concerning megapixel, well when it comes to a part where people don't need it...they won't buy it. Canon may learn, heck Nikon may learn...they too just released a camera not to long ago that was 25 megapixels...maybe that's too much.
DR is being worked on like mentioned before. Isn't the new cameras like 14~16 stops of range comparatively to 8~10 before?
trentchau wrote
ghozer wrote
chez wrote
Might not have killed the D300s...but it sure took any wind out of it's sails. To me, compared to the 7D release, the D300s is a so what release. The 7D surely has the stage at the momment.Nevertheless, the 7D has some nice specs and an interesting AF system. Canon has a marvelous lens lineup but they have a long way to go to get me (a twice burned 1D Mark III owner) to give them a second look. I don't care how many mp they put out. Until they can figure out how to develop an AF system that tracks as well as Nikon's I'm not even close to interested.
I think HDR is gimmicky personally, so to me it's like video to you.
Obviously we all have needs.
Concerning megapixel, well when it comes to a part where people don't need it...they won't buy it. Canon may learn, heck Nikon may learn...they too just released a camera not to long ago that was 25 megapixels...maybe that's too much.
DR is being worked on like mentioned before. Isn't the new cameras like 14~16 stops of range comparatively to 8~10 before?
Sep 13, 2009 at 10:42 PM
p.14 #18the d300s killer
Nikon has clearly chosen not to get into the megapixel race, with an exception that isn't so much of one when you consider what it was intended for. The D3x is considered almost a medium format competitor, and is much less expensive than full digital medium format cameras available today.
Other than the D3x, the highest megapixel count Nikon has hit with a DSLR is 12.4, with the D2x.
Other than the D3x, the highest megapixel count Nikon has hit with a DSLR is 12.4, with the D2x.
Sep 13, 2009 at 10:46 PM
p.14 #19the d300s killer
I don't have a problem with the 20+ mp full frame cameras. It's the "me too" mentality that has taken hold that leads to huge mp crop sensors. Video isn't a big deal either way for me and I certainly don't begrudge someone that enjoys it (or high mp for that matter). It just bugs me that the camera manufacturers seem to care more about those two issues than cutting edge photographic improvements. I was thrilled when Canon dropped the G11 down to 10 mp. I was hoping perhaps that was a sign that "more mp" isn't necessarily "better mp" but then along comes the 7D. Sigh. I just hope Nikon doesn't feel like it needs to match it. I still want a "D700x" with 24mp for printing big. But, if that's the extent of the enhancements that isn't going to help my photography. I'll make better large prints but it doesn't make a better picture. Now, give me 15 stops of DR and in camera HDR blending through auto bracketing and now you're talking! To each his/her own...
Sep 13, 2009 at 11:07 PM
p.14 #20the d300s killer
Andre Labonte wrote:
Well, I'm not very impressed with 18mp crammed in a crop body. I understand the marketing need to jack up mp but it sure doesn't help the image quality one bit. Frankly, I wish these camera manufacturers would get over their mp and video fetish and work on features that actually help photographers take good pictures - like improved dynamic range and even better high ISO performance.
Nevertheless, the 7D has some nice specs and an interesting AF system. Canon has a marvelous lens lineup but they have a long way to go to get me (a twice burned 1D Mark III owner) to give them a second look. I don't care how many mp they put out. Until they can figure out how to develop an AF system that tracks as well as Nikon's I'm not even close to interested.You mean improve you to take good pictures. There are people who benefit from more MP and movie mode you know.And there are people that don't. Those people are getting short shrift as camera manufacturers worry more about mp and video than dynamic range and other useful features. When was the last big jump in DR? How about HDR imagery? No one has innovated in those areas. Instead we have everyone and their mother coming up with video and seeing how many mp they can cram on a APS-C sensor.Actually the D300 and D3 achieved considerable improvements in DR. They are on par or better than most film and are capable of more DR than prints are able to show.
But are they that much better? Better, yes, but not cutting edge better. Video in a dSLR is a revolution. DR improvements, as far as I'm concerned, are just an evolution. High ISO has definitely been a revolution though. What these cameras can do at high ISO nowadays is just plain sick.
Andre Labonte wrote:
Regarding HDR support, I agree. There must be a way to make HDR easier.
While you or I do not care about video, there are a lot of customers, both consumers and professionals, out there who do. At this point, video on the DSLRs is somewhat lacking and is more a sales tactic than anything, but give it time.
Yeah, I know plenty of people care about video and that's cool with me. I just don't want Nikon to focus on that at the expense of all the other things that can be done to really take things to the next level.
ghozer wrote
trentchau wrote
ghozer wrote
chez wrote
Might not have killed the D300s...but it sure took any wind out of it's sails. To me, compared to the 7D release, the D300s is a so what release. The 7D surely has the stage at the momment.Nevertheless, the 7D has some nice specs and an interesting AF system. Canon has a marvelous lens lineup but they have a long way to go to get me (a twice burned 1D Mark III owner) to give them a second look. I don't care how many mp they put out. Until they can figure out how to develop an AF system that tracks as well as Nikon's I'm not even close to interested.
But are they that much better? Better, yes, but not cutting edge better. Video in a dSLR is a revolution. DR improvements, as far as I'm concerned, are just an evolution. High ISO has definitely been a revolution though. What these cameras can do at high ISO nowadays is just plain sick.
Andre Labonte wrote:
Regarding HDR support, I agree. There must be a way to make HDR easier.
While you or I do not care about video, there are a lot of customers, both consumers and professionals, out there who do. At this point, video on the DSLRs is somewhat lacking and is more a sales tactic than anything, but give it time.
Yeah, I know plenty of people care about video and that's cool with me. I just don't want Nikon to focus on that at the expense of all the other things that can be done to really take things to the next level.
Sep 13, 2009 at 11:11 PM