Nikon D90 or D300

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Samantha Booth, Jan 26, 2009.

  1. I mainly shoot portraits and landscapes.

    I don't know which one of the two to get as they are quite a few pounds
    apart. One chap in Jessop's said there was no difference and in another
    Jessop's store another chap said the differences were vast as the D300 takes
    much better quality images. The D90 is £714 with lense I think 17-120 and
    the D300 is £999 body only with a half decent Nikon Lenses being £289.

    HELP!!!

    Thanks
     
    Samantha Booth, Jan 26, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Samantha Booth" <> wrote in message
    news:glkjqn$l43$...

    > I don't know which one of the two to get as they are quite a few pounds
    > apart. One chap in Jessop's said there was no difference and in another
    > Jessop's store another chap said the differences were vast as the D300
    > takes much better quality images. The D90 is £714 with lense I think
    > 17-120 and the D300 is £999 body only with a half decent Nikon Lenses
    > being £289.


    If you don't know which one you want, get the D90.

    D300 won't take better pictures; it will just take them faster.
     
    Andrew Koenig, Jan 26, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Ockham's Razor" <> wrote in message
    news:-sjc.supernews.net...

    > Faster than HD video?


    Video and photography are two different species.
     
    Andrew Koenig, Jan 26, 2009
    #3
  4. Samantha Booth

    Me Guest

    Paul Furman wrote:
    > Samantha Booth wrote:
    >> I mainly shoot portraits and landscapes.
    >>
    >> I don't know which one of the two to get as they are quite a few
    >> pounds apart. One chap in Jessop's said there was no difference and in
    >> another Jessop's store another chap said the differences were vast as
    >> the D300 takes much better quality images. The D90 is £714 with lense
    >> I think 17-120 and the D300 is £999 body only with a half decent Nikon
    >> Lenses being £289.

    >
    > My understanding is the D90 takes better pictures, though probably only
    > very slightly. The D300 has more manual controls on the body, meters
    > with old manual lenses & is bigger & tougher built.
    >

    To quote DPReview:
    (Sample images show that the D300 produces sharper jpeg and raw images
    at 100% pixel view than the D90)
    "Unfortunately, for those people hoping that the D90 would effectively
    be a half-price D300, the RAW results appear consistent with those from
    the JPEGs. Although the underlying silicon is likely to be closely
    related, it's not necessarily safe to assume that it shares the D300's
    multi-channel read-out, or downstream processing componentry (Nikon's
    Expeed branding doesn't refer to a specific processor). Most
    importantly, there is nothing to suggest that the D90 shares the same
    low-pass filter assembly (which can be more expensive than the sensor
    itself and would be an obvious place to reduce costs for a camera in
    this price-bracket), which would explain the difference in
    per-pixel-sharpness we see here."

    OTOH Dx0 test seems to show that the sensor dynamic range (raw) for the
    D90 is slightly improved over the D300.

    Neither of those observations will necessarily equate to "better
    pictures", and the differences are very minor anyway.

    IMO some of the main differences are:
    D300 51 point AF system with 15 "cross-type" sensors vs 11 point AF
    system with 1 "cross-type" sensor, and AF-ON button separate from
    shutter release.
    AF fine tuning.
    100% viewfinder vs 96%
    "1 click" review on back LCD to view that can be set to show 100% pixel
    view - automatically zoomed to selected focus point (if any).
    Better exposure metering system (1005 vs 420 point), plus metering will
    function with non-chipped lenses (mainly older manual focus lenses).
    D300 has a more rugged body - but extra weight.
    D90 has "scene" modes (portrait/action/landscape etc) which can be a
    useful feature, especially if shooting jpeg.
     
    Me, Jan 26, 2009
    #4
  5. Samantha Booth

    Me Guest

    Dimitris M wrote:
    > I suggest you the D90.
    >
    > D90 takes a little better photo's. D300 can help a pro to take better
    > photo's. That means, for you it's better the D90. And it is more easy,
    > light, comfortable, compact.



    This "D90 takes a little better photos" thing is a remarkable comment:
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page33.asp
    That's samples from an actual photo taken in well controlled studio test
    conditions, and a plausible explanation for what is observed. OTOH
    Imaging Resource ran some tests using scientific methods that they
    devised (DxO also did something similar) which show that dynamic range
    of the D90 is slightly better than the D300, but also that raw files
    from the Nikon D40x are "better" for dynamic range than the D3, Canon
    1Ds Mk III, and CAnon 1D Mk III. You can choose to use your eyes, or to
    believe supposedly scientific tests which contradict what you can
    clearly see with your own eyes.

    To put these dynamic range observations in perspective, there's also a
    theoretical advantage from the 14 bit raw mode on the D300, which can
    actually be seen in real photographs once they are subjected to extreme
    post-processing (boosting shadows by about 4 stops) - but this is also
    effectively almost totally irrelevant to real world photography.
     
    Me, Jan 26, 2009
    #5
  6. Samantha Booth

    Me Guest

    Paul Furman wrote:
    > Me wrote:
    >> Dimitris M wrote:
    >>> I suggest you the D90.
    >>>
    >>> D90 takes a little better photo's. D300 can help a pro to take better
    >>> photo's. That means, for you it's better the D90. And it is more
    >>> easy, light, comfortable, compact.

    >>
    >>
    >> This "D90 takes a little better photos" thing is a remarkable comment:
    >> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page33.asp
    >> That's samples from an actual photo taken in well controlled studio
    >> test conditions, and a plausible explanation for what is observed.
    >> OTOH Imaging Resource ran some tests using scientific methods that
    >> they devised (DxO also did something similar) which show that dynamic
    >> range of the D90 is slightly better than the D300,

    >
    > That's what I was thinking of. And just that each new model tends to
    > perform better in various ways - which is a very general observation,
    > perhaps not applicable in this case. I use both D200 & D700 side by side
    > now and notice many improvements like the LCD preview is a heck of a lot
    > faster & the zooming design is much improved, memory card door improved,
    > etc. And look at the sensor performance between D200 & D300, or any
    > comparable models separated by release date. Big improvements from the
    > D70 to D200, though I never used side by side.
    >
    >> but also that raw files from the Nikon D40x are "better" for dynamic
    >> range than the D3, Canon 1Ds Mk III, and CAnon 1D Mk III.

    >
    > http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en...0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Nikon/(brand3)/Nikon
    >
    > That shows:
    > model sensor DR ISO
    > D70 50.2 10.3 529
    > D40 56.2 11 561
    > D80 61.1 11.2 583
    > D200 64.2 11.5 583
    > D300 66.6 12 679
    > D90 72.6 12.5 977
    > A900 78.9 12.3 1431
    > 5D II 79 11.9 1815
    > D700 80.5 12.2 2303
    >
    >> You can choose to use your eyes, or to believe supposedly scientific
    >> tests which contradict what you can clearly see with your own eyes.

    >
    > The dpreview comparison in the link above is default jpegs.
    >

    No - it's raw. A similar difference in detail/accutance is seen on
    jpegs with the comment : "The RAW results appear consistent with those
    from the JPEGs"
    People argue endlessly on forums about "quality" or "sharpness" of
    lenses with much less visible difference than seen there.

    The DxO "DR" figure isn't indicative of what you get. For a start, if a
    d70 has 10.3 stops of usable DR, then I'll eat my dog's bean bag. The
    figure seems not to take into account "usable" DR. ie they rank the
    Pentax K20d as "better" than the old model Canon 5d. The K20d has
    relatively terrible usable DR, but the old Canon 5d is really quite
    good. Here's a view (and from a Pentax fan) on that:
    http://daystarvisions.com/Docs/Rvws/K20D/pg3.html#dr
    But also put in perspective the subjective assessment that he feels he
    can boost K20d raw images by "only" 2.5 stops (vs 4 for D300 or Canon
    40d). Unless you are doing special effects - or can't use the exposure
    meter in your camera, how often do you need to boost (ie tone mapping)
    more than one or two stops maximum?

