On the nikongear.com forum, he says:
"Oh yes, typing errors are abundant, I know that, but at this stage I don't care. I'll have a second go at such details tomorrow. Or another day. I'll let the pages simmer for a day or two before I put up the link on my front page to make the review officially live."
If this is old news, I will delete the post.
~Ted
EDIT: Bjorn is letting the nikongear.com forum members serve as beta testers of his review; he has not yet posted the review on his front page for a reason. Therefore, I deleted the link. He does plan to make it official in the next couple of days.
yeah some moron was dickering around and kinda hacked into Bjorn's site while he was writing and editing his review and then the guy posts the link over at DPR and Bjorn had to get a can of whup a$$ out and tell the guy to take the thread down.
yeah i guess nikon was So tired of hearing about the issues with IR pollution that they made it practically impossible to do IR capture without conversion. But there are ways 'round that for the wealthy
I would have a hard time cracking open a $5K camera.. don't ever expect I'd be that crazy, unless I scored on the lotto... in which case I'd buy everyone I know around here a D3
I have a D70 and using a Hoya R72 filter for IR, I get about 1/8 @ f8 ISO 400 The camera actually autofocuses and meters with the filter in place. I haven't tried it with denser filters, though.
Hey, when you win that lottery, just remember your old buddy!
runamuck wrote:
I have a D70 and using a Hoya R72 filter for IR, I get about 1/8 @ f8 ISO 400 The camera actually autofocuses and meters with the filter in place. I haven't tried it with denser filters, though.
Hey, when you win that lottery, just remember your old buddy!
Dude , of course it can AF with Any filter in place because with digital IR conversions Nothing is in the AF pathway. another great reason to shoot digital
the DX system has the edge in sheer basic resolution.
I don't understand his comment that the DX has an advantage in resolution. If we frame the photo the same way, and both cameras have 12.1 megapixels.. how does the DX systems increased density give it more resolution?
SnaggS wrote:
I don't understand his comment that the DX has an advantage in resolution. If we frame the photo the same way, and both cameras have 12.1 megapixels.. how does the DX systems increased density give it more resolution?
Daniel
It's somewhat flawed reasoning, really. With the same field of view you bring the same number of pixels to bear on your subject.
SnaggS wrote:
I don't understand his comment that the DX has an advantage in resolution. If we frame the photo the same way, and both cameras have 12.1 megapixels.. how does the DX systems increased density give it more resolution?
Pixel density is the primary determining factor in resolving power, so all other factors being equal, the sensor with the highest pixel density will have the highest resolution.
That's one of the reasons I chose the D300 over the D3 (and 5D) for landscape work - better resolution of fine details.
molson wrote:
Pixel density is the primary determining factor in resolving power, so all other factors being equal, the sensor with the highest pixel density will have the highest resolution.
Comments like these boggle my mind. Think about it.
Mort54 wrote:
Comments like these boggle my mind. Think about it.
Yes, think about it...
It should be fairly obvious that the amount of information that can be recorded is directly proportional to the number of recording pixels available... unless you don't understand what terms like "resolving power" or "resolution" mean.
It should be fairly obvious that the amount of information that can be recorded is directly proportional to the number of recording pixels available... unless you don't understand what terms like "resolving power" or "resolution" mean.
Both the D3 and D300 have practically the same number of recording pixels available. Given the same image framed with the same field of view, both cameras will have the same resolution or as you call it "resolving power".
Really... take a few minutes to really think about it...
hangman wrote:
Both the D3 and D300 have practically the same number of recording pixels available. Given the same image framed with the same field of view, both cameras will have the same resolution or as you call it "resolving power".
Really... take a few minutes to really think about it...
Sorry if this is too complicated for you...
Resolution is normally expressed in terms of line pairs per unit area. It requires more pixels per unit area to resolve more line pairs. Recording the same field of view with the same number of pixels on a larger sensor spreads the line pairs over a larger area, therefore lowering the resolution.
"A sensor that can resolve more Lp/mm can record finer details than a sensor that resolves fewer Lp/mm. The same goes for lenses, a lens that resolves more Lp/mm can capture finer details than a lens that resolves fewer Lp/mm.
Compare the resolving power of the D2X's high density 90 Lp/mm sensor with other DSLR sensors. The D2X leads the pack by a significant margin.
molson wrote:
Recording the same field of view with the same number of pixels on a larger sensor spreads the line pairs over a larger area, therefore lowering the resolution.
OMG. Now my mind really hurts. Seriously, your math is a little flawed.
HINT: Your LP numbers are valid for the sensor, not the image. It's the image resolution you're interested in.
Mort54 wrote:
OMG. Now my mind really hurts. Seriously, your math is a little flawed.
I presume you're joking - or you flunked math?
HINT: Your LP numbers are valid for the sensor, not the image. It's the image resolution you're interested in.
Nope... I'm interested in the amount of fine detail I can capture - which is a function of the sensor resolution (plus lens resolving power, low-pass filter strength, etc., but I did qualify that when I said "all other factors being equal"). The smaller the details, the greater the number of LP per unit area you need to be able to clearly resolve them. The bigger sensor will likely give you better tonal range and less noise, but it doesn't give you small details it can't record.
Molson, you really ought to switch to Labatt's (or even better: Upper Canada). A given photographer using different cameras will still aim for the same framing, because he is not optimising resolution, but taking real-world shots. If the total number of pixels is the same, and the framing is the same, then there is the same number of pixels distributed over each detail in each shot, not more for the D300. However, the D3's pixels are larger, giving image quality benefits.
Saying that the D300 has more "resolution" than the D3 is only accurate when you can't get the lenses to make the D3 longer, for example in animal photography, where you might shoot with a Leica 800mm on the D300, for an effective 1200mm, but can't find the lens to reach that far with the D3. I presume however, that you aren't using that kind of focal length for landscape photography...
molson wrote:
I presume you're joking - or you flunked math?
OK, I apologize for being a smart @ss in my previous two posts. But you're still wrong :-)
Take a D300 image and a D3 image, both shot with the same field of view (lets say you shoot the D300 image at 50mm and the D3 at 75mm - i.e. same field of view). Now print them both at 12 x 18 (same subject, same field of view, same print size). Guess what - both prints render at 240 pixels per inch - both prints are the same resolution. They both resolve the same level of detail in the subject. In this example, it's not the line pairs of the sensor that determine resolution, it's the line pairs resolvable on the print.
By your logic, the D300 outresolves the 1DsIII, which it clearly doesn't. By your logic, the D300 even outresolves my 39 MP digital back, which again it clearly doesn't (trust me on this last one - it isn't even remotely close).
The ONLY case in which the D300 (or any other cropped sensor) outresolves a D3 (or any other full frame sensor) is if you can't achieve the same field of view with the full frame, and that only happens with long telephotos. In that case ONLY, a cropped sensor can put more pixels on the subject. This is why people argue (correctly) that for wildlife, a cropped sensor camera is usually the best choice.
Now, with all this in mind, I can assure you I am not joking :-) Cheers.
