This topic is in the 2009 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2009the d300s killer
p.15 #1the d300s killer
LeifG wrote:
You have repeatedly posted assertions without deigning to give an explanation. Or is it that some cameras have magic pixies?Not all pixels are the same. There's nothing magic about it. How do you think the D3 (FF) and the D300 (1.5 crop) have the same amount of pixels? Ever notice that the D200 and the D300 have the same size sensor yet have a different amount of pixels? Its not just the size of the pixels that are different either. Do a little research, you'll see what I mean.I don't need to do a little research because I know the differences. What I cannot understand is your mystical explanations and refusal to say what you mean. What on Earth are you on about?
The differences are dynamic range, and noise. The resolution is a function of the pixel density, no more, no less. Assuming a lens that can outresolve the sensor. Hence a crop sensor has more reach than a FF sensor, assuming the same lens, and the same pixel count.
No need for magic pixies here.
Actually you should do a little research. There is more to image quality than just packing pixels into a sensor and there is more to a lens than magnification. There is nothing mystical about my posts. I done tests with my D300 (12 MP) and D3 (12 mp) and the crop sensor does NOT bring me any CLOSER to the image (reach). If you want to discuss resolution, you can talk about pixel density, but I'd rather discuss resolving power as it applies to the overall image quality. According to your defintion, my D300 out "resolves" my D3, but in real the real (non-mystical) world the my D3 images are superior to my D300 in color, noise and clarity.
I'm NOT saying my crop cameras are bad, not at all. I love my D300 and D200 and still use them frequently, but I didn't base my purchases on "reach" or pixel density. I didn't get my D700 or D3 for the FF either, I bought them for the low light capabilty (and a few other features). When I'm on a shoot, I don't think in terms of crop or FF, I just shoot what I see in the view finder. Its really about the light ,not the technology. Sometimes the light can be truly mystical.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/hosting-data//500/36124Aix_Alley_05_J.jpg
rhyder wrote
LeifG wrote
rhyder wrote
This assumes all pixels are created equal, which is not the case.The differences are dynamic range, and noise. The resolution is a function of the pixel density, no more, no less. Assuming a lens that can outresolve the sensor. Hence a crop sensor has more reach than a FF sensor, assuming the same lens, and the same pixel count.
No need for magic pixies here.
Actually you should do a little research. There is more to image quality than just packing pixels into a sensor and there is more to a lens than magnification. There is nothing mystical about my posts. I done tests with my D300 (12 MP) and D3 (12 mp) and the crop sensor does NOT bring me any CLOSER to the image (reach). If you want to discuss resolution, you can talk about pixel density, but I'd rather discuss resolving power as it applies to the overall image quality. According to your defintion, my D300 out "resolves" my D3, but in real the real (non-mystical) world the my D3 images are superior to my D300 in color, noise and clarity.
I'm NOT saying my crop cameras are bad, not at all. I love my D300 and D200 and still use them frequently, but I didn't base my purchases on "reach" or pixel density. I didn't get my D700 or D3 for the FF either, I bought them for the low light capabilty (and a few other features). When I'm on a shoot, I don't think in terms of crop or FF, I just shoot what I see in the view finder. Its really about the light ,not the technology. Sometimes the light can be truly mystical.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/hosting-data//500/36124Aix_Alley_05_J.jpg
Sep 14, 2009 at 06:43 AM
p.15 #2the d300s killer
You aren't talking about the same thing, ISO capability isn't the same thing as pixel density, so why not let it go? I have a d300 and a d700, so I know what the 2 are capable of and I don't use the d700 when I need reach.
While you or I do not care about video, there are a lot of customers, both consumers and professionals, out there who do. At this point, video on the DSLRs is somewhat lacking and is more a sales tactic than anything, but give it time.
Give it time for what? Video will never be anything more than a sales gimmick, if they don't do a complete makeover of their lens line and a lot of other issues. A still camera isn't the optimal shape for video, so they say. These cameras are targeted to mass consumption, yet any of the cheap video cams are much better suited to use for that purpose. Don't think so? Give a d300s and the 70-200vr to your wife/GF and tell her to take videos of the kids playing or dogs running around. Then give her a cheap video camera and do the same thing. Then watch the resulting videos on the TV and ask her which camera and which results that she prefers.
So, unless nikon wants to become a real video camera maker, complete with electronic zoom lenses and real AF and so on, it's just a toy. It amazes me that some folks think that large sensor video is such a big deal when panasonic, sony and canon don't make such a critter already. They would, you know, if there were a real market for that. Canon especially, is well prepared to completely dominate that market and could have had such a camera several years ago. They don't need 12mp FF or APS-C sensors, so they've already got all the high ISO tech they need to spit out high ISO video cameras that use their slr lenses. Why haven't they done that? You think they're waiting for everyone else so they can have a tea party with their joint announcements?
While you or I do not care about video, there are a lot of customers, both consumers and professionals, out there who do. At this point, video on the DSLRs is somewhat lacking and is more a sales tactic than anything, but give it time.
Give it time for what? Video will never be anything more than a sales gimmick, if they don't do a complete makeover of their lens line and a lot of other issues. A still camera isn't the optimal shape for video, so they say. These cameras are targeted to mass consumption, yet any of the cheap video cams are much better suited to use for that purpose. Don't think so? Give a d300s and the 70-200vr to your wife/GF and tell her to take videos of the kids playing or dogs running around. Then give her a cheap video camera and do the same thing. Then watch the resulting videos on the TV and ask her which camera and which results that she prefers.
So, unless nikon wants to become a real video camera maker, complete with electronic zoom lenses and real AF and so on, it's just a toy. It amazes me that some folks think that large sensor video is such a big deal when panasonic, sony and canon don't make such a critter already. They would, you know, if there were a real market for that. Canon especially, is well prepared to completely dominate that market and could have had such a camera several years ago. They don't need 12mp FF or APS-C sensors, so they've already got all the high ISO tech they need to spit out high ISO video cameras that use their slr lenses. Why haven't they done that? You think they're waiting for everyone else so they can have a tea party with their joint announcements?
Sep 14, 2009 at 07:24 AM
p.15 #3the d300s killer
Kerry Pierce wrote:
Give it time for what? Video will never be anything more than a sales gimmick
famous last words!
I jest, but I disagree.
Give it time for what? Video will never be anything more than a sales gimmick
famous last words!
I jest, but I disagree.
Sep 14, 2009 at 08:17 AM
p.15 #4the d300s killer
luminosity wrote:
Nikon has clearly chosen not to get into the megapixel race, with an exception that isn't so much of one when you consider what it was intended for. The D3x is considered almost a medium format competitor, and is much less expensive than full digital medium format cameras available today.
Other than the D3x, the highest megapixel count Nikon has hit with a DSLR is 12.4, with the D2x.
Some would say Nikon chose not to be in the megapixel race because of Sony. Yes Sony has a 14.5 megapixel sensor...but that's not really different than the d300's 12.3
(I mention this because of fabrication, not competition)
Nikon has clearly chosen not to get into the megapixel race, with an exception that isn't so much of one when you consider what it was intended for. The D3x is considered almost a medium format competitor, and is much less expensive than full digital medium format cameras available today.
Other than the D3x, the highest megapixel count Nikon has hit with a DSLR is 12.4, with the D2x.
Some would say Nikon chose not to be in the megapixel race because of Sony. Yes Sony has a 14.5 megapixel sensor...but that's not really different than the d300's 12.3
(I mention this because of fabrication, not competition)
Sep 14, 2009 at 08:19 AM
p.15 #5the d300s killer
Kerry Pierce wrote:
You aren't talking about the same thing, ISO capability isn't the same thing as pixel density, so why not let it go? I have a d300 and a d700, so I know what the 2 are capable of and I don't use the d700 when I need reach.
Give it time for what? Video will never be anything more than a sales gimmick, if they don't do a complete makeover of their lens line and a lot of other issues. A still camera isn't the optimal shape for video, so they say. These cameras are targeted to mass consumption,...Show more →
Kerry,
This is the best argument I have heard against video in an SLR. I'm in agreement with you at this time as I have a seperate video cam for that work and have no desire to use my SLR for such.
However, if you are using a tripod, as most pro videographers do, the shape of the camera is not that important. So I could see for the professional wedding photographer where video on-board the SLR could be a real advantage in certain instances. Also, issues of form factor and hand-holding ability and all the other technical issues you mention can be solved ... it's a matter of time ... I didn't say how much.
Still, the best solution at this time is a dedicated video camera. By the same token, when it comes to composition for still frame shots, I like an SLR form factor best.
Who knows what the future holds. It may come down to the fact that cameras and video cams merge into a single device ... we have seen that in other industries, like PDAs and cell phones.
Regards,
Andre
You aren't talking about the same thing, ISO capability isn't the same thing as pixel density, so why not let it go? I have a d300 and a d700, so I know what the 2 are capable of and I don't use the d700 when I need reach.
Earlier quote
While you or I do not care about video, there are a lot of customers, both consumers and professionals, out there who do. At this point, video on the DSLRs is somewhat lacking and is more a sales tactic than anything, but give it time.Kerry,
This is the best argument I have heard against video in an SLR. I'm in agreement with you at this time as I have a seperate video cam for that work and have no desire to use my SLR for such.
However, if you are using a tripod, as most pro videographers do, the shape of the camera is not that important. So I could see for the professional wedding photographer where video on-board the SLR could be a real advantage in certain instances. Also, issues of form factor and hand-holding ability and all the other technical issues you mention can be solved ... it's a matter of time ... I didn't say how much.
Still, the best solution at this time is a dedicated video camera. By the same token, when it comes to composition for still frame shots, I like an SLR form factor best.
Who knows what the future holds. It may come down to the fact that cameras and video cams merge into a single device ... we have seen that in other industries, like PDAs and cell phones.
Regards,
Andre
Sep 14, 2009 at 09:13 AM
p.15 #6the d300s killer
Andre,
I disagree about the video portion in DSLRs being of little value. The rolling shutter (jello effect) is more evident on current Nikon models which doesn't make it as useful and my guess is that Nikon will fix this deficiency next year - or at least I hope.
There are many accessories now available for the 5D MkII, to the extent that some cost more times than the body itself, and using them makes video shooting much easier or at least manageable. There is a demand for using high quality DSLR lenses for video and people really like it. I was surprised and proof is the 5D MkII continues to have strong sales 9 months after it was released.
I disagree about the video portion in DSLRs being of little value. The rolling shutter (jello effect) is more evident on current Nikon models which doesn't make it as useful and my guess is that Nikon will fix this deficiency next year - or at least I hope.
There are many accessories now available for the 5D MkII, to the extent that some cost more times than the body itself, and using them makes video shooting much easier or at least manageable. There is a demand for using high quality DSLR lenses for video and people really like it. I was surprised and proof is the 5D MkII continues to have strong sales 9 months after it was released.
Sep 14, 2009 at 12:52 PM
p.15 #7the d300s killer
Are you quite certain that that (5D2 sales) doesn't stem from the 5D2 being a quite good 21MP FF still-camera?
Sep 14, 2009 at 01:26 PM
p.15 #8the d300s killer
The 5D MkII is a great still-camera, but its auto-focus is not as effective as a D700. The sales evidence is anecdotal, but appears quite strong.
Sep 14, 2009 at 01:50 PM
p.15 #9the d300s killer
rsg_1 wrote:
Andre,
I disagree about the video portion in DSLRs being of little value. The rolling shutter (jello effect) is more evident on current Nikon models which doesn't make it as useful and my guess is that Nikon will fix this deficiency next year - or at least I hope.
There are many accessories now available for the 5D MkII, to the extent that some cost more times than the body itself, and using them makes video shooting much easier or at least manageable. There is a demand for using high quality DSLR lenses for video and people really like it. I...Show more →
I thought rolling shutter is inherent in a cmos sensor.
Andre,
I disagree about the video portion in DSLRs being of little value. The rolling shutter (jello effect) is more evident on current Nikon models which doesn't make it as useful and my guess is that Nikon will fix this deficiency next year - or at least I hope.
There are many accessories now available for the 5D MkII, to the extent that some cost more times than the body itself, and using them makes video shooting much easier or at least manageable. There is a demand for using high quality DSLR lenses for video and people really like it. I...Show more →
I thought rolling shutter is inherent in a cmos sensor.
Sep 14, 2009 at 03:22 PM
p.15 #10the d300s killer
rhyder wrote:
Actually you should do a little research. There is more to image quality than just packing pixels into a sensor and there is more to a lens than magnification.
So far so obvious.
rhyder wrote:
There is nothing mystical about my posts. I done tests with my D300 (12 MP) and D3 (12 mp) and the crop sensor does NOT bring me any CLOSER to the image (reach).
What you miss is that it fills more of the frame, hence you do not need to get so close to get the same framing. Thus in practice it is quite valid to say that you get 'more reach'. You also get more depth of field with a smaller sensor due to the relationship of DOF to image magnification at a given aperture.
rhyder wrote:
If you want to discuss resolution, you can talk about pixel density, but I'd rather discuss resolving power as it applies to the overall image quality. According to your defintion, my D300 out "resolves" my D3, but in real the real (non-mystical) world the my D3 images are superior to my D300 in color, noise and clarity.
I'm NOT saying my crop cameras are bad, not at all. I love my D300 and D200 and still use them frequently, but I didn't base my purchases on "reach" or pixel density. I didn't get my D700 or D3 for the FF either,...Show more →
You have missed the point. You may well prefer the D3 for quite valid reasons, but for people who cannot get close to a subject, such as a bird, or a dragonfly, then a crop sensor DOES provide 'more reach'.
And regarding the 'overall image quality', I have heard statements from many people that there is very little between the D3 and D300, except when you start going to higher ISO, where the larger pixels excel.
Actually you should do a little research. There is more to image quality than just packing pixels into a sensor and there is more to a lens than magnification.
So far so obvious.
rhyder wrote:
There is nothing mystical about my posts. I done tests with my D300 (12 MP) and D3 (12 mp) and the crop sensor does NOT bring me any CLOSER to the image (reach).
What you miss is that it fills more of the frame, hence you do not need to get so close to get the same framing. Thus in practice it is quite valid to say that you get 'more reach'. You also get more depth of field with a smaller sensor due to the relationship of DOF to image magnification at a given aperture.
rhyder wrote:
If you want to discuss resolution, you can talk about pixel density, but I'd rather discuss resolving power as it applies to the overall image quality. According to your defintion, my D300 out "resolves" my D3, but in real the real (non-mystical) world the my D3 images are superior to my D300 in color, noise and clarity.
I'm NOT saying my crop cameras are bad, not at all. I love my D300 and D200 and still use them frequently, but I didn't base my purchases on "reach" or pixel density. I didn't get my D700 or D3 for the FF either,...Show more →
You have missed the point. You may well prefer the D3 for quite valid reasons, but for people who cannot get close to a subject, such as a bird, or a dragonfly, then a crop sensor DOES provide 'more reach'.
And regarding the 'overall image quality', I have heard statements from many people that there is very little between the D3 and D300, except when you start going to higher ISO, where the larger pixels excel.
Sep 14, 2009 at 03:53 PM
p.15 #11the d300s killer
rsg_1 wrote:
Andre,
I disagree about the video portion in DSLRs being of little value. The rolling shutter (jello effect) is more evident on current Nikon models which doesn't make it as useful and my guess is that Nikon will fix this deficiency next year - or at least I hope.
There are many accessories now available for the 5D MkII, to the extent that some cost more times than the body itself, and using them makes video shooting much easier or at least manageable. There is a demand for using high quality DSLR lenses for video and people really like it. I...Show more →
You have very good points. I don't think it is of no value. It is of no value TO ME. Also, right now I think the implementation I have seen thus far in the Nikon cameras is of limited value, thus all the comments about "give it time". I have not used the Canon cameras to know one way or the other about the implementation there.
Andre,
I disagree about the video portion in DSLRs being of little value. The rolling shutter (jello effect) is more evident on current Nikon models which doesn't make it as useful and my guess is that Nikon will fix this deficiency next year - or at least I hope.
There are many accessories now available for the 5D MkII, to the extent that some cost more times than the body itself, and using them makes video shooting much easier or at least manageable. There is a demand for using high quality DSLR lenses for video and people really like it. I...Show more →
You have very good points. I don't think it is of no value. It is of no value TO ME.
Also, right now I think the implementation I have seen thus far in the Nikon cameras is of limited value, thus all the comments about "give it time". I have not used the Canon cameras to know one way or the other about the implementation there.Sep 14, 2009 at 05:35 PM
p.15 #12the d300s killer
rhyder wrote:
I disagree about the video portion in DSLRs being of little value. The rolling shutter (jello effect) is more evident on current Nikon models which doesn't make it as useful and my guess is that Nikon will fix this deficiency next year - or at least I hope.
There are many accessories now available for the 5D MkII, to the extent that some cost more times than the body itself, and using them makes video shooting much easier or at least manageable. There is a demand for using high quality DSLR lenses for video and people really like it. I was surprised and proof is the 5D MkII continues to have strong sales 9 months after it was released.I thought rolling shutter is inherent in a cmos sensor.
Motion artifacts do exist on the 5DMkII, but they are much more subtle and harder to notice in many instances. You have to go out of your way to get them. Although I've not used the 7D yet, my guess is that Canon has further reduced motion artifacts through software.
Personally, I was never big in to video, but with the 5DMkII, I did some wedding videos in 1080p with a photo shoot and the results were stunning using ambient light during the dance part of the reception. To avoid notice of motion artifacts due to panning, I just zoomed out to 24mm and had an excellent field of view. Some of the other fellows, who were shooting for the other party, were using a D700 & D300 combo, and I smiled at them while they looked on at me. I got about 17 minutes video total and everyone was happy.
rsg_1 wrote
Andre,I disagree about the video portion in DSLRs being of little value. The rolling shutter (jello effect) is more evident on current Nikon models which doesn't make it as useful and my guess is that Nikon will fix this deficiency next year - or at least I hope.
There are many accessories now available for the 5D MkII, to the extent that some cost more times than the body itself, and using them makes video shooting much easier or at least manageable. There is a demand for using high quality DSLR lenses for video and people really like it. I was surprised and proof is the 5D MkII continues to have strong sales 9 months after it was released.
Motion artifacts do exist on the 5DMkII, but they are much more subtle and harder to notice in many instances. You have to go out of your way to get them. Although I've not used the 7D yet, my guess is that Canon has further reduced motion artifacts through software.
Personally, I was never big in to video, but with the 5DMkII, I did some wedding videos in 1080p with a photo shoot and the results were stunning using ambient light during the dance part of the reception. To avoid notice of motion artifacts due to panning, I just zoomed out to 24mm and had an excellent field of view. Some of the other fellows, who were shooting for the other party, were using a D700 & D300 combo, and I smiled at them while they looked on at me.
I got about 17 minutes video total and everyone was happy.Sep 14, 2009 at 09:54 PM
p.15 #13the d300s killer
LeifG wrote:
So far so obvious.
What you miss is that it fills more of the frame, hence you do not need to get so close to get the same framing. Thus in practice it is quite valid to say that you get 'more reach'. You also get more depth of field with a smaller sensor due to the relationship of DOF to image magnification at a given aperture.
I'm NOT saying my crop cameras are bad, not at all. I love my D300 and D200 and still use them frequently, but I didn't base my purchases on "reach" or pixel density. I didn't get my D700 or D3 for the FF either, I bought them for the low light capabilty (and a few other features). When I'm on a shoot, I don't think in terms of crop or FF, I just shoot what I see in the view finder. Its really about the light ,not the technology. Sometimes the light can be truly mystical.You have missed the point. You may well prefer the D3 for quite valid reasons, but for people who cannot get close to a subject, such as a bird, or a dragonfly, then...Show more →
"What you miss is that it fills more of the frame, hence you do not need to get so close to get the same framing. "
It does not fill more of the frame. Let me explain in the simplest terms that I can. First take a 70-200 lens (or any lens with a foot) and mount the lens to a tripod. Now mount a D300 to the lens making sure not to move the tripod (its not really hard, just be careful). Now take an exposure. Next unmount the D300 and mount a D3 ( a D700 will also do) and take another shot. Load both file in your computer. Open both files at their actual size (36 x 23.9mm for the D3) (23.6 x 15.8 mm for the D300), Next you overlay the D300 image over the D3 image. You will find that you are not any closer to the subject with either camera. In fact you will see that the images line up exactly at the edge of the crop sensor. If the crop sensor brought you closer to the subjrct, this would not be the case, you would have a mismatch. If you had done any research you might have noticed the the Focal Plane position on all Nikon cameras is exactly the same. All of the Nikon lenses are designed to focus on this palne. The only way to get a magnification would be to change this relationship. Changing this relationship would cause the lens to be out of focus and no amount of twiting the focus ring would bring it back in.
If one follows your logic (now who's being mystical) the different Nikon cameras would all have a different crop factor ie; the D200 over the D70, the D300 over the D200, yet they are all said the have a 1.5 crop factor and they all have the same FOV with any given lens.
"You may well prefer the D3 "
I've never said that. If you read my post carefully you'll see that I said "I love my D300 and D200 and still use them frequently"
"And regarding the 'overall image quality', I have heard statements from many people that there is very little between the D3 and D300"
I don't have to go by "what I've heard", I can go by what I shoot. If you would look at my work you would see very, very good IQ from my Coolpix 5700 through to my D3s. That's one of the reason's I shoot NIKON.
Here's one from my 5700....
https://www.fredmiranda.com/hosting-data//500/36124WetWon01.jpg
Bottom line......I'm not missing ant point at all.......you seem to be the one getting off on a tangent. You seem to be reading things into my words that are not there (I didn't say that I prefered the D3 above the rest). My point is that the crop factor is about FOV.... NOT magnification.
rhyder wrote
Actually you should do a little research. There is more to image quality than just packing pixels into a sensor and there is more to a lens than magnification.rhyder wrote
There is nothing mystical about my posts. I done tests with my D300 (12 MP) and D3 (12 mp) and the crop sensor does NOT bring me any CLOSER to the image (reach).rhyder wrote
If you want to discuss resolution, you can talk about pixel density, but I'd rather discuss resolving power as it applies to the overall image quality. According to your defintion, my D300 out "resolves" my D3, but in real the real (non-mystical) world the my D3 images are superior to my D300 in color, noise and clarity.I'm NOT saying my crop cameras are bad, not at all. I love my D300 and D200 and still use them frequently, but I didn't base my purchases on "reach" or pixel density. I didn't get my D700 or D3 for the FF either, I bought them for the low light capabilty (and a few other features). When I'm on a shoot, I don't think in terms of crop or FF, I just shoot what I see in the view finder. Its really about the light ,not the technology. Sometimes the light can be truly mystical.
"What you miss is that it fills more of the frame, hence you do not need to get so close to get the same framing. "
It does not fill more of the frame. Let me explain in the simplest terms that I can. First take a 70-200 lens (or any lens with a foot) and mount the lens to a tripod. Now mount a D300 to the lens making sure not to move the tripod (its not really hard, just be careful). Now take an exposure. Next unmount the D300 and mount a D3 ( a D700 will also do) and take another shot. Load both file in your computer. Open both files at their actual size (36 x 23.9mm for the D3) (23.6 x 15.8 mm for the D300), Next you overlay the D300 image over the D3 image. You will find that you are not any closer to the subject with either camera. In fact you will see that the images line up exactly at the edge of the crop sensor. If the crop sensor brought you closer to the subjrct, this would not be the case, you would have a mismatch. If you had done any research you might have noticed the the Focal Plane position on all Nikon cameras is exactly the same. All of the Nikon lenses are designed to focus on this palne. The only way to get a magnification would be to change this relationship. Changing this relationship would cause the lens to be out of focus and no amount of twiting the focus ring would bring it back in.
If one follows your logic (now who's being mystical) the different Nikon cameras would all have a different crop factor ie; the D200 over the D70, the D300 over the D200, yet they are all said the have a 1.5 crop factor and they all have the same FOV with any given lens.
"You may well prefer the D3 "
I've never said that. If you read my post carefully you'll see that I said "I love my D300 and D200 and still use them frequently"
"And regarding the 'overall image quality', I have heard statements from many people that there is very little between the D3 and D300"
I don't have to go by "what I've heard", I can go by what I shoot. If you would look at my work you would see very, very good IQ from my Coolpix 5700 through to my D3s. That's one of the reason's I shoot NIKON.
Here's one from my 5700....
https://www.fredmiranda.com/hosting-data//500/36124WetWon01.jpg
Bottom line......I'm not missing ant point at all.......you seem to be the one getting off on a tangent. You seem to be reading things into my words that are not there (I didn't say that I prefered the D3 above the rest). My point is that the crop factor is about FOV.... NOT magnification.
Sep 14, 2009 at 10:45 PM
p.15 #14the d300s killer
rhyder wrote:
My point is that the crop factor is about FOV.... NOT magnification.
Pixel density equals resolution. Crop a 12 MP FX image to match the FOV of an identically shot 12 MP DX image and you have the same image, but you have less resolution. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that as you must be aware of it already. Present two 100% crops of an identical shot -- one from your D300 and one from your D3 -- and it will be obvious which one came from which camera, and which one can be printed larger [you might be able to skew that by shooting at some higher ISO, beyond ISO 1600 I would say, but at more reasonable ISOs I have seen these comparisons before and it's not even close].
Now as to the 7D and its even greater pixel density, I'm sure it is a marginal advantage. The thing is that the advantage of greater pixel density diminishes as we go past 10-12 MP on smaller sensors (or 24-28 MP on FX sensors) because of lenses, support, and diffraction.
My point is that the crop factor is about FOV.... NOT magnification.
Pixel density equals resolution. Crop a 12 MP FX image to match the FOV of an identically shot 12 MP DX image and you have the same image, but you have less resolution. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that as you must be aware of it already. Present two 100% crops of an identical shot -- one from your D300 and one from your D3 -- and it will be obvious which one came from which camera, and which one can be printed larger [you might be able to skew that by shooting at some higher ISO, beyond ISO 1600 I would say, but at more reasonable ISOs I have seen these comparisons before and it's not even close].
Now as to the 7D and its even greater pixel density, I'm sure it is a marginal advantage. The thing is that the advantage of greater pixel density diminishes as we go past 10-12 MP on smaller sensors (or 24-28 MP on FX sensors) because of lenses, support, and diffraction.
Sep 14, 2009 at 11:57 PM
p.15 #15the d300s killer
"What you miss is that it fills more of the frame, hence you do not need to get so close to get the same framing. " It does not fill more of the frame. Let me explain in the simplest terms that I can. First take a 70-200 lens (or any lens with a foot) and mount the lens to a tripod. Now mount a D300 to the lens making sure not to move the tripod (its not really hard, just be careful). Now take an exposure. Next unmount the D300 and mount a D3 ( a D700 will also do) and take another shot. Load both file in your computer. Open both files at their actual size (36 x 23.9mm for the D3) (23.6 x 15.8 mm for the D300), Next you overlay the D300 image over the D3 image. You will find that you are not any closer to the subject with either camera. In fact you will see that the images line up exactly at the edge of the crop sensor. If the crop sensor brought you closer to the subjrct, this would not be the case, you would have a mismatch. If you had done any research you might have noticed the the Focal Plane position on all Nikon cameras is exactly the same. All of the Nikon lenses are designed to focus on this palne. The only way to get a magnification would be to change this relationship. Changing this relationship would cause the lens to be out of focus and no amount of twiting the focus ring would bring it back in.
If one follows your logic (now who's being mystical) the different Nikon cameras would all have a different crop factor ie; the D200 over the D70, the D300 over the D200, yet they are all said the have a 1.5 crop factor and they all have the same FOV with any given lens.
I am confused. My understanding of the crop factor is: Mount a 100mm lens on a 1.5 or 1.6 crop camera and you would have the equivalent of a 150 or 160 mm lens fov. Mount the same lens on a FF or 1 crop and you would have 100 mm lens fov. Does that not mean that the crop sensor gives you more "reach"?
The sensor size of the D200, D70, D300 are all 1.5 and would give the same 1.5 increase in the crop for the same lens.
Ben
Edited on Sep 15, 2009 at 01:42 AM · View previous versions
Sep 15, 2009 at 01:17 AM
p.15 #16the d300s killer
rhyder wrote:
So far so obvious.
What you miss is that it fills more of the frame, hence you do not need to get so close to get the same framing. Thus in practice it is quite valid to say that you get 'more reach'. You also get more depth of field with a smaller sensor due to the relationship of DOF to image magnification at a given aperture.
I'm NOT saying my crop cameras are bad, not at all. I love my D300 and D200 and still use them frequently, but I didn't base my purchases on "reach" or pixel density. I didn't get my D700 or D3 for the FF either, I bought them for the low light capabilty (and a few other features). When I'm on a shoot, I don't think in terms of crop or FF, I just shoot what I see in the view finder. Its really about the light ,not the technology. Sometimes the light can be truly mystical.You have missed the point. You may well prefer the D3 for quite valid reasons, but for people who cannot get close to a subject, such as a bird, or a dragonfly, then a crop sensor DOES provide 'more reach'.
And regarding the 'overall image quality', I have heard statements from many people that there is very little between the D3 and D300, except when you start going to higher ISO, where the larger pixels excel."What you miss is that it fills more of the frame, hence you do not need to get so close to get the same framing. "
It does not fill more of the frame. Let me explain in the simplest terms that I can. First take a 70-200 lens (or any lens with a foot) and mount the lens to a tripod. Now mount a D300 to the lens making sure not to move the tripod (its not really hard, just be careful). Now take an exposure. Next unmount the D300 and mount a D3 ( a D700 will also...Show more →
'rhyder': This is getting ridiculous. You have totally missed the point. You said that crop sensors do not provide more reach. Given an equivalent pixel count, they do.
"My point is that the crop factor is about FOV.... NOT magnification. "
A statement of the obvious. And BECAUSE there is a narrower FOV, you do not need to get so close. Hence you get more reach. And don't ramble on nonsensically as before because it is tedious. Oh, yes, the bird photographer with the D300 + 600mm F4 lens can just swap them for a D3 + 900mm F4 lens. Sorry, you are right, let me apologise. I'll just rush out and buy the D3 + 900mm F4 lens, and some sherpas to carry the lens because it is so enormous I cannot carry it myself. By the way, we'd better let Nikon know they need to start producing that enormous lens because it seems they don't. And let me apologise again, as you have explained why bird photographers, and many other photographers are all mistaken. I only wish we had had the benefit of your superior knowledge. Now where did that $40K I stashed away go, that should pay for the fantasy lens. And maybe $40K per year as a salary for the sherpas ...
Back on planet Earth, I use a D200 + 200mm F4 AFD micro and 400mm F5.6 lens for wary insects. I cannot afford to buy a D3 + 600mm lens, and there is no 300mm micro. None, nada, zilch, diddly squat. Comprende?
LeifG wrote
rhyder wrote
Actually you should do a little research. There is more to image quality than just packing pixels into a sensor and there is more to a lens than magnification.rhyder wrote
There is nothing mystical about my posts. I done tests with my D300 (12 MP) and D3 (12 mp) and the crop sensor does NOT bring me any CLOSER to the image (reach).rhyder wrote
If you want to discuss resolution, you can talk about pixel density, but I'd rather discuss resolving power as it applies to the overall image quality. According to your defintion, my D300 out "resolves" my D3, but in real the real (non-mystical) world the my D3 images are superior to my D300 in color, noise and clarity.I'm NOT saying my crop cameras are bad, not at all. I love my D300 and D200 and still use them frequently, but I didn't base my purchases on "reach" or pixel density. I didn't get my D700 or D3 for the FF either, I bought them for the low light capabilty (and a few other features). When I'm on a shoot, I don't think in terms of crop or FF, I just shoot what I see in the view finder. Its really about the light ,not the technology. Sometimes the light can be truly mystical.
And regarding the 'overall image quality', I have heard statements from many people that there is very little between the D3 and D300, except when you start going to higher ISO, where the larger pixels excel.
It does not fill more of the frame. Let me explain in the simplest terms that I can. First take a 70-200 lens (or any lens with a foot) and mount the lens to a tripod. Now mount a D300 to the lens making sure not to move the tripod (its not really hard, just be careful). Now take an exposure. Next unmount the D300 and mount a D3 ( a D700 will also...Show more →
'rhyder': This is getting ridiculous. You have totally missed the point. You said that crop sensors do not provide more reach. Given an equivalent pixel count, they do.
"My point is that the crop factor is about FOV.... NOT magnification. "
A statement of the obvious. And BECAUSE there is a narrower FOV, you do not need to get so close. Hence you get more reach. And don't ramble on nonsensically as before because it is tedious. Oh, yes, the bird photographer with the D300 + 600mm F4 lens can just swap them for a D3 + 900mm F4 lens. Sorry, you are right, let me apologise. I'll just rush out and buy the D3 + 900mm F4 lens, and some sherpas to carry the lens because it is so enormous I cannot carry it myself. By the way, we'd better let Nikon know they need to start producing that enormous lens because it seems they don't. And let me apologise again, as you have explained why bird photographers, and many other photographers are all mistaken. I only wish we had had the benefit of your superior knowledge. Now where did that $40K I stashed away go, that should pay for the fantasy lens. And maybe $40K per year as a salary for the sherpas ...
Back on planet Earth, I use a D200 + 200mm F4 AFD micro and 400mm F5.6 lens for wary insects. I cannot afford to buy a D3 + 600mm lens, and there is no 300mm micro. None, nada, zilch, diddly squat. Comprende?
Sep 15, 2009 at 01:21 AM
p.15 #17the d300s killer
rsg_1 wrote:
I disagree about the video portion in DSLRs being of little value. The rolling shutter (jello effect) is more evident on current Nikon models which doesn't make it as useful and my guess is that Nikon will fix this deficiency next year - or at least I hope.
There are many accessories now available for the 5D MkII, to the extent that some cost more times than the body itself, and using them makes video shooting much easier or at least manageable. There is a demand for using high quality DSLR lenses for video and people really like it. I was surprised and proof is the 5D MkII continues to have strong sales 9 months after it was released.I thought rolling shutter is inherent in a cmos sensor.Motion artifacts do exist on the 5DMkII, but they are much more subtle and harder to notice in many instances. You have to go out of your way to get them. Although I've not used the 7D yet, my guess is that Canon has further reduced motion artifacts through software.
Personally, I was never big in to video, but with the 5DMkII, I did some wedding videos in 1080p with a photo shoot and the results were stunning using ambient light during the dance part of the reception. To avoid notice of motion artifacts due to panning, I just zoomed out...Show more →
Couple of points I like to make about video on DSLRs
A) The sales gimmick issue: The point is sales. You can make the best thing since sliced bread but if no one buys it you don't make any money. So if the video feature gets people to buy your stuff it's a perfectly valid and expected response from the manufacturers to put videos on their DSLRs.
B) Talks about how video on DSLRs are pointless: It isn't. From the sound of what people say here about video you'd think they have never traveled. I just saw a friend's T1i/500D paris trip photos and videos. Believe you me, I am getting a 7D when I have the cash just for the video capacity over my 50D. The video from the paris trip shows the moving water at the fountains, the light show at the Eiffle Tower and what it's like to go up the elevator to the top of the tower. You can't get that from just stills. It's a great feature for people who take their DSLR on vacation.
C) The "problems" of video on DSLR: You get the same few thing thrown about. Namely: slow AF in video; noisy AF motor in video; jello effect; lack of exposure control; lack of DOF control. All of these points are true but again miss the "consumer focus" of video on DSLR. The paris videos I talked about have these problems (except the jello, didn't see that). However, it did not take away from the fact that it work for what my friend needed it for. He wasn't making a feature film so the little naggles didn't bug him, nor me the viewer. What did work for him was not having to carry a second set of gear for video. When you are walking from dawn till after dark like he was in Paris that's a big big deal.
rhyder wrote
rsg_1 wrote
Andre,I disagree about the video portion in DSLRs being of little value. The rolling shutter (jello effect) is more evident on current Nikon models which doesn't make it as useful and my guess is that Nikon will fix this deficiency next year - or at least I hope.
There are many accessories now available for the 5D MkII, to the extent that some cost more times than the body itself, and using them makes video shooting much easier or at least manageable. There is a demand for using high quality DSLR lenses for video and people really like it. I was surprised and proof is the 5D MkII continues to have strong sales 9 months after it was released.
Personally, I was never big in to video, but with the 5DMkII, I did some wedding videos in 1080p with a photo shoot and the results were stunning using ambient light during the dance part of the reception. To avoid notice of motion artifacts due to panning, I just zoomed out...Show more →
Couple of points I like to make about video on DSLRs
A) The sales gimmick issue: The point is sales. You can make the best thing since sliced bread but if no one buys it you don't make any money. So if the video feature gets people to buy your stuff it's a perfectly valid and expected response from the manufacturers to put videos on their DSLRs.
B) Talks about how video on DSLRs are pointless: It isn't. From the sound of what people say here about video you'd think they have never traveled. I just saw a friend's T1i/500D paris trip photos and videos. Believe you me, I am getting a 7D when I have the cash just for the video capacity over my 50D. The video from the paris trip shows the moving water at the fountains, the light show at the Eiffle Tower and what it's like to go up the elevator to the top of the tower. You can't get that from just stills. It's a great feature for people who take their DSLR on vacation.
C) The "problems" of video on DSLR: You get the same few thing thrown about. Namely: slow AF in video; noisy AF motor in video; jello effect; lack of exposure control; lack of DOF control. All of these points are true but again miss the "consumer focus" of video on DSLR. The paris videos I talked about have these problems (except the jello, didn't see that). However, it did not take away from the fact that it work for what my friend needed it for. He wasn't making a feature film so the little naggles didn't bug him, nor me the viewer. What did work for him was not having to carry a second set of gear for video. When you are walking from dawn till after dark like he was in Paris that's a big big deal.
Sep 15, 2009 at 08:20 AM
p.15 #18the d300s killer
And this planet you refer to, is FLAT right Leif? After reading these posts, I was ready to flame Rhyder. I just borrowed my friends D3 and 70 / 200 zoom. I followed Rhyders instructions and found I was wrong. I hate to admit it but he's right. They line up. There is no magnification factor.
I also thought about what he said about the D70, D200, D300 etc.. let me get this straight according to what you say about pixel density wouldn't they all have a different reach? But when I think about it, the sensors are all the same size and have the same field of view. Some have said pixel density gives you more reach, others have said that field of view gives you more reach. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Then I thought it over and visualized it in my mind and the crop factor does not bring you closer. A lens makes a circular image right? The different sensors take a different size piece of that image. I see nothing in this scenario that makes the image coming through the lens bigger. I can see where pixel density will let you make a slightly bigger print, but that is not bringing you closer to the subject. Its just enlargeing. Genuine fractal will do that with any file from any camera and lens.
It also seems that you seems from your posts that you have an emotional element coming into play. I don't see that in Rhyder's post's. I don't see him saying one camera is better than the other or that on size sensor is better.
