[Brightcolours]

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1297669906' post='6093']

Not fabricated and there are severeal good reasons. The moment I saw the D300 announcement I knew I'd switch. It's the perfect package that Canon failed to deliver for years (they now offer it as the 7D). The next one that pulled people over was the D700 (it still attracts people away from Canon).



-- Markus

[/quote]

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.

[borisbg]

[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.

[Guest]

[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]

And I guess the fact that all photography magazines here in UK (from "What Camera?" to "Digital Photographer") gave the D300 top marks at that time and unanimously voted it as the best APS-C camera probably means that they're so easy to deceive. Glad that ColorFoto managed to set it straight :-)

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='borisbg' timestamp='1297711255' post='6112']

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.

[/quote]

You must have a very odd idea about what major sports events are then! Everytime I actually care to look, I see a lot of big tele whites!

[borisbg]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1297721432' post='6115']

You must have a very odd idea about what major sports events are then! Everytime I actually care to look, I see a lot of big tele whites!

[/quote]



English Premier League, NFL games, FIFA World Cup. If those are odd to you I don't know what are you calling major sport event.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='borisbg' timestamp='1297724018' post='6117']

English Premier League, NFL games, FIFA World Cup. If those are odd to you I don't know what are you calling major sport event.

[/quote]

Very small sports event: FIFA 2010 world cup









Very small sports event: Wimbledon 2010

http://in.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20100627&t=2&i=140606933&w=460&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=img-2010-06-27T230209Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_India-496928-1



Very small sports event: Australian Open 2009



2011:





Very small sports event: Vancouver winter olympics 2010:



http://s3.amazonaws.com/files.posterous.com/alexleekt/infhACgYletM6pjNPKGwTeXU8LBytdOIlU2CSJzD3CzGS6Sfnq8OY2GFppeZ/20100227_183248_alexleekt_5DM2.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJFZAE65UYRT34AOQ&Expires=1297730216&Signature=3EkGYj5RWxA%2F5nLo5MJDBUjTUv4%3D



Small sports event UEFA Champions league season 2010-2011:





Very small sports event UEFA Champions league season 2009-2010 final:

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='thw' timestamp='1297659786' post='6091']

That statement is absolutely correct. Why do you think Canon introduced those firmware updates to the 1D3 many months AFTER the 1D3 went on sale? For fun and laughter??? Canon had a lot of time to test and fix their professional cameras long BEFORE they were released, and to make such a gloss mistake is unimaginable.



I may be a Canon shooter, but I am not blinded by 'fanboism'. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[/quote]

As a person who works and develops software algorithms all day long, I have learned to appreciate how difficult it is for camera manufactures to write code that essentially reads the minds of people who can't get a job that doesn't involve sitting butt-cheek-to-cheek in shorts in a smelly cubicle, relying on the spraying and praying technique because they have very little real talent.



All manufacturers have had such issues... for example some early D3 bodies were having [url="http://www.google.com/search?q=d3+shutter+fail"]shutter fails[/url]. Leica M9s have their own [url="http://leicarumors.com/2009/09/26/leica-links-2.aspx/"]issues[/url]. The new Sony SLTs also have [url="http://www.google.com/search?q=sony+SLT+overheat"]problems[/url] as a result of innovation. Sigma is definitely [url="http://www.google.com/search?q=sigma+camera+freezing"]no stranger[/url] to issues.



Speaking like there's something perfect out there is true "fanboyism" IMO <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />







[quote name='thw' timestamp='1297659786' post='6091']

Errr... those shots are no challenge for all current AF sensors (including those in entry level cameras like the 550D). You would have been more convincing if you showed a whole series of continuous shots of a running target in low light. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[/quote]

I don't think the 5D2 claimed to be a spray-and-pray sports camera and proving it as such wasn't my point. If you do a bit of searching you'll find many examples of the 5D2 being used for sports in an intelligent manner.



Also I'd like you to point out a 21MP APS-C camera with a 125mm f/1.2 lens that can produce an image that's equivalent in DOF and magnification to those images I showed <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



GTW

[miro]

What happen here?

As usual the two canon evangelist GTW and BC hijacked the main subject.

Come on people! Be respectful for the opposite side!



I’ll try to explain my vision. Please correct me if I’m wrong.



Marcus expains why he moved to Nikon camp. -> The reaction was that 40D was even better camera. Sorry but such comparison it looks like “bus vs. car”. They are two completely different cameras. And they target two different groups of people.



Later on Borisbg provoke the tread in the next “indulgency”. Do you really believe in advertisements? If Michael Schumacher won F1 with red Ferrari does it mean that if I buy red Ferrari I’ll be the best driver on the road? Poor Lamborghini and McLaren drivers. I’ll the best!!!





I hope that my message doesn’t bring additional firefighting.





With Kind Regards,

Miro



PS. I’m canon shooter. I’m very happy with my canon 400d and 50d.

[Guest]

[quote name='miro' timestamp='1297760271' post='6123']

What happen here?

As usual the two canon evangelist GTW and BC hijacked the main subject.

Come on people! Be respectful for the opposite side!



I’ll try to explain my vision. Please correct me if I’m wrong.



Marcus expains why he moved to Nikon camp. -> The reaction was that 40D was even better camera. Sorry but such comparison it looks like “bus vs. car”. They are two completely different cameras. And they target two different groups of people.



Later on Borisbg provoke the tread in the next “indulgency”. Do you really believe in advertisements? If Michael Schumacher won F1 with red Ferrari does it mean that if I buy red Ferrari I’ll be the best driver on the road? Poor Lamborghini and McLaren drivers. I’ll the best!!!





I hope that my message doesn’t bring additional firefighting.





With Kind Regards,

Miro



PS. I’m canon shooter. I’m very happy with my canon 400d and 50d.

[/quote]

Nooo, do you really think they would want to convert as many people from nikon to canon? Such impartial and unbiased photographers? No, it really can't be <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':o' />



Anyway, it looks more like a knee-jerk reaction to anything related to nikon. Like, someone is looking for a long (105+) macro for FF nikon, genotypewriter can't help it: "since the 65mm MP-E is not on nikon", Markus enjoying the 200mm f/2 VR, genotypewriter: "Canon 200 f/2L IS is lighter, better, has a killer IS, etc", then 24mm 1.4, another about Canon's 200-400mm Extender 1.4x, etc, etc. Nothing's new here either <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Lomskij' timestamp='1297718284' post='6113']

And I guess the fact that all photography magazines here in UK (from "What Camera?" to "Digital Photographer") gave the D300 top marks at that time and unanimously voted it as the best APS-C camera probably means that they're so easy to deceive. Glad that ColorFoto managed to set it straight :-)

[/quote]

I am not even sure if it was CoilorFoto or Foto Magazin, actually. But that test did show the capability of the 40D and the incapability of the D300 in AF high FPS performance. I am sure (I know the magazines you are referring to) do NOT do a controlled comparative test of AF performance.



Anyway, both ColorFoto and Foto Magzin rated the D300 highly too, and they also (not specific to D300, or 40D, or any other camera) have faulty "tests" concerning IQ. So whichever it was, ColorFoto or Foto Magazin, did not set anyone "straight". The magazin was just finally the one to actually device a representative, controlled and reproduceable test for AF tracking with high FPS performance. Done in the time of the controvese concerning the Canon EOS 1D mk III. Which, in that test, beat the Nikon D3 by quite a margin (both in an actual consistent high frames per second performance and the number of shots in focus over the measured time).



I'm not saying the D300 is not a good camera, I am just pointing out that its sensor did not outclass the Canon sensors of its time and its AF was only superior in performance on paper. At least, in the tested scenario.