Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Nikon D300 reviewed!!

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Thincat
Thincat  7616 forum posts
5 Dec 2007 - 9:42 AM


Quote: Not true. If it is '9K pixels' then it is double the resolution of the Canon 40D's unit.

If it is '9k dots' then it is still better than the Canon one, but not double the resolution.

I thought it was well spotted by Duncan.

This is positively my final word on this subject as it's getting boring.

There seems to be some confusion about the meaning of dots and pixels. A 12M pixel camera has 12M light detectors. If it's a Bayer pattern sensor then that means there are 3M photo-sites capable of representing all the colours. So a pixel is used to mean a detector that can represent only R, G or B.

In the case of LCDs a different specification method is used. For example, in a 1920X1080 HD LCD, each of the 2M "dots" can represent the full range of colours - not just R,G or B or the picture would be pretty low definition.

Because of this confusion in terms Sony used the phrase "921k dots" to describe its LCD. Nikon seem to use the word pixel. The bottom line, though, is that they're the same LCD and it has 4 times the number of "dots/pixels/whatever you like to call it" than the 40D. It has DOUBLE the resolution - end of story. One look at the thing should be enough to make that fairly clear.

If you look at the relative specs of the various SOny/Minolta cameras, the 5D had 115k dots, the 7D had 235k (in common with most DSLRs), but the A700 has 921k - NOT 307K. That's double the resolution. That's why you can use the LCD to check focus - you'd think the reviewer might have noticed that.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
5 Dec 2007 - 9:42 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

strawman
strawman  1022010 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
5 Dec 2007 - 9:51 AM


Quote: That's why you can use the LCD to check focus

You can do that on all the cameras, except that in the Sony it can only do it after the shot has been taken.

Stick the 40D into live view and you can check focus no problem. The problem it has is post shot review, and I am told this is due to the embeded JPEG resolution. A work around if you shoot RAW is to turn up the picture style sharpness.

So do the Sony and Nikon have better screens, yes. Does it impact on the ability to use Liveview (where fitted) no.

But then give the Canon is over £300 lower in cost than the others there must be a few compromises Smile

MattGrayson
5 Dec 2007 - 10:38 AM

Check out my next thread where I open a real can of worms... Wink

IanA
IanA  113048 forum posts England12 Constructive Critique Points
5 Dec 2007 - 10:53 AM


Quote: Stick the 40D into live view and you can check focus no problem. The problem it has is post shot review

With the D300 you can check focus both pre and post shot no problem! Wink
In fact, you can zoom in to an incredible level of detail. Oh, and it autofocusses in LV too! Wink

Ian

Busseauboy
5 Dec 2007 - 1:20 PM

I need advice again! Currently I am a satisfied user of D200 from which my RAW images come out at 15.8 MB or so, 12 bit. Having downloaded they become 16 bit TIFFs at 57 plus MBs.

However an agency I am with (not sure whether they work for me or me for them!) are now asking for 8 bit TIFFs at over 30MB but, of course mine are, at best, 28 plus MB.

Now, looking at the D300 spec it seems to me with 12.2 pixel sensor that will provide me with at least 70MB TIFFs after converting from RAW at 16 bits, therefore at 8 bits they will be 35MB. Is this correct??

I really need some justification to upgrade to the D300 - could this be it?

I am hopeful that one of you technical wizards can answer my question. I am simply a camera user!

Regards

**** M.

mattw
mattw  105189 forum posts United Kingdom10 Constructive Critique Points
5 Dec 2007 - 1:25 PM


Quote: Because of this confusion in terms Sony used the phrase "921k dots" to describe its LCD. Nikon seem to use the word pixel.

In color LCDs each individual pixel has three cells (or dots?), one for red, green, and blue respecively.

If Sony mean '921K pixels, why dont they say that - and why clarify 'dots' rather than 'pixels'?

Without looking at the design specs for this unit, we cannot be sure about Sony's termonilogy here.

Helpful Post! This post was flagged as helpful
mattw
mattw  105189 forum posts United Kingdom10 Constructive Critique Points
5 Dec 2007 - 1:31 PM


Quote: Now, looking at the D300 spec it seems to me with 12.2 pixel sensor that will provide me with at least 70MB TIFFs after converting from RAW at 16 bits, therefore at 8 bits they will be 35MB. Is this correct??

Sounds about right. My (12.7MP) 5D produces 36 MB 8bit Tiffs

Quote:
However an agency I am with (not sure whether they work for me or me for them!) are now asking for 8 bit TIFFs at over 30MB but, of course mine are, at best, 28 plus MB.

