D200 vs D300 at ISO 1600

I did my own test to see how the cameras handled ISO 1600. Both these
shots had identical settings: ISO 1600, 1 sec, f/5.6. Taken as NEF,
converted to highest quality JPG in Nikon Capture NX.

The D300 shot has far better colors, shadow resolution, and looks less
blotchy around the brown seat cushions. You can click on the photos to
get to full resolution.

D200: http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/40...qgtD#275204066
D300: http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/40...qgtD#275204339

On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 21:21:17 -0400, Cynicor
wrote:

I did my own test to see how the cameras handled ISO 1600. Both these
shots had identical settings: ISO 1600, 1 sec, f/5.6. Taken as NEF,
converted to highest quality JPG in Nikon Capture NX.

The D300 shot has far better colors, shadow resolution, and looks less
blotchy around the brown seat cushions. You can click on the photos to
get to full resolution.

D200: http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/40...qgtD#275204066
D300: http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/40...qgtD#275204339

Seems to me that, while there certainly differences in shadow
resolution, blotchy around the seat cushions, etc., that the main
difference between those 2 pictures is the white balance setting.

I took the liberty of downloading the D200 shot and adjusted the color
balance so that the lampshade was closer to white (like the D300 shot)
than the yellow it was on the original and reposted it he

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_ran...52744/sizes/o/

That's all I did, just a white balance adjustment. Sure, the D300
looks a little better. But not as dramatically better as without the
white balance adjustment.

Steve

"Steve" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 21:21:17 -0400, Cynicor
wrote:

I did my own test to see how the cameras handled ISO 1600. Both these
shots had identical settings: ISO 1600, 1 sec, f/5.6. Taken as NEF,
converted to highest quality JPG in Nikon Capture NX.

The D300 shot has far better colors, shadow resolution, and looks less
blotchy around the brown seat cushions. You can click on the photos to
get to full resolution.

D200: http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/40...qgtD#275204066
D300: http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/40...qgtD#275204339

Seems to me that, while there certainly differences in shadow
resolution, blotchy around the seat cushions, etc., that the main
difference between those 2 pictures is the white balance setting.

I took the liberty of downloading the D200 shot and adjusted the color
balance so that the lampshade was closer to white (like the D300 shot)
than the yellow it was on the original and reposted it he

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_ran...52744/sizes/o/

That's all I did, just a white balance adjustment. Sure, the D300
looks a little better. But not as dramatically better as without the
white balance adjustment.

Steve

It would be nice to see the raw images.

Steve wrote:
On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 21:21:17 -0400, Cynicor
wrote:

I did my own test to see how the cameras handled ISO 1600. Both these
shots had identical settings: ISO 1600, 1 sec, f/5.6. Taken as NEF,
converted to highest quality JPG in Nikon Capture NX.

The D300 shot has far better colors, shadow resolution, and looks less
blotchy around the brown seat cushions. You can click on the photos to
get to full resolution.

D200: http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/40...qgtD#275204066
D300: http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/40...qgtD#275204339

Seems to me that, while there certainly differences in shadow
resolution, blotchy around the seat cushions, etc., that the main
difference between those 2 pictures is the white balance setting.

Both set to auto in-camera. D300 definitely did a better job of
adjusting the scene. Same speed/aperture/ISO, same lens.

The RAW files are here if you have the patience to download 26MB from my
home server: http://www.trupin.com/NEFs.zip.

On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 08:18:13 -0400, Cynicor
wrote:

Steve wrote:
On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 21:21:17 -0400, Cynicor
wrote:

I did my own test to see how the cameras handled ISO 1600. Both these
shots had identical settings: ISO 1600, 1 sec, f/5.6. Taken as NEF,
converted to highest quality JPG in Nikon Capture NX.

The D300 shot has far better colors, shadow resolution, and looks less
blotchy around the brown seat cushions. You can click on the photos to
get to full resolution.

D200: http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/40...qgtD#275204066
D300: http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/40...qgtD#275204339

Seems to me that, while there certainly differences in shadow
resolution, blotchy around the seat cushions, etc., that the main
difference between those 2 pictures is the white balance setting.

