Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: D700/D3 resolves less than D300 ?  (Read 7456 times)
larkis
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 190


WWW
« on: November 10, 2008, 05:34:41 AM »
ReplyReply

According to this article the D300 can resolve more detail than the D700, are the assumptions here accurate and observable in practice ? http://www.naturfotograf.com/D3/D3_revlast.html#top_page
Logged

My photography blog
http://blog.dominik.ca/
Roy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 196


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2008, 12:14:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: larkis
According to this article the D300 can resolve more detail than the D700, are the assumptions here accurate and observable in practice ? http://www.naturfotograf.com/D3/D3_revlast.html#top_page

Yes.

However, to understand the point Bjørn makes, you must carefully read and understand section 9 of his review, D3 against the D300: FX vs DX format. He doesn't write for a sound bite, just tell me which is better audience and his English (very good, but I assume not his first language) is not a quick read.

Good, thoughtful article.


Logged

Roy
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 10, 2008, 01:33:12 PM »
ReplyReply

"If you on the other hand set up the systems so as to provide the same field of view from a given distance, the DX format is given the bad cards because it will have lower detail magnification [lens] and thus need the bigger secondary magnification [enlargement], both of which aspects will potentially adversely impact the final outcome."

What Bjorn is asserting is that detail is better on the larger format because you are using longer focal lengths (greater magnification equaling greater detail) and that accomplishing the same with the smaller format requires more enlargement using smaller photosites which increases noise and reduces dynamic range.

There are insignificantly more pixels on the D300 sensor than on a D3 or D700 sensor, and if all you have is a 300mm lens and you need to crop closer to your subject (such as small birds), then you will get significantly more pixels on the subject with the D300 sensor.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #3 on: November 15, 2008, 10:47:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach
There are insignificantly more pixels on the D300 sensor than on a D3 or D700 sensor, and if all you have is a 300mm lens and you need to crop closer to your subject (such as small birds), then you will get significantly more pixels on the subject with the D300 sensor.


Interesting ...
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7525



WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2008, 04:06:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach
"If you on the other hand set up the systems so as to provide the same field of view from a given distance, the DX format is given the bad cards because it will have lower detail magnification [lens] and thus need the bigger secondary magnification [enlargement], both of which aspects will potentially adversely impact the final outcome."

What Bjorn is asserting is that detail is better on the larger format because you are using longer focal lengths (greater magnification equaling greater detail) and that accomplishing the same with the smaller format requires more enlargement using smaller photosites which increases noise and reduces dynamic range.

It all boils down to pixel quality since the amount of pixel is the same on both bodies. Put it otherwise, what is the gap in noise/DR between DX and FX pixels at low ISO? Most analysis I have read claim that it is around 1/3 stop considering a given technology. It means that - in theory - a D300 at ISO100 would be better than a D3 at ISO200. Since the D3 doesn't have a real ISO 100 setting, this would indicate that the D300 would in fact be able to achieve better absolute low ISO image quality than the D3.

This isn't the case in reality because they are using different sensor technologies. Looking at it the other way around, Nikon had to develop better sensor technology for the D3 in order to justify the price premium of the higher end body accross the ISO range.

Quote from: Tony Beach
There are insignificantly more pixels on the D300 sensor than on a D3 or D700 sensor, and if all you have is a 300mm lens and you need to crop closer to your subject (such as small birds), then you will get significantly more pixels on the subject with the D300 sensor.

More pixels per unit area, which is essentially of no practical consequence other than the potential impact on pixel quality discussed above.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Moynihan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 16, 2008, 05:18:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
It means that - in theory - a D300 at ISO100 would be better than a D3 at ISO200. Since the D3 doesn't have a real ISO 100 setting, this would indicate that the D300 would in fact be able to achieve better absolute low ISO image quality than the D3.
This isn't the case in reality because they are using different sensor technologies...

I am a confused reader.
I think both have CMOS sensors, and both have a "base" ISO of 200. I think ISO 100 is a "low" setting?

What i am curious about is the following.
At base iso, (200), which is the better sensor/camera, and which has better DR for landscape photography?
Say, distant foliage?

Anyone used a d300 or d3/d700 that could comment on this?
« Last Edit: November 16, 2008, 05:31:31 PM by Moynihan » Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2008, 06:36:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
It all boils down to pixel quality since the amount of pixel is the same on both bodies. Put it otherwise, what is the gap in noise/DR between DX and FX pixels at low ISO? Most analysis I have read claim that it is around 1/3 stop considering a given technology. It means that - in theory - a D300 at ISO100 would be better than a D3 at ISO200. Since the D3 doesn't have a real ISO 100 setting, this would indicate that the D300 would in fact be able to achieve better absolute low ISO image quality than the D3.

You are confused about the "native" ISO on the D300, but nonetheless I think there are other issues to consider beyond the sensor in this discussion that may well have a greater bearing -- namely the lenses used to attain a given field of view.

Quote
This isn't the case in reality because they are using different sensor technologies. Looking at it the other way around, Nikon had to develop better sensor technology for the D3 in order to justify the price premium of the higher end body accross the ISO range.

As I understand it, the D3/D700 sensor was designed to deliver optimum results under artificial lighting, particularly when the ISO is pushed.  For landscape photography using base ISO that makes comparisons with the D300 less of a slam dunk than many seem to think it is, at least as far as the sensors are concerned.  Now the D300 sensor does not appear to be optimized for daylight either, but I don't think any DSLR ever has been (they are more generalist in the design of their sensor's spectral characteristics) and in that regard DSLRs haven't fully matured yet.

Quote
More pixels per unit area, which is essentially of no practical consequence other than the potential impact on pixel quality discussed above.

Sorry to disagree with you, but (as I already wrote) if you are attempting to get as much reach as you can from a given focal length than having more pixels does make a difference, and the difference can be significant since the D3 or D700 in DX mode delivers about 40% of the pixels you get compared to using a D300.

Quote from: Moynihan
Anyone used a d300 or d3/d700 that could comment on this?

This is what Thom Hogan wrote today at DPR about this:  Other than the highest ISO values and a teeny bit of DR, the D700/D3 don't do "critical things" better than the D90/D300.  You can read the entire post here:  http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=30039078

I could have bought the D700 this summer, but I passed on it because I am getting excellent results with my D300.  Instead I bought more lenses and I am going to wait until Nikon releases a smaller body, high MP FX DSLR that I can afford; I'm hoping that it will be around $3000 and available before next winter.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7525



WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2008, 01:16:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach
You are confused about the "native" ISO on the D300, but nonetheless I think there are other issues to consider beyond the sensor in this discussion that may well have a greater bearing -- namely the lenses used to attain a given field of view.

Not sure what I meant in fact... but it doesn't make a lot of sense now that I re-read what i wrote above.

Quote from: Tony Beach
Sorry to disagree with you, but (as I already wrote) if you are attempting to get as much reach as you can from a given focal length than having more pixels does make a difference, and the difference can be significant since the D3 or D700 in DX mode delivers about 40% of the pixels you get compared to using a D300.

I meant in terms of image quality. I am fully aware of the difference in terms of DoF and reach. If my D3 didn't offer more DR, I would still be shooting with a D2x.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2008, 08:43:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
If my D3 didn't offer more DR, I would still be shooting with a D2x.

You are aware that the D300 has nearly a stop more DR than the D2x?
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7525



WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 17, 2008, 02:48:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach
You are aware that the D300 has nearly a stop more DR than the D2x?

Tony,

Yes, I am, but I don't believe that Nikon/Sony will keep investing enough in DX... all my DX lenses have gone the Yahoo Auction route.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 17, 2008, 09:43:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Yes, I am, but I don't believe that Nikon/Sony will keep investing enough in DX... all my DX lenses have gone the Yahoo Auction route.

This is a lens issue, so now we are going OT.  As far as I'm concerned Nikon has not seriously met gaps in DX lenses; OTOH, I do find my Nikkor 14-24/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 VR very useful on my D300, and somehow suspect I would use them less on an FX DSLR and use the Nikkor 24-70/2.8 more (which means I would have to buy one, and I plan on that being my next lens for that very reason).
Logged
brianrpatterson
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 22, 2008, 09:58:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach
This is a lens issue, so now we are going OT.  As far as I'm concerned Nikon has not seriously met gaps in DX lenses; OTOH, I do find my Nikkor 14-24/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 VR very useful on my D300, and somehow suspect I would use them less on an FX DSLR and use the Nikkor 24-70/2.8 more (which means I would have to buy one, and I plan on that being my next lens for that very reason).

Tony,
I also have, and love, a D300, 14-24 and 70-200 - just gotta know why you wouldn't use your 14-24 and 70-200 on an FX body very often? They're FX lenses and among the best Nikon makes. What is your reasoning on this?
Logged

Brian Patterson
Knoxville, Tennessee
BRP Marketing Design
BRP Publications [Print-on-Demand]

Nikon D300 | Nikon D40
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 22, 2008, 10:04:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: brianrpatterson
Tony,
I also have, and love, a D300, 14-24 and 70-200 - just gotta know why you wouldn't use your 14-24 and 70-200 on an FX body very often? They're FX lenses and among the best Nikon makes. What is your reasoning on this?

Poor edge performance on the 70-200/2.8 VR, which would make primes more desirable; overly exaggerated wide angle of view on the 14-24/2.8 on FX, at least for me that would make it more of a novelty lens than the everyday lens it is on my DX cameras.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad