D300 Availability?

[drgrafix]

Hi, newbie but a long-time visitor. Finally got off my butt and actually registered.

A local camera shop thought it would be available November 1st, but he could not confirm that. Has anyone heard anything that could be called reliable, and also... will this camera be offered as a body only, or will they market a kit? If the latter is in the cards, was there any indication what lens it would be?

That same camera shop also noted that Nikon more or less "dribbles" out new products, meaning they'll promise 20 units to cover your pre-sells, but only ship five the first month. OTH, they said that Canon is much more responsive with shipping, and yeah... they were talking up the 40D which is a nice product... but it's not the D300.

[erichlund]

Hi, newbie but a long-time visitor. Finally got off my butt and actually registered.

A local camera shop thought it would be available November 1st, but he could not confirm that. Has anyone heard anything that could be called reliable, and also... will this camera be offered as a body only, or will they market a kit? If the latter is in the cards, was there any indication what lens it would be?

That same camera shop also noted that Nikon more or less "dribbles" out new products, meaning they'll promise 20 units to cover your pre-sells, but only ship five the first month. OTH, they said that Canon is much more responsive with shipping, and yeah... they were talking up the 40D which is a nice product... but it's not the D300.

The date I keep hearing is Nov 21. However, if you are not already on the list, and near the top, good luck with that.

[K1W1]

Being that it's a D200 replacement I'm sure that the D300 will be available as both a kit and a body only.
As far as getting your hands on one is concerned well that's another story.
I'd be surprised if many people have them this side of Christmas.

[TheObiJuan]

I keep reading and hearing it is not a replacement, but a higher end model.
Similar with the XT and XTi.
Both in production, but the XTi with better AF, sensor clean, more MP, etc.

[drgrafix]

Well, if Nikon's extensive Fall 2007 catalog is any indication, it's not a replacement as they have the D300 on the cover and featured inside... and the D200 is also there with all it's specs and features. I think it's more like the D40 and D40X, they will somehow co-exist, although I wonder how many sales the D200 would have when you start comparing features and price.

Many, many years ago I owned a few different cameras, and my current 35mm then (1969?) was a Pentax SLR. I walked into 42nd St Photo to look at the Nikon Photomic F and was on the fence because I could not afford a camera body and lens... and the guy had suggested a Minolta SLR complete with lens and case for about the price of the Nikon body. My wife, who even then knew I'd always be lusting for that black-bodied F... told me to forget the Minolta and just buy the body and a lens adapter so I could use the 35mm and 135mm T4 aftermarket lenses I had. I eventually sold the Pentax and my Bronica, and bought some Nikon glass.

I guess the moral of that story is that while I could buy the D200 or even the Canon 40D, I might want to wait and go for the D300.

[K1W1]

When the D80 was introduced it was not a replacement for the D70s either! :)

This is Nikon's way of saying to their dealers "you are stuck with whatever stock you have because as this is not a replacement but a new model and we are under no obligation under the terms of our dealership agreement to give you any sort of price protection or stock rotation".

[drgrafix]

Do you think Ritz has an edge over local camera shops? Supposedly, some of the early testers think Nikon is better prepared this time and are planning an initial production run that should more than satisfy the demand because the D300 is looked on as a sort of D200 upgrade whereas the D200 was a bit more bleeding edge.

[rawpaw18]

Welcome to the forum drgrafix.

I will give the D300 a rating higher than that of a D200 upgrade. IMO

D300----------------------------D200
_________________________________
12.3 mp...................................10mp
CMOS sensor............................CCD sensor
6/8 fps....................................5 fps
w/ up to 100 jpeg.....................w/ up to 37 jpeg
3" 922,000 pixel screen...............2.5" 230,000 screen
51 point focus...........................11 point focus
14 bit info.................................12 bit info
100% frame...............................95% frame
ISO 6400..................................ISO 3200
2 Live views..............................N/A
D lighting..................................N/A
Self cleaning.............................N/A

And if that is not enough 14 menu lanuages vs. 13.
Just a couple of things that stand out to me, as well as the reports of
1 to 1.5 stops of better noise control.

[erichlund]

Welcome to the forum drgrafix.

I will give the D300 a rating higher than that of a D200 upgrade. IMO

D300----------------------------D200
_________________________________
12.3 mp...................................10mp (minor upgrade)
CMOS sensor............................CCD sensor (unknown consequence)
6/8 fps....................................5 fps (most people really don't use this)
w/ up to 100 jpeg.....................w/ up to 37 jpeg (ditto)
3" 922,000 pixel screen...............2.5" 230,000 screen (this is cool, but it doesn't take better photos)
51 point focus...........................11 point focus (good, but better that it is the same pro AF sensor as in the D3 rather than just the number of focus points.)
14 bit info.................................12 bit info (good, but drops frame rate to 2.5 frames / second, for those that care about that)
100% frame...............................95% frame (excellent, see what you shoot, about time.)
ISO 6400..................................ISO 3200 (evolutionary, but good)
2 Live views..............................N/A (some will have a use for this, some will try to use it like a point and shoot, and that's the wrong reason)
D lighting..................................N/A (my opinion, but dumb)
Self cleaning.............................N/A (if it works)

And if that is not enough 14 menu lanuages vs. 13. (Please, this is measure...., I won't use the rest of that word, but you know what I mean)
Just a couple of things that stand out to me, as well as the reports of
1 to 1.5 stops of better noise control.

How about this ISO 200 ....... ISO 100 There's a lot of people upset about this one. We're back to the D70 / D50 starting ISO. This is going to sell a lot of neutral density filters.

Please. 2 year old camera that has satisfied thousands of users and taken probably more than a million photos to...well, none. Let's try and keep things in perspective. The D300 could not have been made two years ago, and the D200 has seen good service by many thousands of users. I know of at least one that it will continue to give great service to for many years to come.

The D300 is going to be a great camera. There are a few things that I wish I could graft onto my D200. But, is it worth the hassle and price of getting rid of my perfectly good camera. Not for me. Maybe for someone else that has greater needs. If you are buying a new camera now, of course you would rather have a D300. It is next generation tech. That is the nature of tech. But there's a reason that the body style of the D300 is little changed from that of the D200. The D200 set the standard. The D300 carries it to the next level, but recognizes that it is building on the success of the D200.

It's not a D3, and that's where the real Nikon revolution is taking place. No one wants to look that one in the eye, because it's a $5000 camera. But the improvement in image quality by moving to FX size is nothing short of stunning. I cannot afford a $5000 camera, or I would get one. But, this just means there is a future affordable FX body, and because tech bleeds down to the next gen, it means that future affordable FX cameras will have at least the image quality of this first Pro FX camera. That's what I'm excited about. That's the camera that I will upgrade to.

[TexasAg03]

How about this ISO 200 ....... ISO 100 There's a lot of people upset about this one. We're back to the D70 / D50 starting ISO. This is going to sell a lot of neutral density filters.


The D300 can be set to ISO 100 in the "expanded" ISO mode. According to Nikon, the base ISO is set where the sensor gives its best quality - for the D300, that is 200.

Also, the Nikon Japan release date is November 23rd. According to some, the U.S. date is usually the same as, or very close to, the Japan date.

[XaiLo]

It's not a D3, and that's where the real Nikon revolution is taking place. No one wants to look that one in the eye, because it's a $5000 camera. But the improvement in image quality by moving to FX size is nothing short of stunning. I cannot afford a $5000 camera, or I would get one. But, this just means there is a future affordable FX body, and because tech bleeds down to the next gen, it means that future affordable FX cameras will have at least the image quality of this first Pro FX camera. That's what I'm excited about. That's the camera that I will upgrade to.

So sad so true, and some things are just worth the price admission. So my new motto is "D3 in 08" I wonder why my wife keeps refusing to buy me a camera for my birthday:confused:

[rawpaw18]

Eric,
You have a lot of valid points to be sure. I wanted so badly to believe
the hype, and was expecting D3 light. The D300 looks to be promising
but when you look at it in relation to the D3, well nothing compares with
that camera.

[tekriter]

Eric,
You have a lot of valid points to be sure. I wanted so badly to believe
the hype, and was expecting D3 light. The D300 looks to be promising
but when you look at it in relation to the D3, well nothing compares with
that camera.

While it's true that nothing may compare to a D3, I'm replacing a D50 that is used 90% of the time in low light for shooting sports. I'm not replacing a D200, or else I would agree that it may be a better use of my money to buy the 85mm f1.4 and a decent macro lens.

[K1W1]

Please. 2 year old camera that has satisfied thousands of users and taken probably more than a million photos to...well, none. Let's try and keep things in perspective.

I agree with your overall sentiments Eric but you are way way out on the million photos.
There are some 7,800,000 D200 photos on Flickr alone and that would only be a tiny percentage of the total. I'm guessing that the D200 will have taken several hundred million photos worldwide.

BTW the 7.8 million is still less than half the number of D50 shots, around half the D70 shots and about 700,000 less than the D80 shots.

[erichlund]

I agree with your overall sentiments Eric but you are way way out on the million photos.
There are some 7,800,000 D200 photos on Flickr alone and that would only be a tiny percentage of the total. I'm guessing that the D200 will have taken several hundred million photos worldwide.

BTW the 7.8 million is still less than half the number of D50 shots, around half the D70 shots and about 700,000 less than the D80 shots.

OK, so what you're saying was I was just a tad conservative in my estimate. :eek:

[erichlund]

The D300 can be set to ISO 100 in the "expanded" ISO mode. According to Nikon, the base ISO is set where the sensor gives its best quality - for the D300, that is 200.

Also, the Nikon Japan release date is November 23rd. According to some, the U.S. date is usually the same as, or very close to, the Japan date.

But, that is not a native ISO, which means that the camera is basically an ISO 200 to 3200 camera that can be extended by signal amplification to 100 and 6400. This is not news. The only thing different from the D70 on the low end is the D70 did not have such a simple way to get to 100, though you could, of course, use a full stop negative EV. After all, that's all the camera is doing when you set it on Lo 1.0.

Don't get me wrong. The D300 is going to be a great camera. It is going to be a better camera than my D200. I am not questioning this. There is a lot to love about the D300. People are going to love the extended dynamic range. It won't be as wide as the D3, but it will be wider than any Nikon APS-C camera, and that is progress. People moving up from consumer cams will love it. People that need a second pro body, but cannot afford two $5000 cameras will love it. Even those who just have to have the latest and greatest will love it. I would love it. But, I cannot justify spending $1700 on a camera that is largely an evolutionary move from my D200, when the D200 is capable of doing 99% of what I want it to do.

For a guy like tekriter, this D300 will be a revelation. Of course, he will also learn what it is like to deal with a full size (spell that heavy) dSLR. But that will be minor compared to the freedom he will achieve when he gets to use a camera that is designed to be there for him.

[LR Max]

Wow, seems like a lot of hate against the D300 (if I am reading this correctly).

I am on the waiting list for a D300. Why? Because I want a camera that I can use at 1600 ISO without being upset over noise. I want something better tha 3/4 of a frame per second (I think my D70s is a little faster than that, but it feels like 3/4..) and with that I want to be able to take more than 4 RAW photos at a time.

I need something that has CLS built into it. The D70s has gotten me addicted to it so I've gotta have it. Lastly, the camera can't be too huge.

The D300 offers all of these. Yes, the D3 is a far superior camera but for my needs the D300 is what I need to get my work done without having to redo my entire camera kit.

I can't wait for the D300. I've been so very impressed with my D70s and its a half decade old design!

[erichlund]

Wow, seems like a lot of hate against the D300 (if I am reading this correctly).

I am on the waiting list for a D300. Why? Because I want a camera that I can use at 1600 ISO without being upset over noise. I want something better tha 3/4 of a frame per second (I think my D70s is a little faster than that, but it feels like 3/4..) and with that I want to be able to take more than 4 RAW photos at a time.

I need something that has CLS built into it. The D70s has gotten me addicted to it so I've gotta have it. Lastly, the camera can't be too huge.

The D300 offers all of these. Yes, the D3 is a far superior camera but for my needs the D300 is what I need to get my work done without having to redo my entire camera kit.

I can't wait for the D300. I've been so very impressed with my D70s and its a half decade old design!

No, I don't think you are reading it correctly. No, I'm not saying that the D300 is a perfect camera, but I am saying it fully qualifies as a next generation camera. Moving from the D70 to the D300 makes perfect sense to me. It will be a great upgrade. But, I don't have a D70 (or D40, D50, D80). I have a D200. There's just not enough extra for me to spend that kind of money. That's not hate. I love the new D300. If I were loaded and money were no object, I'd get one. But I have to live on a budget like the rest of the working stiffs here, and that means making sensible decisions.

For those of you in position for an upgrade, this will be a wonderful camera. Some of you will make that upgrade. I feel very confident that you will be very happy with the move.

[K1W1]

If I had a D200 I doubt that I would be going to a D300. I think I would wait for a D400 or something.
On the other hand if I was in the market for a D200 class camera today I would be on the waiting list for a D300 rather than an owner of something else.
Somewhere along the line I will be upgrading my D50 and at that point I will have to decide whether to go D300 or wait until the inevitable D90 arrives with similar features in a smaller body at a lesser price point. (I said similar lets not get into an argument about what the D90 will and won't have at this stage).

[drgrafix]

Well as someone who just sold off a half dozen vintage Nikon lenses, a motor drive and some other equipment, I'm getting ready to buy my first serious _digital_ SLR. I still have my three Nikons (F2, F2s, Nikkormat EL), although two of those are probably going to go. So I was trying to decide between the D300 and the Canon 40D... and the D300 has an edge.

I just found out that a co-worker is a closet shutterbug and she has a D200 along with the 18-200 zoom, so I asked her to bring it in so I can get some feel for that lens. I've heard mixed reviews on it. Some say its the ultimate walk-around shoot anything lens, and others say its too dim to be useful. She's had it for almost a year and she loves it.

[erichlund]

Well as someone who just sold off a half dozen vintage Nikon lenses, a motor drive and some other equipment, I'm getting ready to buy my first serious _digital_ SLR. I still have my three Nikons (F2, F2s, Nikkormat EL), although two of those are probably going to go. So I was trying to decide between the D300 and the Canon 40D... and the D300 has an edge.

I just found out that a co-worker is a closet shutterbug and she has a D200 along with the 18-200 zoom, so I asked her to bring it in so I can get some feel for that lens. I've heard mixed reviews on it. Some say its the ultimate walk-around shoot anything lens, and others say its too dim to be useful. She's had it for almost a year and she loves it.

The truth, as usual, is somewhere in between. I have this lens. I don't use it as much as I used to, because I have better quality lenses everywhere in its range except 56-69mm. However, it's still the best 18-200 walk around lens made. I keep it for when I only want to take the camera and one lens, and leave the bag at home.

There are times that my 17-55 f/2.8 DX is too dim to be useful also. It's harder to reach that state, but it is possible. And, for static objects, you can take up to 4 stops off the camera because of the VR. Not any good for action, but for static objects, f/5.6 equates to f/1.4 for hand holdability, though not depth of field. Four stops off of f/3.5 is like f/0.9.