You may have to reread what he is saying with an open mind to really see that he is right. He has actually done what he says. You seem to be repeating what you have "heard".
I also agree with Andre about the Video being a "gimmick". He's right also. Rolling shutter problems are no better on a Canon tha a NIkon either.
I also thought about what he said about the D70, D200, D300 etc.. let me get this straight according to what you say about pixel density wouldn't they all have a different reach? But when I think about it, the sensors are all the same size and have the same field of view. Some have said pixel density gives you more reach, others have said that field of view gives you more reach. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Then I thought it over and visualized it in my mind and the crop factor does not bring you closer. A lens makes a circular image right? The different sensors take a different size piece of that image. I see nothing in this scenario that makes the image coming through the lens bigger. I can see where pixel density will let you make a slightly bigger print, but that is not bringing you closer to the subject. Its just enlargeing. Genuine fractal will do that with any file from any camera and lens.
It also seems that you seems from your posts that you have an emotional element coming into play. I don't see that in Rhyder's post's. I don't see him saying one camera is better than the other or that on size sensor is better.
You may have to reread what he is saying with an open mind to really see that he is right. He has actually done what he says. You seem to be repeating what you have "heard".
I also agree with Andre about the Video being a "gimmick". He's right also. Rolling shutter problems are no better on a Canon tha a NIkon either.
Sep 15, 2009 at 08:40 AM
p.15 #19the d300s killer
Um, yes, it's called a "crop" factor, not a "zoom" factor.
Sep 15, 2009 at 08:52 AM
p.15 #20the d300s killer
gotak wrote:
Couple of points I like to make about video on DSLRs
A) The sales gimmick issue: The point is sales. You can make the best thing since sliced bread but if no one buys it you don't make any money. So if the video feature gets people to buy your stuff it's a perfectly valid and expected response from the manufacturers to put videos on their DSLRs.
Yes, the point certainly is sales. Make a better mousetrap, people will buy it. Make a better still camera, people will buy it. Can't or won't make a better still camera? add video........ brilliant....... That's what the makers of the cheap digicams did, many years ago.....
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the 5d or 5dII sales would have been even better if they had put pro AF in those cameras, or the new AF that is in the new 7d, assuming that it works. Same for the 30d, 40d and 50d cameras. Pro AF is a BFD and is certainly one of the main reasons why the d300 and d700 sell so well.
Yes, the point is sales of still cameras, where excellent still camera features mean more sales to those that value the still camera. If people aren't buying your still camera, it isn't because it doesn't have video, it's because it lacks needed features for a still camera.
The nikon marketing boneheads put video in the d300s, instead of putting in some more useful still camera features. I won't buy one because of that. If they had put some more good still camera features in that camera, like raw histogram and blinking highlights, I'd be ordering one now. It supposedly has slightly better AF than my d300, plus it has the dual card slots, but the video instead of the raw histogram made it a no sale for me. I'll wait until they decide to get back to working on the needed improvements to the still camera capability before I buy another camera.
C) The "problems" of video on DSLR: You get the same few thing thrown about. Namely: slow AF in video; noisy AF motor in video; jello effect; lack of exposure control; lack of DOF control. All of these points are true but again miss the "consumer focus" of video on DSLR.
You're kidding, right? Consumer focus? Do the test that I outlined earlier, with the cheap video cam and any of the dslr cams that have video. The cheap consumer video cam doesn't have issues like the dslr does. It's made to work, fast and easy, for anyone that wants to shoot video and you don't need to know much of anything to do it. Grandma, Uncle Joe, Aunt Mary and your 8 year old brother can work a cheap video camera. That certainly is not true for dslr video.
Couple of points I like to make about video on DSLRs
A) The sales gimmick issue: The point is sales. You can make the best thing since sliced bread but if no one buys it you don't make any money. So if the video feature gets people to buy your stuff it's a perfectly valid and expected response from the manufacturers to put videos on their DSLRs.
Yes, the point certainly is sales. Make a better mousetrap, people will buy it. Make a better still camera, people will buy it. Can't or won't make a better still camera? add video........ brilliant....... That's what the makers of the cheap digicams did, many years ago.....
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the 5d or 5dII sales would have been even better if they had put pro AF in those cameras, or the new AF that is in the new 7d, assuming that it works. Same for the 30d, 40d and 50d cameras. Pro AF is a BFD and is certainly one of the main reasons why the d300 and d700 sell so well.
Yes, the point is sales of still cameras, where excellent still camera features mean more sales to those that value the still camera. If people aren't buying your still camera, it isn't because it doesn't have video, it's because it lacks needed features for a still camera.
The nikon marketing boneheads put video in the d300s, instead of putting in some more useful still camera features. I won't buy one because of that. If they had put some more good still camera features in that camera, like raw histogram and blinking highlights, I'd be ordering one now. It supposedly has slightly better AF than my d300, plus it has the dual card slots, but the video instead of the raw histogram made it a no sale for me. I'll wait until they decide to get back to working on the needed improvements to the still camera capability before I buy another camera.
C) The "problems" of video on DSLR: You get the same few thing thrown about. Namely: slow AF in video; noisy AF motor in video; jello effect; lack of exposure control; lack of DOF control. All of these points are true but again miss the "consumer focus" of video on DSLR.
You're kidding, right? Consumer focus? Do the test that I outlined earlier, with the cheap video cam and any of the dslr cams that have video. The cheap consumer video cam doesn't have issues like the dslr does. It's made to work, fast and easy, for anyone that wants to shoot video and you don't need to know much of anything to do it. Grandma, Uncle Joe, Aunt Mary and your 8 year old brother can work a cheap video camera. That certainly is not true for dslr video.
Sep 15, 2009 at 08:53 AM