I bought both cameras and tested it them extensively in Antarctica.
Just recently I reported about my findings on my blog if you don't mind the link.
It is a long article, you may find it valuable.
Check it out here:
www.kajophotography.com/blog

Hope it helps your decision.

I don't know what's going on here expect to say I have an E3 ....and a D300.... and a D700, and they all look the bloody same to me (with the same exposure settings).

Two stops difference in exposure?

Antonio Tiki wrote:
I don't know what's going on here expect to say I have an E3 ....and a D300.... and a D700, and they all look the bloody same to me (with the same exposure settings).

Two stops difference in exposure?

I think people got a bit confused in what they were talking about. The exposure for a given ISO is exactly the same, regardless of format. However, the point was that for the same exposure settings different sensor sizes give a different look to the image, be it more or less DOF and noise and so on. Add some bad writing skills or small errors and you end up with an excrementastic display of technical jargon, in an attempt to make one look more important, also known as "an expert" or "da man". Or whatever...

Thanks panos, that clears it up.

We can return to the usual programming.

theSuede wrote:

Same exposure per mm2, but MORE AREA equals less noise

That is not true. The point is and has always been that sensor size doesn't determine noise performance, technology is what determines that. If you have 2 different sized sensors, cut from the same wafer, ie the same pixel density and technology, noise performance will be the same, all else equal. If that weren't true, and MORE AREA determined noise performance, then the slr/n would still be the noise king over any smaller format, regardless of generations of technology and any of the MF digital backs would have better noise performance than any FX camera.


ISO100 is the same sensitivity per area in all formats, if the manufacturer has labeled it's product correctly. Very true.

thank you. So, I guess I'm not a moronic liar in all things............


But that's not all that that impacts "picture quality", is it now? If so, then all landscaping/architectural work should be shot with compacts (6x8mm sensors) for maximum DoF. Well, I mean, the "exposure" is EXACTLY the same - it's just the amount of light (sensor area!) that differs - and that's not important if your arguments were correct.

Nonsense. You're trying to make my arguments into something they're not and have never been. There have always been good reasons to choose different formats for different tasks and "picture quality" is only one reason. Choosing the right tool for the job and budget is paramount to any rational person.


You talk, now show. Or just admit to spreading lies.

You need to sit back and chill out, pal. As a general rule, I don't lie and I certainly have no reason to ever lie to anyone on the internet. I don't like people accusing me of that and if you were half an honorable man, you'd offer an apology. If you are not an honorable man, then I'm done with you.

Whoa... this thread is... "interesting".

theSuede wrote:

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).


My responce:
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.

The only way to reconcile this is to change ISO. However, in the context of the original conversation I was having with others, ISO was to remain constant. You cleaverly, but without saying it, changed the conditions of the experiment. Another example of this:

theSuede wrote:

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.


My responce:
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.

This is a photography forum and I'm using the terminology that photographers use. You claim I'm wrong when in fact I am correct, but you cleaverly change the conditions of the experiment by changing you terminology set.

I did a little looking into things, and apparently you have a habbit of doing that, interesting read, this thread is:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/780134/0

Seems others have called you out for the same thing.

theSuede wrote:
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.

My responce:
Did I ever say DX was better?

theSuede wrote:
And if you cant see the reasons why the same ISO gives different amounts of noise (as integrated over a complete picture frame) when you vary the sensor area, I do in all honesty think you should be very careful with throwing that PhD around. Me, with a meager double masters did that connection a long time ago.

I NEVER said that FX and DX gave the same noise characteristics. DO NOT put words in my mouth. Such behavoir is paramount to to a lie and I do not appreciate people misrepresenting me.

Also, it is NOT the sensor size that determins the noise characteristics to begin with, but the design of the individual photo detectors (i.e. pixels) in the sensor, combined with the supporting electronics that determin the noise characteristic of a sensor. Image processing plays a role as well. For any given technology node, the size of the pixel is the primary knob on noise performance, thus for FX and DX of the SAME MP, FX has better noise performance.


theSuede wrote:
Base ISO is chosen to be located just above where the sensor fills the well with charges, without charge bleeding or other sensor faults. This may be at ISO 16, ISO 72 or ISO 160, that doesn't matter. It has NOTHING to do with amplification "1". Please define amplification "1"! What do you mean?

OK OK, you got me there! But since you ask what I mean: I was responding to J, not you, and chose not to be strictly technical (shame on me). The sesnor, combined with its collection and amplifying circitry is designed to give the CAMERA SYSTEM (not the sensor) a base ISO and at this base ISO, noise performance for THAT camera system is at it's best. This is what I was refering to. My POINT was simply that ISO200 is ISO200 if measured to the standard and labled correctly. You finally addmitted as much:

ISO100 is the same sensitivity per area in all formats, if the manufacturer has labeled it's product correctly. Very true.



Joakim (the Suede), you are a smart guy, but tone it down. I'm interested in talking about photography using the terms that photographers use. Switching to an alternative terminology may show how smart you are, but it confuses the conversation. Also, in your own profile you say:

Amateur photographer, sadly more technical than artistical... I would prefer the other way around... :-/

Well dude, stop studying the ISO spec and read a book from Bryan Peterson and focus not on how technically easy it is, but on all the creative advice he gives. Go take pictures. I deal with tech stuff all day long at work, the last thing I want to do is argue about it on this forum.

So, from here on out, I will do my best to answer people honest questions with a not too technical but still correct answer and I'm not going to engage in a pissing contest like the one illustrated above. I have nothing to prove, and people don't need this much technical detail to be great photographers.

Cheers,
Andre

Then apologies all around, keep it photographic, not technical.

Just give me a sanctioned PAIR of FX/DX cameras, and I will do the purely photographic comparison as soon as I get my hands on both cameras, which shouldn't be too hard. As shown earlier, with photographic evidence presented and uncontested, the D300 and the D700 have almost exactly the same amount of noise when the "labeled" ISO in the camera is twice as high on the D700 (with a very slight advantage to the D700 in fact). I did the same with the Oly520 and the D700, but with two stops difference. Still no difference of noticeable character, people could see what picture that came from which camera - but that was more colour-based deductions and difference of sharpness (the Oly is quite "soft") than noise-based visual differences (which there were close to none).

Which two cameras on sale today do you accept as "comparable" application of technology? I really thought the D300/D700 was comparable. Or the 50D/5D2. Sony might be hard as I guess the best "match" for the A900 would be one of the new batch of crop-cameras, and they've not hit the stores yet AFAIK.

My proposal would be this:
Testshot of DoF, maybe something including a contrasty object in focus and some "troublesome" contrasty stuff in the background, at say 3-5x the focal plane distance.
Same shutterspeed must be used, I will try to as far as possible match the amount of background blur (which we all know will take ~one stop smaller aperture on the FX, but we will allow for some optical differences, maybe +/-0.3 stops between the used lenses). ISO will be what it will be (1stop more on the FX, presumably. Again +/-0.3 stops).

"Sharpness" will be judged by the object in focus (naturally!).
My very educated guess is that sharpness will be close to equal when the DX is used at and over ~F/8, a slight advantage to the FX when the apertures on the DX goes down to F/4. LARGE sharpness advantage for the FX when DoF goes towards the shortest achievable on the DX (lenses used wide open on the DX).

"Noise" will be judged by the defocused background.
If necessary the difference (if any?) will be amplified by unsharp mask sharpening, or something equivalent. If this isn't enough, I can shoot identical "exposures" (same shutterspeed, same ISO, same aperture) defocused against a controlled luminance surface, if you prefer a totally flat surface to judge noise by.


Then two shots outside, focal distance ~50m, same shutterspeed, F/11 on the DX F/16 on the FX - to check the "DX advantage" in deep DoF's. If possible, we can go higher - but that depends on the smallest aperture available on the lens used on the FX camera.... This shot should preferably have some kind of flat surface (blue sky?) included so that we can see if stopping the FX down and increasing the rated ISO gives any more noise for the same DoF and shutterspeed.


Photographic enough for you? This has been done several times before, by me and other persons, and the outcome is always the same - no perceivable difference on any parameter except for the (for some) annoying fact that the FX almost always gives sharper pictures given the same circumstances as long as you're not well into diffraction-limited sharpness.

And you're totally right in that this mostly is a pissing contest, but I will NOT let misconceptions like that just slide, especially when met with snide remarks. As I said earlier:
If your photography is deep DoF based, that is what you do almost ALL of the time, the larger sensor gives you absolutely no advantages. Only higher prices, bigger equipment and more weight to lug around. No advantages.

But if you COULD FIND USE for the smaller amount of total picture noise at the expense of a shorter DoF, or sharper pictures in circumstances that would demand wide-open (or near wo) use of lenses on the DX - then the FX wins hands down every time. Not everyone goes by deep hyperfocal all the time, for most people nowadays it's quite the contrary in my experience.

My appologies too Suede and to everyone else for the pissing contest. Test away my man, I'll be happy with my lowly D300

Cheers,
Andre

I have a D2X and a D700....It is not only about ISO it is also about the performance of the lense on that body..I love the reach of the D300/D2X but I am selling all my dx lenses and going only with the full frame lenses...The D700 is a sweet machine and if you like to be able to up the ISO...go for it.......I absolutely love that camera

Eddieman wrote:
..The D700 is a sweet machine and if you like to be able to up the ISO...go for it.......I absolutely love that camera


+1

wow. i didn't expect all this response!!!

weddings look like they are going ahead, and now i have another thing to think about.

i could be doing interiors of houses, so i have two options

option1: stick with the d300 and get a 10-20mm lens

option 2: get a d700 and use my Nikon 17-35 2.8 (same angle of view as the 10-20mm on the d300?)

everything seems to be leading me towards getting a d700 but for some reason i am reluctant.

The D700 in your cart at B&H is now about $2370. Not sure how long that will last, but there it is.

I am in the same situation ... Having two D300 bodies as a press, wedding and commercial photographer, I am very satisfied with this camera. But I think I would love the good old full frame feeling, where a wide angle still is a wide angle. And sometimes, I crew my D30s to their high iso limits, especially in dark gyms or in churches.
Oh, and I wear glasses, so the bigger viewfinder would also be great.

But I read some reviews talking about D700's bad white balance under artificial light sources. Is this true? Can somebody compare directly between D300 and D700?

End my pain.

Talk me into wanting a D700 or talk me out of it, PLEASE!!!


Thanks guys.

Mario

Actually both have similar quality at low ISO. And dont forget that the DX uses the sweet spot of the lens on a FF lens. Reach is a bonus, and the Wide zooms are less expensive and smaller for the D300 so you end up with the best of both worlds....not to mention you can use a filter on a superwide if need be on a DX lens, as the 14-24 awesome as it is...kills the idea of using a split ND if need be. (but on the other side you can do manual blends with ease and no filter)

If I felt my customers would be better served by FX 12MP vs DX 12MP, I would have purchased one.

Personally I will wait for the D700x later in the year. As a landscape shooter, more MP will be the reason to jump....not FF.

Roman

pr4photos wrote:
wow. i didn't expect all this response!!!

weddings look like they are going ahead, and now i have another thing to think about.

i could be doing interiors of houses, so i have two options

option1: stick with the d300 and get a 10-20mm lens

option 2: get a d700 and use my Nikon 17-35 2.8 (same angle of view as the 10-20mm on the d300?)

everything seems to be leading me towards getting a d700 but for some reason i am reluctant.


With Interiors and weddings on the list of shooting, I would go FF then....you will eventually need the 24MM PC lens for interiors and the 17-35 should be quite nice for wedding work. So based on your new criteria ()at least new to me) D700 would be probably in your best interest.

Will going to the D700 make your images better, make your life easier or make you more money? If yes, then it is worth the price of conversion. If no, then sticking with the D300 makes the most sense.

Andre Labonte wrote:
Will going to the D700 make your images better, make your life easier or make you more money? If yes, then it is worth the price of conversion. If no, then sticking with the D300 makes the most sense.

You can apply this question to everything you buy. Will a more expensive car make your journey faster, make your life easier or make you more money? Probably both yes and no. The same goes for a larger house, a better computer, more expensive clothes, and so on.

If you want to be really rational, you will need very few things to live and make a living. Still we do buy unneccesary things that we can afford, just because we can and want to.

Why is an expensive camera different from all the other stuff? Would you argue that person X don't need that new house, car, furniture or whatever, just because it doesn't make money? Probably not.

-----------------------

Edit: My upgrade from DX to FX has made my images better and my life easier. But it don't make any money. Just as most of the other stuff I own. I just own it and use it.

Makten,

I don't disagree with what you are saying in general, however, to quote the OP's original post:

pr4photos wrote:
i am considering whether to upgrade from my d300 to a d700 and want some honest opinion.

is it really worth it? i am very happy with my d300 but am wondering if the full frame is really worth spending £1700 to get. i do have all full frame lenses, so that isn't an issue. i like the idea of the higher iso quality images, but in reality if i am using the camera at 200iso would i see much difference, apart from the obvious dof difference.

all opinions welcome.

It seems to me that the kind of questions I am asking are exactly what the OP is looking for. I will let the OP tell me whether he has found the input useful or not.

Cheers,
Andre

luminosity wrote:
The D700 in your cart at B&H is now about $2370. Not sure how long that will last, but there it is.

bing.com cashback puts it at 2290 from buy.com

http://www.bing.com/shopping/Nikon-D700-Digital-SLR-Camera/search?q=d700&p1=[CommerceService+scenario%3d%22o%22+docid%3d%22ABDA76E5C5A9332C15DD%22+p%3d%22df5c7f1ba4404c05b3f423c4e307eee6%22]&wf=Commerce&FORM=ENCA

NAS has moved me from D70S -> D300 -> D700

I had specific reasons I wanted the D700 and I have accepted the cost (both in weight and dollars) that come with that decision and I have not regretted it. I had about 2 years to figure out what I wanted from my cameras and I'm more than thrilled with the final decision that brought me to the D700.