dslr.ws

DPReview has posted a detailed hands-on preview of the new Nikon D300. They don’t look at image quality at all, since this is just a preview, but they do cover some important areas.

First, there’s the usual gushing over the high resolution 640×480 LCD screen:

Its super-fine pixel pitch means extremely detailed images in playback and live view, it delivers fine gradations and a smooth display with no visible gaps between pixels. This may sound like a marketing tag line but viewing images on the D300′s high resolution screen is far more photo-realistic and easier on the eye, a notable advantage is that in playback you don’t need to zoom into images as much to be sure of sharpness / focus accuracy as the extra resolution reveals this at lower magnification.

There’s also a side-by-side comparison of the D300′s LCD with the Canon 40D’s LCD, and it shows that the D300 has a clear advantage over the 40D. However, it’s not as huge of a difference as I was expecting. I’m not sure exactly what I was expecting, though.

They’re also very pleased with the live view implementation on the D300, calling it “one of the most usable and comprehensive to date.” When you combine the contract detection autofocus capability — which only Nikon has right now — with the high resolution LCD screen, it makes live view much more usable than on the competitors’ cameras.

A sports photographer who switched to Canon years ago had a chance to try out a Nikon D3 at a baseball game recently, and was absolutely blown away by it. He posted his thoughts over at the DPReview forums, here are some highlights:

• The camera “FEELS” great in your hand. The controls are really well placed (as they have been in most Nikon Cameras). The Auto focus was SPOT on and VERY VERY fast (even under night time baseball lighting)
• The image quality was BY FAR the BEST I HAVE EVER SEEN in a digital camera. The detail in the images was STUNNING.
• The camera was set for iso 2000 when it was handed to me, and I must be honest and say that they looked BETTER then the iso 800 I was shooting with my Canon Mark II. The color was pure and rich. Just for fun, I turned up the iso to 3200 and to my astonishment, it still looked BETTER then my 800 iso on my Mark II. Both in color and in noise.
• The noise is NOT ONLY very low, BUT, the quality of what noise there is (unlike the D2H) was pleasing. One of the problems I had with the D2H was not only the amount of noise, but the QUALITY of it.
• The tone range (dynamic range) seemed better then anything I’ve ever used
• The Auto-Focus was better then any Nikon or Canon I have ever used. I turned quickly and shot a player on the run in the outfield (it’s DARK OUT THERE) and fired away. It was spot on — tack sharp. How sharp you ask? well I cropped it down to about 15% of the image zoomed in, and I could see the threads on the players uniform. VERY VERY impressive.
• Finally, the level of detail that the camera captures goes FAR BEYOND anything I have ever experienced in ANY digital camera.

He finishes up by wondering if he might be switching back to Nikon some time in the near future.

There’s also a followup post from the second chance he had to shoot with the D3, this time during a daytime game:

• At night, at very high ISO the dynamic range was very good, BUT, after shooting it today, in bright sunlight, I was shocked at just how good it was.
• The autofocus was outstanding in daylight.
• The 600 lens was sharp, and it was nice to be able to shoot a pitcher with a 600 again. Shooting him with a 400 just doesn’t look the same. For those who don’t understand the difference, its really about depth of field and compression. The 600 looks much nicer, but I digress.
• The images had a really nice creamy quality to the out of focus background, and the images were tack sharp. How sharp? Like nothing I have ever seen before. Every hair on the back of a players neck (yes those little almost white hairs) can be seen and counted. Every eyelash, perfectly defined in a way I have never experienced before.
• Just for fun, I also shot into the fans (the upper section) and there were about 30 people in the frame. I zoomed in, and sure enough I could tell what time it said on one man’s watch. UNREAL… The level of detail (I’ve come to understand pixels aren’t everything –– it’s about detail) is extraordinary.

