New camera bodies with FF, DX and long lenses - my choices as a birder

Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
4,510
Location
Haverhill, MA
A Question regarding the D3 DX Crop

I might be brain dead but I'm fighting with this one....

Assuming the DX crop of the D3 is approximately 5 MP for all intents and purposes.

How does the "pixel density" of this crop compare to the "pixel density" of the Hs?

Does this DX crop have the same area (relative) as an Hs sensor?

My quick thinking tells me it should be slightly higher (a pinch) but I'm not sure I can compare them this easily?
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
7,819
Location
Gilroy, California
I might be brain dead but I'm fighting with this one....

Assuming the DX crop of the D3 is approximately 5 MP for all intents and purposes.

How does the "pixel density" of this crop compare to the "pixel density" of the Hs?

Does this DX crop have the same area (relative) as an Hs sensor?

My quick thinking tells me it should be slightly higher (a pinch) but I'm not sure I can compare them this easily?

So far as I can tell DX on the D3 is the same size as the Hs, which is also DX.

So you end up with a megapixel more pixels with the D3.

Also looks like sensor design has been improved noise wise.
 
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
1,288
Location
England
Real Name
Leif
Personally, I think Canon TC's simply work better on their lenses and I'm not at all convinced that it has anything to do with VR.

There was a thread not so long ago on dpreview discussing this issue, and several people thought that Canon long lenses were slightly better than Nikon ones, though the difference only became apparent when using 2x or stacked teleconverters. (I suspect you might have participated.) The MTF plots for the new long lenses look impressive and suggest they might be even better than the old.
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
19,362
Location
Nashua, NH
Personally, I think Canon TC's simply work better on their lenses and I'm not at all convinced that it has anything to do with VR.

That could likely be the case. Also, did the Canon camera have 8 or 16 mp?

As you know I am thinking of a new lens. I hope, along with others, that the 1.7 will work better on these lenses as I am leaning towards the 500.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
4,510
Location
Haverhill, MA
Hello Allan

It was an 8 MP body.

I'll let you guys be the lens / TC guinea pigs.

I still need to pay for perhaps 2 bodies :)
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
2,416
Location
Nanaimo, BC, Canada
Some math for Bill

Hi Bill

I saw your post in D1scussion, where you were playing dumb. I put this togther for you to compare the pixel densities for different cameras. As you mentioned, combining the Px density, pixel quality, focus acquisition and durability make for the birding camera of choice. This data might help you a bit.

84967764.gif
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


The final percentages are comparing how many pixels you can cram into a subject in one direction compared to the D3 - the lineal pixel density.

As you can see, the 1Ds is only 119% of the D3, so I would not expect too much more detail to pop out. The 40D is way up there at 146%, but you are going to have speed and durability issues. That leaves the D300, which will likely get the best detail, with good focus acquistion and durability.

So, you see, it really is a no-brainer. You were right all along :biggrin:

Unless you are shooting night football, where I bet the D3 will be the camera of choice (couldn't resist throwing this in). :biggrin::biggrin:
 
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
57
Location
Finland
Unless you are shooting night football, where I bet the D3 will be the camera of choice (couldn't resist throwing this in). :biggrin::biggrin:

...or shooting birds in Good light, where high ISO's are needed :wink:
 
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
66
Location
Verona, Italy
I agree with Rory,

the D300 is actually the king of resolution on subject (for a given lens - distance).

But the 1Ds has actually 32% more linear subject-pixels than D3, not 19% (that is the 1D), which is not so subtle.

Indeed 1Ds per-pixel magnification is about the same of using a 1.4x TC on the D3... not bad at all, and the reason why I'd LOVE a > 20 Mp D3X, both of worlds in the same body ! :smile:
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
15,253
Location
Marysville, WA
First off, I wasn't PLAYING dumb, I AM dumb :confused::confused::redface::redface: as you can easily see from my silly math error pointed out earlier in the thread.

Everything I am hearing, and seeing, is suggesting that the D300 will be just grand for my purposes, even that pesky old night HS Football stuff :wink:, but I do agree, the D3 should have an edge there, for an extra $3,000 US it BETTER have, eh?

This was more an exercise to rationalize why the D3 wasn't such a "pig" with only having a 12mp FF sensor.

Can you send m3 your raw spreadsheet for information?

Oh, one last thing I notice, in your *** footnote, what the heck is a ...

Nion D3? Is this some weird hybrid or something????? :wink:

Thanks, Rory, this does bring things into perspective.

Hi Bill

I saw your post in D1scussion, where you were playing dumb. :biggrin::biggrin:
 

Latest threads

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
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom