From: acl on
On Dec 4, 5:39 pm, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote:
> 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.


Did you actually try? There isn't any difference in the shadows, below
iso 400 or so... If anything, the d200 has less patterned noise than
the particular 5d I saw. And why would the highlights blow out sooner?
From: Paul Furman on
acl wrote:
> Paul Furman wrote:
>> Alan Calan wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>
> Did you actually try? There isn't any difference in the shadows, below
> iso 400 or so...

No I didn't try but underexposure (shadows) always has more noise, so
yeah, maybe similar on the 5D.

> If anything, the d200 has less patterned noise than
> the particular 5d I saw. And why would the highlights blow out sooner?

More dynamic range. Perhaps only usable converting from raw.
From: acl on
On Dec 4, 7:11 pm, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote:
> acl wrote:
> > Paul Furman wrote:
> >> Alan Calan wrote:
>
> >>> 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.
>
> > Did you actually try? There isn't any difference in the shadows, below
> > iso 400 or so...
>
> No I didn't try but underexposure (shadows) always has more noise, so
> yeah, maybe similar on the 5D.
>
> > If anything, the d200 has less patterned noise than
> > the particular 5d I saw. And why would the highlights blow out sooner?
>
> More dynamic range. Perhaps only usable converting from raw.


The DR is practically the same at low isos...
From: Alan Calan on
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.

Whether Rockwell is a joker or not, I haven't seen any comparative
studies that show photgraphs taken with the D300 are equl to the 5D.
Maybe it's stupidity on my part but I saw great wedding pictures taken
with D200s but at closer look, they could have been sharper. Color
saturation was incredible but focus or resolution could have been a
little better. Even if that was an incorrect conclusion and if and
the Rockwell photos were not apples to apples I still need a little
resolution on these issues.

Because of laziness and inertia, I am looking for a reason to stay
with Nikon and I will check out the dpreviews articles.

ok, I just went on dpreview where the 5D was compared to the D200. I
have a wide screen on my laptop and I filled it and then went to 400%
mag.

Check it out
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS5D/Samples/Compared/Studio/5d_iso100_std.JPG

http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD200/Samples/Compared/Studio/d200_iso0100.JPG

Here is another difference that shows the 5D sharper than the D200. I
didn't see a comparison for the D300



On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 06:53:11 -0800, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>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: RichA on
On Dec 4, 11:54 am, acl <achilleaslazari...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Dec 4, 5:39 pm, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Did you actually try? There isn't any difference in the shadows, below
> iso 400 or so... If anything, the d200 has less patterned noise than
> the particular 5d I saw. And why would the highlights blow out sooner?

It has less chroma noise for sure, Nikon has basically eradicated most
of it. But, the D200 overall noise is still higher, it's higher than
the D80, D40/x, etc. The little 6 meg D40 produces very clean images.