[Just call me Al]

Here are comparison photo's at high ISO. I would be interested on your opinions, especially as the D90 comes out second to the D3 & above the D300.

[johnaalex]

As a D300 owner I am a bit disappointed to see that the D90 clearly wins in this test, but then I suppose that is progress for you

[Just call me Al]

Originally Posted by johnaalex

As a D300 owner I am a bit disappointed to see that the D90 clearly wins in this test, but then I suppose that is progress for you

Yes, I agree, but are there any other factors to be taken into account?

[jomike]

As a potential D90 owner, I would be pleased at this result if the test was done by someone with a better reputation for accurate and subjective testing than Ken Rockwell.

However, it wouldn't surprise me if the results were indeed accurate. The D90 has essentially the same sensor as the D300, with more up to date jpeg processing. KR does not do raw, but I would think that shooting in raw, the results would be more even between th D90 and D300.

[kBm]

The difference between D200 and D300 is clear, and expected. But i dont by this comment about the D300;

but they do reduce a lot of the resolution and look more like an image from a point-and-shoot as opposed to a real, living clean image like what you get from the D3 and D90.

Load of bull! Point and shoot my arse! I didn't pay a grand to carry a point in shoot around!

[Farno]

That review is going to upset a few people.

[jomike]

Originally Posted by kBm

The difference between D200 and D300 is clear, and expected. But i dont by this comment about the D300;



Load of bull! Point and shoot my arse! I didn't pay a grand to carry a point in shoot around!

This is typical of Ken Rockwell, hence my comments above.

[TarMoo]

I saw that review a few days ago. Not sure why people are so keen to shoot at ISO 3200 - I never go above 800 on my D300. In the good old days of 35mm film I used to shoot 100ISO.

The sensor of the D90 is the same as on the D300, but with slightly different processing. The D90 does not have the 51 focus points on the D300, and is missing a few other high-end features, but it looks to be a very capable camera.

[gpa]

I won't take his comments too seriously, for a start he only ever shoots in Jpeg, he loves Vivid with a loads of saturation dialed in and makes some very strange recommendations. Sure digest what he says, but don't take his reference as your sole reason to buy anything.

[Radiohead]

Maybe it's just me but the D90 noise looks very ugly and full of chroma NR, whereas the D300 is a much finer grain. I'd take the D300.

[Spooky]

Im so glad someone else felt the same way as me Guy, although Im shocked at the overall softness of the D300 image

[phil5743]

Anyone shooting in RAW will perform noise reduction in software in any case, and then it might be a different ball game altogether. All Kens test does is look at in-camera jpeg processing and even then the methodology is flawed by using unnatural picture control effects to further confuse things.

[Yandros]

Typical Rockwell output

It's entirely predictable that the D90 jpg engine has been tweaked a bit and is better than the D300. Of course Ken refuses to put in the work to process RAW files, just like he can't be bothered to get half the facts right on his site.

Anyone who buys kit based on a Rockwell review, please read his disclaimer first...

"This is my personal website. I do it all by myself. I'm just one guy with a computer who likes to take pictures. I have the playful, immature and creative, trouble-making mind of a seven-year-old, so read accordingly.

This site is purely my personal speech and opinion, and a way for me to goof around.

While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any other good news organization, I like to make things up and stretch the truth if they make an article more fun. In the case of new products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, it's all pretend. If you lack a good BS detector, please treat this entire site as a work of fiction.

This site is provided only for the entertainment of my personal friends, dogs, family and myself. I've never promoted this site. If you're reading this, you got here on your own.

Read this site at your own risk. I make a lot of mistakes. I have no proof-reader and there are plenty of pages, like this one, which have been around since the 1990s and may no longer apply or be correct. I'm just one guy. No mater how stupid something may be, if I don't catch it, it gets out there anyway and stays wrong for years until someone points it out. I can't track everything; I've written thousand of pages and write a few more every day. "

So this is a guy who likes to fool around, makes stuff up and makes mistakes. Treat the material accordingly.

[kBm]

Originally Posted by Yandros

"I have the playful, immature and creative, trouble-making mind of a seven-year-old, so read accordingly.....I like to make things up and stretch the truth if they make an article more fun. "

Check out his update - he's got an exlusive on the NEW Nikon D95!

It has 'frickin laser beams' attached to the hotshoe.....

[phil5743]

Originally Posted by Yandros

So this is a guy who likes to fool around, makes stuff up and makes mistakes. Treat the material accordingly.

Trouble is that a lot of stuff on his site is useful - you just have to be selective. I just got the Tokina 11-16mm based on his recommendation and it is awesome.

[Liquid101]

Originally Posted by D2V2D

I would be interested on your opinions...

My opinion is this:

Ken Rockwell is a complete gizzard. His website is the worst kind - full of hilariously misguided opinion, dressed up as informative and useful information. He is so clearly squinting at the world through something small, dark and smelly, that he'd struggle to pick out an elephant in a field full of goldfish.

My opinion is (for what it's worth) that the D300 noise artifacts are clearly cleaner and more neutral than the D90's. I'd take the D300 every time. Might have been useful to see some RAW output, the D300 and D90 would probably look much closer.

To give you an idea of where Mr. Rockwell is coming from:

I never shoot raw. Why would I? Raw is a waste of time and space, and doesn't look any better than JPG even when you can open the files.

Thanks, Ken. We'll bear it in mind.

[Triggaaar]

I can just see Ken adding to his website while drinking a beer with his Golf buddy Boo Weekley.

[phil5743]

It made me laugh when the D300 first came out and his main reason for it being the best amateur camera was that you could crank the saturation further than the D200. I have to admit though that I still find his site addictive, entertaining and on occasion informative!

[Just call me Al]

In this weeks AP they test the Canon EOS-50D. Generally a good report, but on high ISO they say it's not as good as the Nikons D3, D300, D700 & D90. They then go on to say " Our Preliminary findings suggest that the D90 & D300 were more comfortable at ISO 800 & above than the 50D. So another thumbs up for the D90 especially at the price.