[D300] Dedicated Thread

[AxeLa]

went down to DOML.d300's screen protection cant fit.so had to custom cut.n was told he needs TWO hrs~!

@ the end of the day,mobile sq took 1 hr to get the job done w/o any appointment.

Mine ok leh...how cum urs can't fit....:dunno:

 

[syc77]

Mine ok leh...how cum urs can't fit....:dunno:

maybe d3 cannot fit into d300's?

 

[nicekit]

question:

what's the different in quality between normal NEF
and the compressed NEF?

i can shoot extra 80 pictures in 4GB CF card leh :O

btw is it possible to navigate thru the picture via... the scroll wheel instead of the navigation pad?
*example D80*

 

[lsisaxon]

question:

what's the different in quality between normal NEF
and the compressed NEF?

i can shoot extra 80 pictures in 4GB CF card leh :O

btw is it possible to navigate thru the picture via... the scroll wheel instead of the navigation pad?
*example D80*

IIRC, compressed NEF does a dynamic compression to reduce the number of bits to encode the luminance. So you get a reduction of dynamic resolution at certain levels of brightness, if your exposure is correct then there should be nothing to worry about. If you underexposed or overexposed, you may not be able to recover some shadow or highlight details respectively.

 

[gooseberry]

question:

what's the different in quality between normal NEF
and the compressed NEF?

i can shoot extra 80 pictures in 4GB CF card leh :O

btw is it possible to navigate thru the picture via... the scroll wheel instead of the navigation pad?
*example D80*

IIRC, compressed NEF does a dynamic compression to reduce the number of bits to encode the luminance. So you get a reduction of dynamic resolution at certain levels of brightness, if your exposure is correct then there should be nothing to worry about. If you underexposed or overexposed, you may not be able to recover some shadow or highlight details respectively.

Compressed NEF reduces some bits in the highlight data (not shadows) as we are less likely to see differences in highlight data as compared to shadow data. Nikon term this 'visually lossless' as some data is thrown away. You won't really notice any difference unless you do MAJOR processing (like radical curves or something) with an image with a lot of highlight detail. This reduces the file size to 40-50% as compared to uncompressed NEF.

The D300 and D3 have a new mode - lossless compressed NEF (which is different from the previous compressed NEF). Lossless compressed NEF is totally lossless (no data is thrown away). File size size is 20-30% smaller than uncompressed NEF.

I'd be using lossless compressed NEF to get the 20-30% more storage space.

 

[lsisaxon]

Compressed NEF reduces some bits in the highlight data (not shadows) as we are less likely to see differences in highlight data as compared to shadow data. Nikon term this 'visually lossless' as some data is thrown away. You won't really notice any difference unless you do MAJOR processing (like radical curves or something) with an image with a lot of highlight detail. This reduces the file size to 40-50% as compared to uncompressed NEF.

The D300 and D3 have a new mode - lossless compressed NEF (which is different from the previous compressed NEF). Lossless compressed NEF is totally lossless (no data is thrown away). File size size is 20-30% smaller than uncompressed NEF.

I'd be using lossless compressed NEF to get the 20-30% more storage space.

Thanks for clarifying the shadow detail part.

 

[nicekit]

Compressed NEF reduces some bits in the highlight data (not shadows) as we are less likely to see differences in highlight data as compared to shadow data. Nikon term this 'visually lossless' as some data is thrown away. You won't really notice any difference unless you do MAJOR processing (like radical curves or something) with an image with a lot of highlight detail. This reduces the file size to 40-50% as compared to uncompressed NEF.

The D300 and D3 have a new mode - lossless compressed NEF (which is different from the previous compressed NEF). Lossless compressed NEF is totally lossless (no data is thrown away). File size size is 20-30% smaller than uncompressed NEF.

I'd be using lossless compressed NEF to get the 20-30% more storage space.

so let me clarify again
Compressed NEF wont have much different unles i do radical changes?
how about processing time?*havent download Capture NX*

cuz there's alot of different in sizes...
on 4GB..

Loseless Compressed: 197
Compressed: 270
Uncompressed: 197 *also*

i thought u said 20-30% smaller than uncompressed?

 

[gooseberry]

so let me clarify again
Compressed NEF wont have much different unles i do radical changes?

Yep, reckon 99% of the time you won't notice the difference. I haven't noticed the difference before, but if you are afraid of losing information, then don't use compressed NEF (storage is relatively cheap anyway - but if I was running out of space on my only card, I wouldn't worry about using compressed NEF)

how about processing time?*havent download Capture NX*

Haven't noticed any difference in processing time.

cuz there's alot of different in sizes...
on 4GB..

Loseless Compressed: 197
Compressed: 270
Uncompressed: 197 *also*

i thought u said 20-30% smaller than uncompressed?

Take a look at your manual - it will tell you the 'typical' file sizes of the different modes and you will see that Losless compressed is smaller than uncompressed by about 20-30%. The estimate the camera is giving is only an estimate as the actual size of each file depends on what the image contains, and I guess the estimate it is giving for lossless compressed is assuming no savings in size.

 

[nicekit]

Yep, reckon 99% of the time you won't notice the difference. I haven't noticed the difference before, but if you are afraid of losing information, then don't use compressed NEF (storage is relatively cheap anyway - but if I was running out of space on my only card, I wouldn't worry about using compressed NEF)



Haven't noticed any difference in processing time.



Take a look at your manual - it will tell you the 'typical' file sizes of the different modes and you will see that Losless compressed is smaller than uncompressed by about 20-30%. The estimate the camera is giving is only an estimate as the actual size of each file depends on what the image contains, and I guess the estimate it is giving for lossless compressed is assuming no savings in size.

hmmm i scare buy big big card.. they say dun put everything in one basket
if u shoot raw..
what's the best sweet size to have..
8GB?

 

[Singapore21]

Some fun shots...

 

[Singapore21]

Shot with NIKON D300 at 2007-12-08

Shot with NIKON D300 at 2007-12-08


That's all folks..

 

[SolBadGuy]

Your dog is cute! :lovegrin:

 

[Singapore21]

heh.. thanks bro.

 

[chngpe01]

Some great images of birds taken by Harlequin at different iso using D300 can be seen here

http://clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3609654#post3609654

 

[lsisaxon]

Some great images of birds taken by Harlequin at different iso using D300 can be seen here

http://clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3609654#post3609654

Have they been PP (sharpened?) they seem a bit too sharp and a bit noisy to me, even the ISO400 shot. :think:

 

[kennethw]

sorry, but just wanna check what's the max capacity memory card the D300 can take?

udma? :dunno:

See page 369.

its should be able to go as high as FAT32 supports.

currently tested up to 8gb only. unless someone has a 16g to test.

I'm in the process of buying a new CF card for my D300, so also wondering what is the maximum CF Card size. Has anyone tested?

 

[AxeLa]

I'm in the process of buying a new CF card for my D300, so also wondering what is the maximum CF Card size. Has anyone tested?

Tested with 8GB Ultra 2....very good! No lag...;p
Interested in ur MC 35 GPS leh....still have??

 

[Lumiere]

Tested with 8GB Ultra 2....very good! No lag...;p
Interested in ur MC 35 GPS leh....still have??

wat do u mean by very lag...the writing time?

 

[nolifesg]

wat do u mean by very lag...the writing time?

he is saying 'very good! no lag'

 

[TMC]

Have they been PP (sharpened?) they seem a bit too sharp and a bit noisy to me, even the ISO400 shot. :think:

I wouldnt say that is noise, looks grainy to me.