Nikon D40 what a little gem of a camera

Glad you're enjoying your D40, and that you are getting decent results with it. However, I will stick to my guns and say you're talking through your butt when you state the D40 is better at higher ISO's than any Olympus.

This image... no flash, indoors, taken handheld at 1/30th and f5.5 (try that on your D40...), with the 50-150mm kit lens, and... guess what... at ISO3200 (try that on your D40)

p356363909.jpg


Or this one... taken handheld at 1/20th at f5.6 (try that on your D40), with the 50-150mm kit lens, and... guess what... also at ISO3200 (try that on your D40)...

p393738416.jpg

Ok maybe i was wrong, the E-3 iso 3200 images do look good, but you can tell you used somekind of noise reduction software on these shots & i wouldn't mind seeing the exif.

But while you came with a "somebody is wrong on the internet" attitude & sounding like Zeus has given you the holy task of defending the honour of Olympus.

Im very tempted to challenge you to a ISO fight.

OLYMPUS E-3 v Nikon D300

see how ya handle it's big brother
:wave::bat:
 
The EXIF is embedded in the image, I'm hiding nothing here, I have an addon - right click option in Firefox - that allows me to view the EXIF of any image I right click on, it seems to work for me when I right click on the image above. Whatever app/method you are using I'm not sure, but the EXIF is there.

However, as I am not sure what app you're using to attempt to view EXIF data, here's the original image as it appears in my gallery. Simply hover over the top right of the image and you should see something as in the screenshot below.

http://www.reflectingme.com/img/v3/p393738416.jpg


20090423-jycmytya72etc29cc4gd29tf8i.jpg


As for noise reduction; I used the in-camera noise filtering, plus LR noise reduction as far as I can remember.

I'm not getting into any fights I'm afraid, I don't start threads that bash any other camera, that's not what the site is about - there's far too many Canikon fanboys on here on times already. You made reference to, and compared the ISO performance on the D40 to be better than any Olympus, that's what I felt needed to be corrected. I don't know the D300, and wouldn't buy one (I'd buy a D700 though if I had the money!) so to make such challenges is a tad naive. Making challenges like that are a waste of time, because there are facets of each system that are better than others... each to their own.

Yes, though TP is managed wonderfully well, and is an awesome resource for photographers (and I've been a member here a long time), at times it is often very cliquey and full of Canikonites who bash anything but Canikons. The site is about photography, not bashing anything but your own camera make/model. People come here seeking information and guidance, very often they are new to photography. Seeing posts such as yours would mislead them into thinking any Olympus kit was not worth looking at, when - just as it would be for every other make/model... it is. Your 1st post above was inaccurate and misleading... so I chose to defend Olympus and correct what you stated (with evidence).

So, your comment in the first post in this thread;

One great thing is how clean images are upto ISO1600 this is proberly were it beat the Olympus E-420 or infact any other Olympus DSLR.

... was misleading, not factual, and 100% wrong, hence my responses in this thread.

Thus your comment;

But while you came with a "somebody is wrong on the internet" attitude & sounding like Zeus has given you the holy task of defending the honour of Olympus.

... did indeed require defending, hence my post here.

As a minority camera system owner, I don't mind being on the end of mickey takes... that's part of the fun of being on here and I will always join in the fun and banter (ask FitP for example :) ). However, regarding Olympus kit and in the interests of accuracy, I will always correct those who by their actions and posts, show they know less about what they are posting about, than they actually do know.

Now... get out there and take some shots yeah...:lol:
 
This image... no flash, indoors, taken handheld at 1/30th and f5.5 (try that on your D40...), with the 50-150mm kit lens, and... guess what... at ISO3200 (try that on your D40)


Or this one... taken handheld at 1/20th at f5.6 (try that on your D40), with the 50-150mm kit lens, and... guess what... also at ISO3200 (try that on your D40)...


John

Gota remember that on the Crop sensor of the D40 which is slightly larger, you would need to close down the aperture 1 stop to get the same DOF you have which would mean halving the shutter speeds on the two shots to 1/15th or 1/10th or doubling the ISO to keep the same shutter speed to ISO 6400.

Not gonna happen on the D40 ;)

I've got some good examples of the E-3 at ISO3200 full strech on the 50-200 (400mm equiv) somewhere. I'll have a look for them later (gotta stick up for Oly - in fact if i had the money i'd jump back tomorrow, just for the ZD glass which is unmatched on any system)
 
The over-exposure is a known firmware fault. I have set mine to the same as yours to counter this.
One thing i did find is that it overexposes by about 1/3rd of a stop in Matrix Metering which really isn't a problem as i just dial in -0.3 which sorts it out.

Ah Ha! I always thought it was just me, or maybe the kit lens and found myself setting the Exp Comp to 0, then readjusting just about every RAW after uploading. :lol: i'll remember to set it to -3 and see where i go from there. :thumbs:
 
I also have a d300 and bought a refurbished d40 from cameraworld for £199 - absolutely perfect with all the gear and checked by nikon. It is a great wee camera and I love it
 
Back
Top