WOW is all I can say

[Sachphotography]

Ok so I am in the process of rebuilding one of my websites and in looking through some of my pictures I am really shocked at how much better my d300 shots are over my d80 pictures. It seems that the D80 pictures are not clean and have serious issues with anything over 800 ISO. Even the lower ISO shots dont look very good. My D300 pictures seem very clean and sharp and Higher ISO's look great. Just a rant but hey Im glad to have moved up.

 

[Dominantly]

examples?

 

[Garbz]

You talking low resolution or the originals? If you're talking zooming in on originals there's a well duh moment in there for you. If you're talking about actual website sized images than the difference would be in processing and sharpening. Aside from high ISO images D80 and D300 images should look nearly 100% identical in resolutions that fit on the average monitor.

 

[Bram]

:addpics:

 

[Light Artisan]

But... Is it the camera, or perhaps more experience on your part?

 

[rainking]

Same lens?

 

[Village Idiot]

Did the D80 have a CCD sensor or was that about the time that Nikon started switching to CMOS ones.

 

[Green Li]

:addpics:

:thumbup:

 

[shaunly]

But... Is it the camera, or perhaps more experience on your part?

x2... or/and lens too.

 

[djacobox372]

Did the D80 have a CCD sensor or was that about the time that Nikon started switching to CMOS ones.

D80 was a 10.2mp ccd... nearly identical sensor as seen in the d200, although I've heard the d200 is slightly better at high-iso.

There shouldn't be that significant of a difference between a d80 and d300 at the lower isos. Are you using the same lenses?

 

[Sachphotography]

I DONT HAVE PICS TO PUT UP SHOWING THE DIFF. Just observations. Mainly pics around 800 ISO.

 

[Garbz]

although I've heard the d200 is slightly better at high-iso.

Nominated for scariest quote of the year :lmao:

 

[Light Artisan]

No doubt!

D80 was better than the D200 at 800 or higher ISO, but the D200 rocked at 100/200 ISO.