Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3      
4
       end
  

Archive 2013 · Nikon D300s upgrade or What!
  
 
jasoncallen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #1 · Nikon D300s upgrade or What!


It's more of a perspective difference than an image quality difference, i.e. on DX, a 50mm is a short telephoto lens, and on FX, it's a normal lens.

The D300s and D700 are comparable (though not identical, FX is and will always be better in low light) in image quality below ISO1600, and if you shoot RAW, up to ISO3200 with the right software tools.

You would be hard pressed to tell which camera a shot came from at 50mm, f/1.8, ISO 200. You'll see a clear difference at ISO 6400.



Jun 27, 2013 at 07:26 PM
frankpetronio
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #2 · Nikon D300s upgrade or What!


50mm on FX is going to look exactly like 35mm on DX...

I have had a D700 with a 50mm as well as a D300 with a 35mm. RAW files are nearly identical until you get into lower light.

Really the D300 only suffers in a side-by-side comparison with the D700 - the bigger finder will always be better. But it comes at about 3x the price.

I suspect the same could be said for the D7100 and D600 being pretty close, although there the price difference isn't as great. You get better, faster focusing and frame rate from the D7100 at the expense of the smaller finder.

If you never looked through a full-frame finder then it would be a non-issue, the D300 and 7000-series finders are much better than the consumer bodies and quite fine.




Jun 27, 2013 at 09:04 PM
Two23
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #3 · Nikon D300s upgrade or What!


Maki65 wrote:
Thank you all again for the comments, they are all sensible and considered. I must admit after reading a lot of this I wonder if there really is much difference in an image with equivalent lenses for the format. Enough difference that you could tell, after all if the picture is a good picture that is all that matters in the end...I think!

What I mean is, if you had a 50mm lens on a D700 or D800 and a 35mm on a D300s, at a normal size how hard would it be to see a significant difference?



You get a stop more depth of field with DX than you do with FX. For landscapes, this means you can shoot one stop faster shutter speed and get the same DoF. I honestly doubt that anyone looking at your photos would ever be able to tell any difference between the two. They will be able to tell if you used a tripod vs. not using one--that can be a MAJOR difference (sharpness.) They probably can tell the difference if you used a better lens vs. a cheaper wide range zoom (especially if you enlarge or crop.) But still, good photos come down to use of light. I have a state of art D7100 and Nikon's pro f2.8 lenses, and a professional level Gitzo cf tripod and AcraTech head*. And yet, some of my more interesting photos so far this year have come from a Kodak Brownie No. 2 Model F made somewhere around 1929. Bottom line for me is this. I have the cash to buy any camera and lenses I want. I'm just not seeing enough difference to justify me spending big money on an FX camera and even more money on the top quality FX lenses that would make the most of them. If I shot weddings full time I would make the switch, but as is I only shoot about 10 or so per year. I'm positive I wouldn't be able to charge more if I had a D800, and I'm equally positive my clients would never be able to tell the difference. They actually rave about the shots I make for them with a 1951 Rolleiflex or a 19th century Petzval lens (shot on 4x5.)

We like to think that just by spending some money on more expensive camera gear our shots will be a lot better, but it just doesn't work like that. Spending time with a guy like Ian Cameron (who I linked earlier) will teach you a lot about using LIght, and new ways of thinking. Landscapes is the least demanding type of photography for photogear. You can do it well with any camera made since 1839.........



Kent in SD

*of the gear I just listed, I
consider my tripod & head
most crucial to making
good landscape shots.



Jun 27, 2013 at 11:25 PM
Maki65
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #4 · Nikon D300s upgrade or What!


Two23 wrote:
You get a stop more depth of field with DX than you do with FX. For landscapes, this means you can shoot one stop faster shutter speed and get the same DoF. I honestly doubt that anyone looking at your photos would ever be able to tell any difference between the two. They will be able to tell if you used a tripod vs. not using one--that can be a MAJOR difference (sharpness.) They probably can tell the difference if you used a better lens vs. a cheaper wide range zoom (especially if you enlarge or crop.) But still, good
...Show more

I had a look at Ian Cameron's website, very impressive I must say. It is the kind of photography I enjoy. We live very close to the Lake district in England, in fact we are surrounded by fantastic and compelling scenery. When holidaying we frequent, Austria, Switzerland and when we feel like a long haul flight Canada. We are planning a trip to Alaska in a couple of years, somewhere we visited a couple of times before our daughter was born.



Jun 28, 2013 at 07:18 PM
1       2       3      
4
       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3      
4
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password