Author Topic: D300/D200 comparaison (Read 7019 times)

Vonkara · « **on:** November 27, 2007, 15:47 »

A good site to compare the D200/D2xs/D300 at 1600 iso and more.
The D300 is kicking butts at 1600...Simply amazing versus the D200.

http://www.nikondigital.org/articles/nikon_high_iso_test/index.htm

The D300 is at 1 kilometer from me now in that store, and I promise to myself I'll wait for the D400...About 2 long years to wait whit this temptation

ale1969 · « **Reply #1 on:** November 29, 2007, 02:53 »

Quote from: Vonkara on November 27, 2007, 15:47

The D300 is at 1 kilometer from me now in that store, and I promise to myself I'll wait for the D400...About 2 long years to wait whit this temptation

*... your post transmitted that temptation to me either... I'm trying to repeat to myself "I'll wait till the first Nikon full frame under 2500 dollars... I'll wait till... etc"

Vonkara · « **Reply #2 on:** December 04, 2007, 15:18 »

I just pass the last hours to compare these from an other site this time who give the exact same pictures in a controlled environment. The samples I'm focused on are from 100 to 1600 ISO. This is my conclusion:

(ISO 1600) D300 much better...(ISO 800) D300 much better...
(ISO 400) D200 much better...(ISO 200) D200 better...
(ISO 100) D200 better.

Do we are coming where we can say the half sensor are unable to support more megapixels. Nikon have increase by 2 and there's the bad result at lower ISO. Why Canon doesn't upgrade the 40D to 12mpx size. For me right now, it's a sign to don't buy lenses who doesn't are build for full frame.

I think sincerely and not the only one, if there's no huge improvement like it was in the last two years, the next generation (D400, 50D...) will be full frame sensor and everybody can trow there half frame lenses to the garbadge.

Don't know about everyone, but the next lenses I will buy are going to be compatible whit full frame.

Vonkara · « **Reply #3 on:** December 04, 2007, 15:23 »

I forgot the link for those who want to look at.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

hatman12 · « **Reply #4 on:** December 04, 2007, 16:28 »

Thanks for the link Vonkara.

To my eye the D300 low iso pictures look slightly better than the D200 (but not much in it).

I'm not particularly interested in the high iso stuff.

The important consideration (for me) is that 12.4mp achieves XL size at iStock, whereas the D200 does not.

madelaide · « **Reply #5 on:** December 04, 2007, 17:55 »

Imaging Resource's comparometer is a great tool. I've used it a lot.

Regards,
Adelaide

hatman12 · « **Reply #6 on:** December 04, 2007, 18:20 »

I've had another look at that comparison and I have to be honest and say I really can't see any difference from iso 100 to 400.

Some might see that as a negative (I suppose we have come to expect big leaps every couple of years) but on the other hand Nikon have managed to produce the same quality at 12.4mp from the APS sensor.

I also only buy full frame lenses and I've sold all my APS lenses.

I won't be buying a D3 simply because I cannot justify the huge leap in price when it's still only 12.4mp. I should think for most people the D300 is the obvious choice of the two.

When they launch a reduced price full frame I'll go for that, but until then I will upgrade to the D300 (but only after the Christmas rush) if I cannot find a used D2Xs at a lower price.

sam100 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 05, 2007, 02:02 »

Quote from: hatman12 on December 04, 2007, 16:28

I'm not particularly interested in the high iso stuff.

Hi,

Me neather....

Who in their right mind would be shooting at higher iso for stock....?..
Even the best camera produce some noise in darker areas at lowest iso, noise that gets worst at higher iso.
Knowing how picky some sites are regarding noise..... the conclusion is obvious... lowest iso.
Unless you like soft images, overprocessed with noise reducing programs, then i really can't see the benefits of having a good camera with high resolution when you destroy the details with noise reduction programs.

Patrick.

Vonkara · « **Reply #8 on:** December 05, 2007, 09:13 »

I understand but it seem it's possible...This tread is talking about.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?topic=3064.msg27657;topicseen#new

Vonkara · « **Reply #9 on:** December 15, 2007, 18:18 »

After buying the D300 I can tell more about this comparison now. This is a continuation of the "my new toy" tread. I think the name of this tread is more appropriate to compare my old D200 (not so old) and my new D300 for those who have this one in target.

I just taken pictures of street lights who are now awaiting validation to all big five site. Fotolia is the fastest for review so once they are validated I will post the links of an old one taken whit D200 and the new ones whit the D300, if this tread have not go away of the first treads page. But the comparison will be a bit difficult to do because they are not at the same scale...however.

My first impression after photoshoped the D300 ones and compared it in the comfort of my photoshop program is that the D300 have effectively less noise at 200iso than the D200 at 100iso. That's the inverse of what I was expecting whit the comparometer above.

The D300 pictures was taken in a cloudy condition. So a bit more post processing have been apply. I even see more details in the shadows than what I was familiar whit the D200 and have to incline my screen to discover more hidden details. But this is only an impression for the moment

The D300 is not really much sharper than the D200 and some unsharp mask is still needed, even if the accentuation is set around 5 of 9. That's a bit of deception on my first impression and own opinion. But the colors are more saturated and that's a fact and the noise is still better than the D200. So it's not a cheating game used by Nikon.

That's about it for the moment if some one have more questions I will be happy to try answer it...

marcopolo · « **Reply #10 on:** March 06, 2008, 20:29 »

Quote

Some might see that as a negative (I suppose we have come to expect big leaps every couple of years) but on the other hand Nikon have managed to produce the same quality at 12.4mp from the APS sensor.

I think the D300 uses a CMOS sensor like the D2X does, whereas a D200 uses a CCD sensor, if this makes any difference. It seems that the D300 is more like a D2X then a D200. It appears to me like Nikon repackaged the D2x in a D200 like body, gave it many of the features of the D3 minus the full frame and D2x like body, and they made a D300. I have never owned a D2X or a D200 so I have nothing to compare it to, but when reading the specs on a D2X, other then the built in battery drive/grip I really don't see anything better about the D2x, in some ways the D300 even appears to be a better camera.

hatman12 · « **Reply #11 on:** March 06, 2008, 20:44 »

I use my new D300 on neutral settings and sharpness set to 2. Initial impression is that the pictures are sharper than the D200 at the same settings.

I haven't noticed any improvement in detail or color but then I always apply saturation in photoshop rather than in-camera.

All in all, I'd say the D300 gets the same or slightly better quality images at 12mp compared to the D200, but there is very little in it.

I'm using Lo1 iso which is equivalent to iso100.

null · « **Reply #12 on:** March 07, 2008, 09:54 »

Quote from: madelaide on December 04, 2007, 17:55

Imaging Resource's comparometer is a great tool. I've used it a lot.

Is there a similar site for lenses?

Vonkara · « **Reply #13 on:** March 07, 2008, 13:23 »

There's always photozone but you have to compare on two different pages. Maybe you already see it? Here's the link

http://www.photozone.de/

Vonkara · « **Reply #14 on:** March 16, 2008, 18:10 »

Quote from: hatman12 on March 06, 2008, 20:44

I use my new D300 on neutral settings and sharpness set to 2. Initial impression is that the pictures are sharper than the D200 at the same settings.

I haven't noticed any improvement in detail or color but then I always apply saturation in photoshop rather than in-camera.

All in all, I'd say the D300 gets the same or slightly better quality images at 12mp compared to the D200, but there is very little in it.

I'm using Lo1 iso which is equivalent to iso100.

I have two questions. Do you always shoot in RAW and do you see a decrease in any way by using the Lo1 iso? Because for myself I always use the native 200iso in case that the quality can be affected. At the same time there's the D300 review who just come at Dpreview... there's the link.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/page18.asp

Sorry I missed the post last time

hatman12 · « **Reply #15 on:** March 16, 2008, 18:47 »

Vonkara I only shoot jpegs. I found with my D200 that IF I could get exposure correct the jpeg was as good quality as RAW (in fact the jpeg had less noise when converting RAW with ACR).

I have an 83% acceptance rate at IS shooting jpegs with my D200, so I see no need to change to RAW.

I intend to do exactly the same with my D300. I will try RAW and also Capture NX when I get some spare time, but my feeling is that jpeg quality will be fine so long as exposure is correct.

I have 100% acceptance at IS for my first few D300 jpeg images but it is early days.

Vonkara · « **Reply #16 on:** March 16, 2008, 18:59 »

Good I will try the Lo1. I was thinking about starting to shoot in RAW whit Capture, but I didn't find it useful at all also for the moment. I just take a look at the Dpreview review and there seem to be no much difference between the 200 and 100 iso.

marcopolo · « **Reply #17 on:** March 19, 2008, 00:37 »

Is there a way to process D300 raw files in Photoshop CS2 without having to first open them in Capture NX?

vikavalter · « **Reply #18 on:** March 19, 2008, 03:00 »

yes, using camera raw plug- in
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html

null · « **Reply #19 on:** March 20, 2008, 05:01 »

Quote from: marcopolo on March 19, 2008, 00:37

Is there a way to process D300 raw files in Photoshop CS2 without having to first open them in Capture NX?

When I got my new laptop with Vista and installed CS2, I found the plugin there after a PS upgrade on the Net. I didn't do anything special, not even installing the Nikon Raw Editor.

PenelopeB · « **Reply #20 on:** March 20, 2008, 10:21 »

That plug in is for CS3 not CS2?

I've read that it doesn't work with 2 and that there is no way to open or process D300 nefs directly from the camera in CS2.

Please tell me I'm wrong??? please? I can't get my MAC at work with CS 2 to open the nefs from my D300.

Regards
P

marcopolo · « **Reply #21 on:** March 20, 2008, 16:16 »

Thanks for the info, I guess I will try it on mine and see if it works

Secretariat · « **Reply #22 on:** March 21, 2008, 08:07 »

Quote from: Vonkara on March 16, 2008, 18:10

Quote from: hatman12 on March 06, 2008, 20:44
I use my new D300 on neutral settings and sharpness set to 2. Initial impression is that the pictures are sharper than the D200 at the same settings.

I haven't noticed any improvement in detail or color but then I always apply saturation in photoshop rather than in-camera.

All in all, I'd say the D300 gets the same or slightly better quality images at 12mp compared to the D200, but there is very little in it.

I'm using Lo1 iso which is equivalent to iso100.
I have two questions. Do you always shoot in RAW and do you see a decrease in any way by using the Lo1 iso? Because for myself I always use the native 200iso in case that the quality can be affected. At the same time there's the D300 review who just come at Dpreview... there's the link.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/page18.asp

Sorry I missed the post last time

Supposedly, the Lo-settings are paid for in decreased dynamic range. I avoid it and only use iso200 as lowest setting: what noise I find is either from incorrect exposure or because I have turned NR completely off in camera - I dont really know if I should, but I like to see all noise disappear at the slide of a slider!

Vonkara · « **Reply #23 on:** March 21, 2008, 10:25 »

As I see in the Dpreview review, yes there are a decrease in the dynamic, but it seem to be ridiculous compared of what I heard about not using this 100iso, because the quality is decreasing. I think that in a studio situation, the only thing that can be affected is the white background who will become more white. Good because it's that I want. But no kidding, whit a correct exposure there is absolutely no difference. We talk here about a decrease of 1/30 unit lost in the white if I remember correctly.

For now I don't shoot too much but I will try this Lo1 the next time for sure.

hatman12 · « **Reply #24 on:** March 21, 2008, 14:22 »

I used my D300 in my studio yesterday, shooting objects against white. I use Lo1, neutral settings then add a little saturation and sharpening in photoshop. Dynamic range is easily boosted using levels, although exposure is of course critical as with every camera.

I processed the first four pictures last night - all of them are clean, free of noise and artifacts, smooth and crisp. I submitted these first four to IS full size.

edit: BTW, I shoot only jpegs, largest size, fine quality, image compression changed from 'file size' to 'optimal quality' and color space Adobe RGB in camera.

Changing the jpeg compression to 'optimal quality' is very important and results in larger file sizes and less compression.