But consider how many factors there are: The D3100 has 14 megapixels on a DX sensor (4.0 MP/cm²) and the D3 has 12mp on a FX sensor. (1.4 MP/cm²). D3 is a pro body (meaning more money is put into image quality besides the sensor) and the D3100 is a consumer body.
The D300 (not pro, DX) is just as old and the two year later D3000 wasn't pushing on it's doorsteps.
it all looks good but lets see an sooc jpeg fine, these are mostly of textured things which helps hide noise and are under good light properly exposed, all things one should always do, but real world isnt so easy all the time
ISO 3200 on that Ken rockwell shows much more detail on the D3. Dont think this camera was intended to challenge the D3 in high iso. But it is still quite good.
pr4photos wrote:
makes me laugh when people say the D300 isn't a pro body, when the Nikon website clearly states that it is
You understand what I meant. I'm sorry I didn't look up the actual classification but it's not the same quality of a D3 at least (not to say it's bad quality).
Funny I don't recall any cameras besides the D3, D3s, D3x and D700 being mentioned in their professional line? I looked on the web site and didn't see anything other than this.
Also, the D300 is a qualifying body for NPS membership.
It's sad that the recent line of bodies in DSLR land, mainly because of Canon's 1D series and Nikon's D1-D2, has lead users to believe a body must be gripped in order to be a professional product.
The F6, F3, 1N, 3, etc... were all non-gripped form factor and were all of professional quality. Same thing for the D700/300. The move toward giant DSLRs for pro use is not necessarily a good thing for many shooters.
Jammy Straub wrote:
The move toward giant DSLRs for pro use is not necessarily a good thing for many shooters.
I am one of these many. I simply do not like the gripped bodies... I am very comfortable with D300 / D700 size and I dream that what will follow after D700 will be F100 size I shoot mostly with primes (24, 50, 85, 150,180) and I do not need huge bodies to balance them. When I shoot one complete day at a conference I do not need a brick to carry with me. Please apologize me for going off topic!
traveler wrote:
Funny I don't recall any cameras besides the D3, D3s, D3x and D700 being mentioned in their professional line? I looked on the web site and didn't see anything other than this.
I have an nps app sitting next to my computer, to qualify you must own two pro bodies, the d300 is listed as being a pro body...
baumgarten0712 wrote:
PP - RAW >> Tiff >> mostly color NR >> basic sharpening, contrast, slight lum NR
NR in camera = Off
Hope that helps
I'm doing almost the same thing...I found in-camera NR to be absolutely terrible at high ISOs. I'm using RPP (OSX) => TIFF => chromatic NR in Neat Image => trim excess bands of non-information (of 4666 pixels, 19 pixels on one side and 4-5 pixels on the other contain no information when converted using RPP) and adjust contrast levels + 0.5 x 50% smart sharpen...
so far the D3100 looks like a nice little bit of gear. hopefully dealers will be selling unbundled bodies soon, so i don't have to buy a kit lens to get one.
These D3100 High ISO shots are about on the same level as the D90/D5000, maybe a hair cleaner. Actually most current Canon/Nikon cameras are about the same for well-exposed High ISO, esp. downsampled photos like these. For example, here is a D5000 ISO 3200 that's twice the size as the samples posted in this thread (shot RAW, converted in LR3, no noise reduction except for default chroma +25):
I shoot mostly with primes (24, 50, 85, 150,180) and I do not need huge bodies to balance them. When I shoot one complete day at a conference I do not need a brick to carry with me. Please apologize me for going off topic!