Is there any differences in an image produced from a D300 and that from a D40?

[anubis404]

Lets say you take an image with a D40 and another with a D300, both in RAW with the same lenses, and you post process them similar to each other. Aside from ISO performance and megapixels, will there be any difference in the images taken?

 

[epp_b]

The D300 has 14-bit RAW where the D40 has 12-bit RAW, so the D300 will give you a bit more exposure latitude in post processing. The D300, having better technical image quality, will expose flaws in the optics the D40 won't but can also fix some other flaws (like vignetting and chromatic aberration) while shooting JPEG.

 

[Slaphead]

Assuming native ISO on both cameras and forgetting MP then I would have to say probably, but nothing that IMO would be noticeable to anybody other than the most dedicated pixel peeper (and even to the pixel peeper the differences would, in reality, be negligible).

 

[Marc Kurth]

Thinking about adding a new body?

 

[Katier]

Assuming native ISO on both cameras and forgetting MP then I would have to say probably, but nothing that IMO would be noticeable to anybody other than the most dedicated pixel peeper (and even to the pixel peeper the differences would, in reality, be negligible).

Yep, where the 300 will come into it's own is in situations where you are pushing the sensor. Stuff like high ISO shots or long time exposures ought to be easilly better on the 300 than the 40.

Normal shots at 100/200 ISO shouldn't show much difference.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

You'll have more latitude with the 300 and obviously more detail.

If you use Capture NX as your RAW converter, then YES, the two will look different. ALOT different. The D300 will have much more saturated color.

Using ACR? I dunno. But I'd imagine color should be about the same, it just comes down to a detail and latitude/noise characteristic issue then.