From: Floyd L. Davidson on
frederick <lost(a)sea.com> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> frederick <lost(a)sea.com> wrote:
>>> I just don't believe that wrt noise performance.
>>> Look at D3 and D300 raw images _not_ converted in
>>> CaptureNX, and they aren't as noise-free as some would
>>> like to think.
>> When UFRAW added the ability to convert D3 images, I
>> downloaded several NEF files to give it a whirl. I had
>> no problem at all generating images that looked the same
>> as had been done with Nikon's software.
>> They *are* as noise-free as has been advertized. ISO
>> 3200 is mind boggling. But what really blew me away was
>> that not only was 6400 very useable, but 12800 and 25600
>> were vastly better than the 1600 and 3200 (Hi-1 and
>> Hi-2) on a D2x.
>>
>Ahh - the D2x.
>I'll give you that the D3 and D300 are good for noise.

Well. My point of course was exactly that simply
because above you said the opposite. You implied that
using other than Nikon's CaptureNX would not provide the
same result. But my experience is that with UFRAW the
results are at least as good.

>But I don't think that they're in a new league.

Early indications are that the D3 is. But since they
only hit the stores on Friday, obviously it will be a
few hours at least before we have a ton of good data...
or maybe even weeks.

>Comparing to a D2x gives false promise I think.

It's a known entity.

>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.

True.

>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.

I came to the same conclusion regarding D3 noise
reduction. And compared to the D2x, an apparently equal
amount of noise (at a much higher ISO) from a D3 is much
easier to deal with. For example, I simply don't find
the HI-2 setting for ISO 3200 useful at all on the D2x,
and the HI-1 is only marginally useful on rare occasions;
but my initial impression the D3 is that ISO 25600 is actually
going to be useful, mostly because the noise it does have
is much easier to deal with using post processing software
than is the noise on D2x images. (It will be really interesting
to see what happens when the multiple image option is used
to get the effect of less noise at even higher ISOs.)

But of course at this time I'm limited to playing with
a dozen or so NEF files downloaded from the net.

I'll have my hands on a D3 within a day or so though. I
initially pre-ordered one from Ritz Camera, simply based
on the fact that they sell more Nikon cameras than any
other US dealer, I figured their allocation would be
larger and my chances of getting one in the first
shipment would be high. But they flat refused to give
me any information about when it would be shipped, so
over the weekend it occurred to me that early Monday
morning would be the last best opportunity to find a
small store with one camera left... And at 8:01 AM I
called Stewart's Photo in Anchorage. They weren't open
yet, but the manager answered the phone and sold me D3
number 3 of his allotment of 3. (Every real
photographer that's been to Alaska has probably dealt
with Stewart's, and they are a class act from top to
bottom, with a truly Alaskan history that dates back to
the 1940's. So I was not at all unhappy to spend my
money with them.)

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: Alan Calan on
I can't totally disagree what you said. It seems stupid to think that
the d200 or the D300 cannot produce sharp focused images. Are there
any other comparisons besides Rockwells?

But I have to tell you where I am torn. I canot for the life of me
understand why the D300 is not Full Frame. Nikon was pushing the DX
format and Canon one upped them, in my opinion.

I have an F5 and if I buy DX lenses, there are good chances that there
will be vignetting?

So my dependent tie to Nikon is not so strong.

I would just keep the F5 if not for the fact that I want to see what
my shot look like. My investment in Nikon is worth about $600 on
Ebay, if that much.

Forget about the D3, there is no way that ever comes into the picture.

But it really is pretty simple, what takes better pictures, the D200,
the D300 or the 5D. Until I see some kind of definitive answer, I'm
not doing anything.


On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 08:12:18 -0500, "Frank Arthur" <Art(a)Arthurian.com>
wrote:

>If you believe that a Nikon D200 produces out of focus images then you
>are just stupid or gullible.
>
From: acl on
On Dec 4, 8:41 am, frederick <l...(a)sea.com> wrote:


> 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.

Converted with what? If the noise in the raw file between two cameras
is significantly different, it's the result of processing the raw file
in the camera (I exclude patterned noise here). Well, to a first
approximation at least.


> The cleaned up jpegs from raw looked better than with NR in CaptureNX,
> and a lot better than ex-camera jpegs.

From: nospam on
In article <34nal39sachv3sc8vivicnrde0rltuhu41(a)4ax.com>, Alan Calan
<alancalan(a)excite.com> wrote:

> I can't totally disagree what you said. It seems stupid to think that
> the d200 or the D300 cannot produce sharp focused images. Are there
> any other comparisons besides Rockwells?

there are plenty of samples on pbase, flickr and other hosting sites,
and a lot of threads at dpreview touting the various advantages and
disadvantages of various cameras. unfortunately, many of those threads
degenerate into fanboi wars. however, there is still plenty of good
info there along with a lot of sample images.

also, dpreview's d200 and 5d reviews are available. phil has already
completed the hands-on portion for the two new nikons, and hopefully a
full review will appear soon. he is extremely thorough, and he spends
several weeks evaluating a single camera.

> But I have to tell you where I am torn. I canot for the life of me
> understand why the D300 is not Full Frame. Nikon was pushing the DX
> format and Canon one upped them, in my opinion.

because the d200 was a top selling camera and the d300 improves upon it
in many ways and should sell equally well, if not better. it's only
been out a week and it has already found some very favourable opinions.
making a full frame sensor is *not* that cheap (yet), and the d300
competes with other offerings such as the canon 40d, so there isn't
that much of a need to go full frame at the moment.

also, keep in mind, canon initially introduced a full frame camera for
$8000, and it took a few years until they could make one for $3000 (now
lower, as the 5d nears the end of its life). the canon 5d is basically
a canon 20d with a full frame sensor.

> I have an F5 and if I buy DX lenses, there are good chances that there
> will be vignetting?

with some lenses yes, but you don't need to buy dx lenses if you don't
want to.

> But it really is pretty simple, what takes better pictures, the D200,
> the D300 or the 5D. Until I see some kind of definitive answer, I'm
> not doing anything.

it has more to do with the photographer than the camera & lenses.
From: Paul Furman on
Alan Calan wrote:
>
> But I have to tell you where I am torn. I canot for the life of me
> understand why the D300 is not Full Frame.

Because it would still cost $4,000 or so. They will in time...

> Nikon was pushing the DX
> format and Canon one upped them, in my opinion.
>
> I have an F5 and if I buy DX lenses, there are good chances that there
> will be vignetting?
>
> So my dependent tie to Nikon is not so strong.
>
> I would just keep the F5 if not for the fact that I want to see what
> my shot look like. My investment in Nikon is worth about $600 on
> Ebay, if that much.
>
> Forget about the D3, there is no way that ever comes into the picture.
>
> But it really is pretty simple, what takes better pictures, the D200,
> the D300 or the 5D. Until I see some kind of definitive answer, I'm
> not doing anything.

The 5D takes better images. In good lighting there isn't much difference
but even then, some shadow detail will be lost to noise and highlights
will blow a little sooner.