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.17 #1the d300s killer
Osai wrote:
Wow. I apoligize.
No you don't.
Its a shame FM has come to this. It used to be a place where you could share information and have intelligent discourses.
Talk, talk, talk, that's all you have contributed to this thread.
Both of your posts show a lack of experience and understanding of where digital technology is today. To say that GF won't uprez well is just irresponsible.
It's silly to say you can't equally uprezz the 12 MP DX file as well as the 5 MP FX file, and that GF makes all files equal.
I've wasted enough of my time here,
You've chosen to make it a waste by not offering the 100% crops that would have proved useful. My guess is that you saw them and chose to bluster on instead of show everyone that you are wrong.
Wow. I apoligize.
No you don't.
Its a shame FM has come to this. It used to be a place where you could share information and have intelligent discourses.
Talk, talk, talk, that's all you have contributed to this thread.
Both of your posts show a lack of experience and understanding of where digital technology is today. To say that GF won't uprez well is just irresponsible.
It's silly to say you can't equally uprezz the 12 MP DX file as well as the 5 MP FX file, and that GF makes all files equal.
I've wasted enough of my time here,
You've chosen to make it a waste by not offering the 100% crops that would have proved useful. My guess is that you saw them and chose to bluster on instead of show everyone that you are wrong.
Sep 17, 2009 at 10:08 AM
p.17 #2the d300s killer
TonyBeach and LeifG are absolutely correct. How would I know? I have a D300, a D700 and Genuine Fractals. You can't get the data that is captured in a 12MP D300 file by upsampling a D700 file shot in DX mode (5.1 MP) to the size of the D300 file (12MP).
Well, that is of course, if you are not upsampling something that is entirely uniform (all pixels are identical). GF might upsample that to be the same.
Well, that is of course, if you are not upsampling something that is entirely uniform (all pixels are identical). GF might upsample that to be the same.
Sep 17, 2009 at 11:12 AM
p.17 #3the d300s killer
gman1339 wrote:
TonyBeach and LeifG are absolutely correct. How would I know? I have a D300, a D700 and Genuine Fractals. You can't get the data that is captured in a 12MP D300 file by upsampling a D700 file shot in DX mode (5.1 MP) to the size of the D300 file (12MP).
Well, that is of course, if you are not upsampling something that is entirely uniform (all pixels are identical). GF might upsample that to be the same.
Good thing, because the laws of optics say that Tony and Leif are correct as well.
What you sacrifice by going with higher pixel density is noise performance. But for low or even medium ISO's, who cares as the noise can't be seen without extreme pixel peeping.
TonyBeach and LeifG are absolutely correct. How would I know? I have a D300, a D700 and Genuine Fractals. You can't get the data that is captured in a 12MP D300 file by upsampling a D700 file shot in DX mode (5.1 MP) to the size of the D300 file (12MP).
Well, that is of course, if you are not upsampling something that is entirely uniform (all pixels are identical). GF might upsample that to be the same.
Good thing, because the laws of optics say that Tony and Leif are correct as well.
What you sacrifice by going with higher pixel density is noise performance. But for low or even medium ISO's, who cares as the noise can't be seen without extreme pixel peeping.Sep 17, 2009 at 11:43 AM
p.17 #4the d300s killer
By the way, referring to the other posters as 'dim' probably is a bit under the belt, and straying into dpreview territory - eeek - but this 'discussion' is so frustrating.
Sep 17, 2009 at 12:02 PM
p.17 #5the d300s killer
Geez it's a good thing I'm not missing my former D300. I only had to shoot for a day to determine my decision to go with the D700 was the right move for me. I was even getting objectionable noise at lower ISO's in the sky with the D300, which are completely absent with the D700. I prefer the colors, the viewfinder and without a doubt the end resulting image of the FX sensor. This far I haven't printed any posters. Just 13x19's, and I'm darned happy I made the switch when I did. Others may wish to keep that cropped/tele effect if they wish. It's their money not mine. I"m enjoying a 28mm being 28mm. Now if Nikon would just pump out some more outstanding FF lenses and get serious. 
Sep 17, 2009 at 12:14 PM
p.17 #6the d300s killer
LeifG wrote:
but this 'discussion' is so frustrating.
I have learned to ignore most conversation involving DX versus FX and those involving diffraction. You should try it, it makes life more pleasant
but this 'discussion' is so frustrating.
I have learned to ignore most conversation involving DX versus FX and those involving diffraction. You should try it, it makes life more pleasant
Sep 17, 2009 at 12:25 PM
p.17 #7the d300s killer
traveler wrote:
Geez it's a good thing I'm not missing my former D300. I only had to shoot for a day to determine my decision to go with the D700 was the right move for me. I was even getting objectionable noise at lower ISO's in the sky with the D300, which are completely absent with the D700.
I shot with my D300 for closer to a month before I learned how it could beat the D200 I upgraded from in every way. It took me that long to figure out what was going on with the sky noise you mention (it turned out to mostly be an exposure issue).
I prefer the colors, the viewfinder and without a doubt the end resulting image of the FX sensor. This far I haven't printed any posters. Just 13x19's, and I'm darned happy I made the switch when I did.
Strange really that you would bother to post this here, but I see why since the discussion of D300 versus 7D went off the rails a long time ago.
Others may wish to keep that cropped/tele effect if they wish. It's their money not mine. I'm enjoying a 28mm being 28mm.
28mm is always 28mm regardless of what format it is used on; the FOV changes, which in turn changes the AOV or the focal length (if you want to maintain the FOV). There is no complex math involved here, you just use a 20mm lens on DX instead of a 28mm on FX.
Geez it's a good thing I'm not missing my former D300. I only had to shoot for a day to determine my decision to go with the D700 was the right move for me. I was even getting objectionable noise at lower ISO's in the sky with the D300, which are completely absent with the D700.
I shot with my D300 for closer to a month before I learned how it could beat the D200 I upgraded from in every way. It took me that long to figure out what was going on with the sky noise you mention (it turned out to mostly be an exposure issue).
I prefer the colors, the viewfinder and without a doubt the end resulting image of the FX sensor. This far I haven't printed any posters. Just 13x19's, and I'm darned happy I made the switch when I did.
Strange really that you would bother to post this here, but I see why since the discussion of D300 versus 7D went off the rails a long time ago.
Others may wish to keep that cropped/tele effect if they wish. It's their money not mine. I'm enjoying a 28mm being 28mm.
28mm is always 28mm regardless of what format it is used on; the FOV changes, which in turn changes the AOV or the focal length (if you want to maintain the FOV). There is no complex math involved here, you just use a 20mm lens on DX instead of a 28mm on FX.
Sep 17, 2009 at 02:04 PM
p.17 #8the d300s killer
Others may wish to keep that cropped/tele effect if they wish. It's their money not mine. I'm enjoying a 28mm being 28mm.
28mm is always 28mm regardless of what format it is used on; the FOV changes, which in turn changes the AOV or the focal length (if you want to maintain the FOV). There is no complex math involved here, you just use a 20mm lens on DX instead of a 28mm on FX.
Thoght he was pretty clear when he said crop effect and 28 "being" 28... so you just rehashed what he said. In the same regard, is the 20 really a 28 on DX?
28mm is always 28mm regardless of what format it is used on; the FOV changes, which in turn changes the AOV or the focal length (if you want to maintain the FOV). There is no complex math involved here, you just use a 20mm lens on DX instead of a 28mm on FX.
Thoght he was pretty clear when he said crop effect and 28 "being" 28... so you just rehashed what he said. In the same regard, is the 20 really a 28 on DX?
Sep 17, 2009 at 03:55 PM
p.17 #9the d300s killer
traveler wrote:
Geez it's a good thing I'm not missing my former D300. I only had to shoot for a day to determine my decision to go with the D700 was the right move for me. I was even getting objectionable noise at lower ISO's in the sky with the D300, which are completely absent with the D700. I prefer the colors, the viewfinder and without a doubt the end resulting image of the FX sensor. This far I haven't printed any posters. Just 13x19's, and I'm darned happy I made the switch when I did. Others may wish to keep that...Show more →
For any of what you say to be true at lower ISO values either there is something wrong with your D300 or you are doing something wrong.
Geez it's a good thing I'm not missing my former D300. I only had to shoot for a day to determine my decision to go with the D700 was the right move for me. I was even getting objectionable noise at lower ISO's in the sky with the D300, which are completely absent with the D700. I prefer the colors, the viewfinder and without a doubt the end resulting image of the FX sensor. This far I haven't printed any posters. Just 13x19's, and I'm darned happy I made the switch when I did. Others may wish to keep that...Show more →
For any of what you say to be true at lower ISO values either there is something wrong with your D300 or you are doing something wrong.
Sep 17, 2009 at 04:14 PM
p.17 #10the d300s killer
Jammy Straub wrote:
I have learned to ignore most conversation involving DX versus FX and those involving diffraction. You should try it, it makes life more pleasant
You know what Jammy, this is the most inteligent post I have seen in this entire thread! Kudos! 
LeifG wrote
but this 'discussion' is so frustrating. You know what Jammy, this is the most inteligent post I have seen in this entire thread! Kudos! Sep 17, 2009 at 04:17 PM
p.17 #11the d300s killer
I think it is pretty obvious that the Full Frame sensor gives you more play room and you can get noise free (relative) images even at lower (800) ISOs. You dont have to NAIL the exposure perfectly everytime. This was something I noticed as well during my D300 to D700 switch and my recent use of D300s with D700.
You can call it user error, incorrect exposure etc, but I prefer to call it the benefit of having a Full Frame sensor. Am an amatuer, and dont claim to be a pro...
You can call it user error, incorrect exposure etc, but I prefer to call it the benefit of having a Full Frame sensor. Am an amatuer, and dont claim to be a pro...
Sep 17, 2009 at 04:27 PM
p.17 #12the d300s killer
vchowdhary wrote:
Thoght he was pretty clear when he said crop effect and 28 "being" 28... so you just rehashed what he said. In the same regard, is the 20 really a 28 on DX?
Whenever people start invoking focal lengths as if there is a native length, things immediately becoming confusing. Consequently, people often confuse what a DX lens does in terms of its FOV and focal length, they confuse DOF, etc. There is no native FOV for any focal length.
I think it is pretty obvious that the Full Frame sensor gives you more play room and you can get noise free (relative) images even at lower (800) ISOs. You dont have to NAIL the exposure perfectly everytime. This was something I noticed as well during my D300 to D700 switch and my recent use of D300s with D700.
Maybe then the D700 is "the D300s killer." My bet is that is not though.
You can call it user error, incorrect exposure etc, but I prefer to call it the benefit of having a Full Frame sensor. Am an amatuer, and dont claim to be a pro..
Yes, I call it user error, just as having more pixels so you can merely crop to a "better" composition is often user error. You're better off learning how to use your gear optimally and then spending your money on something more useful like a better tripod or a lens (unless of course, having exhausted the camera's capabilities, the only solution is to upgrade the camera).
Thoght he was pretty clear when he said crop effect and 28 "being" 28... so you just rehashed what he said. In the same regard, is the 20 really a 28 on DX?
Whenever people start invoking focal lengths as if there is a native length, things immediately becoming confusing. Consequently, people often confuse what a DX lens does in terms of its FOV and focal length, they confuse DOF, etc. There is no native FOV for any focal length.
I think it is pretty obvious that the Full Frame sensor gives you more play room and you can get noise free (relative) images even at lower (800) ISOs. You dont have to NAIL the exposure perfectly everytime. This was something I noticed as well during my D300 to D700 switch and my recent use of D300s with D700.
Maybe then the D700 is "the D300s killer." My bet is that is not though.
You can call it user error, incorrect exposure etc, but I prefer to call it the benefit of having a Full Frame sensor. Am an amatuer, and dont claim to be a pro..
Yes, I call it user error, just as having more pixels so you can merely crop to a "better" composition is often user error. You're better off learning how to use your gear optimally and then spending your money on something more useful like a better tripod or a lens (unless of course, having exhausted the camera's capabilities, the only solution is to upgrade the camera).
Sep 17, 2009 at 06:24 PM
p.17 #13the d300s killer
Yes, I call it user error, just as having more pixels so you can merely crop to a "better" composition is often user error. You're better off learning how to use your gear optimally and then spending your money on something more useful like a better tripod or a lens (unless of course, having exhausted the camera's capabilities, the only solution is to upgrade the camera).
As I said, I'm not a pro, but I think the assumption you make is incorrect - that until you've maxed out your ability to use a certain equipment, you shouldnt upgrade to get the benefit without having to "perfect" your technique. Ofcourse, all this only applies if it is true that for any given shot you only have one set exposure that is correct....
A D700 does have better ISO performance even at 400 and 800 ISO when compared to a D300, this in tricky conditions. In which case some may even call it pixel peeping, but then you are being very selective in your criteria for quality and IQ difference.
At the end of the day, all that matters is what equipment gives me the images I like. The D300 is a great camera, but I noticed enough of a difference between the 2 that I could say I like ones image better than the other. So either my D300 and D300s are broken or defective, or the D700 just gives a novice/amatuer like me much more room to the same image easier? The difference to me was significant... now if only I can justify this to my wife about the price difference
As I said, I'm not a pro, but I think the assumption you make is incorrect - that until you've maxed out your ability to use a certain equipment, you shouldnt upgrade to get the benefit without having to "perfect" your technique. Ofcourse, all this only applies if it is true that for any given shot you only have one set exposure that is correct....
A D700 does have better ISO performance even at 400 and 800 ISO when compared to a D300, this in tricky conditions. In which case some may even call it pixel peeping, but then you are being very selective in your criteria for quality and IQ difference.
At the end of the day, all that matters is what equipment gives me the images I like. The D300 is a great camera, but I noticed enough of a difference between the 2 that I could say I like ones image better than the other. So either my D300 and D300s are broken or defective, or the D700 just gives a novice/amatuer like me much more room to the same image easier? The difference to me was significant... now if only I can justify this to my wife about the price difference
Sep 17, 2009 at 07:01 PM
p.17 #14the d300s killer
vchowdhary wrote:
As I said, I'm not a pro, but I think the assumption you make is incorrect - that until you've maxed out your ability to use a certain equipment, you shouldnt upgrade to get the benefit without having to "perfect" your technique. Ofcourse, all this only applies if it is true that for any given shot you only have one set exposure that is correct....
For me, my "assumption" is absolutely correct -- YMMV. For instance, I'm waiting for an affordable 24 MP FX DSLR, but to get more from that than what many people get from their 12 MP FX DSLRs will require the same attention to detail I am currently applying to my 12 MP DX DSLR (because of the similar pixel densities). Therefore, instead of buying a D700 last year, I spent twice as much on T/S lenses and spent another $1000 to upgrade my tripod. For me, the "D300s killer" will be a "D700x" and not the 7D or the D700. [Isn't it nice of me to keep attempting to bring this discussion back to the OP?]
As I said, I'm not a pro, but I think the assumption you make is incorrect - that until you've maxed out your ability to use a certain equipment, you shouldnt upgrade to get the benefit without having to "perfect" your technique. Ofcourse, all this only applies if it is true that for any given shot you only have one set exposure that is correct....
For me, my "assumption" is absolutely correct -- YMMV. For instance, I'm waiting for an affordable 24 MP FX DSLR, but to get more from that than what many people get from their 12 MP FX DSLRs will require the same attention to detail I am currently applying to my 12 MP DX DSLR (because of the similar pixel densities). Therefore, instead of buying a D700 last year, I spent twice as much on T/S lenses and spent another $1000 to upgrade my tripod. For me, the "D300s killer" will be a "D700x" and not the 7D or the D700. [Isn't it nice of me to keep attempting to bring this discussion back to the OP?]
Sep 17, 2009 at 08:51 PM
p.17 #15the d300s killer
In that case, you might want to purchase the D3x and spend some time at the gym perhaps? I kid
Sep 17, 2009 at 09:04 PM
p.17 #17the d300s killer
Jammy Straub wrote:
I have learned to ignore most conversation involving DX versus FX and those involving diffraction. You should try it, it makes life more pleasant
There speaks the voice of wisdom.
It is odd, the way that some people seem obsessed with saying "My choice of camera is the best, so there".Well in that case, my D200 is the bestest ever camera in the world, so there.
LeifG wrote
but this 'discussion' is so frustrating.There speaks the voice of wisdom.
It is odd, the way that some people seem obsessed with saying "My choice of camera is the best, so there".Well in that case, my D200 is the bestest ever camera in the world, so there.
Sep 18, 2009 at 01:14 AM
p.17 #18the d300s killer
digitalbug30d wrote:
And I thought Canon people were "Rabid"?
They all converted to Nikon and broght their rabies with them.
And I thought Canon people were "Rabid"?
They all converted to Nikon and broght their rabies with them.
Sep 18, 2009 at 06:27 AM
p.17 #19the d300s killer
Andre Labonte wrote:
They all converted to Nikon and broght their rabies with them.
Go back 7 years when Canon released the 1Ds and you have the same thing. Nikon couldn't compete with a FF camera so the Nikon crop-FF attacks were directed toward Canon only. Not to be outdone, on the canon side, the croppers and FF people "went at it" too.
Now that Sony has a FF sensor, the Nikon croppers don't have to go to the Canon forum to wage battle. They can stay at home in their jammies, feet up on the coffee table, empty 12-pack at their feet, and attack their fellow users in the comfort of their own little playground. Now, as a Canon user, that's what I call progress.
Personally I think rabies are present in both forums; they come in the box when you buy a cropped sensor camera.
Full Frame Forever!!!!!! I'm running for cover now....
digitalbug30d wrote
And I thought Canon people were "Rabid"?Go back 7 years when Canon released the 1Ds and you have the same thing. Nikon couldn't compete with a FF camera so the Nikon crop-FF attacks were directed toward Canon only. Not to be outdone, on the canon side, the croppers and FF people "went at it" too.
Now that Sony has a FF sensor, the Nikon croppers don't have to go to the Canon forum to wage battle. They can stay at home in their jammies, feet up on the coffee table, empty 12-pack at their feet, and attack their fellow users in the comfort of their own little playground. Now, as a Canon user, that's what I call progress.
Personally I think rabies are present in both forums; they come in the box when you buy a cropped sensor camera.
Full Frame Forever!!!!!!
I'm running for cover now....Sep 18, 2009 at 07:24 AM
p.17 #20the d300s killer
jamesf99 wrote:
Full Frame Forever!!!!!! I'm running for cover now....
Don't worry, we won't come running after you as you are obviously a wounded animal suffering delirium and it would not be sporting ...
Full Frame Forever!!!!!!
I'm running for cover now....Don't worry, we won't come running after you as you are obviously a wounded animal suffering delirium and it would not be sporting ...
Sep 18, 2009 at 07:42 AM