Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 29 Sep 2008 (Monday) 23:41
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Not impressed with Nikon D300 & 17-55 ISO

 
mchong75
Goldmember
2,927 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Frisco, TX
     
Sep 29, 2008 23:41 |  #1

Ok guys, long story short, I sold few of my Canon gears to try the Nikon.

Not so sure if I made the right choice, but the ISO from the D300 & 17-55mm on low light above 1000 and up is HORRIBLE. Not sure if it's just something I'm doing wrong. (Camera settings)

I still kept the Canon 40D and 17-55mm IS. Here are some comparison photos. 40D at ISO 1000 is still bad IMO but much better than D300. ??? ???

- All photos were taken in the same lighting condition.
- Tripod was used.
- Focal 55mm
- Manual shots
- All shots f/2.8
- The WB was set to AUTO
- Shutter Speed 1/30


1) Nikon D300 & 17-55 ISO1000

IMAGE: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3197/2900341017_ca6e97163d_b.jpg

1) Canon 40D & 17-55 ISO1000
IMAGE: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3150/2901173166_71e65674ec_b.jpg

2) Nikon D300 & 17-55 ISO1250
IMAGE: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3135/2901185384_ca198a2c1d_b.jpg

2) Canon 40D & 17-55 ISO1250
IMAGE: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3019/2900333883_f1ecd6b257_b.jpg

3) Nikon D300 & 17-55 ISO1600
IMAGE: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3214/2900343561_fdbcde3fcc_b.jpg

3) Canon 40D & 17-55 ISO1600
IMAGE: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3034/2900337927_28789a9e7c_b.jpg

(Michael) Gears:
5D MK III / Grip (2) | Canon 24-70L II | Canon 17-40L | Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS Mark II | 600EX-RT (2) | ST-E3-RT | PCB Einstein (2) | Pocket Wizard Plus III (4) | PCB 47" Octobox | Vagabond Mini | Kacey Beauty dish | Lee ND, GND & Big Stopper | Lastolite 24" x 24" | Gitzo 3541LS tripod | Markins Q20 w/ RRS B2 LR II | Sigma 35 Art | 85L II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
flareak
Member
Avatar
182 posts
Joined Jul 2007
     
Sep 29, 2008 23:44 |  #2

what kind of metering are you using. are they at the same shutter speed? if not then you should re-do it.
one thing to notice is that the nikon has better white balance


What is L? Oh baby don't hurt me... don't hurt me... no more
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mchong75
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,927 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Frisco, TX
     
Sep 29, 2008 23:48 |  #3

flareak wrote in post #6407483 (external link)
what kind of metering are you using. are they at the same shutter speed? if not then you should re-do it.
one thing to notice is that the nikon has better white balance

Shutter Speed 1/30 on all photos


(Michael) Gears:
5D MK III / Grip (2) | Canon 24-70L II | Canon 17-40L | Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS Mark II | 600EX-RT (2) | ST-E3-RT | PCB Einstein (2) | Pocket Wizard Plus III (4) | PCB 47" Octobox | Vagabond Mini | Kacey Beauty dish | Lee ND, GND & Big Stopper | Lastolite 24" x 24" | Gitzo 3541LS tripod | Markins Q20 w/ RRS B2 LR II | Sigma 35 Art | 85L II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jaybird
perverted infatuation with ducks
810 posts
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, Canada
     
Sep 29, 2008 23:56 |  #4

The nikon is definitely less yellow from the tungsten lights. It would be nice to have the exif data in the pictures. They may have all been at 1/30, but the apertures would not have been the same. The exposure is not the same between them. You would need to put the cameras in Manual, set the ISO, shutter speed, and diaphragm so that both cameras have the same settings.


¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯​¯¯¯¯
Money Pit / Gear List
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jasonjoyce (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
xMClass
Goldmember
2,203 posts
Joined Jun 2008
Location: California
     
Sep 29, 2008 23:57 |  #5

Nikon.. LOL.

All I have to say.


-Mikey

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mchong75
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,927 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Frisco, TX
     
Sep 29, 2008 23:58 |  #6

jaybird wrote in post #6407520 (external link)
The nikon is definitely less yellow from the tungsten lights. It would be nice to have the exif data in the pictures. They may have all been at 1/30, but the apertures would not have been the same. The exposure is not the same between them. You would need to put the cameras in Manual, set the ISO, shutter speed, and diaphragm so that both cameras have the same settings.

Both camera was set on manual with all the same settings throughout ISO 1000 to 1600.

Shutter speed, ISO, Aperture, Focal lenght


(Michael) Gears:
5D MK III / Grip (2) | Canon 24-70L II | Canon 17-40L | Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS Mark II | 600EX-RT (2) | ST-E3-RT | PCB Einstein (2) | Pocket Wizard Plus III (4) | PCB 47" Octobox | Vagabond Mini | Kacey Beauty dish | Lee ND, GND & Big Stopper | Lastolite 24" x 24" | Gitzo 3541LS tripod | Markins Q20 w/ RRS B2 LR II | Sigma 35 Art | 85L II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mchong75
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,927 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Frisco, TX
     
Sep 30, 2008 00:03 |  #7

MClassPhotography wrote in post #6407523 (external link)
Nikon.. LOL.

All I have to say.


I know :confused:


(Michael) Gears:
5D MK III / Grip (2) | Canon 24-70L II | Canon 17-40L | Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS Mark II | 600EX-RT (2) | ST-E3-RT | PCB Einstein (2) | Pocket Wizard Plus III (4) | PCB 47" Octobox | Vagabond Mini | Kacey Beauty dish | Lee ND, GND & Big Stopper | Lastolite 24" x 24" | Gitzo 3541LS tripod | Markins Q20 w/ RRS B2 LR II | Sigma 35 Art | 85L II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sadatk
Goldmember
Avatar
1,392 posts
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Atlanta
     
Sep 30, 2008 00:08 |  #8

are you shooting raw or jpeg? active d lighting?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
picturecrazy
soft-hearted weenie-boy
Avatar
8,565 posts
Likes: 708
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Alberta, CANADA
     
Sep 30, 2008 00:10 |  #9

those shots are all really underexposed and are therefore not ideal conditions to test under... unless you are specifically comparing them for when you flub up the exposure.


-Lloyd
The BOUDOIR - Edmonton Intimate Boudoir Photography (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Studio Family Baby Child Maternity Wedding Photographers (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Headshot Photographers (external link)
Facebook (external link) | Twitter (external link) |Instagram (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Fabrian
Senior Member
Avatar
578 posts
Joined Feb 2004
Location: Holbrook, Long Island NY
     
Sep 30, 2008 00:25 as a reply to  @ picturecrazy's post |  #10

Yep, exposure isn't the same for those shots - and that's the only thing I could say for sure. You should have spot metered both of them.. I'd go 1600 and spot meter. I certainly wouldn't say the D300 is horrible, in fact it's damn good.


Brian
Full gear list & Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
basroil
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,015 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2006
Location: STL/Clayton, MO| NJ
     
Sep 30, 2008 00:41 |  #11

Even if the exposure got screwed up by accident, I really doubt that the AF was also screwed up. In every "d300" shot, the focus isn't actually on anything. Very odd considering that there were bright lights on the panel and the 40d with less than a dozen points got focus spot on...


I don't hate macs or OSX, I hate people and statements that portray them as better than anything else. Macs are A solution, not THE solution. Get a good desktop i7 with Windows 7 and come tell me that sucks for photo or video editing.
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mchong75
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,927 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Frisco, TX
     
Sep 30, 2008 00:42 |  #12

sadatk wrote in post #6407559 (external link)
are you shooting raw or jpeg? active d lighting?

shot JPEG and Active D lighting is set at NORMAL


(Michael) Gears:
5D MK III / Grip (2) | Canon 24-70L II | Canon 17-40L | Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS Mark II | 600EX-RT (2) | ST-E3-RT | PCB Einstein (2) | Pocket Wizard Plus III (4) | PCB 47" Octobox | Vagabond Mini | Kacey Beauty dish | Lee ND, GND & Big Stopper | Lastolite 24" x 24" | Gitzo 3541LS tripod | Markins Q20 w/ RRS B2 LR II | Sigma 35 Art | 85L II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nightcrawler
Senior Member
Avatar
685 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2004
Location: Omaha, NE
     
Sep 30, 2008 00:42 |  #13

One things for sure, the 40D looks more sensitive at a given ISO.



Jason - Gear - Site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mchong75
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,927 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Frisco, TX
     
Sep 30, 2008 00:44 |  #14

basroil wrote in post #6407688 (external link)
Even if the exposure got screwed up by accident, I really doubt that the AF was also screwed up. In every "d300" shot, the focus isn't actually on anything. Very odd considering that there were bright lights on the panel and the 40d with less than a dozen points got focus spot on...

The AF on the 40D was 100% on first time but the D300 took couple of times before it even AF.


(Michael) Gears:
5D MK III / Grip (2) | Canon 24-70L II | Canon 17-40L | Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS Mark II | 600EX-RT (2) | ST-E3-RT | PCB Einstein (2) | Pocket Wizard Plus III (4) | PCB 47" Octobox | Vagabond Mini | Kacey Beauty dish | Lee ND, GND & Big Stopper | Lastolite 24" x 24" | Gitzo 3541LS tripod | Markins Q20 w/ RRS B2 LR II | Sigma 35 Art | 85L II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Fabrian
Senior Member
Avatar
578 posts
Joined Feb 2004
Location: Holbrook, Long Island NY
     
Sep 30, 2008 00:45 |  #15

mchong75 wrote in post #6407696 (external link)
shot JPEG and Active D lighting is set at NORMAL

Ok, but what was yourmeter set to? I'll go with 3D.. I'd also turn off active-D.

basroil wrote in post #6407688 (external link)
Even if the exposure got screwed up by accident, I really doubt that the AF was also screwed up. In every "d300" shot, the focus isn't actually on anything. Very odd considering that there were bright lights on the panel and the 40d with less than a dozen points got focus spot on...

FWIW, the 40D doesn't AF nearly as good as the D300. That test needs a re-do.


Brian
Full gear list & Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,689 views & 0 likes for this thread
Not impressed with Nikon D300 & 17-55 ISO
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is larawink
728 guests, 202 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.