    >
    >> To put these dynamic range observations in perspective, there's also a
    >> theoretical advantage from the 14 bit raw mode on the D300, which can
    >> actually be seen in real photographs once they are subjected to
    >> extreme post-processing (boosting shadows by about 4 stops) - but this
    >> is also effectively almost totally irrelevant to real world photography.

    >
    > I agree about 14 bit. And that comes at a cost of file size.
    >
    >
     
    Me, Jan 26, 2009
    #6
  7. Samantha Booth

    John Guest

    The D300 is a very complex camera and the D90 is much simpler.
    If you are basicly a point and shoot user you will be happier with the
    D90.

    The D300 allowes the user to interact/control many many more features
    of the camera. If you need or want to think long and hard befor each
    shot, and you don't mind the additional weight, the D300 is the one
    for you.

    I own both the D90 asnd the D300. Both shoot damn fine pictures.
    The D300 does offer the same MPxls.
    Don't worry too much about the back beyond what I said above. It's the
    lense choices the make that you need to focus on.

    If I sm going to do casual camera shots i use the D90, otherwise the
    D300.

    Happy shooting
    John

    On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:11:19 -0000, "Samantha Booth"
    <> wrote:

    >I mainly shoot portraits and landscapes.
    >
    >I don't know which one of the two to get as they are quite a few pounds
    >apart. One chap in Jessop's said there was no difference and in another
    >Jessop's store another chap said the differences were vast as the D300 takes
    >much better quality images. The D90 is £714 with lense I think 17-120 and
    >the D300 is £999 body only with a half decent Nikon Lenses being £289.
    >
    >HELP!!!
    >
    >Thanks
     
    John, Jan 27, 2009
    #7
  8. "John" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > The D300 is a very complex camera and the D90 is much simpler.
    > If you are basicly a point and shoot user you will be happier with the
    > D90.
    >
    > The D300 allowes the user to interact/control many many more features
    > of the camera. If you need or want to think long and hard befor each
    > shot, and you don't mind the additional weight, the D300 is the one
    > for you.
    >
    > I own both the D90 asnd the D300. Both shoot damn fine pictures.
    > The D300 does offer the same MPxls.
    > Don't worry too much about the back beyond what I said above. It's the
    > lense choices the make that you need to focus on.
    >
    > If I sm going to do casual camera shots i use the D90, otherwise the
    > D300.
    >
    > Happy shooting
    > John
    >
    > On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:11:19 -0000, "Samantha Booth"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>I mainly shoot portraits and landscapes.
    >>
    >>I don't know which one of the two to get as they are quite a few pounds
    >>apart. One chap in Jessop's said there was no difference and in another
    >>Jessop's store another chap said the differences were vast as the D300
    >>takes
    >>much better quality images. The D90 is £714 with lense I think 17-120 and
    >>the D300 is £999 body only with a half decent Nikon Lenses being £289.
    >>
    >>HELP!!!
    >>
    >>Thanks

    Another ? if I may. I am very new to this.
    I was told I needed a UV Filter, what is one, how much are they for the D90
    and what exactle do they do.
    Sorry if it seems a silly question but I am just getting into this
     
    Samantha Booth, Jan 27, 2009
    #8
  9. Samantha Booth

    Me Guest

    measekite wrote:
    > On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:26:49 +0000, Focus wrote:
    >
    >> "Samantha Booth" <> wrote in message
    >> news:glkjqn$l43$...
    >>> I mainly shoot portraits and landscapes.
    >>>
    >>> I don't know which one of the two to get as they are quite a few pounds
    >>> apart. One chap in Jessop's said there was no difference and in another
    >>> Jessop's store another chap said the differences were vast as the D300
    >>> takes much better quality images. The D90 is £714 with lense I think
    >>> 17-120 and the D300 is £999 body only with a half decent Nikon Lenses
    >>> being £289.
    >>>
    >>> HELP!!!
    >>>
    >>> Thanks

    >> D300 is more expensive, but it *does* take better pictures and is considered
    >> more of a pro camera. It is heavier and a bit bigger than the D90.
    >> D90 is a bit smaller and the picture quality is very little less.
    >>
    >> Simply put: if you're a pro or planning on being one some fine day: D300. If
    >> you're an amateur, advanced or not, D90.
    >>
    >> Difference is to be found here:
    >> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page33.asp
    >> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D90/verdict.shtml
    >>
    >>

    >
    > More simply put, if you are a pro you should look at (in today's market)
    >
    >
    > Canon 5D2
    > Nikon D700 or the D700X in a few months
    > Nikon D3 or D3X
    > or the full frame Sony.
    >
    > From my readings the only reason to get a D300 is for frame rate and the
    > extra durability if you do not take care of your equipment.
    >
    > According to all reviews I have read there is little if no difference in
    > the final results.

