Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: D700 IQ  (Read 55994 times)

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12645
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
D700 IQ
« Reply #60 on: August 19, 2008, 12:15:41 am »

Quote
The D300 only uses the same batteries as the D3 if you use the MB-D10.

I believe that Nikon, Sony and Canon will defend DX and APS-C markets against competitors -- they will not likely neglect the much more widely adopted smaller format and give smaller players an opening to chip away at overall market share which might allow those competitors to eventually compete for the higher end, larger format users by establishing a base of consumers invested in their lenses and accessories.  Here's a very notable piece of evidence of Nikon's commitment to DX, their newest top of the line Speedlight has a DX mode.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215802\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I am not saying that Nikon/Canon will not continue investing in DX, I am saying that they will probably not release very high end DX bodies able to compete with the high end FX models in terms of pixel count. This is why I am personnally giving up on DX although I feel that it is probably the best option for landscape shooting.

As far as the D300 goes, yes I am aware that the MB10 is required to use the batteries of the D3.

Cheers,
Bernard

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12645
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
D700 IQ
« Reply #61 on: August 19, 2008, 12:17:19 am »

Quote
There certainly are some settings not suitable for panorama technique. OTOH, focus blending can often be avoided by targeted framing. Bernard's second image (the pod) is an excellend demo of this: it could be shot in several raws, so that every frame is well-focused on its own.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215817\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes on the principle, but with this particular image each of the individual frames is itself a DoF stacking made up of 3 or 4 images.

Cheers,
Bernard

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10048
D700 IQ
« Reply #62 on: August 19, 2008, 01:02:55 am »

So, how did we progress from a topic relating to equality of sharpness between FX and DX, to very convoluted procedures on image stitching?

I thought I was the master of 'straying off topic'. Not that I disapprove. Everything (everybody) is related to everything, to some degree.  

The issue of cropped format versus full format, is really one of shadow noise, dynamic range and availability of high quality wide-angle lenses.

I don't believe you could get, with a D300, the sort of image you can get with a D3 using the 14-24/2.8 Nikkor lens. There's no equivalent quality 9mm lens for the D300.

I guess this is where stitching comes in.
Logged

Tony Beach

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/twelveimages
D700 IQ
« Reply #63 on: August 19, 2008, 01:30:16 am »

Quote
I am not saying that Nikon/Canon will not continue investing in DX, I am saying that they will probably not release very high end DX bodies able to compete with the high end FX models in terms of pixel count. This is why I am personally giving up on DX although I feel that it is probably the best option for landscape shooting.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215917\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't see how a future camera that is more diffraction limited would have any bearing on the relative image quality of a D300 versus a D700, or which one you would choose to use for landscape photography.
Logged

Tony Beach

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/twelveimages
D700 IQ
« Reply #64 on: August 19, 2008, 01:42:52 am »

Quote
I don't believe you could get, with a D300, the sort of image you can get with a D3 using the 14-24/2.8 Nikkor lens. There's no equivalent quality 9mm lens for the D300.

I guess this is where stitching comes in.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215920\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Yes, and you couldn't get this image with an FX sensor and a 14-24 without stitching, just as I did with that lens and the D300.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12645
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
D700 IQ
« Reply #65 on: August 19, 2008, 03:32:31 am »

Quote
I don't see how a future camera that is more diffraction limited would have any bearing on the relative image quality of a D300 versus a D700, or which one you would choose to use for landscape photography.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215925\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The question is whether or not you want to stay longer on the DX track that does - per my explanation above - not have a very bright future for high end.

I have personnally chosen to make the jump quickly, but it is of course not a problem to keep using DX.

Cheers,
Bernard

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10048
D700 IQ
« Reply #66 on: August 19, 2008, 03:32:44 am »

Quote
Yes, and you couldn't get this image with an FX sensor and a 14-24 without stitching, just as I did with that lens and the D300.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215927\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Interesting image, but I get a sense there's something cropped off the lower half at the bottom. Would you have preferred an FX sensor?  
Logged

Tony Beach

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/twelveimages
D700 IQ
« Reply #67 on: August 19, 2008, 12:30:36 pm »

Quote
Interesting image, but I get a sense there's something cropped off the lower half at the bottom. Would you have preferred an FX sensor? 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215936\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I find foregrounds on 180 or greater FOV images problematic because the center becomes pinched.  Also, in that particular image the foreground would have become much deeper and disrupted the balance to my eye, and at some point my own shadow (rather distracting) would have ended up in the frame.  Therefore, I would have simply zoomed the 14-24 out more -- perhaps a little wider, like 18mm.  I will mention DOF issues between formats later in this post, but in this image that was not an issue.  I find though that I need to stop down to f/11 on DX with my copy of the 14-24 shooting deep DOF images or I get peculiar edge softness at infinity -- I do not know what would be required to avoid the same phenomenon on an FX sensor, but it may well be f/16.

Now as to whether I would prefer to use an FX sensor, I would say that depends.  I would see no advantage in that image using a D700 or D3, but if I had a 24 MP FX DSLR then perhaps.  However, there is a question of DOF and subject motion.  If I stick to f/11 I lose DOF (although that's not an issue in this image) and the edges might start to become unacceptably soft; but if I go to f/16 then I end up with blur introduced by the wind blowing the grass and from the people walking across the scene.  So there you go, it's all about trade-offs between formats; there's no substitute ("magic bullet") for understanding how to maximize what you can get from your gear, and the biggest limitations to getting improved photographs in descending order are:  vision, technique, support, lens, format, and camera.

Going back to your earlier post where you compared an FX sensor using a 14mm focal length to a DX sensor using a non-existing rectilinear 9mm focal length, and the need to stitch 14mm DX images together to equal the FOV of a single 14mm FX image, well if both cameras (D300 and D700) start with 12 MP, then the DX image will have more resolution and will have been taken at twice the shutter speed or twice the ISO for an equivalent DOF.  Applying this scenario to the OP, the answer as to which image will be sharper becomes obvious.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2008, 12:31:44 pm by Tony Beach »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10048
D700 IQ
« Reply #68 on: August 19, 2008, 01:59:31 pm »

Quote
Going back to your earlier post where you compared an FX sensor using a 14mm focal length to a DX sensor using a non-existing rectilinear 9mm focal length, and the need to stitch 14mm DX images together to equal the FOV of a single 14mm FX image, well if both cameras (D300 and D700) start with 12 MP, then the DX image will have more resolution and will have been taken at twice the shutter speed or twice the ISO for an equivalent DOF.  Applying this scenario to the OP, the answer as to which image will be sharper becomes obvious.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216044\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Tony,
I'm not at all sure this is the case, that the D300 would be sharper. If one considers the situation where maximum DoF is required (without softening the image too much with diffraction effects), then one is comparing, say, F16 with the D3 and F10 or F11 with the D300. Because the D300 has greater pixel density, it needs the higher MTF of a lens at F11. Therefore, the D3 should deliver approximately the same resolution at F16 as the D300 at F11, as well as the same DoF.

If one moves to the other end of the range of apertures, and compares the D300 at F2.8 with the D3 at F4.5, then it's likely that the lens used will be sharper at F4.5 than it is at F2.8. In this situation, the D300 needs a lens at a sharper aperture but is in fact getting the opposite, a lens which is less sharp at the aperture required for equivalent DoF.

However, it might be the case that, irrespective of lens quality at particular apertures, the wider aperture that the D300 can always use for an equivalent DoF, allows for use of a faster shutter speed, and as we all know, shutter speed is often critical for a sharp result.

On the other hand, it seems quite clear that the D3 has lower noise at high ISO than the D300, just as the 5D has lower noise perhaps to a lesser extent (because it's older technology), than the 40D and 450D, and not just at high ISO.

It would be interesting to compare a D300 image at F2.8 and ISO 200 with a D3 image at F4 and ISO 400, using the same lens. Shutter speed and DoF should be the same, but what about resolution? My bet is, the FX sensor would deliver better results.
Logged

Tony Beach

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/twelveimages
D700 IQ
« Reply #69 on: August 19, 2008, 03:27:53 pm »

Thank you Ray for bringing us back to the topic raised by the OP.

Quote
Tony,
I'm not at all sure this is the case, that the D300 would be sharper. If one considers the situation where maximum DoF is required (without softening the image too much with diffraction effects), then one is comparing, say, F16 with the D3 and F10 or F11 with the D300. Because the D300 has greater pixel density, it needs the higher MTF of a lens at F11. Therefore, the D3 should deliver approximately the same resolution at F16 as the D300 at F11, as well as the same DoF.[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, if you are comparing single frames then they should be about the same, but if you stitch three images together from the D300 (recall that we were comparing 14mm on FX to 14mm on DX and I'm making an allowance for necessary overlap) then you will have more resolution from the DX camera by virtue of the stitching.  Now you can zoom out and stitch with the FX, but I think the images will mostly be indistinguishable from one another except at some extreme level of tonal detail that probably exceeds what is printable.

Quote
If one moves to the other end of the range of apertures, and compares the D300 at F2.8 with the D3 at F4.5, then it's likely that the lens used will be sharper at F4.5 than it is at F2.8. In this situation, the D300 needs a lens at a sharper aperture but is in fact getting the opposite, a lens which is less sharp at the aperture required for equivalent DoF.

Yes, there is no doubt that at the other end of the aperture spectrum the FX sensor has the advantage.  However, at what price and are you further ahead buying the more expensive camera and using cheaper lenses or buying more expensive lenses and using the cheaper camera?  My bet is that a cheaper lens on an expensive camera delivers less than an expensive lens on a cheaper camera (considering that were comparing the D300 to the D700 or D3).


Quote
However, it might be the case that, irrespective of lens quality at particular apertures, the wider aperture that the D300 can always use for an equivalent DoF, allows for use of a faster shutter speed, and as we all know, shutter speed is often critical for a sharp result.

On the other hand, it seems quite clear that the D3 has lower noise at high ISO than the D300, just as the 5D has lower noise perhaps to a lesser extent (because it's older technology), than the 40D and 450D, and not just at high ISO.

I believe this gets to the crux of the OP's question.  Are you really gaining much if you end up dialing in a higher ISO?  Perhaps you are and that will depend on where you start and the quality of the light -- the D3 and D700 seem optimized for artificial lighting, the D300 also seems to be but not as much so.  If you want to shoot in lowlight situations, have excellent lenses, and can afford it -- get the D700 or D3; if reach is a consideration, and related to that money -- then a D300 might be better, especially if there are improvements that can be purchased by spending on lenses.

Quote
It would be interesting to compare a D300 image at F2.8 and ISO 200 with a D3 image at F4 and ISO 400, using the same lens. Shutter speed and DoF should be the same, but what about resolution? My bet is, the FX sensor would deliver better results.

Zoom or prime?  Using the same focal length and moving forward or back to maintain FOV but change perspective?  Using the same focal length and standing in the same spot and changing FOV to maintain perspective?  You see, now you have opened up a real can of worms -- comparing primes in different formats are apples to oranges comparisons.  Here's a thought though, lets compare the same lens standing in the same spot with the same perspective -- in other words, lets compare zoom lenses.  Start with a very nice moderate tele-zoom:  [a href=\"http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/247-nikkor-af-s-70-200mm-f28-g-if-ed-vr-review--test-report?start=1]Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VR.[/url]  Wide open on DX compared to f/4 on FX (with adjustments to focal length to get equal perspective and FOV), FX has an advantage with this lens, but that pretty much goes away comparing f/4 to f/5.6.  Looking at the premier mid-range zoom:  Nikkor 24-70/2.8 the two formats are pretty much indistinguishable even wide open, but that lens is just ridiculously good.

Sharpness we can measure, noise too; although measuring these can become more complicated than most assume by just looking at published charts.  There are intangible qualities too, and there the larger format usually excels.  At the extremes there are trade-offs that make the formats comparable, with an advantage to the larger format at the wide end and an advantage for the smaller format at the longer end, and in the middle I would choose FX.  Yesterday though, Thom Hogan wrote at DPR that he would choose two D300 cameras and a GX-100 for a trip to Africa, that's his choice and YMMV.  There are a lot of considerations that make a blanket FX format is always better than DX format both simplistic and sometimes just wrong.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2008, 03:30:02 pm by Tony Beach »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10048
D700 IQ
« Reply #70 on: August 19, 2008, 03:48:26 pm »

Tony,
Rather than reply to every point you've just raised, I'll just make a balnket statement which I beleive covers everything.

A D3 upgrade with a D300 pixel pitch (and facility to use DX lenses) will give you the best of both worlds, and perhaps even more with a bit of technological improvement.
Logged

Tony Beach

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/twelveimages
D700 IQ
« Reply #71 on: August 19, 2008, 04:44:25 pm »

Quote
A D3 upgrade with a D300 pixel pitch (and facility to use DX lenses) will give you the best of both worlds, and perhaps even more with a bit of technological improvement.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216087\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It is the camera I'm waiting for; but I would prefer a smaller body and I will have to wait for one that is affordable (perhaps late next year).  However, I am reasonably certain that even with technological improvements we will not get D3/D700 pixels from a D300 pixel pitch DSLR in the near future, but all we can do is speculate about what we will or will not get from any future camera.  Again, it's about trade-offs and blanket statements are simply too broad to always be applicable in all circumstances.

One thing I've been reading about the DX crop mode on the D3 is increased noise.  It's something peculiar and unexpected, and if it happens in Nikon's future DSLRs it will make the DX crop mode useless to me.  Other than that, I would like the option of switching to cropped modes (even with non-DX lenses) to keep files smaller for more casual shots and when I don't need or want 24+ MP files.
Logged

bluekorn

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 129
D700 IQ
« Reply #72 on: August 19, 2008, 06:59:19 pm »

OK. I'm stumbling along behind you guys trying to garner as much lingo and knowledge as I can.
"D3 upgrade with a D300 pixel pitch"  The pitch is the distance between the pixels? Does this mean that your ideal camera would have a full size sensor with the pixels the same size as those in the D300 and the same distance apart as the pixels in the D300? Thereby you would maintain the resolution offered by the D300 and.....?

Peter
Logged

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
D700 IQ
« Reply #73 on: August 19, 2008, 09:50:21 pm »

Quote
The question is whether or not you want to stay longer on the DX track that does - per my explanation above - not have a very bright future for high end

The cropped FF cameras have at least as bright future beside FF, as the FF cameras have beside MF backs. I don't see any reason to make a sharp division between the sensors of P&S and the MFDBs (fakes all together) just through the middle of the 1.5x or 1.6x croppers.

In fact, I have *never* seen a solid reasoning, how the problem of the lack of overall sharpness could be solved on FF, as opposed to the cropping cameras using the cream of the lens.
Logged
Gabor

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
D700 IQ
« Reply #74 on: August 19, 2008, 09:55:29 pm »

Quote
One thing I've been reading about the DX crop mode on the D3 is increased noise.  It's something peculiar and unexpected
It is not "unexpected"; it is a ridiculous statement. I am saying this without having any proof of it, and I am ready to eat my crow publicly if anyone can prove that there is such a connection.
Logged
Gabor

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12645
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
D700 IQ
« Reply #75 on: August 20, 2008, 12:30:48 am »

Quote
In fact, I have *never* seen a solid reasoning, how the problem of the lack of overall sharpness could be solved on FF, as opposed to the cropping cameras using the cream of the lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216147\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I might not have been clear enough. I do not believe that technical reasons will limit the developement of high end DX bodies with more pixels. What will kill these developements is the willingness of Nikon and Canon to focus on higher margin FX bodies and to keep them differentiated enough compared to DX.

Cheers,
Bernard

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12645
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
D700 IQ
« Reply #76 on: August 20, 2008, 12:33:36 am »

Quote
One thing I've been reading about the DX crop mode on the D3 is increased noise.  It's something peculiar and unexpected, and if it happens in Nikon's future DSLRs it will make the DX crop mode useless to me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216100\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, at a given print size yes, since you have 2.25 times less pixel in DX mode than in FX mode, you need to "enlarge" more, and the noise will therefore be more visible.

If you are talking about pixel quality, then the DX and FX modes are of course identical.

Cheers,
Bernard

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10048
D700 IQ
« Reply #77 on: August 20, 2008, 01:36:38 am »

Quote
OK. I'm stumbling along behind you guys trying to garner as much lingo and knowledge as I can.
"D3 upgrade with a D300 pixel pitch"  The pitch is the distance between the pixels? Does this mean that your ideal camera would have a full size sensor with the pixels the same size as those in the D300 and the same distance apart as the pixels in the D300? Thereby you would maintain the resolution offered by the D300 and.....?

Peter
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216125\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes. This sort of leap-frogging between Canon cropped formats and full frame has been going on for a while. The first Canon full frame, the 1Ds, had more pixels than the then current 6mp cropped formats, the D60 and 10D, and a wider pixel pitch.

The successor to the 1Ds, the 16mp 1Ds2 had about the same pixel pitch as those earlier cropped formats, but in the meantime Canon cropped formats had moved up to 8mp in the form of the 20D and 30D.

The latest Canon full frame, the 21mp 1Ds3, has the same pixel pitch as the now discontinued 20D & 30D, but in the meantime the bar has been raised and Canon now have both 10mp and 12mp cropped format models.

The trend would indicate that the successor to the 1Ds3 will be around 31mp if it achieves the same pixel pitch as the 450D.
Logged

Kagetsu

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 202
    • Refractive Labs
D700 IQ
« Reply #78 on: August 20, 2008, 01:58:52 am »

Sorry. Never mind.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2008, 02:00:07 am by Kagetsu »
Logged

Tony Beach

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/twelveimages
D700 IQ
« Reply #79 on: August 20, 2008, 02:39:06 am »

Quote
It is not "unexpected"; it is a ridiculous statement. I am saying this without having any proof of it, and I am ready to eat my crow publicly if anyone can prove that there is such a connection.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216148\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It is something Thom Hogan wrote, but I need to confirm that with him as I cannot find where he posted it at DPR.  I will update this post when I (hopefully) hear back from him; then one of us will be eating crow unless you reject Thom's observation.

I got Thom's response and according to him the problem did exist but has apparently been resolved.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2008, 11:03:54 am by Tony Beach »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Up