Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: D2Xs vs D3X for Macro?  (Read 9837 times)
Dan Berg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1520



WWW
« on: July 22, 2009, 06:35:32 PM »
ReplyReply

I have been saving for about 6 months for a D3X. Also waiting for the price to come down a little more. Have not seen many D3x macro shots. My D2Xs has always treated me pretty good and like everyone else trying to make this decision is it going to blow me away?

Several shots last week with D2xs.
Macro lilly
D2Xs 70-200vr w/ Canon 500D
130mm 1/160 f/11 iso 200

Larger lilly
D2Xs 70-200 vr w/flash
200mm 1/180 f/8 iso 200
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7855



WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 23, 2009, 12:59:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dan Berg
I have been saving for about 6 months for a D3X. Also waiting for the price to come down a little more. Have not seen many D3x macro shots. My D2Xs has always treated me pretty good and like everyone else trying to make this decision is it going to blow me away?

The D3x is clearyl superior in many ways to the D2xs, but is it going to serve your macro needs better?

Tough question. You will like the added DR, better mid and high ISO image quality, slightly better pixel sharpness (the D2xs is already excellent there), but will loose at least one stop of DoF which might be an issue.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Dan Berg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1520



WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 23, 2009, 04:41:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Thank you Bernard
I will be using the D3X primarily for landscapes but have been doing more close up work as of late. I will take many shots and report back.
Logged

JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 23, 2009, 09:53:42 AM »
ReplyReply

You'll love the D3x for landscapes, although coming from DX it takes some adjustment to get used to the different FOV's your lenses now provide (especially if you're like me and never shot 35mm film).

For closeups the D3x should also be fine, although as Bernard mentioned you're going to have a bit less DOF for any given FOV/composition. As you get into the true macro range (1:2, 1:1 and beyond), you also have to realize that getting the same composition as you would from the D2x will require greater magnification. So if you're already working at or near the closeup limits of your lenses this could be an issue.
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #4 on: July 24, 2009, 07:52:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
The D3x ... will loose at least one stop of DoF which might be an issue.
The D3X can of course match any DoF possible with the D2X, at the cost of using a higher f-stop (about one stop higher?). So what you really mean is that to get equal DOF with the larger format, one needs to use some combination of higher ISO speed and/or longer exposure time. A rough comparison suggests that the "equal DOF, equal shutter speed, higher ISO speed" option more or less cancels out the noise/DR advantage in the usual "same f-stop, less DOF, equal ISO speed" comparisons, but probably does not make things worse either.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2009, 07:53:27 AM by BJL » Logged
jasonrandolph
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 554


WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 24, 2009, 10:35:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the move from DX to FX increase DOF using the same lens and f-stop?
Logged

JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 24, 2009, 11:35:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jasonrandolph
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the move from DX to FX increase DOF using the same lens and f-stop?
Yes, by a bit. But assuming you care at all about composition you're not going to use the same lens and f-stop, you're going to use a longer lens to get an equivalent field of view. Otherwise you'd have to crop your FX shots to DX proportions, which would kind of defeat the purpose of shooting FX.
Logged

bobfriedman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #7 on: August 05, 2009, 06:16:00 AM »
ReplyReply

for macro work i would recommend the D3 over the D3x... the reason.. the D3 has the larger photosites, which means that you get less diffraction effects at smaller apertures (the D3 accomodates a larger circle of confusion).... (it also means that you get higher signal to noise allowing greater ISO with lower noise, but for macro with flash you could shoot at ISO=200)


Nikon D3 ,Rodenstock Rodagon-D 75mm f/4.5 2X, 1s f/20 iso200, aperture priority + flash

Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7855



WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 05, 2009, 06:31:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bobfriedman
for macro work i would recommend the D3 over the D3x... the reason.. the D3 has the larger photosites, which means that you get less diffraction effects at smaller apertures (the D3 accomodates a larger circle of confusion).... (it also means that you get higher signal to noise allowing greater ISO with lower noise, but for macro with flash you could shoot at ISO=200)

Leaving aside high ISO related phenomenon, the D3x will always capture more spatial information than the D3, diffraction might just reduce this to some extend and might prevent you from fully tapping into the resolution potential of the D3x.

Nice image by the way.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
bobfriedman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #9 on: August 05, 2009, 08:18:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Nice image by the way.

thank you...
Logged
01af
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 294


« Reply #10 on: August 05, 2009, 08:49:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bobfriedman
For macro work I would recommend the D3 over the D3X ... the reason: the D3 has the larger photosites, which means that you get less diffraction effects at smaller apertures ...
This is blatant nonsense.

-- Olaf
Logged
bobfriedman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #11 on: August 05, 2009, 11:30:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: 01af
This is blatant nonsense.

-- Olaf

Olaf-- nice to meet you... are you an expert on diffraction effects in relation to the circle of confusion and photosite size?...

http://www.rags-int-inc.com/PhotoTechStuff/DoF/

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials...photography.htm

http://www.mail-archive.com/info-ei@spie.org/msg00025.html
« Last Edit: August 05, 2009, 12:07:07 PM by bobfriedman » Logged
01af
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 294


« Reply #12 on: August 05, 2009, 04:14:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bobfriedman
... are you an expert on diffraction effects in relation to the circle of confusion and photosite size? ...
Umm ... not really. Still, in comparison to the 'experts' you are quoting I am. It's a common misconception to believe that pixel size defines a hard bound on the minimum useful diameter of the circle of confusion or of the Airy disk. As a matter of fact, even when the Airy disk is not wider than the width of a single pixel, cutting the Airy disk's diameter in half will yield a sharper image. And cutting it in half once more, it will yield a sharper image still. And so on.

But even if it wasn't so, the logic of your statement above is completely screwed up anyway. So better don't pretend the links you provided would support your nonsense.

-- Olaf
Logged
bobfriedman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #13 on: August 05, 2009, 07:13:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: 01af
But even if it wasn't so, the logic of your statement above is completely screwed up anyway. So better don't pretend the links you provided would support your nonsense.

-- Olaf

my statement merely recognizes the fact the photosites of the D3 are larger, hence support a large circle of confusion, hence support smaller apertures (and greater DoF) to realize better performance in the presence of diffraction effects all other things being equal... this is wrong?..

are you saying that the D3 and D3x will have identical performance relative to diffraction effects for the same f/#?  what are you saying olaf?

by the way, that shot i posted was at f/20 at 2x mag... so f/20 (1+m).. well you do the math.. looks sharp to me...
« Last Edit: August 05, 2009, 07:16:49 PM by bobfriedman » Logged
01af
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 294


« Reply #14 on: August 05, 2009, 07:45:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bobfriedman
My statement merely recognizes the fact the photosites of the D3 are larger, hence support a large circle of confusion, hence support smaller apertures (and greater DoF) to realize better performance in the presence of diffraction effects all other things being equal ... this is wrong?
Yes, that's wrong. It's like saying, an airliner flight takes hours but a bicycle ride to the grocery takes just five minutes so bicycles are faster than airliners.


Quote from: bobfriedman
Are you saying that the D3 and D3x will have identical performance relative to diffraction effects for the same f-number?
No, I don't say that. Instead I'm saying the same what Bernard already said above (see post #9): the D3X will have better performance due to higher sensor resolution.


Quote from: bobfriedman
By the way, that shot I posted was at f/20 at 2x mag... so f/20 (1+m) ... well you do the math ... looks sharp to me ...
It looks sharp because you don't have a sharper image of the same subject to compare it to. And it clearly is sharp enough to make a pleasing image. However at, say, f/11, central sharpness at the plane of focus would have been even better. Of course at the same time, sharpness before and behind the plane of focus would have been worse ... and thus the overall impression of sharpness would have been lower. So for this subject, it was the correct decision to stop down, even when it did compromise maximum sharpness due to diffraction.

And the point is: Had it been taken with a D3X and the same lens at f/20, sharpness would be no less (slightly better actually which however wouldn't show up in such a small web image---printed at poster size, it would).

-- Olaf
Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 05, 2009, 09:26:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bobfriedman
my statement merely recognizes the fact the photosites of the D3 are larger, hence support a large circle of confusion, hence support smaller apertures (and greater DoF) to realize better performance in the presence of diffraction effects all other things being equal... this is wrong?..
Let me explain it this way.  The fact that a D3x image taken at f/16 has less resolution than a D3x image taken at f/8, does not mean that the D3x image at f/16 has less resolution than a D3 image taken at f/16.

At f/16 both a D3 image and D3x image would have the same amount of diffraction; it's just that the D3 doesn't have enough resolution to show the effects of diffraction as clearly, while the D3x does. That does not mean that the D3 image is better. It might seem that way if you look at both images at 100% magnification on your computer screen, due to the individual pixels of the D3x image being softened from the diffraction. But that's hardly a fair comparison, or a useful one. Instead, try printing both images at something like 16x24 or 20x30. I can assure you the D3 image will not be better or sharper, or have more resolution. Quite the opposite, in fact; although the difference between the prints will not be as great as it would have been if the shots were taken with a larger aperture.

It's not that the D3 is better at smaller apertures; it's just that as you stop down more and more, the D3x's resolution advantage is diminished (though not completely eliminated).
Logged

bobfriedman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #16 on: August 06, 2009, 08:24:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JeffKohn
Let me explain it this way.

thank you jeff for your very nice reply..... i certainly wouldn't want to break any of the laws of physics here and clearly see that what i described and have read about on the web is a low resolution signal processing artifact.

Logged
01af
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 294


« Reply #17 on: August 06, 2009, 09:13:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JeffKohn
Let me explain it this way. The fact that a D3x image taken at f/16 has less resolution than a D3x image taken at f/8, does not mean that the D3x image at f/16 has less resolution than a D3 image taken at f/16. [...] It's not that the D3 is better at smaller apertures; it's just that as you stop down more and more, the D3x's resolution advantage is diminished (though not completely eliminated).
Boy! Eplaining something can be so easy when you find the right words ...


Quote from: bobfriedman
I certainly wouldn't want to break any of the laws of physics here and clearly see that what I described and have read about on the web is a low resolution signal processing artifact.
Now after Jeff has explained it so nicely you still don't get the point I'm afraid. The story has nothing to do with low-resolution signal-processing artifacts or with anything you've read on the web but with plain simple logic.

-- Olaf
Logged
bobfriedman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #18 on: August 06, 2009, 09:45:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: 01af
Now after Jeff has explained it so nicely you still don't get the point I'm afraid. The story has nothing to do with low-resolution signal-processing artifacts or with anything you've read on the web but with plain simple logic.

-- Olaf

apparently, i do not have the "brain matter" that is required to post here.. i will be more careful with my careless pedestrian views in the future..
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad