d300 to d700 or not???

FM Forum Rules
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 end

Archive 2009 · d300 to d700 or not???

Andre Labonte
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #1 · 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
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #2 · 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
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #3 · 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
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #4 · 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
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #5 · 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
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #6 · 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
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #7 · 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
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #8 · 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
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #9 · 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
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #10 · 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
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #11 · 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
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #12 · 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
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #13 · 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
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #14 · 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
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #15 · 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

Josiah Jones
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #16 · d300 to d700 or not???

I have both the D200 and the D700. For low iso, each does fine....
But when I crank up the ISO on the D700 I am always amazed. In fact, i shot a wedding recently in pretty tough room lighting conditions ....using ISO 2000 and natural room light ( a few tungsten ceiling lights scattered around).....amazing results and minimal noise.....amazing....did I say amazing?? Did all inside shots with the D700 and the Nikon 24-70 f2.8. and hand held every shot. I am a happy man.

Jun 18, 2009 at 02:41 AM

theSuede
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #17 · d300 to d700 or not???

Well, exposures are all-important as you say. Unfortunately for your arguments, digital isn't grain-limited as analog film is - and you actually loose LESS light to technical losses when spreading the same amount of light over a larger area (until you get down to compact-size sensors around 7-9mm size or so - they have higher efficiency per mm2).

I HAVE done the tests, believe me. 4/3 will take almost exactly 2x the focal length and 2 stops more aperture in the FX D700 to get "the same picture" including everything (ie DoF and FoV). And to get the same shutterspeed you need to be 2 stops higher in ISO on the FX. And then the pictures are virtually indistinguishable - the same noise, the same colour resolution, everything. But depending on what aperture the 4/3 started from, my D700 will be A LOT sharper, or just a bit sharper.

The DX behaves exactly the same, but with one stop difference in stead of two. And yes, the difference is important - even considering price and weight. FX will give me one stop shorter DoF or one stop more light (those are the same thing when FoV is kept constant) - and with some of my lenses they allow me to be at F/4 in stead of F/2.8 when taking a picture - which does worlds of difference to the detail rendering and sharpness. Or they allow me to use TWICE as much light by staying at F/2.8 and thereby lowering the noise by half a stop. What's left is for the buyer to decide if this is worth the price, and the carrying.

Jun 18, 2009 at 09:18 AM

Andre Labonte
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #18 · d300 to d700 or not???

ISO, shutter speed and f-stop are all transformable to linear scales. Since digital is less lossy as you say, it is more linear and true to the ISO scale. In film there would be adjustments due to non-linearity. This was especially true with long exposures. Dude, go back to your padded cell.

Jun 18, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Kerry Pierce
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #19 · d300 to d700 or not???

theSuede wrote:
Well, exposures are all-important as you say.

Yes.

I HAVE done the tests, believe me. 4/3 will take almost exactly 2x the focal length and 2 stops more aperture in the FX D700 to get "the same picture" including everything (ie DoF and FoV). And to get the same shutterspeed you need to be 2 stops higher in ISO on the FX.

2 stops difference in ISO are 2 stops difference in exposure. The exposures are not "the same".

People like to say that the d700 has 1.5 to 2 stops better ISO performance than the d300. As a practical matter, that's only true if you don't care about maintaining DOF the same with both cameras. As you say, you need to stop down the FX camera to achieve the same DOF of the DX camera, which increases ISO to maintain exposure parameters, so you lose at least a stop of the ISO that you pay for with the FX camera.

OTOH, if you desire more shallow DOF or you're stopping down a lens only to hit the sweet spot, then the d700 maintains the 1.5 to 2 stops advantage.

Jun 18, 2009 at 03:42 PM

Andre Labonte
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #20 · d300 to d700 or not???

Suede,

Actually, I take back the padded cell comment (for now

). But I seriously think you need to read a decent book on how to set exposure manually and learn to understand it. "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson is an excellent starting point.

Regards,
Andre

Jun 18, 2009 at 04:26 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 end
FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 end