D40x-->D300

Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
271
Location
IL
Over the past 8 months, I have been shooting away with my D40x and I feel that I have come close to out growing it. The logical step in my mind, and budget, is the D300. I do plenty of low light shooting, and ISO performance is important to me. There is a thread floating around on here now that compares the ISO perfomance of the D300 to the D3. Would anyone be able to give me a similar comparion between the D40x and D300? On my 40x, I feel that ISO400 starts to get a bit grainy for my taste. What ISO value is considered acceptable with the D300? If anyone could post some higher ISO samples from the D300, that would be greatly appreciated. Also, if anyone has made a similar upgrade, I would be very interested in you thoughts.

Thanks!!
Morgan
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
135
Location
Israel
I have both, just bought the D300 last week, so I can try... But ATM I don't have a steady tripod for my cameras...
anyway, I find the ISO 800 of the D300 very nice and the 1600 usable(well.. I wouldn't use it often, but it is way better than the D40x's 1600), and don't forget that the D300 offers you 1/3 ISO increments...
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
271
Location
IL
Thanks for the reply! After some use of the D300, I would love to hear some of your observations coming from the D40x.

Thanks again!

Morgan
 
Joined
May 5, 2008
Messages
123
Location
USA
Hello,

I also have a D40x, which I bought as a light-weight supplement to a D200. I completely agree with you in that I found the noise performance at ISO 400 to be marginal on both.

I recently sold the D200 and extensively tested a D300 against the D40x. My first and most important observation (for me) was that the noise of the D40x at base ISO (100) was clearly superior to that of the D300 at it's base ISO of 200. This disappointed me greatly, since I usually go for highest possible quality.

However, above this, considering equal ISO, the D300 is proportionally better. By ISO 800, I'd put it at about 2/3 stop better.

The sharpness of the two cameras is essentially equal. Don't expect a resolution increase.

The bottom line is that the older CCD cameras (D40x, D200, etc.) are superior at their base ISO of 100, while the D300 is better at higher ISO's, with most of the improvement coming at the higher-end of the ISO spectrum.

If you primarily shoot at base ISO because you want the lowest possible noise, and you want a more professional body, consider a new or used D200. Get a D300 if you want its significantly improved handling, etc., and expect to use higher ISO's frequently.

Be aware that the D300 is a MUCH heavier and bulkier camera than your D40x! If size and weight are important to you, you may find the expected D90 (D80 replacement) to be a good compromise.

Best of luck.
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
135
Location
Israel
Another note, I have had the D300 for almost two weeks now and I still can't get the skin tones right at high ISOs (400 and above...)(yea well I shoot JPEG, and the AWB isn't that reliable so it does effect the results... but generally I yet to find settings of colors that works well at lowlight...)

@grepmat, the D40x is better at ISO 100, but it's so negligible most of the time...
 
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Messages
166
Location
Sacramento
I would love to see these shots comparing the D40's ISO 100 performance to the D300's.

Anyway, as the question was the high ISO performance of the D300, I would just get the D300. Unless every reviewer is lying, you are not going to be dissatisfied by the DTripleZeroes ability to smash it up at 1600/3200.
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom