Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: D700 IQ  (Read 45109 times)
bluekorn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73


« on: August 14, 2008, 08:19:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello All,
Ken Rockwell today declared the sharpness of the D300, the D700 and the D3 to be equal and he has always raved about the color rendition of all Nikons. Would anyone be willing to reflect for a moment, for the benefit of those of us amongst the laity, what factors besides sharpness (and excluding lenses and post processing), are to be considered in choosing between DX and FX regarding IQ? If DX and FX are equally sharp is there a gain to be had in IQ by spending for the FX? Thank you.
Peter Van Dyken
Logged
Bradley Proctor
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 150



WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 14, 2008, 10:00:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Uh oh, here is comes... you said the forbidden name...
Logged

Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #2 on: August 14, 2008, 10:21:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
what factors besides sharpness (and excluding lenses and post processing), are to be considered in choosing between DX and FX regarding IQ? If DX and FX are equally sharp is there a gain to be had in IQ by spending for the FX?
I don't understand the meaning of "DX and FX are equally sharp". The "sharpness" of a sensor depends on the AA filter and the sensel size, not on the size of the sensor.

However, an important consideration is, how good a given lens is with the sensor; this does depend on the sensor size. Many lenses excel with the cropping sensors, while they are soft with full frame; this is only natural. For example for me (dedicated to panoramas) the cropping cameras are the uncontested winners because of the edge sharpness.

Re the IQ: there can be no serious discussion about the superiority of the "pixel quality" of the D3 (= D700) compared to the D300, due to the size of the sensels. Nikon fanboys are in for a rude awakening with the high-pixelcount successor of the D3.
Logged

Gabor
Cartman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« Reply #3 on: August 14, 2008, 11:27:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hello All,
Ken Rockwell today declared the sharpness of the D300, the D700 and the D3 to be equal and he has always raved about the color rendition of all Nikons. Would anyone be willing to reflect for a moment, for the benefit of those of us amongst the laity, what factors besides sharpness (and excluding lenses and post processing), are to be considered in choosing between DX and FX regarding IQ? If DX and FX are equally sharp is there a gain to be had in IQ by spending for the FX? Thank you.
Peter Van Dyken
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215092\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nice use of "laity".  I've only heard used referring to parishioners, but you're correct.

Also, you've been warned now about *en %ockwell.  $en @ockwell could post a real cure for cancer and people would still bash you if you praised him.

Finally, here's a short answer.  And let's assume we're talking about the same number of pixels in either a larger or smaller space, with larger or smaller phostosites, respectively.

Smaller pixels may not be as sensitive to light as larger pixels.  With larger photosites, because they are larger they catch more light more quickly.  Think of putting a small bowl and a large bowl out in the rain.  The large one collects more falling water more quickly, and can hold more water before it fills up.

The smaller the pixel the smaller number of photons it can hold before it fills up and spills over.  That capacity is known as the photosite's "electron well."  With the larger pixels/photosites that can hold more electrons you are going to have more dynamic range.

Moreover, given a certain amount of noise in a system, the larger pixels are going to suffer less.  Let's say a small photosite holds 40,000 electrons, and a large photosite holds 100,000 electrons.  Now this is an exaggerated number, but for the sake of making the point let's say you're going to get 1,000 electrons of noise per photosite.   That means 2.5% of the data read off that site is going to be noise.  With the larger photosite only 1% of the data is going to be noise.  A much better ratio.

Now you know more than 99% of posters in camera forums.  Once you can explain why diffraction limits the resolution of Nikon's current line of lenses and probably limits the number of photosites on a sensor in an FX body, you get bonus points.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2008, 11:29:46 PM by Cartman » Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 15, 2008, 12:02:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Re the IQ: there can be no serious discussion about the superiority of the "pixel quality" of the D3 (= D700) compared to the D300, due to the size of the sensels. Nikon fanboys are in for a rude awakening with the high-pixelcount successor of the D3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215112\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Since a high MP FX DSLR is a primarily a landscape/studio camera and will mostly be used at base ISO, I have to wonder why I will be in for a rude awakening (this in spite of my taking issue with anyone calling me a "fanboy").  D300 pixels at base ISO or even pushed two or three stops are very good, and if I have 24 million of them in an FX sensor then I will be very happy as long as I have a couple of tilt/shift lenses to attain adequate DOF at f/11.
Logged
Cartman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« Reply #5 on: August 15, 2008, 12:21:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Since a high MP FX DSLR is a primarily a landscape/studio camera and will mostly be used at base ISO, I have to wonder why I will be in for a rude awakening (this in spite of my taking issue with anyone calling me a "fanboy").  D300 pixels at base ISO or even pushed two or three stops are very good, and if I have 24 million of them in an FX sensor then I will be very happy as long as I have a couple of tilt/shift lenses to attain adequate DOF at f/11.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215132\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I too will be buying the D3x, or whatever they call it, along with the 24PC-E and probably the 85PC-E for, you guessed it, landscape and product stills.
Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2008, 01:12:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Since a high MP FX DSLR is a primarily a landscape/studio camera and will mostly be used at base ISO, I have to wonder why I will be in for a rude awakening
These days the D3 is THE high-ISO camera. It is praised (rightly) for the high dynamic range (coming for the excellent pixel quality).

My comment was aimed at those, who expect a camera with twice the pixel count and the same image quality. There are quite a few of them.

Quote
this in spite of my taking issue with anyone calling me a "fanboy"
If you aren't one, then why do you think I called *you* a fanboy? (The fanboys' meeting place is DPReview.)

Quote
D300 pixels at base ISO...
I referred to the D3.
Logged

Gabor
Slough
Guest
« Reply #7 on: August 15, 2008, 04:58:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hello All,
Ken Rockwell today declared the sharpness of the D300, the D700 and the D3 to be equal and he has always raved about the color rendition of all Nikons. Would anyone be willing to reflect for a moment, for the benefit of those of us amongst the laity, what factors besides sharpness (and excluding lenses and post processing), are to be considered in choosing between DX and FX regarding IQ? If DX and FX are equally sharp is there a gain to be had in IQ by spending for the FX? Thank you.
Peter Van Dyken
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215092\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not so long ago Ken was going on about how 'full-frame' was inherently better than 'crop-frame' in terms of IQ. I guess his opinions change according to his mood. To be honest I simply do not trust his ability to put one foot in front of the other never mind perform a carefully thought out comparison between two cameras.
Logged
Dale_Cotton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 580


WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 15, 2008, 06:48:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
what factors besides sharpness (and excluding lenses and post processing), are to be considered in choosing between DX and FX regarding IQ?
High ISO capability, lower noise at all ISOs, and dynamic range.

Cartman has explained why the larger the pixel the better these things generally are. At the same megapixel count an FX camera will be more likely to be better in these areas than a DX camera, simply because each of its pixels is bigger. This is 'way over-generalized, but it serves as a starting point.

But the ball is not completely in the FX court. Panopeeper has mentioned one advantage that favours DX over FX. Another, at least for landscape, is the larger DOF implicit in using a shorter focal length for any given field of view. The larger DOF means more of the image will be resolved.
*
BTW: if some of the replies you've gotten and will continue to get are puzzling, it's because you've walked into a mine field simply by mentioning the name Ken Rockwell. Many photographic and imaging professionals frequent this forum. I'd venture that perhaps the only thing they all agree on is that Ken presents sensationalist disinformation in order to increase traffic to his web site for financial gain. IOW: it is clear to them that he has adapted to the web the tabloid trick of fabricating sensationalistic fiction and presenting it as fact in order to sell copy. If I were to stoop to the level of ad hominem that the anti-KR contingent unfortunately wallows in, I'd point out that I have it on excellent authority that Mr Rockwell is P. T. Barnum's great godson, but I strongly disapprove of ad hominems, so I won't mention it.
Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 15, 2008, 09:07:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If you aren't one, then why do you think I called *you* a fanboy? (The fanboys' meeting place is DPReview.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215146\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Merely replying to your post implied that I was a "fanboy", which is akin to putting me in the awkward position of responding to the proverbial paradox "When did you stop beating your wife?"
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5121


« Reply #10 on: August 15, 2008, 09:27:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Moreover, given a certain amount of noise in a system, the larger pixels are going to suffer less ... for the sake of making the point let's say you're going to get 1,000 electrons of noise per photosite.   [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215124\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why would we assume that a larger device will produce an equal number of electrons of noise? It seems reasonable to expect instead that a increased photosite bulk produces an increase in noise sources. Also, larger well capacities require larger capacities for charge, voltage, or current all along the analog signal transport and processing chain, which seems to have the potential to increase the number of electrons of noise from sources like amplifiers (amp. noise is apparently the dominant noise source in the high end Canon's at low ISO).

This expectation is supported by data for Kodak CCDs, where total dark noise levels in electrons tend to increase with photosite size.

By the way, 1000 electrons is an absurdly high number, suggesting that you are not even vaguely aware of the real values, which run roughly from 3 to 30 electrons in spec. sheets and published measurements for SLR sensors.
Logged
Moynihan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 15, 2008, 10:18:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The smaller the pixel the smaller number of photons it can hold before it fills up and spills over.  That capacity is known as the photosite's "electron well."  With the larger pixels/photosites that can hold more electrons you are going to have more dynamic range.

Would it then be correct to say that, (all other factors being equal):

The larger sensor with larger pixels, will provide wider dynamic range and tonality in a final print, independent of the size of the print?

 
Logged
Moynihan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


WWW
« Reply #12 on: August 15, 2008, 10:24:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Fanboy?

Should that not be Fan Person?
 
Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #13 on: August 15, 2008, 10:48:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Merely replying to your post implied that I was a "fanboy", which is akin to putting me in the awkward position of responding to the proverbial paradox "When did you stop beating your wife?"
Well, I did not infer any such connection. In fact, I don't see many fanboys on LL. My comment was not aimed at any person here but at the worshipping attitude observable on DPRand and other, Nikon-specific forums. I saw repeatedly the assumption, that a D3 successor with twice the pixels will behave like the D3, not like the D300 in regard pixel quality, because Nikon has developed some "breakthrough" technology.
Logged

Gabor
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #14 on: August 15, 2008, 10:56:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Fanboy?

Should that not be Fan Person?
Would not the correct form be Fanperson (like Chairperson)? Though if we start out with fanboy, then there should be fangirl, and the neutered/spayed variant should be fankid :-)
Logged

Gabor
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2756



« Reply #15 on: August 15, 2008, 11:25:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Since a high MP FX DSLR is a primarily a landscape/studio camera and will mostly be used at base ISO, I have to wonder why I will be in for a rude awakening (this in spite of my taking issue with anyone calling me a "fanboy").  D300 pixels at base ISO or even pushed two or three stops are very good, and if I have 24 million of them in an FX sensor then I will be very happy as long as I have a couple of tilt/shift lenses to attain adequate DOF at f/11.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215132\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quite true. However, users of the D3 or D300 don't necessarily have to go out and buy the D3x for landscapes since they can stitch together several D3 or D300 images and obtain resolution superior to the D3x with only one exposure.

Bill
Logged
Moynihan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 15, 2008, 11:27:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Would not the correct form be Fanperson (like Chairperson)?

Quite right. Good point.
Though we could also really simplify.
Singular: Fan
Plural: Fannies
 

Awhile back when reasearching a camera purchase I stumbled upon DPR, and I am afraid I have developed somewhat of an addiction to it. Want to kick it really do. So many incredibly impolite people. But its kind of the gawking at an accident thing.  
Logged
bluekorn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73


« Reply #17 on: August 15, 2008, 12:22:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Alas, I stepped in something visiting the circus and now I've besmirched the landscape. I appreciate the heads up. I have much to learn in the field of digital psychology.

I was puzzled by my own naive assumptions gleened from the never to be mentioned again ringmaster regarding "equal sharpness" between the D700 and the D300. His declaration muddied my waters. Intuitively, I was assuming that full frame trumped cropped frame. I'm learning that application is part of the equation. Bottom line. I don't want to spend for bells and whistles yet I'm quite eager to spend for the current best combination of camera and lens (I realize there might be many) as a foundation for further development as a landscape photographer. Frames per second and high ISO shooting are not necessarily of concern. I want eventually to be able to produce   seemingly crystal clear, softly luminescent prints that mimic the photos in the old Leica brochures. Good luck, you say? It's simply a distant goal that runs along the lines of personal taste. I'm not devoted to any camera system.  

Peter
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8853


« Reply #18 on: August 15, 2008, 12:54:12 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't see any reason why a higher pixel count D3 successor, given the few months more technological improvement, should not have at least equally low noise at high ISO.

There seems to be a confusion here between total image noise and individual pixel noise.

Canon's first full frame DSLR, the 11mp 1Ds was compared with the 6mp D60 at DPR. Despite its larger photosites, the 1Ds actually displayed slightly more noise than the D60, pixel for pixel (up to ISO 400). However, 1Ds images at all ISO settings, showed less noise than D60 images, comparing same size prints or same size images on the monitor.
Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #19 on: August 15, 2008, 01:46:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...users of the D3 or D300 don't necessarily have to go out and buy the D3x for landscapes since they can stitch together several D3 or D300 images and obtain resolution superior to the D3x with only one exposure.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215265\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Right, but then the D3x (or whatever this hypothetical high MP DSLR ends up being called) user can stitch too.  My problem is that when I stitch I am often shooting dynamic scenes where either subject motion or changing light makes multiple exposures problematic; so I want to get enough detail in just two or three shots (or sometimes in just one) instead of half a dozen or more shots.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad