02-14-2011, 07:20 PM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1297687792' post='6104']
Yes, a perfect package... on spec sheet paper.
And there are (strangely enough) no serious, thorough camera reviews to be found.
The D300 may be a fine camera, but it is not "better".
A few examples: The D300 had the same crappy NR as the D200 introduced. desaturated, wrongly coloured high ISO results, with white speckles in stead of coloured ones. Which gave birth to the now popular strange view that that is "luminance noise", and coloured specks are "chroma noise". Problem with that is that with RGB sensors, where each R, G and B has to be detected separately, noise just has to get a colour, because a higher or lower reading from a sensel just will shift the colour. So, yes, in reviews it got said that the D300 was better at higher ISO's than the 40D... Actual studying of the results showed that not to be the case.
Then there is the AF superiority. The D300 gave 51 AF points and a seemingly high FPS rating (strangely enough with a higher rating when one would buy the expensive Nikon battery vertical grip). Great on paper, never really tested. Until ColorFoto did a real AF test, tracking a fast-ish car under controlled circumstances. Which showed that the D300 did not even come close to its 6 FPS on average, and the 40D outclassed it on FPS (with focus priority activated on the D300). And, while you can't activate focus priority on the 40D in continuous shooting mode, the 40D also outclassed the D300 with number of shots in focus, and also percentage wise. Tests were done both with all AF points active, and only the center point active.
So, spec wise, yes, the D300 was impressive. AF performance wise,, it did/does not outperform the Canon 40D/50D/60D. And its supposed high ISO superiority was based on wrong assessments (basically turning a blind eye to the NR which did lower the IQ too).
So, that leaves that it was a bit heavier, a bit better sealed (on paper at least), had a nicer LCD.
I do not know if the 7D is better or worse, AF wise. I have never seen it tested in a real comparison.
[/quote]
I said it earlier and I will say it again, because of the test mentioned above the side lines of the major sport events are mostly populated with black lenses not white one, and all these guys are holding fraud in their hands. I guess they are the easiest one to deceive about IQ and AF.
Yes, a perfect package... on spec sheet paper.
And there are (strangely enough) no serious, thorough camera reviews to be found.
The D300 may be a fine camera, but it is not "better".
A few examples: The D300 had the same crappy NR as the D200 introduced. desaturated, wrongly coloured high ISO results, with white speckles in stead of coloured ones. Which gave birth to the now popular strange view that that is "luminance noise", and coloured specks are "chroma noise". Problem with that is that with RGB sensors, where each R, G and B has to be detected separately, noise just has to get a colour, because a higher or lower reading from a sensel just will shift the colour. So, yes, in reviews it got said that the D300 was better at higher ISO's than the 40D... Actual studying of the results showed that not to be the case.
Then there is the AF superiority. The D300 gave 51 AF points and a seemingly high FPS rating (strangely enough with a higher rating when one would buy the expensive Nikon battery vertical grip). Great on paper, never really tested. Until ColorFoto did a real AF test, tracking a fast-ish car under controlled circumstances. Which showed that the D300 did not even come close to its 6 FPS on average, and the 40D outclassed it on FPS (with focus priority activated on the D300). And, while you can't activate focus priority on the 40D in continuous shooting mode, the 40D also outclassed the D300 with number of shots in focus, and also percentage wise. Tests were done both with all AF points active, and only the center point active.
So, spec wise, yes, the D300 was impressive. AF performance wise,, it did/does not outperform the Canon 40D/50D/60D. And its supposed high ISO superiority was based on wrong assessments (basically turning a blind eye to the NR which did lower the IQ too).
So, that leaves that it was a bit heavier, a bit better sealed (on paper at least), had a nicer LCD.
I do not know if the 7D is better or worse, AF wise. I have never seen it tested in a real comparison.
[/quote]
I said it earlier and I will say it again, because of the test mentioned above the side lines of the major sport events are mostly populated with black lenses not white one, and all these guys are holding fraud in their hands. I guess they are the easiest one to deceive about IQ and AF.