[fionndruinne]

The 18-200mm VR is a great lens - its usefulness depends on what you use it for. It's not very good for indoors, but if you're shooting outdoors in mostly good light, it's great.

Well-built too, though the focus ring was a little stiffer than I like it on the one I tried.

Besides, usable ISO 3200 on the D300 may just make low-light lenses less of a priority.

[TexasAg03]

But, that is not a native ISO, which means that the camera is basically an ISO 200 to 3200 camera that can be extended by signal amplification to 100 and 6400. This is not news. The only thing different from the D70 on the low end is the D70 did not have such a simple way to get to 100, though you could, of course, use a full stop negative EV. After all, that's all the camera is doing when you set it on Lo 1.0.

I know ISO 100 is not native on the D300 and I never said it was. Someone asked why it didn't have ISO 100 and I answered that question. Once again, Nikon sets the lowest native ISO at the point where the sensor gives the best image quality (this is according to Nikon).

Also, using a full stop of negative EV has the same effect as increasing the ISO, not decreasing. If you want the same effect as decreasing the ISO, you would expose with +1.0 EV and then adjust the exposure -1.0 EV in PP.

On the high end, if you wanted to get ISO 6400 you would set the ISO to 3200 and expose at -1.0 EV giving you a one stop increase in shutter speed (I assume this is the desired effect - for example 1/250 becomes 1/500). In PP, you would adjust the exposure +1.0 EV.

[erichlund]

I know ISO 100 is not native on the D300 and I never said it was. Someone asked why it didn't have ISO 100 and I answered that question. Once again, Nikon sets the lowest native ISO at the point where the sensor gives the best image quality (this is according to Nikon).

Also, using a full stop of negative EV has the same effect as increasing the ISO, not decreasing. If you want the same effect as decreasing the ISO, you would expose with +1.0 EV and then adjust the exposure -1.0 EV in PP.

On the high end, if you wanted to get ISO 6400 you would set the ISO to 3200 and expose at -1.0 EV giving you a one stop increase in shutter speed (I assume this is the desired effect - for example 1/250 becomes 1/500). In PP, you would adjust the exposure +1.0 EV.

You're right, my bad. I still get confused using EV for other than basic EV adjustments.

My original point was that there are a lot of people who want a native ISO 100, and they are not getting that with the D300. So if the 40D goes from ISO 100 to 1600 and the Nikon goes from ISO 200 to 3200 (+ hi 1.0 = IS0 6400, + Lo 1.0 = ISO 100), what Nikon has really done is tuned the camera toward the high ISO end, sacrificing some of the low ISO range. I don't know if this is totally true, but one could contend that this is an ISO 100 to 1600 sensor that has been retuned to work best in the range 200 to 3200. So they haven't really expanded the range of the sensor, they just shifted it.

Nikon gives you back the ISO 100 with some amplification tricks, but at a slightly reduced image quality. I suspect it's still pretty good, but that's not the same as getting better image quality every time you lower your ISO setting. That is what is going to sell a lot of ND1 filters.

Now, Nikon also gives the bonus ISO 6400, but as Hi 1.0, and we all know that when Nikon says the ISO Hi is not optimum, they REALLY mean it. I can attest to that on my D200.

[tcadwall]

Nikon gives you back the ISO 100 with some amplification tricks, but at a slightly reduced image quality. I suspect it's still pretty good, but that's not the same as getting better image quality every time you lower your ISO setting. That is what is going to sell a lot of ND1 filters.

?!?!
ISO 200 will not produce any visible noise. It happens to be the sweet spot. Correct me please if I am wrong, but
1) getting to ISO100 would require that the signal be reduced, not amplified.
2) ISO100 would serve as one less stop of exposure than ISO200 - how often would you need this stop? I mean - if you can shoot a white rabbit in a snow-drift - ISO 100 rather than ISO200 might actually allow you to drop the DOF just a tad for you? Is there some other reason you would want it?

I guess what I mean by #2 is really - how important is ISO100 - and what situations do you find yourself saying... "Dang, I wish I had ISO100 right now"

[erichlund]

Note: I bring this up as an issue, but it's not a buy or no buy issue for me. It's just that you do have to think of these things. What do I lose for what I gain? Is it worth it?


?!?!
ISO 200 will not produce any visible noise. It happens to be the sweet spot. Correct me please if I am wrong, but
1) getting to ISO100 would require that the signal be reduced, not amplified.

I don't particularly care how. I just know that if it's not in the native range of the sensor, then they have to fake it, and that always means that it won't be as good as native. How big is the drop. Haven't seen the review yet.

2) ISO100 would serve as one less stop of exposure than ISO200 - how often would you need this stop? I mean - if you can shoot a white rabbit in a snow-drift - ISO 100 rather than ISO200 might actually allow you to drop the DOF just a tad for you? Is there some other reason you would want it?

It's a lot of little things.

At ISO 200, shutter speed is faster, which affects flash power (Remember, your D70s has that electronic shutter so it can do 1/500 sync, the D300 is purely mechanical, so 1/250 is the highest sync). Once you go above the sync speed, you get into high speed sync, where you start trading power for shutter speed.

It's one stop faster, which makes it harder to achieve a desired low shutter speed at a given aperture. With native ISO 200, it's easier to stop the water in the fountain, but it's harder to show the motion.

There's also a "relative" issue. If I start at ISO 100, and I need to bump ISO, I have three stops before I get to 800. With a native 200, I only have 2 stops, so ISO 1600 now has to be as good as my old ISO 800, just to give me the same relative movement. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. We haven't seen that review yet. Then, because it's a relative thing, if they are saying we have a one+ stop advantage, I now want ISO 3200 to be nearly as good as ISO 800, so I can have 4 stops relative to my starting point before noise gets out of control. Of course, you could always say the absolutes are more important.

Also, if you are going to use ND filters, you should buy the very expensive ones or expect several negatives including ghosting, CA, and color shifts.

I guess what I mean by #2 is really - how important is ISO100 - and what situations do you find yourself saying... "Dang, I wish I had ISO100 right now"

Bright, backlit sunlight, taking a humongous group photo with fill flash.

You may never run into the problem. OTOH, there are people that would run into the problem all the time, because what they do puts them in situations that this has an impact on.

Think of this: Remember Kodachrome 25? When was the last time you shot at ISO 25? That's three stops below your D70s. Would it be nice to have the control to go that low. Yes, for some, it would. The only way to get there is with ND filters, and how many stops of ND filter can you use before you cannot achieve autofocus. Hey, that's cool, we've now found a way to turn a D300 into a big, heavy D40! :cool::eek: Okay, it's a bit over the top, but you get the idea.

[XaiLo]

I don't get the D40 reference? The inference yes! Over the top and uncalled for... agreed! Yet it is readily understood that shooting in harse sunlight is a recipe for disaster. As for Kodachrome 25 how many photogs ran around with this in there kit as a standard practice?

[erichlund]

I don't get the D40 reference?

With enough neutral density filters, it won't autofocus. Just like a D40 with a non AF-S lens. That was the only point.

The inference yes! Over the top and uncalled for... agreed! Yet it is readily understood that shooting in harse sunlight is a recipe for disaster. As for Kodachrome 25 how many photogs ran around with this in there kit as a standard practice?

I got my Canon A-1 in 1981. Some of us are old enough to remember and even have used Kodachrome 25. My dad used it a lot more than I did, because I wasn't really into slides. It was very popular because, unlike negative film, it was nearly grain free and color really popped. OTOH, it was slooooooooooow. ;)

[XaiLo]

Sorry I was having post cold war flashbacks... I'm OK now. lol 99% sure I fit into the old enough bracket just never had an occassion or at least I don't remember having used it. And I shot mostly outdoors back in those day I started back in highschool that was a few years before you got your canon. I started out with a Konica. It produced some really nice pictures. :)

[K1W1]

I also did use Kodachrome 25 once or twice in the early 1980's when I needed to get some slide shots for various things.

[tcadwall]

With a native 200, I only have 2 stops, so ISO 1600 now has to be as good as my old ISO 800, just to give me the same relative movement.
I don't think that is quite accurate. ISO 1600 is still ISO 1600. That is a standard. It isn't a numbers game based on where you start. It is a measurable sensitivity - in the case of film, it had to do with the chemical sensitivity to light - in the case of Digital it is simply a relative number that correlates to that chemical sensitivity. The way I read your above statement would be like saying that film producer 'A' produces an ISO 800 that is the same sensitivity as film producer 'B's ISO 1600. That just isn't the way the standard works.


Bright, backlit sunlight, taking a humongous group photo with fill flash. This sounds like a poor choice of location, and if it is that big of a group, CLS and 2 flashes / umbrella will likely be a better solution than ISO100 regardless if it is native or 'faked'.


I don't particularly care how. I just know that if it's not in the native range of the sensor, then they have to fake it, and that always means that it won't be as good as native. How big is the drop. Haven't seen the review yet.
Ok... you do realize that every ISO on a digital camera is 'faked' right? There is an analog signal that is being processed (converted to digital). That analog signal is amplified to reach the ISO chosen. ISO is a standard, therefore it is quite doubtful that there happens to be a perfectly 'native' sensor for ANY given ISO. The whole idea is REALLY about 'how', 'why', 'what'.... Not understanding what is going on, really does affect whether you can determine how it will affect you.

I think the way this is going, ISO 200 is the closest value to 'non-amplified' for the D300. This means that there should be the smallest (maybe not measurable) amount of amplification noise present at this ISO. In order to go to ISO 100 then, the sensitivity must be cut. I am not sure if this is an analog resisitance or whether they are doing it post conversion to digital. If it is post conversion to digital, then it makes sense that they are saying it isn't 'really' an ISO100.... But then again, we are using a calibrated value that really applies to a chemical process, but we are applying it to a digital process.

I do understand how ISO 100 would be different in exposure, I am just saying that the situations where you would really need to go lower than ISO 200 (since it is extremely clean anyway) would really be few and far between. Most of us wont ever care.

[erichlund]

I don't think that is quite accurate. ISO 1600 is still ISO 1600. That is a standard. It isn't a numbers game based on where you start. It is a measurable sensitivity - in the case of film, it had to do with the chemical sensitivity to light - in the case of Digital it is simply a relative number that correlates to that chemical sensitivity. The way I read your above statement would be like saying that film producer 'A' produces an ISO 800 that is the same sensitivity as film producer 'B's ISO 1600. That just isn't the way the standard works.

I'm not saying they would be the same sensitivity. That's just shutterspeed for a given aperture, and if there is one thing that Nikon has always given us, it's accurate ISO (unlike Canon). I'm saying they should produce the same amount of noise. I should have the same number of options. Otherwise, I've given up ISO 100 for nothing. IOW, ISO 200 is my new ISO 100, and should be just as clean, or give me a better sensor. If that's the case, then ISO 400 becomes my new 200, 800 my new 400, 1600 my new 800, and 3200 my new 1600. I expect the camera to have the appropriate shutter speed and aperture at those ISOs, but I expect the noise to improve across the board, so that 3200 looks as good as or better than 1600 on my old camera.

This sounds like a poor choice of location, and if it is that big of a group, CLS and 2 flashes / umbrella will likely be a better solution than ISO100 regardless if it is native or 'faked'.

You cannot always put your subjects in the shade. I'd rather have them looking at me with their eyes wide open than squinting with the sun in their eyes. This is a VERY common technique. Even we amateurs use it. And, no matter how much equipment you throw at it, the situation still requires more power than if you had ISO 100 available. More equipment just means more money. You can't always assume that it's a pro taking the shot, and you can't always assume the person can just throw money at the situation.


Ok... you do realize that every ISO on a digital camera is 'faked' right? There is an analog signal that is being processed (converted to digital). That analog signal is amplified to reach the ISO chosen. ISO is a standard, therefore it is quite doubtful that there happens to be a perfectly 'native' sensor for ANY given ISO. The whole idea is REALLY about 'how', 'why', 'what'.... Not understanding what is going on, really does affect whether you can determine how it will affect you.

You can call it what you like, but there is a native range that Nikon considers acceptable results under the ISO standard and there are those extended options that Nikon gives you but doesn't recommend (They even say so in the manual). With the D70, they didn't even include the option to use Lo 1.0, so, with the D300, at least you have that. But, it's still outside what Nikon will publish as normal acceptable results, or they would have given it to you as ISO 100, not as Lo 1.0.

I think the way this is going, ISO 200 is the closest value to 'non-amplified' for the D300. This means that there should be the smallest (maybe not measurable) amount of amplification noise present at this ISO. In order to go to ISO 100 then, the sensitivity must be cut. I am not sure if this is an analog resisitance or whether they are doing it post conversion to digital. If it is post conversion to digital, then it makes sense that they are saying it isn't 'really' an ISO100.... But then again, we are using a calibrated value that really applies to a chemical process, but we are applying it to a digital process.

My understanding, from what others have said about Lo 1.0, is that you lose about a stop of dynamic range and have some increased noise/image degradation, though not a lot.

I do understand how ISO 100 would be different in exposure, I am just saying that the situations where you would really need to go lower than ISO 200 (since it is extremely clean anyway) would really be few and far between. Most of us wont ever care.

Those of us that are used to ISO 100 will care. That's my point.

[tcadwall]

LOL! we have gotten off topic, sorry.

The most common reason for using the lowest ISO available is because it is clean. If ISO 200 is not as clean as the predecessors ISO 100 then there would definitely be a problem. Most other things can be dealt with. You don't have to use multiple flashes, use some reflectors utilizing the available sun - those don't cost an arm and leg and often produce great results. Many pros and non-pros do understand some basics about reflecting light, and many products can be had cheap or made for next to free.

I just feel like it isn't as big of a deal as it might seem.

I don't think that it is reasonable - although it might be the case - for one to expect ISO3200 to look better or as good as ISO1600 on its predecessor. However, you can rightly expect the ISO1600 to look better than ISO1600 on the predecessor. To use the measurement as a scale of how many stops, I feel is not really appropriate. U lose your ISO 100, your ISO1600 looks cleaner than it used to. ISO3200 is available... etc. You take a loss on one end you have a gain on the other. Which would you rather have. I think that most of us would gladly give up ISO 100 for cleaner ISO 1600. Even pro's would like that. It would mean that in situations where their 70-200 VR lens still doesn't get enough light for the indoor sports they are shooting, the photo would still be better because of the High ISO performance increase.

And I am not assuming that the user is a pro, but the user either has money to throw at it, or has chosen a better lens rather than the body. We are talking about the 2nd highest product line in the family with a close to $2k pricetag. It doesn't MEAN the user has the money, but it certainly suggests that either they do, or they should already have plenty of equipment, or they maybe didn't make the best purchase choice.

So I guess we obviously have different opinions... Don't hate on me for it.:D
It seems to me, higher sensitivity (or less noise at matching higher ISO's) is much more powerful for the user. You can easily stop down a lens, but you can't open it further than its limits. And there are more cases where most of us are fighting slow shutter speed than cases where we are trying to slow down shutterspeed.

Maybe we should run a poll
ISO 100 as clean as ISO 200
vs
Cleaner Higher ISO's

That would be a different thread.... Cheers...