d300 to d700 or not???

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums | Nikon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload
1 2

4 5 6 end

d300 to d700 or not???

cbrandt
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #1 · d300 to d700 or not???

voka_gsw wrote:
cppguy wrote:
* Tokina 12-24: Any FX variant is 3-4 times as expensive and way bulkier.

Dont quote me on this, but I believe this lens works on FF from 18mm and up.

I saw something like that here on FM once too ..... I have the Tokina .. I guess I could check it out .....

Jun 15, 2009 at 11:44 PM

mikesrc
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #2 · d300 to d700 or not???

+1 to all those standing up to the Kool-aid drinkers.

I have a D700 and a D200. At high ISO, the D700 is as good as people say. At base ISOs (ISO 200 on the D700, ISO 100 on the D200), the D200 produces noticebly better images--before and after RAW processing in Nikon Capture 2 Nx. This is especially true in the shadows.

If high ISO performance and wider viewing angle with FX lenses is worth the money to a particular individual, the D700 is worth every penny-I did it and never looked back. If not, the D300 or D200 may be better choices. I still prefer the D200 for telephoto in good light where the reach is important and high ISOs are not, for macro work, and other things where I'm shooting at base ISO. That said, the D700 is my workhorse camera and worth every penny if it's particular strengths shoot a shooter's needs.

But anyone talking about "full frame goodness being better in every way" is just simply wrong.

--Chris

+1

I have a D200 I bought a couple years ago. Had some good lens. Upgraded my lens collection to much better stuff. I'll stick with the 200 for awhile. What I'm getting now is sooo!! better than a month or so ago I can not believe it.

Mike in OKC

Jun 15, 2009 at 11:50 PM

cbrandt
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #3 · d300 to d700 or not???

Steve Perry wrote:
revoke99 wrote:
I have a d300 as a backup and now I want to sell it for another d700..The only reason I still have my d300 I use it as my 1.5 TC..

Best TC on the market

+10

Jun 15, 2009 at 11:58 PM

rjk55425
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #4 · d300 to d700 or not???

Great points.. Again, its what and how you shoot.

http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/columns/tech-tips/scanning-for-the-big-print.html?start=1
Comparing Sensors
Q I’m trying to understand the difference in capture quality obtained from a full-frame sensor and a 1.6x (APS) sensor. If I were to take exactly the same photo from the same position with a 400mm lens on a Canon 50D and a Canon 5D Mark II, then crop the 5D image in Photoshop to give the same composition as the 50D’s, which image would be better?
Steve Dimock
Via the Internet

A A Canon EOS 5D Mark II has a full-frame, 21-megapixel sensor. The size of each pixel is 6.4 microns. The Canon EOS 50D’s 1.6x APS sensor has 15.1 megapixels at 4.7 microns. If you crop the image generated by the 5D Mark II to match the image generated by the 50D at 1.6x, the area covered is 11 to 12 megapixels, less than the number of megapixels in the 50D’s image. So you’d think that the 50D’s image would be of higher quality. However, the 5D Mark II’s larger pixels have greater light-gathering capability and less noise at higher ISOs. In the end, you probably wouldn’t see a significant difference between the two images.

If you find you’re always cropping images from the full-frame sensor because you can’t get close enough to your subjects, then you’re probably better off using the 50D. The real advantage of the 5D Mark II is when you do fill the full frame, using all of its pixels and its higher ISO capabilities, the captures can generate a very high-quality, large-format print.

In the end, you should be making your decision based on what your primary subjects are. The 50D’s 1.6x APS sensor and its faster capture rate (6.3 frames per second) are an ideal combination for wildlife photography. The 5D Mark II’s full-frame sensor and higher ISO capabilities (due to the larger pixels) perform exceptionally well in landscapes. The price point also may be a factor, as the 50D runs about half the cost of the 5D Mark II.
- George Lepp

http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/how-to/shooting/ask-the-pros.html?start=1
Q. I am considering upgrading my Nikon D80 (which is a great camera) to the Nikon D700 because it is an FX format. If I want to advance my skills and produce the best possible images (keeping in mind I am still an amateur), which format would you recommend? (Money is somewhat of a consideration.)
—Dick Karch

A. Dick,
If you are happy with your D80, you need to ask yourself why get a D700. The so-called full-frame sensor has become this odd goal for photographers, yet most photographers will never see a difference in image quality. The full 35mm-size sensor does offer advantages in better high-ISO performance and the ability to use fast wide-angle lenses at their normal angle of view. However, for standard nature photography shot at normal ISOs, you would be hard pressed to see any difference on prints less than 16x24 inches.

The APS-C-sized sensors today are excellent. They also have some big benefits. You get a smaller camera and a magnification factor for lenses, which will get you more power from smaller, less expensive lenses. The D300 is less expensive than your D700 choice, would be less weight to carry on your shoulder and back, would act like your D80, would give you outstanding image quality and would upgrade your camera to the latest technologies.
—Rob Sheppard

Jun 16, 2009 at 12:04 AM

Andre Labonte
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #5 · d300 to d700 or not???

revoke99 wrote:
I have a d300 as a backup and now I want to sell it for another d700..The only reason I still have my d300 I use it as my 1.5 TC..

That is a great way to think of it!

Jun 16, 2009 at 12:54 AM

brianfreed
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.3 #6 · d300 to d700 or not???

I have a D300 and a D3, and I use them both. I shoot mainly sports, and for indoor events, the FF is wonderful. Having said that, I have gymnastics shots at 3200 iso on the D300, and you can not see the noise on the prints. Sure if you pixel peep you can see it, but the D300 is fantastic well above 400 iso. When outside shooting baseball, soccer, LAX...... the D300 with a 300 2.8 and 1.4 tc (630 eq) is my work horse. I carry along the D3 w/the 70-200 or the 24-70 for head shots and group pix. Analyze what you are going to be shooting, and keep in mind, that the D300 is a better camera than any digital camera Nikon had made up that point.

Jun 16, 2009 at 01:09 AM

Mike Mohrmann
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.3 #7 · d300 to d700 or not???

brianfreed wrote:
I have gymnastics shots at 3200 iso on the D300, and you can not see the noise on the prints. Sure if you pixel peep you can see it, but the D300 is fantastic well above 400 iso.

You don't see that written too often, that the D300 can do a decent quality ISO 3200 for indoor sports (gymnastics, volleyball, basketball). I went with the D700 partially because our daughter has two more years of HS basketball, and I figured I needed the high ISO capability of the D700.

The reality is, she would rather have some pre-game, halftime, and post-game photos and candids, as she is not really interested in game photos. All of these will not be enlarged past 8x10" (more likely 5x7" and 4x6'), and the odds are I really don't need 1/400s to stop action during these non-game segments, so my ISO need is a bit less.

I guess this is a roundabout way of saying that I think I would have been better off (cost-wise, lens-wise) with a D300 (or two!) instead of a D700.

Jun 16, 2009 at 04:07 AM

TonyBeach
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #8 · d300 to d700 or not???

Andre Labonte wrote:
Tony,

Interesting take on it. I was thinking more along the lines of a setup like this:

D700 + 24-70
D300 + 70-200 (the extra reach is great for long churches)

Throw in a 50 f/1.4 for the extra low light/shallow DOF stuff and an AF extension tube for the mandatory ring shot.

Cheers,
Andre

There has been some discussion here of using the D300 like as a "TC15", but there's actually a TC14eII that is designed specifically for that purpose when the need arises. The problem with using a D300 and a D700 interchangeably is that there will be subtle but noticeable differences between them and a critical observer will know every time you switched cameras during the shoot. You can never exactly equalize the images, and any attempt to do so will just add to post processing. Using one camera for narrow AOV shots and the other for wide AOV shots will only make the differences between them even more obvious [I can imagine the bride asking why all the close-up shots look noisier or otherwise different than the group shots].

Another issue is lenses. A 50/1.4 for low light is fine, but that lens is different on a D300 than it is on a D700 in terms of DOF, AOV, and in how low you dim the lighting can be. Likewise, using an extension tube and presumably the D300 with the 50/1.4 is no substitute for even a moderately priced macro lens. Also, I'm not so sure that 24mm on FX is really wide enough; the 11-16 on DX is wider, as is the 14-24 on FX -- they are in fact much wider. My point here is don't skimp on lenses -- they are the priority.

Finally there's the back-up issue, which while unlikely, is still something you want to be prepared for. If you are relying on the D700 to do some things and the D300 to do other things, then you don't really have a back-up camera as those things you are relying on one camera to do will no longer be possible if that camera fails. If you need to skimp, then build the system around the D300 bodies until you can divest those bodies and any DX lenses you use (primarily that Tokina 11-16, and perhaps a 35/1.8 DX).

Jun 16, 2009 at 04:17 AM

Andre Labonte
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #9 · d300 to d700 or not???

^^^^ Tony,

All valid points, but we can over-split hairs too. I can shoot a wedding using either format and get equally good results. In that sense, the D300 is a backup to the D700 or vice-versa. As for the differences in the formats, a way over-blown issue IMO and you can come damb near matching the output from the two without PP, it just takes a different set of lenses and settings. So, take advantage of the two formats when you can, and quickly adjust when one camera decides not to work ... honestly though, how often does that happen... then again, you must be prepared.

As for the quality of the glass, I think the 3 lenses I mention are considered among Nikon's best. For weddings, 24mm on a D700 is plenty wide, though wider is nice, but wider takes more money. You are correct though, if taking about backups, 24mm on the D300 would be limiting. In that regards, I would suggest getting the 17-35 as it provides wider as needed on the D700 but is still a quite usable solution of the D300. Of course then the money you spend on a D300 & 17-35 could instead be used to get a 2nd D700 and a 1.4 TC instead. .... Hmmmm that may just be the deal-breaker in favor of choosing a single format.

Finally, you are correct that getting a 60mm micro is the best solution for close-up work, but I think you might be surprised by the image quality of a 50mm lens combined with tubes. A 60mm micro is needed more for ease of use and greater flex in focus distance.

Ultimately, I think your last line is the BEST advice I have seen:

TonyBeach wrote:

If you need to skimp, then build the system around the D300 bodies until you can divest those bodies and any DX lenses you use

Build a system around one format or the other. If you can't build the entire system around FX due to cost, build a DX system around the D300 until you make the money you need to "upgrade".

Cheers,
Andre

Jun 16, 2009 at 04:13 PM

Makten
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #10 · d300 to d700 or not???

Andre Labonte wrote:
I can shoot a wedding using either format and get equally good results.

That doesn't mean that other people also are unable to get better results from the larger format.

As for the differences in the formats, a way over-blown issue IMO...

Funny that this is rarely said by people owning cameras with the larger format.

...and you can come damb near matching the output from the two without PP, it just takes a different set of lenses and settings.

I've never seen faked short DOF looking good. Noise reduction is never as good as low noise either.
If there was some really fast lenses for DX that could compare to FX, sure. But unfortunately there isn't.

DX is fine, but the the difference between formats is not at all "over-blown". It's all about what you are willing to pay to get certain results.

I can't motivate buying a medium format camera, but I'd never say that the difference from FX is "over-blown". The difference is there, wether you want it to be or not.

Jun 16, 2009 at 06:57 PM

Andre Labonte
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #11 · d300 to d700 or not???

^^^^ As I said before. With YOU, I will agree to disagree.

The difference IS over-blown, but not non-existant. And depending on application, the difference often is insignificant, but not in all cases (most, but not all).

^^^^ But, as I said before. With YOU, I will agree to disagree.

Jun 16, 2009 at 07:40 PM

Makten
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #12 · d300 to d700 or not???

Andre Labonte wrote:
^^^^ As I said before. With YOU, I will agree to disagree.

The difference IS over-blown, but not non-existant. And depending on application, the difference often is insignificant, but not in all cases (most, but not all).

^^^^ But, as I said before. With YOU, I will agree to disagree.

Andre, I think you know that I will always be your opponent when discussing this issue.

And discussing is a very good thing. Our fiddling about could make other people make better choices, so let's not stop it.

With that said, I don't want you to stop opting for DX, even if I think you are wrong sometimes.

Whether (I obviously misspelled it last time) the difference is insignificant or not, is all in the eye of the beholder.

Jun 16, 2009 at 08:13 PM

panos.v
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #13 · d300 to d700 or not???

I've kind of gone over all that DX vs FX thing and I have decided to stick with DX as long as I can and also get a RZ67 for some 6x7 work. FX is nice but for day to day stuff it won't matter to me and for the things where it could make a difference it will be slow enough to use the RZ67. Costs a fraction too, for a few frames a month that I'll use it.

So it all depends on what you need to do with it. I don't even need high ISO.

Jun 16, 2009 at 08:31 PM

Andre Labonte
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #14 · d300 to d700 or not???

Makten wrote:
Andre Labonte wrote:
^^^^ As I said before. With YOU, I will agree to disagree.

The difference IS over-blown, but not non-existant. And depending on application, the difference often is insignificant, but not in all cases (most, but not all).

^^^^ But, as I said before. With YOU, I will agree to disagree.

Andre, I think you know that I will always be your opponent when discussing this issue.

And discussing is a very good thing. Our fiddling about could make other people make better choices, so let's not stop it.

I'm not sure it's as much in the eye of the beholder as it is in the application. For instance, if I want super shallow razer thin DOF and want to maintain sharpness, then clearly FX is the way to go assuming that the print size is large enough to see the sharpness difference. Just about any print size will show the DOF difference. If I want better high ISO performance, then FX is the way to go. If I want better corner performance and a more uniform image center to edge, DX is the way to go, again, assuming the print size is large enough to see the difference. My contention is this, for what most people do and at the print sizes most people actually use, the differences between DX and FX are negligible and can be made the same if you know what you are doing. Absolutely, if you PUSH to the limits of performance, then the differences are noticable and in the end, I too think FX wins on the IQ front. For this reason, medium and large format survive. For this reason I have an SLR and not a point and shoot (among other reasons too). But for the practical every day, DX works fine. I'm a DX shooter because:

-- I don't need the high ISO (at least not past 1600)
-- I like the price point
-- I like the FOV range for the lower cost lens kit.
-- For 99% of what I do, FX offers no improvement.

And I suspect that what is true for me is the truth for most (bad assumption on my part?

) But in truth, I'm not a DX fanboy, as is evident in other post, some where I even suggest to people to get a D700

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/782087/0

Cheers,
Andre

Jun 16, 2009 at 08:38 PM

Makten
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #15 · d300 to d700 or not???

Andre Labonte wrote:
And I suspect that what is true for me is the truth for most (bad assumption on my part?

)

No, that's a good assumption! But, is the OP part of "most people"?

We don't know, but we could always guess.

Jun 16, 2009 at 08:49 PM

Len Shepherd
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #16 · d300 to d700 or not???

The D700 should not give any more sharpness, resolution or saturation to 400 ISO and only marginal more colour saturation and dynamic range at 800 - I find it so using D300 and D3.
Above 800 the D700 has better noise and DR, but more corner shading, and also less depth of field for the same viewfinder crop.
DX seems right for your current work though a D700 would sometimes be better for your possible future wedding work.
I would save a little longer and add rather than substitute a D700 to get the unique advantages of each format.

Jun 16, 2009 at 08:55 PM

Andre Labonte
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #17 · d300 to d700 or not???

Len Shepherd wrote:
The D700 should not give any more sharpness, resolution or saturation to 400 ISO and only marginal more colour saturation and dynamic range at 800 - I find it so using D300 and D3.
Above 800 the D700 has better noise and DR, but more corner shading, and also less depth of field for the same viewfinder crop.
DX seems right for your current work though a D700 would sometimes be better for your possible future wedding work.
I would save a little longer and add rather than substitute a D700 to get the unique advantages of each format.

Actually, Makten's point about greater sharpness from a D700 vs a D300 is subtle, but since most lenses are softer at wide open aperatures (think fast f/1.4 lenses) due to spherical aberation, images on a D700 will be sharper than on a D300 using the same lens. Where he and I differ is that I maintain that the print size needed to see such differences is quite large, something > 8X10. As for resolution, you are correct, 12MP is 12MP regardless of format.

Jun 16, 2009 at 10:11 PM

rjk55425
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #18 · d300 to d700 or not???

Andre Labonte wrote:
^^^^ Tony,
Ultimately, I think your last line is the BEST advice I have seen:

TonyBeach wrote:

If you need to skimp, then build the system around the D300 bodies until you can divest those bodies and any DX lenses you use

Build a system around one format or the other. If you can't build the entire system around FX due to cost, build a DX system around the D300 until you make the money you need to "upgrade".

Cheers,
Andre

Unfortunately, it costs a ton of money to build a telephoto system around FF. If thats what you shoot, you would get more for your money with DX.

Jun 16, 2009 at 11:58 PM

Kerry Pierce
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #19 · d300 to d700 or not???

Andre Labonte wrote:
Where he and I differ is that I maintain that the print size needed to see such differences is quite large, something > 8X10.

I agree completely and I agree that FX is very often overstated. Lots of folks make a big deal about pixel peeping differences. Having had both cameras for a while now, I don't see the "magic" in the d700. It's a great cam and certainly has some very good points, but the same applies to the d300.

Jun 17, 2009 at 12:09 AM

TonyBeach
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #20 · d300 to d700 or not???

Andre Labonte wrote:
In that regards, I would suggest getting the 17-35 as it provides wider as needed on the D700 but is still a quite usable solution of the D300. Of course then the money you spend on a D300 & 17-35 could instead be used to get a 2nd D700 and a 1.4 TC instead. .... Hmmmm that may just be the deal-breaker in favor of choosing a single format.

Thom Hogan pointed this out and I took it to heart; if you carry two formats into a shoot you will end up duplicating lenses to get the same AOV with both formats (this seems particularly likely at the middle focal lengths). With that in mind, it makes more sense to me to augment your capabilities by buying more lenses (longer for FX, wider for DX) than by using two formats simultaneously.

Makten wrote:
If there was some really fast lenses for DX that could compare to FX, sure. But unfortunately there isn't.

Well, you can use all the fast FX lenses on DX format (but not the other way around). It changes the AOV, but then there are some DX equivalents such as the Nikkor 35/1.8 DX, Sigma 30/1.4, and the Voigtlander Nokton 58/1.4. I can tell you that the 35/1.8 is excellent even wide open; and after all, the true measure of a really fast lens is how fast you can really use it and have it be useful, and the fast 50mm lenses from Nikon are not as useful wide open as the equivalent DX version of that FX focal length is. I will have more to say about the Nokton 58/1.4 next week after I get mine later this week and have a chance to use it; but the reviews look good, which is why I bought it.

Jun 17, 2009 at 06:55 AM

Makten
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #21 · d300 to d700 or not???

TonyBeach wrote:
Well, you can use all the fast FX lenses on DX format (but not the other way around). It changes the AOV, but then there are some DX equivalents such as the Nikkor 35/1.8 DX, Sigma 30/1.4, and the Voigtlander Nokton 58/1.4.

Yes, but they aren't "fast" compared to their FX competitors, since you lose 1.2 stops of light and DOF when using the same aperture on a 1.5x shorter focal length.

