Nikon D300 is Pop Photo's Camera of the Year

http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4857...year-2007.html

"Neil Harrington" wrote:
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4857...year-2007.html

Hmm. The D3 I could see. It fills a niche (speed and IQ in the same camera)
that Canon doesn't have an entry for and, being 2-year later technology
(improved microlenses, 14-bit A/D) than the 5D, should be the leader in 12MP
IQ. It has all the Canonistas sputtering excuses. Definitely camera of the
year material. Good work, Nikon!

The D300 is just another boring APS-C camera. Snore. And it's full well
depth is too small* for it to make use of 14-bit A/D conversion.

*: This is an assumption. It assumes that, as has been true of all sensors
to date, full well depth is proportional to pixel area. The D200 is
brilliant in that it has a perfect match between 12-bit A/D conversion and
its well depth. The 1DII and 5D fail to outperform the D200 at ISO 100
despite their larger pixels.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Neil Harrington" wrote:
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4857...year-2007.html

Hmm. The D3 I could see. It fills a niche (speed and IQ in the same camera)
that Canon doesn't have an entry for and, being 2-year later technology
(improved microlenses, 14-bit A/D) than the 5D, should be the leader in 12MP
IQ. It has all the Canonistas sputtering excuses. Definitely camera of the
year material. Good work, Nikon!

The D300 is just another boring APS-C camera. Snore. And it's full well
depth is too small* for it to make use of 14-bit A/D conversion.

*: This is an assumption. It assumes that, as has been true of all sensors
to date, full well depth is proportional to pixel area. The D200 is
brilliant in that it has a perfect match between 12-bit A/D conversion and
its well depth. The 1DII and 5D fail to outperform the D200 at ISO 100
despite their larger pixels.


FWIW, test of the D300 sensor indicates that at ISO 200, it has the same
(insignificant - but marginally greater) DR (14 bit) than the 40d at iso
100/200.
Both show some increase in DR using 14 bit. Both of these cameras have
over 11 stops of DR. I expect that the D3 (and 5d successor) will have
more. Sheesh - how did we ever manage with film?
I wouldn't underestimate the D300 (or 40d) performance at normal iso.
Good samples I've seen converted from raw files look outstanding.
There's lots of crappy 40d and D300 samples floating around. One reason
why so many of the D3 samples look so good in comparison to anything
else is that Nikon put a lot of the first D3s in the hands of pros who
really do know how to use a (d)SLR. That was a smarter marketing move
than we've seen from Nikon for years.

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
frederick wrote:

There's lots of crappy 40d and D300 samples floating around. One
reason why so many of the D3 samples look so good in comparison to
anything else is that Nikon put a lot of the first D3s in the hands
of pros who really do know how to use a (d)SLR. That was a smarter
marketing move than we've seen from Nikon for years.

Amazingly enough the majority of those samples from the D3 were shot JPG.
It's amazing what one can do when they know how to use their equipment.
The
D3 RAW files even make it better.

I'm already amazed by how amazing the D300 works ;-)
You're gonna be one happy woman when you get the D3 (what's the name of the
ship? Not Titanic or Poseidon I hope).
I'm very happy with the D300; the D3 is just too much money for me. I'll be
happy if I can slap some reasonable good glas on D300.
Yesterday I made some pictures of a cathedral in Mafra (Pt), that was
covered with beautiful "animated" lights and music (5th Beethoven). Purely
by coincident. Of course I forgot the tripod, so I had to shoot in darkness.
800 - 6400 ISO.
I'll post a few after processing (darn Capture NX works well, but soooo
slow!).

--
Sosumi

On Dec 12, 11:56 pm, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"Neil Harrington" wrote:
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4857...year-2007.html

Hmm. The D3 I could see. It fills a niche (speed and IQ in the same camera)
that Canon doesn't have an entry for and, being 2-year later technology
(improved microlenses, 14-bit A/D) than the 5D, should be the leader in 12MP
IQ. It has all the Canonistas sputtering excuses. Definitely camera of the
year material. Good work, Nikon!

The D300 is just another boring APS-C camera. Snore. And it's full well
depth is too small* for it to make use of 14-bit A/D conversion.

*: This is an assumption. It assumes that, as has been true of all sensors
to date, full well depth is proportional to pixel area. The D200 is
brilliant in that it has a perfect match between 12-bit A/D conversion and
its well depth. The 1DII and 5D fail to outperform the D200 at ISO 100
despite their larger pixels.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

How come no one ever mentions that actual type of A/D converters and
their quality?

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
. ..
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4857...year-2007.html


And two mo

Also camera of the year 2008:
http://www.pcphotomag.com/gear/photo...ce-awards.html

Gold Award:
http://www.digitalcameravideoreviews...-camera-review

and....

--
Sosumi

Well, after great deliberation, I ordered the D300 from Amazon,
shipped from Amazon at the regular list price. Of course, before I
hit send I had a little premature buyer's remorse and I went off
figuring out how much extra I'd be paying for film and processing for
the F5 if I didn't go digital. After that calculation, which really
has nothing to do with why I want the D300, I was ready to drop the
$1,800.

I don't think the camera is revolutionary in the industry but for me
it is. As far as camera of the year, yes but not a lot of
competition. Maybe Nikon won't be on the very edge of technology but
I feel it won't let us down. Plus, Nikon USA is right near me.

I am very excited about the camera and the new world it opens up. It's
almost ten years since I got the F5 and it's time to make the switch.
I have an SB28 Strobe so I still might need to get the SB800 but
that's it really, since my lenses will be fine with the D300.

Is the Lantern book any good? I really need to get some of the Lark
books on digital photography and photoshop. I've done a lot of work,
years ago, with photopaint so at least I'm not clueless but for me,
this really is a revolutionary change. I can still remember the smell
of Dektol, stop bath and fixer.

Alan

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:48:49 -0000, "Sosumi" wrote:

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
frederick wrote:

There's lots of crappy 40d and D300 samples floating around. One
reason why so many of the D3 samples look so good in comparison to
anything else is that Nikon put a lot of the first D3s in the hands
of pros who really do know how to use a (d)SLR. That was a smarter
marketing move than we've seen from Nikon for years.

Amazingly enough the majority of those samples from the D3 were shot JPG.
It's amazing what one can do when they know how to use their equipment.
The
D3 RAW files even make it better.

I'm already amazed by how amazing the D300 works ;-)
You're gonna be one happy woman when you get the D3 (what's the name of the
ship? Not Titanic or Poseidon I hope).
I'm very happy with the D300; the D3 is just too much money for me. I'll be
happy if I can slap some reasonable good glas on D300.
Yesterday I made some pictures of a cathedral in Mafra (Pt), that was
covered with beautiful "animated" lights and music (5th Beethoven). Purely
by coincident. Of course I forgot the tripod, so I had to shoot in darkness.
800 - 6400 ISO.
I'll post a few after processing (darn Capture NX works well, but soooo
slow!).

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"Neil Harrington" wrote:
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4857...year-2007.html

Hmm. The D3 I could see. It fills a niche (speed and IQ in the same
camera) that Canon doesn't have an entry for and, being 2-year later
technology (improved microlenses, 14-bit A/D) than the 5D, should be the
leader in 12MP IQ. It has all the Canonistas sputtering excuses.
Definitely camera of the year material. Good work, Nikon!

Sure, but too big and expensive for the title. I wouldn't expect "Camera of
the Year" to be awarded to a top-of-the-line pro model that relatively few
people could afford or even want, really.


The D300 is just another boring APS-C camera. Snore.

It sure doesn't seem boring to me, and I doubt it is to many other Nikon
fans either. And I *like* DX cameras.

Neil

I bought a D200 about a year ago and fell in love with it. The new
D300 is so attractive that I decided to take the $1800 dollar leap and
give my D200 to my son. Yea I know I probably should have waited for
the next generation but the D200 was so outstanding I am sure the D300
will not disapoint. The auto sensor cleaning sounds nice and the
other features sound great too.

I dont know why people always beat up on Nikon. The D200 is clearly a
huge success no matter what the negative people say. There is no
question that it is a solid and good camera. Once again they want to
bash on the D300. I will let you know how I feel after I get my hands
on mine later today.

LL






On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:25:04 -0000, "Sosumi" wrote:

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4857...year-2007.html


And two mo

Also camera of the year 2008:
http://www.pcphotomag.com/gear/photo...ce-awards.html

Gold Award:
http://www.digitalcameravideoreviews...-camera-review

and....

"LuvLatins" wrote in message
...


I dont know why people always beat up on Nikon.

Nikon envy, probably.

Neil