    To put it in plain words, you're an idiot!
     
    Me, Jan 27, 2009
    #9
  10. "Samantha Booth" <> wrote in message
    news:glln3t$bj9$...
    >
    > "John" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >> The D300 is a very complex camera and the D90 is much simpler.
    >> If you are basicly a point and shoot user you will be happier with the
    >> D90.
    >>
    >> The D300 allowes the user to interact/control many many more features
    >> of the camera. If you need or want to think long and hard befor each
    >> shot, and you don't mind the additional weight, the D300 is the one
    >> for you.
    >>
    >> I own both the D90 asnd the D300. Both shoot damn fine pictures.
    >> The D300 does offer the same MPxls.
    >> Don't worry too much about the back beyond what I said above. It's the
    >> lense choices the make that you need to focus on.
    >>
    >> If I sm going to do casual camera shots i use the D90, otherwise the
    >> D300.
    >>
    >> Happy shooting
    >> John
    >>
    >> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:11:19 -0000, "Samantha Booth"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>I mainly shoot portraits and landscapes.
    >>>
    >>>I don't know which one of the two to get as they are quite a few pounds
    >>>apart. One chap in Jessop's said there was no difference and in another
    >>>Jessop's store another chap said the differences were vast as the D300
    >>>takes
    >>>much better quality images. The D90 is £714 with lense I think 17-120 and
    >>>the D300 is £999 body only with a half decent Nikon Lenses being £289.
    >>>
    >>>HELP!!!
    >>>
    >>>Thanks

    > Another ? if I may. I am very new to this.
    > I was told I needed a UV Filter, what is one, how much are they for the
    > D90 and what exactle do they do.
    > Sorry if it seems a silly question but I am just getting into this

    Also what does it mean (full frame camera) I don't understand what a full
    frame camera is
     
    Samantha Booth, Jan 27, 2009
    #10
  11. Samantha Booth

    John Guest

    On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 01:13:33 -0000, "Samantha Booth"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"John" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >>
    >> The D300 is a very complex camera and the D90 is much simpler.
    >> If you are basicly a point and shoot user you will be happier with the
    >> D90.
    >>
    >> The D300 allowes the user to interact/control many many more features
    >> of the camera. If you need or want to think long and hard befor each
    >> shot, and you don't mind the additional weight, the D300 is the one
    >> for you.
    >>
    >> I own both the D90 asnd the D300. Both shoot damn fine pictures.
    >> The D300 does offer the same MPxls.
    >> Don't worry too much about the back beyond what I said above. It's the
    >> lense choices the make that you need to focus on.
    >>
    >> If I sm going to do casual camera shots i use the D90, otherwise the
    >> D300.
    >>
    >> Happy shooting
    >> John
    >>
    >> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:11:19 -0000, "Samantha Booth"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>I mainly shoot portraits and landscapes.
    >>>
    >>>I don't know which one of the two to get as they are quite a few pounds
    >>>apart. One chap in Jessop's said there was no difference and in another
    >>>Jessop's store another chap said the differences were vast as the D300
    >>>takes
    >>>much better quality images. The D90 is £714 with lense I think 17-120 and
    >>>the D300 is £999 body only with a half decent Nikon Lenses being £289.
    >>>
    >>>HELP!!!
    >>>
    >>>Thanks

    >Another ? if I may. I am very new to this.
    >I was told I needed a UV Filter, what is one, how much are they for the D90
    >and what exactle do they do.
    >Sorry if it seems a silly question but I am just getting into this


    No Problem
    Intense UV light - Bright sunlight will cause distortion as some of
    the UV light will be able to impenge on the sensor or film and thus
    fog the image as the UV will not focus correctly
    ..
    I use Nikor lenses and have not exerianced the problem.
    Personally I am of the opinion that anything you place between the
    lense and the subject is a source of distortion.

    Some use them and sware the resulting image is sharper. Perhaps some
    makes of lenses pass greater portions of the UV content.

    Some use them to "protect" the lense. Better a scratch on the filter
    rather thrn the lense.


    Same goes for "Daylight Filters"
    John
     
    John, Jan 27, 2009
    #11
  12. Samantha Booth

    John Guest

    On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 01:27:03 -0000, "Samantha Booth"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Samantha Booth" <> wrote in message
    >news:glln3t$bj9$...
    >>
    >> "John" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>
    >>> The D300 is a very complex camera and the D90 is much simpler.
    >>> If you are basicly a point and shoot user you will be happier with the
    >>> D90.
    >>>
    >>> The D300 allowes the user to interact/control many many more features
    >>> of the camera. If you need or want to think long and hard befor each
    >>> shot, and you don't mind the additional weight, the D300 is the one
    >>> for you.
    >>>
    >>> I own both the D90 asnd the D300. Both shoot damn fine pictures.
    >>> The D300 does offer the same MPxls.
    >>> Don't worry too much about the back beyond what I said above. It's the
    >>> lense choices the make that you need to focus on.
    >>>
    >>> If I sm going to do casual camera shots i use the D90, otherwise the
    >>> D300.
    >>>
    >>> Happy shooting
    >>> John
    >>>
    >>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:11:19 -0000, "Samantha Booth"
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>


    >>>>I mainly shoot portraits and landscapes.
    >>>>
    >>>>I don't know which one of the two to get as they are quite a few pounds
    >>>>apart. One chap in Jessop's said there was no difference and in another
    >>>>Jessop's store another chap said the differences were vast as the D300
    >>>>takes
    >>>>much better quality images. The D90 is £714 with lense I think 17-120 and
    >>>>the D300 is £999 body only with a half decent Nikon Lenses being £289.
    >>>>
    >>>>HELP!!!
    >>>>
    >>>>Thanks

    >> Another ? if I may. I am very new to this.
    >> I was told I needed a UV Filter, what is one, how much are they for the
    >> D90 and what exactle do they do.
    >> Sorry if it seems a silly question but I am just getting into this

    >Also what does it mean (full frame camera) I don't understand what a full
    >frame camera is

    Full Frame is a diversion from reality! All that matters is the final
    image. from a users point of view it does not make a damn bit of
    difference.
    I will conceed that with full frame a given lense will produce a
    larger field of view then the partial frame wiich produces a some what
    more telescopic view.
    As long as you depend on what you see in the viewfinder you will get
    exactly what you see. Some will try to point out that full frame
    camera will requie less light for the exact same inage. You not likly
    to ever encounter a situation where this matters at all.
    Some say higher density images are not going to be as sharp as full
    frame. I doubt you wil ever get in your way.
    John
     
    John, Jan 27, 2009
    #12
  13. Samantha Booth

    Don Wiss Guest

    On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, C J Campbell <> wrote:

    >On 2009-01-26 17:13:33 -0800, Samantha Booth <> said:
    >> I was told I needed a UV Filter, what is one, how much are they for the
    >> D90 and what exactle do they do.
    >> Sorry if it seems a silly question but I am just getting into this

    >
    >It filters out UV, but that is not the reason people use them. They use
    >it as transparent piece of glass to keep fingerprints and dust off the
    >front of the lens. I use the lens hood for this instead. I believe that
    >UV filters can reduce image quality.


    I have never used a UV filter, and I have never gotten a fingerprint on a
    lens. And I never use a lens caps. What I do is leave the lens hoods on
    *all* times. Well, I take that back. On my 12-24 wide angle lens I will
    remove it for a few minutes when I am taking a picture with the built in
    flash. If not, and the lens is set wide, the hood will create a shadow.

    Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
     
    Don Wiss, Jan 28, 2009
    #13
  14. Samantha Booth

    Me Guest

    Paul Furman wrote:
    > Me wrote:
    >> Paul Furman wrote:
    >>> Me wrote:
    >>>> Dimitris M wrote:
    >>>>> I suggest you the D90.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> D90 takes a little better photo's. D300 can help a pro to take
    >>>>> better photo's. That means, for you it's better the D90. And it is
    >>>>> more easy, light, comfortable, compact.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> This "D90 takes a little better photos" thing is a remarkable comment:
    >>>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page33.asp
    >>>> That's samples from an actual photo taken in well controlled studio
    >>>> test conditions, and a plausible explanation for what is observed.
    >>>> OTOH Imaging Resource ran some tests using scientific methods that
    >>>> they devised (DxO also did something similar) which show that
    >>>> dynamic range of the D90 is slightly better than the D300,
    >>>
    >>> That's what I was thinking of. And just that each new model tends to
    >>> perform better in various ways - which is a very general observation,
    >>> perhaps not applicable in this case. I use both D200 & D700 side by
    >>> side now and notice many improvements like the LCD preview is a heck
    >>> of a lot faster & the zooming design is much improved, memory card
    >>> door improved, etc. And look at the sensor performance between D200 &
    >>> D300, or any comparable models separated by release date. Big
    >>> improvements from the D70 to D200, though I never used side by side.
    >>>
    >>>> but also that raw files from the Nikon D40x are "better" for dynamic
    >>>> range than the D3, Canon 1Ds Mk III, and CAnon 1D Mk III.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en...0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Nikon/(brand3)/Nikon
    >>>
    >>> That shows:
    >>> model sensor DR ISO
    >>> D70 50.2 10.3 529
    >>> D40 56.2 11 561
    >>> D80 61.1 11.2 583
    >>> D200 64.2 11.5 583
    >>> D300 66.6 12 679
    >>> D90 72.6 12.5 977
    >>> A900 78.9 12.3 1431
    >>> 5D II 79 11.9 1815
    >>> D700 80.5 12.2 2303
    >>>
    >>>> You can choose to use your eyes, or to believe supposedly scientific
    >>>> tests which contradict what you can clearly see with your own eyes.

    >
    > I don't trust my eyes that much honestly. As you say, the differences
    > can be subtle and so many unknown factors can throw off a subjective
    > judgment like that.
    >
    >
    >>> The dpreview comparison in the link above is default jpegs.
    >>>

    >> No - it's raw.

    >
    > OK, thats new.
    >
    >
    >> A similar difference in detail/accutance is seen on jpegs with the
    >> comment : "The RAW results appear consistent with those from the JPEGs"
    >> People argue endlessly on forums about "quality" or "sharpness" of
    >> lenses with much less visible difference than seen there.
    >>
    >> The DxO "DR" figure isn't indicative of what you get.

    >
    > I wish they'd explain their methods better. Those kind of metrics are
    > not the final story though, like MTF charts, a little field curvature
    > can throw off the corner sharpness when that wouldn't matter in a normal
    > scene, etc. But I do like having consistent data to at least begin to
    > compare. Understanding their methods would make it possible to evaluate
    > properly but the data isn't necessarily worthless. It looks like they've
    > got a decent system and it's showing results about like I'd expect.
    >

    Perhaps - but only just. I'd just say that their methods might produce
    "repeatable" results, but reaching a meaningful conclusion from their
    data could be very misleading. D90 has higher dynamic range than D700,
    5dII and a900? I really don't think so.
    The other problem of course with raw data is that it's effectively
    meaningless unless related to image output from a specific raw
    converter. (Yes - I know the counter-argument to this, but IMO it's
    irrelevant) I've been reading lately that Canon's DPP offers
    significant improvement in converting 5dII raw files over (at least)
    ACR. With Nikon's NX and newer cameras, there's also a significant
    difference. I've tried DxO, and it's not a patch on CaptureNX.
    >
    >> For a start, if a d70 has 10.3 stops of usable DR, then I'll eat my
    >> dog's bean bag. The figure seems not to take into account "usable"
    >> DR. ie they rank the Pentax K20d as "better" than the old model Canon
    >> 5d. The K20d has relatively terrible usable DR, but the old Canon 5d
    >> is really quite good. Here's a view (and from a Pentax fan) on that:
    >> http://daystarvisions.com/Docs/Rvws/K20D/pg3.html#dr
    >> But also put in perspective the subjective assessment that he feels he
    >> can boost K20d raw images by "only" 2.5 stops (vs 4 for D300 or Canon
    >> 40d). Unless you are doing special effects - or can't use the
    >> exposure meter in your camera, how often do you need to boost (ie tone
    >> mapping) more than one or two stops maximum?

    >
    > I do as much of that as I can get away with sometimes.
    > Most people probably don't though.
    >
    >
    >>>> To put these dynamic range observations in perspective, there's also
    >>>> a theoretical advantage from the 14 bit raw mode on the D300, which
    >>>> can actually be seen in real photographs once they are subjected to
    >>>> extreme post-processing (boosting shadows by about 4 stops) - but
    >>>> this is also effectively almost totally irrelevant to real world
    >>>> photography.
    >>>
    >>> I agree about 14 bit. And that comes at a cost of file size.
    >>>
    >>>

    >
    >
     
    Me, Jan 28, 2009
    #14
  15. Samantha Booth

    John Guest

    On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:11:19 -0000, "Samantha Booth"
    <> wrote:

    >I mainly shoot portraits and landscapes.
    >
    >I don't know which one of the two to get as they are quite a few pounds
    >apart. One chap in Jessop's said there was no difference and in another
    >Jessop's store another chap said the differences were vast as the D300 takes
    >much better quality images. The D90 is £714 with lense I think 17-120 and
    >the D300 is £999 body only with a half decent Nikon Lenses being £289.
    >
    >HELP!!!
    >
    >Thanks


    Samantha,
    When you get your new camera and have used it for a while I would
    love to here what your choice was and how well it fits your needs.
    Thanks in advance
    john


    PS Don't be quick to judge the new camera. the more camera power you
    buy the longer the learning curve. My d300 is over a year and a
    quarter old and just in the last three months I feel like I have a
    grip on how to use it. I probably only use and understand, at best,
    50% of what's there. But, It's the 50% I need for what I do.


    I have a progression of 7 Nikon cameras. Each a step above the other
    and yet some of my most expressive and memorable shots were taken by
    my Coolpix 990. A paultry 3.34 mpixl.
    My wife and I have pictures you can peruse on line. Most are Coolpix
    8800 D40X and D300
    shots. Take a look at http://owensinages.imagekind.com .

    You wil,l in time, discover that a good picture is more about the
    camera user then the camera itself.


    If you want to discuss more camera issues feel free to contact me.
    john again
     
    John, Jan 28, 2009
    #15
  16. Samantha Booth

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Neil
    Harrington <> wrote:

    > I agree. It still surprises me if Nikon would actually conceal that sort of
    > information about their raw files. Isn't it possible that their Capture
    > software just has some proprietary capabilities that they want to protect?
    > But then I don't really understand how that stuff works anyway.


    they all encrypt at least some parts.

    <http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042701davecoffininterview.asp>

    This is not a new problem. Phase One, Sony, Foveon, and Canon all
    apply some form of encryption to their RAW files. Dcraw decodes them
    all -- you can easily find decryption code by searching for the ^
    operator.
     
    nospam, Jan 29, 2009
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Walt Hanks
    Replies:
    60
    Views:
    1,117
    Roxy d'Urban
    Apr 12, 2005
  2. Geoff Berrow

    Nikon D90 or D300

    Geoff Berrow, May 13, 2009, in forum: Nikon
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    419
    Paul Giverin
    May 14, 2009
  3. Bruce
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    240
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Sep 27, 2010
  4. Bruce
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    256
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Sep 15, 2010
  5. akinyo22

    Nikon D300s Vs Nikon D90 drop price...

    akinyo22, Sep 30, 2010, in forum: Photography Equipment
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    902
    Norrell
    Mar 13, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page