I'm a heretic but maybe the D300 has some advantages over a D700.

Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
1,118
Location
England
I think performance of D700 + 2.0x TC vs D300 + 1.4x TC will be roughly equal. Someone should try it.
Yep, I'd like it if a decent reviewer (no KR, not you) did a D700 + 1.4 vs D300 comparison (IQ and AF). I can't see it though - can you imagine walking about with a 24-70 attached to a 1.4 TC :biggrin:

Cost would still be an issue, but I'd pay the extra if it performed that well with TCs.
Now the important question becomes this: Did paying an extra $1200-$1500 for the camera and $350-$400 for the converter buy you improved IQ?
:biggrin: Obviously if you were always needing the extra reach, this would be pointless. I don't need the reach all the time - I'd really like a couple more stops ISO for indoors shooting (I've tested at home, and with f2.8 iso 3200 would be useful). For my use the ISO gain isn't worth the reach loss and extra costs.
 
T

TonyBeach

Guest
With D700's lower pixel density, it will demand less sharpness from the lenses...
Already demonstrated to be wrong for the 70-200 VR. Reading Bjorn Rorslett's lens reviews using various cameras I have not seen one lens, not one, that he believes performs better on the D3 than the D2x, but there are a few wide angle ones that appear to perform worse. The problem is that you are putting less demands on the resolution of the center (but are 12 MP really pushing the limits of good lenses anyway?) and demanding more from the edges of the image circle -- again, it's about trade-offs and there is no one true format that trumps all others.
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
2,450
Location
Bay Area, USA
Already demonstrated to be wrong for the 70-200 VR. Reading Bjorn Rorslett's lens reviews using various cameras I have not seen one lens, not one, that he believes performs better on the D3 than the D2x, but there are a few wide angle ones that appear to perform worse. The problem is that you are putting less demands on the resolution of the center (but are 12 MP really pushing the limits of good lenses anyway?) and demanding more from the edges of the image circle -- again, it's about trade-offs and there is no one true format that trumps all others.
that's because some lenses like the 70-200VR has corner issues. my 85/1.8 is sharp corner to corner. on the D3, it is really sharp wide open, but on the D300 you needed to stop down to get critical sharpness. clearly the lower pixel density of the D3 was an advantage here.
 
T

TonyBeach

Guest
my 85/1.8 is sharp corner to corner. on the D3, it is really sharp wide open, but on the D300 you needed to stop down to get critical sharpness.
Whose tests? Yours? I didn't see the D300 and D3 in your signature. Do you have controlled test results you can show us?

Thom Hogan doesn't think much of the 85/1.8 on digital bodies; as I already wrote, Bjorn Rorslett does not rate any lens he's tested as better on the D3 than it is on the D2x and he also rates the 85/1.8 as a "4" (good, but not great).
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
2,450
Location
Bay Area, USA
Whose tests? Yours? I didn't see the D300 and D3 in your signature. Do you have controlled test results you can show us?

Thom Hogan doesn't think much of the 85/1.8 on digital bodies; as I already wrote, Bjorn Rorslett does not rate any lens he's tested as better on the D3 than it is on the D2x and he also rates the 85/1.8 as a "4" (good, but not great).
Yes I have shot with those bodies and the 85/1.8 is really impressive on the D3. I won't post the images because all that would do is have people flame me for my testing methods, which is only good enough for my own purposes. Bjorn and Thom probably has different testing methods, and I disagree with their "4" rating. This lens deserves a 6.
 
T

TonyBeach

Guest
Bjorn and Thom probably has different testing methods, and I disagree with their "4" rating. This lens deserves a 6.
I see, it's that much better than the 85/1.4 according to you.

I won't post the images because all that would do is have people flame me for my testing methods, which is only good enough for my own purposes.
You have yourself called your tests into question because testing methods are important if you want to fairly compare two things and eliminate noise. You are saying you have done uncontrolled tests and that's good enough for you. You want the rest of us to take your word for it and accept your assertions and theories based on your uncontrolled tests. I have no further use for your unsubstantiated observations.

I also shoot in the real world and use my results to improve my techniques. Based on that I can see advantages to having both formats eventually. I have spent altogether too much time and made too many posts to this thread; so I will go back to working on the images I took yesterday with my lowly D300 and unsubscribe to this thread and remember to avoid this new forum (it seems to me to be full of format chauvinism). Enjoy your D700 cameras when they come.
 
N

Nuteshack

Guest
hey Tony,

"format chauvinism" ???

u have a link for that?

ROTFL
:wink:
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
2,076
Location
Ontario, Canada
Similar chatter are all over the net. DX vs FX.....don't get me wrong, I feel both are great and both will please.

Thom Hogan made this comment yesterday:

We've been through this DX/FX debate for five years now, you'd think you'd all have it down by now. The primary ones:

* Better high ISO performance
* Better dynamic range
* Less diffraction impact
* Potential for more DOF isolation
* Apparently brighter viewfinder

That comes at the expense of

* Cost
* Pixel density
* Viewfinder eyepoint (glass wearers note)
* More mass (and thus potentially more vibration)
* Smaller focus coverage (using same AF system)


And thus the whole thing is no different than any other purchasing decision you have to make: you balance the needs and wants with what you can pay, then make do with the consequences.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies (18 and counting)
http://www.bythom.com
 
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
596
Location
Royal Oak, MI USA
Tele's get shorter?

Maybe it's just me... but am I the only one that finds 5.n megapixels perfectly acceptable for the crop mode? I never had a problem with my D40's 6 MP, or my D70's 6 MP, and I never had a problem cropping the D80's 10MP into 3 or 4 MP images.

I guess I just don't think the reduced MP is a big deal, but I do see that with FX you get DX for free.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
1,118
Location
England
am I the only one that finds 5.n megapixels perfectly acceptable for the crop mode?
It depends how big you want to print. There's a useful article from Thom about how large you can print, and at what quality, depending on the number of mo you have. Have a look at the table:

http://www.bythom.com/printsizes.htm

So if you plan to do a whole days bird shooting in crop mode, 5mp may not meet your needs.
 
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
596
Location
Royal Oak, MI USA
It depends how big you want to print. There's a useful article from Thom about how large you can print, and at what quality, depending on the number of mo you have. Have a look at the table:

http://www.bythom.com/printsizes.htm

So if you plan to do a whole days bird shooting in crop mode, 5mp may not meet your needs.
The problem I have with that table is I have seen 4 MP images uprezzed to 13" x 19" and larger with great image quality. Maybe not nose-to-the-print-with-magnifying-lens image quality, but perfectly fine. Images so good that even megapixel snobs think they look great when they're caught off guard and don't have foreknowledge of the origional resolution.

It is not that 5.n megapixels is not enough, but rather far less people make good use of more megapixels than merely those who simply want or impulsively buy more megapixels.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
15,253
Location
Marysville, WA
I have a 20x30 inch print from an old Fuji S1 hanging on my wall, looks great. Depending on how you figure the MP's it is either 3 or 6 with the Fuji SuperCCD. This happened to have been printed on a very high-end Light Jet printer, I just delivered a TIFF and they did the rest. I also shot a D2H for several years, superb camera, but I was often shooting in less than ideal lighting conditions, results were not stellar over 8x10 in many cases. Point is, read the text following the table, where Thom talks about the ability uprez 2x with "with images free of noise and artifacts ". Point being, it is not just the MP's that count, but subject matter and conditions as well.

Now, let's throw in one more wrinkle. It is not uncommon for me to crop out 20-30% on a Bird shot with my 12mp D300. To make it simple, lets say I dump 1/4, leaving 8mp to work with on a print. Toss 1/4 of your 5mp, same FOV in DX as I start with, and you are left with 4.x. Get's worse if you crop deeper in DX mode.

You are correct, some folks get hung on "must have more", but you also have to take into account that DX mode at 5MP's, no matter how "good" they are, also brings other issues and limitations to the table.

The problem I have with that table is I have seen 4 MP images uprezzed to 13" x 19" and larger with great image quality. Maybe not nose-to-the-print-with-magnifying-lens image quality, but perfectly fine. Images so good that even megapixel snobs think they look great when they're caught off guard and don't have foreknowledge of the origional resolution.

It is not that 5.n megapixels is not enough, but rather far less people make good use of more megapixels than merely those who simply want or impulsively buy more megapixels.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
15,388
Location
Los Angeles, USA
From a business point of view, the D700 will allow me to capture shots I was unable to in-between 1600 and 6400 better than the competition. I can recycle my grip and other D300 accessories. It will also diversify my lens selection due to the DX and FX sensors.

I'll probably make my money back on the D700 in a month.
 
N

Nuteshack

Guest
From a business point of view, the D700 will allow me to capture shots I was unable to in-between 1600 and 6400 better than the competition. I can recycle my grip and other D300 accessories. It will also diversify my lens selection due to the DX and FX sensors.

I'll probably make my money back on the D700 in a month.
there ya go..it's also a little (a lot really) more stealth than the d3..another bonus for your line of work:cool:
 
R

RichNY

Guest
there ya go..it's also a little (a lot really) more stealth than the d3..another bonus for your line of work:cool:
Not that much more stealthy when he's hanging his 200 F/2 VR, 200-400 VR, 500 F/4.5 HSM off of it :wink:
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom