Compared to Nikon D200
The Nikon D200 remains on sale at a tempting price and features pretty much the same build quality and design as its successor. The difference between 10 and 12 Megapixels is also not significant when it comes to real-life detail. The big differences are in terms of features, with the D300 boasting 100% viewfinder coverage, a 3in VGA screen, slightly faster 6fps continuous shooting, a much more sophisticated 51-point AF system, 14-bit processing, Live View and an HDMI port.
All nice features, but the final image quality won’t be much different. So if you don’t want or need the D300’s new features, you could go for a D200 and put the rest towards a decent lens. See our Nikon D200 review for more details.
The Nikon D200 remains on sale at a tempting price and features pretty much the same build quality and design as its successor. The difference between 10 and 12 Megapixels is also not significant when it comes to real-life detail. The big differences are in terms of features, with the D300 boasting 100% viewfinder coverage, a 3in VGA screen, slightly faster 6fps continuous shooting, a much more sophisticated 51-point AF system, 14-bit processing, Live View and an HDMI port.
All nice features, but the final image quality won’t be much different. So if you don’t want or need the D300’s new features, you could go for a D200 and put the rest towards a decent lens.
Ich finde die Tests von Gordon Laing immer wieder gut.Ein recht guter Test, m.E. erfreulich wenig durch irgendeine Markenbrille getrübt.
Danke IngeHallo Mäg,
erstmal vielen Dank für diese interessante Info. Wer des Englischen nicht unbedingt mächtig ist, mein Tipp: über Google eingeben: Gordon Laing D 300 und dann - diese Seite übersetzen - auswählen. Wie bekannt ist die Übersetzung etwas laienhaft, aber doch hilfreich.
Servus Inge
- MB-D10 super verarbeitet und bombenfest an der Kamera
- Kamera mit MB-D10 wie aus einem Guß, Haptik und Ergonomie auf D2-Niveau
Eigener Eindruck.Eigener Eindruck, oder irgendwo gelesen?
Habe jedenfalls schon gegenteiliges gehoert ...
Fuer einen Vergleich zw. D300 und Sony Alpha sollte man wohl die RAW-Konvertierungen heranziehen:
I was playing around last night making some test shots in my basement. I compared a series of images with the D3, D300 and D2Xs taken at different ISOs in horrible light (compact fluorescents). I shot in RAW, NR OFF, and processed using NX 1.3 with identical Picture Control settings. I turned sharpening OFF to minimize any sharpening artifacts in the base images.
I don't have the crops to show yet, but here are my general conclusions:
1) The D300 does a better job with WB in this kind of lighting (cool fluorescents) than the D2X. Images from both cameras required some WB modification in Capture NX, but the end product looked better from the D300 and D3. The D2X images tended to have a yellowish color cast that required significantly more WB adjustment to remove.
2) With respect to ISO performance, I'd say that the D300 is about 1.5 stops better in terms of noise than the D2Xs. Luminance noise becomes visible with the D300 at ISO 1600, but is not pronounced until ISO 2500. I can get an image from the D300 shot at ISO 2500 that looks about as good or slightly better than the D2Xs shot at ISO 1000 (Hi-0.3). The D3 beats the D2X by about three stops-- HI-2 images (3200) on the D2Xs look about the same as HI-2 images (ISO 25,600) on the D3!
My conclusions on D300 noise (qualitative, not quantitative):
With the D300, you can shoot confidently at ISO 2500 or lower and your files will require minimal (if any) noise reduction, depending on the final print size. Because the noise is primarily in the luminance channel, be careful with your NR routine so you don't destroy image detail. I made a 12x18" print of the ISO 2500 image from the D300-- the grain pattern was noticeable if you looked really closely. However, from normal viewing distances, the image looked great and there was no loss of fine details. ISO 3200 on the D300 introduces significantly more luminance (and more chrominance) noise into the image, but again, images are very easy to clean up and they retain excellent color and contrast (something you can't say about the D2X).
So if you are thinking about a D300 or a used D2X/s, this round definitely goes to the D300.
Quelle: http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showpost.php?p=1540494&postcount=1
Was soll man von einem Test halten bei dem das 17-55 bei Blende f8 getestet wurde? Das 17-55 hat seine beste Schärfeleistung bei f4 und und bei f8 ist es nicht viel besser als bei Offenblende. Die Beispielbilder sind für mich eher über die verwendeten Objektive als über die Kamera aussagekräftig!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?