photo of Amethyst crystal photo of Strassburg in Elsass photomicrograph of micrasteria algae photomicrograph of petrified wood

This page is optimized for a screen size of at least 1000pixels in x-direction - please adjust your viewing screen accordingly!

Nikon D300 - Nikon D200

The D300 is the new "advanced semi-professional" digital SLR, the successor of the pretty successful D200. Highly acclaimed by some, received with some reservations by others who voiced the opinion that the extra cost is not really worth it and that the D200 is very fine, especially for the currently much lower price.

I had the outstanding opportunity - thanks to Nikon Austria - to have both cameras simultaneously for my tests for a couple of weeks. After having worked with both cameras and shot more or less identical scenes with the very same lenses, my conclusion is - yes, the extra cost is very worth it and the D300 is really delivering results which are outstanding and most of the time better than those taken with the D200. Not that the D200 is inferior, just the D300 is slightly better - and because the better is the downfall for the good, the D300 would be my choice. I shall explain to the reader in the following with words, images and crops the reason for my conclusion.

The very first striking difference is the much larger monitor (almost 1 Megapixel on 3") on the back of the camera. Not only is that monitor much larger, it is also much better - much higher resolution and better color rendition. A monitor which is large and good enough to judge an outcome from and to adjust the setting. The highly applauded real-time view - it might be of interest for some, is nothing, which impressed me, because I use an SLR the traditional way - working with and focusing through the viewfinder. Yes, the real time monitor gives a 100,0% image compared to a tiny amount smaller field of view (barely noticeable), but I also frame in general any object with some safety margin for later post-processing work in Photoshop. I do not need real-time viewing if I have such a nice and bright viewfinder, but this is my personal taste and I am sure that a lot of people do enjoy that feature.

What else strikes the eye, when holding that new camera in hand - well, it is not larger than the D200, significantly smaller than the D1-D2 series of cameras and all operational buttons, levers and elements are at their well known (Nikon-specific) position - a camera which can be used within seconds by a Nikon user. The advancements are in the details - the one, which was of prime interest for me was of course the performance of the image sensor and the color rendition of the resulting images.

Something, which is very noticeable is the very fast operation of the D300 compared to previous models - powering up and shutter lag are now comparable to film based cameras - no noticeable delay anymore, not like with the old D1X which needs quite some time to get ready and to take an image - I often think - does it now decide to take that shot or is the camera still contemplating over taking any action or not! The D300 is switched on and ready for shooting within less than 15/1000 second and the total black-out time is about 1/10 sec - that is very nice and fine!

The specification of the sensor says that it is a12 Megapixel sensor - so basically the same as the one of the D2(Xs) but it is not. It is a different sensor, not the same. Compared to the D200, the sensor has got 2 Megapixel more but calculating the difference in resolving power of the two sensors, it is almost the same and should only barely be noticeable (and it was...). D300 image is consisting of 12,212.224 pixels and the D200 image of 10,036.224 pixels but as I mentioned before, the difference in resolving power is minute and certainly not a factor which should matter to decide for or against one of those cameras. On the other hand, the A/D converter provides 14bit of depth compared to the D200 with 12bit - this is an enhancement and delivers slightly better results.

The option to get TIFF files as output format of the D300 is something, which I liked because the NEF files are not always appreciated. The built-in cleaning function for the sensor is something which I do appreciate a lot as changing camera lenses in usually dusty and dirty outdoor environment leads to dust spots on the sensor pretty soon.

One enhancement, which I recognized pretty soon is the more sophisticated AF system - 51 points compared to 11 points on the D200.

The sensitivity range of the D300 is set for a range comparable to ISO 200 to 3200 with additional adjustment to cover up to one stop lower and one stop higher - simulating ISO 100 and ISO6400. Is the ISO 100 setting any better or different compared to the D200 - we shall see. And is the ISO 3200 "speed" any better at the D300 than of the D200 - wait and see the photographic results... The ISO 6400 setting - well, I think at that speed, one cannot expect much anymore, right - and it was according the expectation...

Continuous shooting is nothing of interest for me, I did not use it and did not compare it - it is irrelevant for my photography. But the active D-lighting is of interest and works very well - see the results later in that review. Active D-lighting does not exist with the D200, it was necessary to do this on the computer with programs like the Nikon NX.

For a detailed technical comparison and the technical specification, please see the appropriate web pages, as before, I want to concentrate on the results, the images, the performance and not on a theoretical comparison of technical details.

So, - are the images taken with the D300 better than those taken with a D200? Yes and no - it depends on what you want to do, what you want to do after shooting and what you expect to see.

Let me start with the easy way of shooting - point and shoot. An average scene taken with the D300 and the D200 and then the average size print (5x7inch max) - no visible differences for most eyes. But again, the details are showing the improvements built into the D300 - more details in the shadows, more details in the high-lights, better color, higher dynamic range - not much, but still detectable. Not worth spending several hundred of Dollars or Euros more? Well, not to shoot grandma with grandchildren at Xmas and then print on 4x6" crystal paper from the "quick-and-dirty-lab" around the next corner which automatically over-contrasts, over-sharpens and over-saturates all images anyway.

Later in this review, it will be shown that even this very good camera does (as almost all digital cameras) not reproduce all colors (of a testchart) accurately according to the theoretical data - but this is nothing specific to any camera brand or model, it is the "optimization" of the output of the camera to please the human eye and to meet certain conditions - the grass has to be green, the skin has to look healthy, the blue of the sky needs to be fine etc. The overall color rendition of a digital image is adjusted to match the expectations of the user and not to match the theoretical colorimetric data of a certain color test chart. Maybe I find some time in the future to compare "good" film material like Fuji with digital color data - it is well known, that color film is not accurate - but on the other hand - what does "accurate" mean to a photographer compared to a physicist?

Let me now start with some photographic comparisons - first the well known "Mariahilfer Kirche" in Vienna, which I use quite often as a model to show performance (and non-performance). The first shot is for orientation - the colored center is that, what had been cropped out in the following shots to compare the D200 with the D300 in rather poor lighting and rather longer exposure time (all shots are at f/8 and about 2sec exp. time at ISO 200 setting)

Now the details in the center, taken with the D200 (left) and the D300 (right)

After final adjustment and rebuilding these images with "Genuine Fractals" the results are the following:

D200 D300

Again - the D200 on the left and the D300 on the right - same optical and electronic parameters

If you look very closely, you can see that the D300 image has a slightly better definition - not much at all, but in the center of the detail-image, there is some more information and a tiny bit less noise on the right compared to the left.

As you can imagine, a digital SLR offers several nice possibilities, which are more difficult to achieve with film based cameras - one of the interesting ones as HDR images. I could not resist and took a series of shots inside the church and combined them with a suitable program to one HDR shot - here it is, compresed for web transmission, but still, one can see how it works:

How do the two cameras perform in daylight - not sunshine (which did not exist during the entire test period..) but in broad daylight? Well, here comes the answer. The next shot was taken outside the Karlskirche in Vienna, on purpose, this shot is neither corrected to eliminate the perspective distortion nor processed - I have selected the left top part of the left tower to show the difference in imaging performance:

Again as before - the left shot from the D200 and the right shot comes from the D300:

As it can be easily seen, the D300 delivers shots with a better overall detail definition and cleared color separation. Please note, that the settings had been as identical as possible on both cameras, identical color modes, identical ISO settings, identical optics (actually the very same) and all parameters as comparable as possible.

The next interesting test was to compare the performance in very low light - I visited an old church downtown in Vienna, the Fransiskanerkirche and there as a very nice Christmas scene which I shot with both cameras - the White Balance set to "A" (Automatic) and the results were interesting - see yourself - as before, first the entire scene and then again first the D200 and below then the D300:

D200

D300

The lighting in this scene was very dim, a couple of Halogen lamps shining at the scene and some more standard bulbs inside that very nice scene - this lead me to look closed into the behavior of the cameras in different lighting (color temperature). I mentioned in several of my previous reviews that I am not too much impressed with the color rendition of the Nikon digital SLRs when set to Automatic and in Tungsten light conditions...would the D300 be better now? From this shot, one can conclude that the color rendition in automatic mode delivers more neutral images (which was expected as I set the color reproduction mode to standard) - but do you also notice, that the color separation in the lower shot is much better - the colors are better defined - look at the inscription which says "Gloria in excelsis Deo" - the lower one is much clearer separated from the white background of the inscription.