Both set to auto in-camera. D300 definitely did a better job of
adjusting the scene. Same speed/aperture/ISO, same lens.

The RAW files are here if you have the patience to download 26MB from my
home server: http://www.trupin.com/NEFs.zip.

I heard they did a better job with the auto white balance in the D300.
To me that's not such a big deal because I usually either shoot raw,
where the white balance is easily and perfectly adjusted later in
software or (if I'm shooting jpeg or just don't want to worry about it
later) set the white balance for the conditions while I'm shooting and
not rely on the auto setting.

In the case of those photos, I would have just dialed the WB to
incandescent and all would have been fine even with the D200. It
would have been obvious that something needed to be done just by
looking at the preview (or I should say postview) on the LCD.

Steve

Steve wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 08:18:13 -0400, Cynicor
wrote:

Steve wrote:
On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 21:21:17 -0400, Cynicor
wrote:

I did my own test to see how the cameras handled ISO 1600. Both these
shots had identical settings: ISO 1600, 1 sec, f/5.6. Taken as NEF,
converted to highest quality JPG in Nikon Capture NX.

The D300 shot has far better colors, shadow resolution, and looks less
blotchy around the brown seat cushions. You can click on the photos to
get to full resolution.

D200: http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/40...qgtD#275204066
D300: http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/40...qgtD#275204339
Seems to me that, while there certainly differences in shadow
resolution, blotchy around the seat cushions, etc., that the main
difference between those 2 pictures is the white balance setting.
Both set to auto in-camera. D300 definitely did a better job of
adjusting the scene. Same speed/aperture/ISO, same lens.

The RAW files are here if you have the patience to download 26MB from my
home server: http://www.trupin.com/NEFs.zip.

I heard they did a better job with the auto white balance in the D300.
To me that's not such a big deal because I usually either shoot raw,
where the white balance is easily and perfectly adjusted later in
software or (if I'm shooting jpeg or just don't want to worry about it
later) set the white balance for the conditions while I'm shooting and
not rely on the auto setting.

In the case of those photos, I would have just dialed the WB to
incandescent and all would have been fine even with the D200. It
would have been obvious that something needed to be done just by
looking at the preview (or I should say postview) on the LCD.

I actually have always had problems getting the proper brightness on the
LCD on my D200. It will show images a lot brighter and better exposed
than they actually end up out of the camera. It was probably due to the
fact that it was purchased for me as a gift, but from a ****ty dealer
who lied about its USA-hood and then refused to answer any queries about
where the USA warranty and serial numbers and manual were. It wasn't
really, but I will blame Hot Buys Electronics for it anyway.

The autofocus was noticeably snappier on the D300 in the lower light
conditions.

On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 10:28:41 -0400, Cynicor
wrote:

Steve wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 08:18:13 -0400, Cynicor
wrote:

Steve wrote:
On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 21:21:17 -0400, Cynicor
wrote:

I did my own test to see how the cameras handled ISO 1600. Both these
shots had identical settings: ISO 1600, 1 sec, f/5.6. Taken as NEF,
converted to highest quality JPG in Nikon Capture NX.

The D300 shot has far better colors, shadow resolution, and looks less
blotchy around the brown seat cushions. You can click on the photos to
get to full resolution.

D200: http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/40...qgtD#275204066
D300: http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/40...qgtD#275204339
Seems to me that, while there certainly differences in shadow
resolution, blotchy around the seat cushions, etc., that the main
difference between those 2 pictures is the white balance setting.
Both set to auto in-camera. D300 definitely did a better job of
adjusting the scene. Same speed/aperture/ISO, same lens.

The RAW files are here if you have the patience to download 26MB from my
home server: http://www.trupin.com/NEFs.zip.

I heard they did a better job with the auto white balance in the D300.
To me that's not such a big deal because I usually either shoot raw,
where the white balance is easily and perfectly adjusted later in
software or (if I'm shooting jpeg or just don't want to worry about it
later) set the white balance for the conditions while I'm shooting and
not rely on the auto setting.

In the case of those photos, I would have just dialed the WB to
incandescent and all would have been fine even with the D200. It
would have been obvious that something needed to be done just by
looking at the preview (or I should say postview) on the LCD.

I actually have always had problems getting the proper brightness on the
LCD on my D200. It will show images a lot brighter and better exposed
than they actually end up out of the camera. It was probably due to the
fact that it was purchased for me as a gift, but from a ****ty dealer
who lied about its USA-hood and then refused to answer any queries about
where the USA warranty and serial numbers and manual were. It wasn't
really, but I will blame Hot Buys Electronics for it anyway.

If the images look great on the D200 LCD screen and then don't look so
good on your PC monitor I don't think I'd be blaming the camera for
that. Look into getting a better PC monitor.

You could always make the D200 LCD look worse if you want. Just go to
Menu-Set Up Menu-LCD Brightness and turn it down.

The autofocus was noticeably snappier on the D300 in the lower light
conditions.

The autofocus was another area I heard they improved the D300.
However, I'm pretty sure I don't need all those focus points. Even on
the D200 I have it set to wide area focus selection with 7 selectable
points instead of 11. 51, or whatever it is on the D300, would be
useless for me. So far, I haven't had any problems focusing with the
D200. I have had some focus problems with specific lenses though, but
that turned out to be a lens problem.

I know the D300 is a "better" camera. But for me, I get pretty good
results with the D200 if I use it properly. Setting the white balance
in harsh conditions and not relying on auto all the time is one thing
I include in proper use. Again, for me, it's not worth upgrading to
the D300 yet. When used prices come down to where the D200 is now,
maybe then.

I would have a different point of view though if I relied on my camera
to make my living.

Steve

Steve wrote:
If the images look great on the D200 LCD screen and then don't look so
good on your PC monitor I don't think I'd be blaming the camera for
that. Look into getting a better PC monitor.

You could always make the D200 LCD look worse if you want. Just go to
Menu-Set Up Menu-LCD Brightness and turn it down.

I know THAT. Yeesh.

I usually use an LCD monitor that I've calibrated with a Huey.

The autofocus was another area I heard they improved the D300.
However, I'm pretty sure I don't need all those focus points.

Technically, you only need one at any time!

The focus is pretty amazing.

I know the D300 is a "better" camera. But for me, I get pretty good
results with the D200 if I use it properly.

I took so many thousands of great shots with my D200, I wouldn't have
traded it for anything. Now that I have a D300, I'm going to start
teaching photography to my daughter with the D200. I had a D70 that I
should've kept too, but I didn't think enough about doing IR photos
until about 10 minutes after I sold it.

Cynicor wrote:
I did my own test to see how the cameras handled ISO 1600. Both these
shots had identical settings: ISO 1600, 1 sec, f/5.6. Taken as NEF,
converted to highest quality JPG in Nikon Capture NX.

The D300 shot has far better colors, shadow resolution, and looks less
blotchy around the brown seat cushions. You can click on the photos to
get to full resolution.

D200: http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/40...qgtD#275204066
D300: http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/40...qgtD#275204339

I can't easily see a difference in noise but the D300 is sharper with
more detail, and it does have a few more pixels so I enlarged the D200
sample to match for comparison. In some places the D300 looks noisier
because the pixels are then sharper, in most cases the D200 is more
blotchy where the 300 has actual detail.

The D200 has a nasty yellow cast which is not easily removed from the
jpeg but raw should be able to fix. There is a little different focus
with the D300 focused more on the foreground & D200 on the bookshelf.

On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 16:37:10 GMT, Paul Furman
wrote:

The D200 has a nasty yellow cast which is not easily removed from the
jpeg but raw should be able to fix. There is a little different focus
with the D300 focused more on the foreground & D200 on the bookshelf.

It's actually pretty easy to remove the yellow color cast from the
D200 jpeg. I did it in Paintshop Pro 9 with about 4 mouse clicks in
maybe 10 seconds. I deleted the version I posted before but I just
did it again to make it look more like the colors in the D300 jpeg and
posted it he

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_ran...71803/sizes/o/

I know the raw gives you more latitude to work with when correcting
color. But you can still do it with the jpeg also.

Steve