DX -> FX:
35/1.8 -> 52,5/2.7
30/1.4 -> 45/2.1
58/1.4 -> 87/2.1

Jun 17, 2009 at 04:14 PM

Andre Labonte
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #22 · d300 to d700 or not???

Makten wrote:
TonyBeach wrote:
Well, you can use all the fast FX lenses on DX format (but not the other way around). It changes the AOV, but then there are some DX equivalents such as the Nikkor 35/1.8 DX, Sigma 30/1.4, and the Voigtlander Nokton 58/1.4.

Yes, but they aren't "fast" compared to their FX competitors, since you lose 1.2 stops of light and DOF when using the same aperture on a 1.5x shorter focal length.

DX -> FX:
35/1.8 -> 52,5/2.7
30/1.4 -> 45/2.1
58/1.4 -> 87/2.1

Makten, I get what you are getting at but I think the terminology is off. Your little chart explains it better. You are using the word "fast" to mean DOF, but most others are thinking of "fast" in terms of the shutter speed to get correct exposure. See if this wording is what you mean:

For a given FOV, you have to stop FX down to match the DOF of DX. The reason for this is FX requires a longer focal length for that FOV and thus naturally has less DOF for any given aperture. So for a given FOV & DOF combination, DX will gather the light faster because the lens is wider open. However, if you match FOV and aperture, both formats gather the light at the same speed, but FX will give a shallower DOF which is prefered for subject isolation. At the other extreme, DX has greater DOF for landscape shots, but suffers from diffraction limitation before FX does assuming the same MP size. Or, if you match pixel pitch (i.e. 2.25x the MP for FX), they will suffer diffraction limitations at the same f-stop, but FX will have greater resolution (i.e. 2.25X the MP).

The DOF difference is a real effect and can be seen at ANY print size. The extra resolution and diffraction limit differences are also real, but will only be seen at larger print sizes.

Jun 17, 2009 at 07:08 PM

theSuede
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #23 · d300 to d700 or not???

"Fast" always means "amount of light" - period. DoF at a certain FoV equals the inverse of the amount of light. Period.

But I'm with Andre on the point that some of the medium tele lenses used on "standard" apertures (like F/5.6 or so) are just as good as the slightly longer lens you'd have to use on FX @F/8 - and quite a lot cheaper/smaller. But that's actually the ONLY point where I see the DX format as being "better". For all other purposes, FX is better, in all ways imaginable except price & weight.

And NO!!!! - DX will NOT gather the light faster because the lens is "wider open". Same DoF/same FoV = Same amount of light. This is quite simply not negotiable... On the FX this (same) amount of light is spread over a larger sensor area (this is the ONLY difference), and because of this it is fraught by less inherent losses in the sensor - which helps the FX, not the DX. The aperture area is exactly the same when you stop the longer (FX) lens down the 1.2 stops needed to get the same DoF. The DX often has a higher maximum amount of light per mm2 measurable before clipping, which is to the DX's advantage. The lens used on the FX can have an MTF that's one third (-33% relative) lower than the DX lens and still look just as sharp.

Amount of light will always be solid space angle times aperture area times exposure time. This is basic physics, so unless someone is up for a Nobel prize, that ain't gonna change.

I wish I'd get the Sig150macro back soon, it was perfect to illustrate those differences when compared to my 100F/2.8E on the crop-sensor... They're both more than sharp enough for most uses, and when you use the 150 @ F/4 you get approximately the same DoF as if you use the 100 @ F/2.8 on a D300. When you take a picture on those premises, with the same shutterspeed, the D700/150mmF/4 is a LOT sharper and has the same/less noise than the D300/100mmF/2.8 combo. Stopped down you get approximately the same DoF before diffraction starts to show (at F/11 and F/16 respectively).