You could increase the size of the image in Photoshop. An extra 2 MB sould not be a big increase.

However of course - if you start cropping your images, the extra size if the 300D's images could start to be a help.

MattGrayson
5 Dec 2007 - 2:50 PM


Quote:
However of course - if you start cropping your images, the extra size if the 300D's images could start to be a help.

I think the 300D was discontinued by Canon a while ago. Wink

mattw
mattw  105189 forum posts United Kingdom10 Constructive Critique Points
5 Dec 2007 - 3:46 PM


Quote: I think the 300D was discontinued by Canon a while ago.

But it will make a fine upgrade from the D200 Wink

strawman
strawman  1022010 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
5 Dec 2007 - 4:17 PM


Quote: Check out my next thread where I open a real can of worms...

Sounds good, where is it?

ghibby
ghibby e2 Member 8100 forum postsghibby vcard United Kingdom
5 Dec 2007 - 5:19 PM

This confusion on the LCD is hilarious! it just goes to show how the marketing for all of this has worked so well. The so called 921K dot LCD has an effective resolution of 307k pixels (ie 921/3 due to the RGB requirements), hardly double the resolution of the average 230k dot LCD we are all used too.

In an LCD the arrangement of pixels is side by side Red next to Green next to Blue. The eye cant resolve this detail at viewing distance and so the colour is reproduced correctly. Take a look at your computer monitor or camera LCD screen with a photo loupe to see this clearly.

What amazes me is the number of magazines who are not picking up on this and thus playing right into Nikon and Sonyís marketing depts hands.

One of the best bits of marketing hype I've seen around digital cameras. Hope this sets the record straight and makes a few of you feel a little daft for not questioning it

Ben

IanA
IanA  113048 forum posts England12 Constructive Critique Points
5 Dec 2007 - 5:56 PM

The definition of a pixel is a 'picture element' and as each dot is an element of the overall image shown on the screen, I feel justified in calling the LCD on the Nikon D300 a 922,000 pixel screen!
I have not, anywhere in the review, mentioned the resolution of that screen. The number of 'pixels' is not, and should not be used as, a measure of resolution!

Neither have I compared the screen on the D300 to any other screen with the exception of the D200, and there only to point out that it is bigger! There is an image to prove that!

It is certainly a lot easier to see than the screen on the D200 with my varifocal covered eyes!

Ian

MattGrayson
6 Dec 2007 - 9:39 AM

Hi,
Nikon have replied and said:
"the screen specification is measured in dots - as we have done with previous cameras".

I hope that alleviates some peoples concerns. Smile

keithh
keithh e2 Member 1023189 forum postskeithh vcard Wallis and Futuna33 Constructive Critique Points
6 Dec 2007 - 9:53 AM

Dots?

What, round dots, square dots, hexagonal dot? Are these dots related in anyway, do they have jobs, are they foreign dots and here to steal dot jobs off British Dots.

Are some of the dots celebrity dots and will this cause a fight when people discover that their dots contain C list dots while mine has several A listers.

just saying a dot is not enough.

ghibby
ghibby e2 Member 8100 forum postsghibby vcard United Kingdom
6 Dec 2007 - 10:57 AM

Kiethh I agree, dots is not enough, itís a meaningless number not directly comparable to the rest of the market.

You can all call them Dots if you like but other manufactures seem more focused on calling then pixels. If Nikon and Sony say their new LCD is a 921k dot screen then Canon, Pentax, Panasonic et al would be more than justified in calling their 230,000 PIXEL screens 690k DOT screens! If you donít want to quantify 921k dots as a resolution thatís just fine by me but then what do you propose the screens resolution to be?

I would suggest that the number of elements required to reproduce a pixel of any colour and brightness reproducible by the 8bit RGB specification to be the effective resolution. In the case of a 921k DOT screen this is 307k pixels. At least by labelling it this way it is comparable to other manufactures quoted resolutions, dots, pixels, whatever you like to cal them this week. Surely comparison to competing products is the most useful information to the consumer. It also just so happens that the 307k PIXEL screen is VGA resolution, i.e. 640x480 pixels, an accepted and useful specification of display resolution. if you are interested go and have a look at the DPreview website preview of the D3 and D300, it actually contains a correct discription of the screens specs..


Thus I would conclude that the so the 921k Dot screen is a load of old tosh shamelessly touted around by marketing depts to cause the kind of confusion that is apparent in this thread!

Last Modified By ghibby at 6 Dec 2007 - 10:59 AM

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.