Amazon Music Unlimited Offer: 1-Month For FREE!

Nikon D300 reviewed!!


cambirder 17 7.2k England
6 Dec 2007 11:11AM
This is all rather dotty. This is pure marketing BS (rather like the oxymoron "macro zoom lens")

For clarity in future reviews dots should be ignored and we should stick to pixels.
JJGEE 16 7.9k 18 England
6 Dec 2007 11:19AM
I do not understand this debate but,
Does all this LCD dots / pixels, whatever, really matter at all ?
Surely it does not affect the quality of the image, just like the dust / scratches on my focussing screen / viewfinder does not affect my transparencies.
IanA 17 3.0k 12 England
6 Dec 2007 11:29AM

Quote:Does all this LCD dots / pixels, whatever, really matter at all ?


Not one iota! Like I said, its bigger and easier to use!

Keith, my Auntie Dot says you have a point! Wink
keithh 17 25.7k 33 Wallis And Futuna
6 Dec 2007 11:54AM
How's her job with Nikon going?
Wink
mattw 17 5.2k 10 United Kingdom
6 Dec 2007 11:59AM

Quote:Does all this LCD dots / pixels, whatever, really matter at all ?

It's more a point of interest really.

No one doubts that the screen on the D300 and A700 is better then the screen on the 40D - but how much better?

Nikon and Sony have certinally made a big play on the '921k' resolution of the screens, but if this is idividual colour cells rather than Pixels, we should take this into account when comparing to the Canon unit.

Seems like the best marketing coup since memory manufactures started to call 1000KB as 1MB (as opposed to 1024KB)
Thincat 13 616
7 Dec 2007 9:15AM

Quote: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.



You're the one that's confused.

Sony use the term "dots" to mean a LCD site capable of displaying R, G and B. They do this with their LCD TVs also. The term "pixel" is used - certainly in the digital camera world - to mean a photo-site capable of displaying only R,G OR B. That's why Sony use the term dots when describing an LCD.

The Sony A700, and the Nikon D300, have LCD screens that have 4 times the number dots/pixels or whatever you prefer to call them than the standard number used by most digital SLRs (A100, 40D, etc, etc). They have 921k of them whereas the rest of the cameras have 230k. I'll repeat it. That's 4 the standard number and gives DOUBLE THE RESOLUTION.

I hope that clears up the confusion.

If you look at the Dyxum specs at:

http://www.dyxum.com/gear/camera/index.asp

you'll see the relative LCD specs for the various SOny/Minolta cameras. They seem to use the term pixels, but basically the A100 (and the old 7D) have the standard resolution LCD. The A700 has double the resolution. Believe me, double the resolution makes quite a difference andeven a reviewer should normally spot it.
strawman 17 22.2k 16 United Kingdom
7 Dec 2007 10:15AM

Quote:Believe me, double the resolution makes quite a difference


On the D300 it looked a bit better than my 40D, but its not like I thought the 40D screen was that lacking in resolution. I guess it depends how far you are from the screen. and how much resolution do you need before it falls to the diminishing returns?

as I said the 40D image issues are related to how it stores the JPEG, and in live view, where you need it, its sharp enough.

And given the Sony lacks live view, screen resolution is not as important. The accuracy of the AF system becomes more important.
Thincat 13 616
7 Dec 2007 10:52AM
It's just a matter of getting things right. It's not satisfactory that the specifications are recorded wrongly because a reviewer divides the manufacturer's figure by 3 because of some confused logic about pixels and dots. Let's at least get the specs right and the reader can decide if it makes any difference or not.

Like it or not, Canon's next camera will have this resolution - it'll become the new standard. I personally think it's a vast improvement on the 235k LCDs. It's about time they put 921k EVFs in the prosumer cameras. The EVF might be of some use if they did.
mattw 17 5.2k 10 United Kingdom
7 Dec 2007 2:15PM

Quote:It's just a matter of getting things right. It's not satisfactory that the specifications are recorded wrongly because a reviewer divides the manufacturer's figure by 3 because of some confused logic about pixels and dots.

Well, DP review lists the specification of the D300 screen as '922,000 pixels (VGA; 640 x 480 x 3 colors)' For the record 640x480= 307200 - so it's not just EPZ who have spotted this.

Maybe EPZ and DPR are correct here?
Thincat 13 616
7 Dec 2007 3:36PM

Quote:Well, DP review lists the specification of the D300 screen as '922,000 pixels (VGA; 640 x 480 x 3 colors)' For the record 640x480= 307200 - so it's not just EPZ who have spotted this.



And they listed the D200 screen as 235,000 pixels (or tell me I'm wrong - but don't bother because I'm not) - just like the other Nikon cameras and the Canon cameras and every other DSLR except the D300 and the Sony A700.

They don't actually say what they mean by a pixel so you shouldn't put the stuff about VGA in quotes.


Quote:
Maybe EPZ and DPR are correct here?



DPR are correct. EPZ is wrong. Possibly Sony is wrong also. They describe their LCD as 921k dots, but it's probably not - it may be 921k pixels as most of the websites say. But the standard is 235k pixels so that 's still 4 times the current standard.

I think Sony have mis-specified the LCD when they refer to "dots". Nikon (and Dyxum) are correct calling it pixels. But that's just an argument about terminology. If EPZ were being logical they should have MULTIPLIED the number of dots (to arrive at pixels) by 3 - not divided by 3.

Anyway, one way or another, the D300 and the A700 have a stonking LCD with double the resolution of the rest of the DSLRs. Obviously this will be rubbished fairly comprehensively until Canon come up with the same thing - when it will be deemed to be de rigeur for all up-markey DSLRs - just like dust removers. My prediction: within 2 years Canon (and Nikon, following on) will have in-camera image stabilisation. Another prediction: The Hitman will beat Mayweather. I bloody hope so anyway - I have money riding on it.
strawman 17 22.2k 16 United Kingdom
7 Dec 2007 3:48PM

Quote:Obviously this will be rubbished fairly comprehensively until Canon come up with
No its just that its not a big issue, or at least I do not see it as such, and its a clear bit of PR over-hype. If the Sony had live view it might be a bigger issue. If the canon had more resolution would I be happy to take it yes. If I had to pay 300 to have it, no way. So high resolution screen nice, essential no. I expect all the next gen ones will have it, just like Sony are eventualy introducing USM equivalent motors and will have live view no doubt.

And if you are not using live view do you need the extra resolution, for me only for chimping. So its nice but not essential.

It's like all the compacts rushing to have 10mp, or 12mp sensors, when we all know that if they stuck at about 6mp and worked on noise reduction and dynamic range they would produce better pictures in low light conditions.

As for the in-camera IS, yes its good if the lens range is priced to match, thumbs up to Pentax. At the moment Nikon and Canon are producing lower cost IS lenses, now given the choice I would take IS lenses every time as you can see it in operation.

There are three cameras being discussed here in this thread, and depending on what you want you will pick one as being best. We know in terms of printed image that there is not a lot in it. So no need to have the chip on the shoulder.
hobbs Plus
16 1.3k Japan
7 Dec 2007 4:02PM
Bored now, its a miner detail that doesn't effect the pictures you take with it
mattw 17 5.2k 10 United Kingdom
7 Dec 2007 4:14PM

Quote:DPR are correct. EPZ is wrong

EPZ and DPR are saying the same thing.


Quote:My prediction: within 2 years Canon (and Nikon, following on) will have in-camera image stabilisation

Maybe, but both Canon and Nikon are now putting IS in their kit lenses now, so this is becoming less of an issue for them.


Quote:its a miner detail that doesn't effect the pictures you take with it

It is that Smile
strawman 17 22.2k 16 United Kingdom
7 Dec 2007 5:37PM
The thing that impresses me is go back 4 years and all you got for under 1,000 was a 300D and a Sigma SD9, and the D70 was just being launched.

Now look at the choice, and you could argue that the 350 cameras of today are better than those.
mattw 17 5.2k 10 United Kingdom
7 Dec 2007 5:49PM

Quote:The thing that impresses me is go back 4 years and all you got for under 1,000 was a 300D and a Sigma SD9, and the D70 was just being launched
this time 4 years ago the D70 was still some months away


Quote:Now look at the choice, and you could argue that the 350 cameras of today are better than those
350 today buys you a 350D (for example). Which apart from size was a good step forward from the 300D

4 years ago I paid 800 for a 300D - today I could get the 40D for the same. That is progress for you - although I cannot deny I got my moneys worth from the 300D

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.