From: Will Ritson on
On 2007-12-03 22:41:00 -0700, frederick <lost(a)sea.com> said:

> I'll give you that the D3 and D300 are good for noise.
> But I don't think that they're in a new league.
> Comparing to a D2x gives false promise I think.
> 5d and 1dIII images are pretty darned good at high iso as well, but
> sure the D3 looks a little better even. The D300 and 40d look matched
> for IQ.
>
> One thing I noted with D300 raw files converted with no NR is that the
> noise cleans up very well even with free "Noiseware" community edition.
> The cleaned up jpegs from raw looked better than with NR in CaptureNX,
> and a lot better than ex-camera jpegs.

The D3 is said to be in a league of its own wrt high-ISO noise. I don;t
think anyone is claiming the D300 is vastly superior to the D200 in
low-light, low-noise images. Same goes for any other aspect of IQ.

To get the most out of captures with any Nikon digital, (IMHO) you need
to hang it on the back of a Nikon lens. Buying a bunch of Tamrons,
Sigmas, Tokinas etc., defeats the whole purpose. Even if you go with
some other system (Canon or anyone) you need to ask yourself "am I
satisfied with the look of JPEGs straight out of the camera, or am I
going to invest time and money in post processing?" If the latter,
you're cheating yourself if you don't learn Adobe Photoshop--and I mean
LEARN, not look for some shortcut like you did with a video
game--because success shouldn't be defined as trying every tool in a
weekend, and saying "I got to Level Twelve! Next app please." It is
true that you can learn about ten facets of the program--pretty much
scratching the surface--that will come in handy for ninety per cent of
all images, both scans and camera output, but there's a lot of ways to
do every task, and actions to save you time, and subtleties to keep
your work from looking "Photoshopped."

Just my two cents worth.
--
M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.

From: Will Ritson on
On 2007-12-04 13:04:16 -0700, Alan Calan <alancalan(a)excite.com> said:

> I just don't understand why Nikon has taken these steps, no Full Frame
> for the D300 and the heavy emhasis on lenses which are not great for
> full frame cameras. It's hard to find reasonably priced Nikon lenses
> that are not DX. Yes there are older slower focusing lenses that are
> not DX and are reasonbly priced but I think DX was a mistake unless
> you are going to have a cheap line of cameras and a proline. The DX
> lenses that people are buying for their prosumer cameras will not be
> great for the D200 and the D300.

I don't know why you are agonizing over the theoretically best camera
if your true aim is to become the best photographer you can be. I doubt
I'm the first erson to suggest that you take thousands of pictures,
examine them closely, compare and get critiques if that helps, and
relax! When your gear is the limiting factor, you'll know it, and
you'll also be in a far better position to decide what areas of your
kit need to be changed.

Nevertheless, here are some observations. Nikon, just like any other
manufacturer, is trying to capture market share. they decided long ago
that some people want "entry-level" while pros want robust,
no-compromise gear, and then there is a middle ground which should not
be ignored because they make good profits from "prosumer" lines like
the D80 and D200.

Why worry about the complex reasons for a multi-tier strategy when it
comes to lenses, flashes and other accessories, and the bodies which
work with all this stuff? It's a SYSTEM CONCEPT. that means, if you buy
a D50 and some lenses, the body is considered a consumable. If you use
it up, they hope you'll upgrade to a D80, which will be compatible with
all your lenses the lenses are designed to have a much longer lifespan,
and you may pass some of them on to your kids.

Most non-professionals may daydream about a D3, but a D300(or a
full-frame successor, but still a "prosumer" camera) is a much more
realistic purchase for them. Five thousand dollar bodies and two
thousand dollar lenses come in three flavors: one earns its keep making
images for profit, one is a toy for the wealthy and one is a status
symbol for the insecure.
--
M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.

From: Fred on
Paul Furman wrote:
> BTW, a friend forwarded this message to me from an astrophotography
> email list... it claims the D40x beats a 5D :-) I can't say how valid
> that is:

The quoted figures sound very strange to me. Your friend might want to
have a look at http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/nikon_test/test.htm for
example?

--
Fr�d�ric
From: jean on

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> a
�crit dans le message de
news:J775j.57436$c_1.39614(a)text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> jean wrote:
> []
> > Either Canon users take more pictures with fewer cameras or Nikon
> > users take fewer pictures with more cameras but I think it's a good
> > indication of the number of cameras sold which leads to the question:
> > why does Canon sell more cameras?
> >
> > Jean
>
> They used to mainly because of better advertising and marketing.
>

Nothing to do with quality or features?

Jean


From: David J Taylor on
jean wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> a �crit
> dans le message de
> news:J775j.57436$c_1.39614(a)text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> jean wrote:
>> []
>>> Either Canon users take more pictures with fewer cameras or Nikon
>>> users take fewer pictures with more cameras but I think it's a good
>>> indication of the number of cameras sold which leads to the
>>> question: why does Canon sell more cameras?
>>>
>>> Jean
>>
>> They used to mainly because of better advertising and marketing.
>>
>
> Nothing to do with quality or features?
>
> Jean

Of course, for those who weren't dazzled by the advertising or marketing
first! <G>

David