In the end it all boils down to what lens ranges you need for your photography to work, and how much you are willing to pay&carry in exchange for low-light capabilities and short DoFs... If you don't need it, it's just dead weight, and expensive to boot...

Jun 17, 2009 at 11:38 PM

Andre Labonte
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #24 · d300 to d700 or not???

theSuede wrote:
"Fast" always means "amount of light" - period. DoF at a certain FoV equals the inverse of the amount of light. Period.

Since you are from Sweden. it's unlikely that you are a master of English idoms. People refer to glass with large maximum apertures as being "fast glass" and it is this idom that Makten was trying to get across.

But I'm with Andre on the point that some of the medium tele lenses used on "standard" apertures (like F/5.6 or so) are just as good as the slightly longer lens you'd have to use on FX @F/8 - and quite a lot cheaper/smaller. But that's actually the ONLY point where I see the DX format as being "better". For all other purposes, FX is better, in all ways imaginable except price & weight.

Did I ever say DX was better?

And NO!!!! - DX will NOT gather the light faster because the lens is "wider open". Same DoF/same FoV = Same amount of light. This is quite simply not negotiable... On the FX this (same) amount of light is spread over a larger sensor area (this is the ONLY difference), and because of this it is fraught by less inherent losses in the sensor - which helps the FX, not the DX. The aperture area is exactly the same when you stop the longer (FX) lens down the 1.2 stops needed to get the same DoF. The DX often has a higher maximum amount of light per mm2 measurable before clipping, which is to the DX's advantage. The lens used on the FX can have an MTF that's one third (-33% relative) lower than the DX lens and still look just as sharp.

Amount of light will always be solid space angle times aperture area times exposure time. This is basic physics, so unless someone is up for a Nobel prize, that ain't gonna change.

Really, I suppose you are right if you want to be technical and use physics terminology as opposed the photographic terminology. But since in the photographic world, people refer to f-stop (i.e. relative aperture, or just "aperture" for shot), my statement is correct from an illumination per unit area point of view, which is what is important for correct exposure. Numerical apeture = N=f/D = f-stop. I'm using N which is what all photographers use. You are using D which only physics text books use.

I wish I'd get the Sig150macro back soon, it was perfect to illustrate those differences when compared to my 100F/2.8E on the crop-sensor... They're both more than sharp enough for most uses, and when you use the 150 @ F/4 you get approximately the same DoF as if you use the 100 @ F/2.8 on a D300. When you take a picture on those premises, with the same shutterspeed, the D700/150mmF/4 is a LOT sharper and has the same/less noise than the D300/100mmF/2.8 combo. Stopped down you get approximately the same DoF before diffraction starts to show (at F/11 and F/16 respectively).

If you take one shot at f/4 and the other at f/2.8 with the same light illuminating it and the same shutter speed as you propose in the above paragraph, then the two images will have a 1-stop difference in exposure. Based on that, I would have to say you don't know what you are talking about.

In the end it all boils down to what lens ranges you need for your photography to work, and how much you are willing to pay&carry in exchange for low-light capabilities and short DoFs... If you don't need it, it's just dead weight, and expensive to boot...

Well, that's something we can agree on.

Jun 18, 2009 at 12:35 AM

Kerry Pierce
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #25 · d300 to d700 or not???

theSuede wrote:
For all other purposes, FX is better, in all ways imaginable except price & weight.

You say that as if those things aren't significant.

The aperture area is exactly the same when you stop the longer (FX) lens down the 1.2 stops needed to get the same DoF.

mumbo jumbo. The facts concern photography. Exposures are what are used for photography. When you stop down any lens more than another lens, it loses light, which affects exposure, so it is NOT exactly the same.

In the end it all boils down to what lens ranges you need for your photography to work, and how much you are willing to pay&carry in exchange for low-light capabilities and short DoFs... If you don't need it, it's just dead weight, and expensive to boot...

Yes, that is the point exactly.

Jun 18, 2009 at 01:57 AM


FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload 1 2 3 4 5 6 end