And how about the noise in the darker parts of the images? Here the comparison - a detail taken from the right part of the roof above the dark right window - left D200, right D300:

Perhaps not too good visible on the web, but the left image (D200) displays more noise and again the overall image definition is less impressive compared to the right image (D300)

As the weather was pretty bad during all the two weeks, I had these two cameras, I went inside again and shot another couple of comparisons - now the comparison of details in the highlight region of the density range - inside the Ringstrassen Galerie in Vienna. Please note the colored crop inside the image on the right side - that is the detail, which I show for comparison.

Left again D200 and right D300

Please note, that on the right side (D300) there are more details in the brightest parts (the left upper part of the this crop) than on the left side (D200) - again not much difference but still, there is a difference in favor of the D300 - identical setting, identical ISO, identical exposure time and aperture!

One feature, which is rather useful, is the built-in flash on top of the camera. It is fine but with ultra-wide-angle lenses, it can produce some minor problems. I used it with my Nikon AF 12-24mm lens, which for safety reasons, I always protect with the sun shade, but when using that built-in flash, the sunshade produces a shadow, which can be seen when shooting in vertical mode with walls close-by as in the following situation:

On the left side - that shadow- it comes from the sunshade of the 12-24mm AF-D lens...

When I shot in this passage, I realized that the white walls had different color tints - the D300 a bit colder and the D200 a bit warmer. The following composition shows this quite well - the left part of the image comes from the D300 and the right part from the D200

When I start to enhance the difference, I also noticed that the flash of both cameras produces some colored regions - one is slightly bluish-red and the other one is slightly greenish. This is only noticeable if one shoots such a strange scene as I did - white walls and a dark passage. There is an easy way to find out what color a white is tending towards - take the file and enhance the saturation to the maximum possible and see what the resulting final color will be - here is the result - the shot below is the one above with the described manipulation - clear indication the the D300 white setting tends towards blue and the one of the D200 towards yellow...

This little experiment is useful when you want to enhance a color difference or a color tint - quick and easy to do and very informative.

During another shooting walk-about downtown Vienna, I shot the ceiling of the Peterskirche in the First District:

To detect any differences, I have taken a small part left of the center and matched the color rendition of the two shots as good as possible with Photoshop CS2, adjusted the contrast and sharpening as closely as possible and must conclude that the image taken with the D300 is better, almost much better that the one taken with the D200...

D200

D300

An explanation, I have thought about, is the fact, that the processing algorithms of the D300 are different compared to the D200, on the other hand the sensor is a different one as well and the noise is visibly lower in the D300 than in the D200 - not an everyday´s target, but still, something which shows very well the improvements made.

For my next comparison, I used a standard IT8.7 target and shot under various lighting conditions - starting with standard light bulbs, maybe 2700K or so, then 3200K Halogen flood light, then warm FL light, cold FL light, 6500K daylight bulbs and finally standard real daylight 12:00 noon with partially clouded sky. The results were somehow a bit disappointing - both cameras performed quite well in the Automatic mode and daylight, but the other light situations resulted in partially really bad color rendition. Maybe not possible to make it better - I don´t know...maybe yes?

Here the scanned IT 8.7 target to show how it looks like, placed on a 18% gray background:

And now the results

D200 2800K D300

D200 3200K D300

D200 cold FL D300

D200 warm FL D300

D200 6500K D300

D200 Daylight D300

It is clearly visible, that most results are not really good, not even acceptable, if one is looking for a neutral color rendition - please keep in mind, that all shots are unadjusted regarding color rendition, contrast and brightness, all are taken with comparable settings and the same ISO setting and the same lens within several minutes. Color space at both cameras set to sRGB, neutral color rendition and nothing to enhance or reduce any color. My conclusion is, that despite all these results, the D300 is better also in color rendition - the deviation is more predictable and a bit less serious.

It is also important to remember, that the special "flair" of images, taken in candle light, light-bulb light etc is taken away if the color rendition were perfect - no warm light photographs, all lights neutral and rather cold. Therefore, often the imperfect color rendition is desirable - right?

One can of course get to well adjusted images - I use a little device, the "ExpoDisc" to set the color in the "Pre" mode to neutral and then shoot a scene. That is what I did again with the IT8.7 target and 3200K flood light as illumination. The results, as expected are very fine - here they are:

D200 autoWB D200 manWB

D300 autoWB D300 manWB

Good color rendition needs manual adjustment and intelligent supervision of the user - any automatic system is delivering average results only, maybe good ones at the lighting situation which it was designed for - average daylight.

Another test I have done with the Gretag Color Checker SG - that is the new (expensive) one for digital cameras. It look loke that:

I shot this color test chart under standard lighting conditions and crosschecked the outcome (AutoWhite Balance on both cameras, sRGB, neutral color rendition) with the data file using Norman Korens IMATEST program (which I am using now in its extended new version). The results are interesting - neither camera is able to reproduce all colors really accurate - nothing unexpected as I said before - digital images are optimized for visual impression, not for colorimetric accuracy. Especially the intense and darked full bodied colors are deviating a lot from the data files. In the following, some of the results I obtained (please disregard the JPG compression artefacts..)

What you can see on this screen shot below is the deviation of the color produced by the D200 compared to the color as expected by the theoretical value of the data file - the more red, the worse the deviation. In the right upper corner the colors, in the left center the deviation in color.

And here the split image between the expected color as per data file compared to the delivered color by the D200 (daylight illumination, AutoWB, sRGB setting

Not much difference with the D300 - same principle - same chart, same illumination - again the screen shot below showing the deviation expected color - actual color D300

And the screen shot below the split image - expected color/actual color, this time the D300

With this test chart, the best average results I obtained with the setting of the D300 color mode to vivid but at the price that all subtle colors were off...so again - the setting which is best depends on what one wants to achieve - overall good color with the most intense colors off or the intense colors much more accurate but then the subtle colors off. All colors perfect seems not to be possible (neither it is with film out of my experience).

As always before, I also have used the standard Gretag color checker to see how the D300 performs - and it does it quite well. The Auto WB again is not perfect, but is is well known in the mean time I guess. Here the several details of the output:

Color performance and deviation:

Next noise and gray - exposure error very small (0,1f-stops only)

Is it better than the D200 - yes, a bit. To show the results of the D200 - just the first two regarding color error. You can see, that overall performance is slightly better under the very same lighting conditions

Another technical evaluation was of interest for me - the MTF of both cameras, the D300 and the D200 in direct comparison. Please note, that the resulting data are not absolute values as the outcome of the calculation depends largely on the incorporated algorithms like sharpening - which is done, even if the user deselects "sharpening" in the camera menu and other influences but if one sets the cameras as closely as possible identical and uses the identical lens and lighting, the results can at least be compared without too many buts-and-ifs.

First the Siemens-Star and the results obtained with the IMATEST program - my favorite optical performance evaluation program for cameras and photography.

The D300 performed rather fine

Here below the D200 - the improvements of the D300 over the D200 are clearly visible!

Another testing method is interesting - the slanting edge. Again the same cameras, same lens and same setup - first again the D300:

The overshooting at the edge is an artifact from sharpening - the setting was to "normal" and therefore the red, "corrected" value is of more importance - around 1800LW/PH at MTF 50 - which does not correspond to the value obtained with the Siemens-Star. In direct comparison, the D200 performed like that:

The corresponding value at MTF 50 was about 1700 LW/PH - so slightly lower than the one of the D300, but also the sharpening was less - less overshooting.

These last two charts demonstrate nicely, what is very often not said: MTF comparison charts are very difficult to compare - most website, including the well known DPReview do not take this into account enough - MTF can only be compared if absolutely all parameters are set identical for the cameras which are to be compared and even then, the residual differences of internal signal processing, which cannot be influenced by testing authorities outside the manufacturer, will generate differences which are often significant. I am planning to add a separate page for that topic, but it is still under preparation and will be added later.

Keeping this in mind, look at the above displayed results with enough skepticism and carefulness - I need to emphasize it again - if a camera allows to modify sharpening and other parameters (like the D200 and D300 do), then comparing MTF values is tricky. Besides this, it needs to be mentioned that most MTF values are represented incorrectly - in LP/mm or LP per PH (picture height), which is not correct. The exact representation would be cycles per PH or if you want, cycles per mm and the target (often a Siemens Star) has to be a sinusoidal absorption star and not a black/white star - the MTF function is based on a sinusoidal target, not on a box-type target...but this is also something, which shall come later on a separate page.

To conclude, some more images, taken with the D300 - a camera which I recommend highly, even for those who own a D200 already.