Upgrading from D80

The nature of your exposure problems suggests a combination of your
technique and misunderstanding of what a digital sensor can capture.
The D300 is not going to change that.
You would be better served by calibrating yourself as well as polishing a
raw workflow to try to optimize your results.
Your own special Zone system.
No matter what you do there will be a lot of misses: the cost advantage of
digital allows for endless bracketing and experimentation compared to film.
Do it.
Increasing skills in Photoshop will improve your results more than any
camera upgrade.
I really do not think there is a technical advantage that is worth updating
to the D300 apart from use of non-AF lenses, hardly a real issue, and, if
you really need it, less noise at higher ISOs. I seriously doubt most people
shoot at higher than ISO 400 anyway.
I too have a D80 but am sitting out the Nikon upgrade cycle until they
increase color bit depth and dynamic range, much as I would love a new toy,
because for my amateur purposes the technical differences in these cameras
is not as significant as my aesthetic deficiencies.
One consideration: as the cost of petroleum rises the cost of everything
will rise commensurately. The 12,000 mile supply line from Asia is going to
be impossible to disguise any longer.

I see your point, but:
1) I am fairly sure that D80 overexposing is not my technique. I've
been shooting slides for about 12 years (before getting d70), and I am
painfully aware of the importance of the exposure.
I think that matrix metering in D80 is just "flaky", becuase in center
weighted or spot mode I don't have that issue.

Just been on Ken Rockwell's site http://www.kenrockwell.com/ who also
mentions the problems with the matrix mode overexposing on the D80 and D40
D40x. Says these cameras are set to record shadow detail at expense of
highlights. Also says this not a problem with the D200 (and presumably with
the D300). So there you are; Nikon have screwed up. Perhaps if we all e-mail
Nikon and complain they may bring out a firmware update.

PDM

On 2008-05-23, PDM pdcm99minus wrote:
I see your point, but:
1) I am fairly sure that D80 overexposing is not my technique. I've
been shooting slides for about 12 years (before getting d70), and I am
painfully aware of the importance of the exposure.
I think that matrix metering in D80 is just "flaky", becuase in center
weighted or spot mode I don't have that issue.

Just been on Ken Rockwell's site http://www.kenrockwell.com/ who also
mentions the problems with the matrix mode overexposing on the D80 and D40
D40x. Says these cameras are set to record shadow detail at expense of
highlights. Also says this not a problem with the D200 (and presumably with
the D300). So there you are; Nikon have screwed up. Perhaps if we all e-mail
Nikon and complain they may bring out a firmware update.

Heresy-warning
Nikon have not 'screwed up'? They researched their target market and
released those cameras with the settings that will please the majority
of that market -- the people who don't want to be bothered with any
technique or technicalities, but expect the camera to deliver the images
that they can then print straight away.
They also provided those cameras with setting capabilities that a
competent user can adjust to provide the results they prefer.
No apologies for disagreeing with the great Rockwell. If your conclusion
really reflects what that moron says about D80 metering it's just
another great reason to never read another word by Mr.Mendacious.
/

--
savvo orig. invib. man

"savvo" wrote in message
...
On 2008-05-23, PDM pdcm99minus wrote:
I see your point, but:
1) I am fairly sure that D80 overexposing is not my technique. I've
been shooting slides for about 12 years (before getting d70), and I am
painfully aware of the importance of the exposure.
I think that matrix metering in D80 is just "flaky", becuase in center
weighted or spot mode I don't have that issue.

Just been on Ken Rockwell's site http://www.kenrockwell.com/ who also
mentions the problems with the matrix mode overexposing on the D80 and
D40
D40x. Says these cameras are set to record shadow detail at expense of
highlights. Also says this not a problem with the D200 (and presumably
with
the D300). So there you are; Nikon have screwed up. Perhaps if we all
e-mail
Nikon and complain they may bring out a firmware update.

Heresy-warning
Nikon have not 'screwed up'? They researched their target market and
released those cameras with the settings that will please the majority
of that market -- the people who don't want to be bothered with any
technique or technicalities, but expect the camera to deliver the images
that they can then print straight away.
They also provided those cameras with setting capabilities that a
competent user can adjust to provide the results they prefer.
No apologies for disagreeing with the great Rockwell. If your conclusion
really reflects what that moron says about D80 metering it's just
another great reason to never read another word by Mr.Mendacious.
/

--
savvo orig. invib.
man

So what is wrong with Ken Rockwell then? I've only just discovered this site
and found it quite useful. I don't agree with everything he says, his review
of the Sigma 10-20 zoom for one. Rockwell did not reach any conclusion he
just reported the facts. It was me who suggested Nikon screwed up. I still
think so. No other camera I've got gives such poor exposure. I suspect that
the majority don't know any better as this camera is designed for people
upgrading from compacts (or like me who spotted a half price bargain) and
they will eventually reach the same conclusion as me. Such people still want
the same correct exposure that their compacts provided. Nikon don't deliver
here.

PDM

In article , PDM
wrote:

So what is wrong with Ken Rockwell then?

http://kenrockwell.com/about.htm

While occasionally inspired by actual products or experiences, if you
aren't a personal friend or lack a sense of humor or lack a decent BS
detector, you're best off treating this site as a work of fiction.

I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many
deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up
things lurking. While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither
legally binding nor guaranteed and the only thing I do guarantee is
that there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does
The Onion.

I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A
hoax, like this site, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by
overactive minds as a practical joke.

nospam wrote:

In article , PDM
wrote:

So what is wrong with Ken Rockwell then?

http://kenrockwell.com/about.htm

While occasionally inspired by actual products or experiences, if you
aren't a personal friend or lack a sense of humor or lack a decent BS
detector, you're best off treating this site as a work of fiction.

I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many
deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up
things lurking. While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither
legally binding nor guaranteed and the only thing I do guarantee is
that there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does
The Onion.

I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A
hoax, like this site, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by
overactive minds as a practical joke.

http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project -- http://improve-usenet.org
Found 5/08: a free GG-blocking news *feed* -- http://usenet4all.se

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , PDM
wrote:

So what is wrong with Ken Rockwell then?

http://kenrockwell.com/about.htm

While occasionally inspired by actual products or experiences, if you
aren't a personal friend or lack a sense of humor or lack a decent BS
detector, you're best off treating this site as a work of fiction.

I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many
deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up
things lurking. While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither
legally binding nor guaranteed and the only thing I do guarantee is
that there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does
The Onion.

I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A
hoax, like this site, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by
overactive minds as a practical joke.

Well I still like the site. He still talks some sense to me and I find it
useful. I've found out by experience that we agree on quite of lot. And I
enjoy his humorous style.

PDM

OK, Little more follow-up info:

D200 definitely doesn't have the exposure issue. So far, with no
compenstaion, histograms are where they are supposed to be.
Now, here is a little twist on the focusing issue: it turns out the
issue is somehow lens related. I did a little testing with a "focusing
chart" (AKA a piece of paper with thin parallel lines 1/4" apart) and
my 50mm 1.8 focuses almost an inch behind the target. I'm still
buffled how that happens, as I was under impression that the focusing
system works by comparing contrast, but the issue only manifests
itself with that lens. 20mm 2.8 and 85mm 1.8 , as well as 80-200 2.8
focused right on target. (I took the pictures with the apertures wide
open).
SNIP

I tried out a 550-200VR a few months ago. Although the focus appeared to
lock on, when the image was examined it was dreadfully out of focus. We came
to the conclusion that a lens element was misaligned. You could even tell
by looking at the screen. So how was the camera able to lock on such a poor
image? I can't think how.

PDM