Wow, the D3 is really generating some excellent buzz from people who have had a chance to use it. I’m really looking forward to some detailed full reviews, and to see what Canon comes back with in response. One awesome camera like the D3 will have to force Canon — and the rest of the DSLR pack, I suppose — to really come up with some compelling cameras in the near future.

BobAtkins.com has posted a review of the new Canon EOS 40D.

He reports improved high ISO (3200 ISO) noise performance over the Canon 20D, at least with the High ISO Noise Reduction setting turned on:

On the basis of the few test shots I’ve taken up to now I’d say the high ISO noise (at “H” or ISO 3200) seems a little higher in the 40D than in the 20D images with the High ISO Noise Reduction function turned off. However with the High ISO Noise Reduction on, the 40D images show lower noise then the 20D images with no apparent loss of sharpness. This means that, with noise reduction on, at ISO 3200 the 40D delivers cleaner, sharper images than the 20D (and presumably 30D too). The high ISO noise reduction function seems particularly effective at reducing chrominance noise.

He goes on to report that the High ISO Noise Reduction option works at the full range of ISO settings, not just at the most sensitive setting, and doesn’t really have much effect on luminance noise. He also says that while the 40D with noise reduction turned off does have more noise than the 20D, it’s only a small amount more, and isn’t something that would be noticeable in real-world use.

From the image samples he posted, I would agree. I’m sure most people would prefer less noise to start with, but the difference does appear to be pretty small and would require printing very large prints to be able to see the difference.

There are some more updates to the review promised to show up in the near future — it was updated yesterday and the day before already, so I’m guessing those will be up pretty quickly. The conclusion right now is that the 40D is a significant step up in this branch of Canon’s digital SLR line, and a good purchase to make, either for yourself or your favorite DSLR site webmaster (hint, hint!):

In just about every respect the EOS 40D technically outperforms the EOS 30D and so I think it is a worthwhile upgrade for those who can afford to switch and who can use the new features. I didn’t feel that way about the 30D, which was a good camera but for me didn’t offer enough new features to persuade me to trade in my 20D and upgrade.

Based on handling the camera for a day, I’m very pleased with it. The larger LCD and revised (easier to navigate) menu structure is nice. The 3″ LCD is very nice. I really like the fact that the shutter is quiet in normal operation and even quieter still in Live View. The larger viewfinder and ISO display are also useful features. Though I’d initially thought of Live View as a bit of a “gimmick”, I’m actually thinking or more and more potential uses for it!

The EOS 40D is the best — and cheapest — of Canon’s prosumer line of DSLRs (D30, D60, D10, D20 and D30). Each has offered more features than the last, and done it at a lower price. The EOS 40D ($1299) clearly follows in this tradition!

naturfotograf.com has a review posted of the new Nikon Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 ED G FX lens that was announced along with the Nikon D3 and D300.

The lens was only tested with a D2X, meaning that only the center portion of the lens was evaluated. Using the lens with a D3 — which will have to wait until people can more easily get their hands on them — will be more revealing. That said, it sounds like a great lens:

I’ll run tests on this lens on a D3 later to confirm these findings, but as of now, the new 24-70/2.8 Nikkor is the reference for all other midrange zoom lenses.

There really aren’t any negative points in the short review. The closest thing to a negative point is that there is a small amount of pincushion distortion. But hoping for a zoom lens with none would be getting a little carried away, and the 24-70mm FX comes through with flying colors:

In terms of geometric distortion, the 24-70 shows very low pincushion towards the long end on D2X, a little more on the D3. Towards the 24 mm end, almost no distortion at all could be seen, just vestiges of a barrel type. It is obvious when you swap the lens between DX- and FX-cameras that the distortion pattern is somewhat wave-shaped across the frame so the nearly straight lines in the corners of the DX frame can be curved a little more on the D3, and vice versa. However, levels of distortion are so low that they encroach on those found in fixed-focal length territory. You can shoot architecture with this zoom lens. Simple as that, really.

Sounds like a promising lens, I’ll be looking forward to some reviews of how it works on the D3 when they’re ready.