Onyx wrote: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.