S5 vs D300

[Oz_Beachside]

Anyone seen, or performed a comparison between the S5 and the D300 from an ISO or undesirable noise point of view?

[johnd]

A darn good question Bruce. Likewise S5 vs D3 from an ISO, noise and dynamic range perspective?

[trotkiller]

Well I have a S5, buy me a D300 and I will be happy to compare the two

Edit: Actually if any of the Sydney D300 users want to get together and do some test shots just pm me

[Onyx]

The Chuck Norrisof Photography, bastion of infalliable knowledge that he is, seems to illustrate there to be little difference between the high ISO noise output of the D300 and the D200. It is his opinion that the observed differences can be accounted for by software trickery - a revised noise reduction algorithm employed in the newer model (which also has the undesired side effect of erasing detail).

The Fuji sensors have been renouned for their lack of noise. Emprical measurements by the most fastidious of pixel peepers (Mr Phil Askey) has consistently shown the Fuji's to have a much lower noise floor than even the upper echelon Canons.

I would therefore conclude that the S5 would have more favourable low light performance of the S5 vs D300 pair.

I was unable to test the 14 bit raw mode of the D300 during the consumer launch day, as the clown in the NPS suit did not have sufficient knowledge of the product his company was trying to push to be able to enable this mode in the camera, however I suspect the Fuji may hold the trumpcard for image quality title, based on previous Fuji bodies compared with previous Nikon ones.

[marcotrov]

Don't know if this has been seen but it seems pretty impressive when comparing the D300 V the S5
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=25709309
cheers
marco

[gstark]

It is his opinion that the observed differences can be accounted for by software trickery - a revised noise reduction algorithm employed in the newer model (which also has the undesired side effect of erasing detail).

That may well be the case. I'm hoping that I'll have some comparative images to post later today, having shot the D200 side by side with the new, all-singing, all-dancing D300 last Wednesday evening under some very poor lighting conditions.

Y'all can then judge for yourselves on that aspect.

However, to simply write the changes off as software trickery does seem a bit .... harsh ... given that the D300 has a CMOS sensor, which is very different technology from the sensor used in the D200.

I was unable to test the 14 bit raw mode of the D300 during the consumer launch day, as the clown in the NPS suit did not have sufficient knowledge of the product his company was trying to push to be able to enable this mode in the camera,

It's a simple menu setting, as you might expect.

I've done some shooting in this mode, and the file sizes are somewhat bigger and with just the standard battery, performance is somewhat impacted. None of this is a surprise, it is documented in the big book, and it's to be expected.

My understanding of what the 14 bit processing does is that it gives you a higher resolution base upon which you may build your PP adjustments. I have yet to see how the 14 but processing works at a practical level, and for me (aiming for minimal PP) so this is something that I'll reserve for future evaluation.

Jeff, if you want to get together for a shoot, please let me know.

And I will have the D300 at the Sydney dinner next weekend.