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.10 #1the d300s killer
trenchmonkey wrote:
Sorry Paul, but nothin's died over here.
Old school D300 still cranks out stuff Canon can't touch...AF that WORKS! 
musclepics wrote:
Hmmm, I've used a D300 and it's AF is nowhere near as good as the 1D MkIII. In fact, even the D700 and D3 don't quite match it's speed. Nice picture though.
Then they weren't set-up correctly.
I own/use all 3 and my results are quite different. Shot Canon for 30 yrs...the D3/D300 made me switch teams. Thanks, tho! 
Sorry Paul, but nothin's died over here.
Old school D300 still cranks out stuff Canon can't touch...AF that WORKS! musclepics wrote:
Hmmm, I've used a D300 and it's AF is nowhere near as good as the 1D MkIII. In fact, even the D700 and D3 don't quite match it's speed. Nice picture though.
Then they weren't set-up correctly.
I own/use all 3 and my results are quite different. Shot Canon for 30 yrs...the D3/D300 made me switch teams. Thanks, tho! Sep 09, 2009 at 06:38 AM
p.10 #2the d300s killer
I don't believe Canon and Nikon really want to out-do eachother. They would be quite happy with the status quo. Several years ago Nikon were having problems competing in digital and Canon didn't really press home the advantage. Nikon had to produce something special to get back in the game and did so with very competitively priced, well specified cameras (D300, D3).
Since then, Canon have continued incremental changes and matching of Nikon offerings (as in the 7D). Nikon more recently have produced a very expensive top of the line camera (as Canon are prone to do) and a warming over of a very successful model (D300s) again pretty much the sort of thing we're used to from Canon.
Neither company has an incentive to pull out all the stops and continuously give us more for less. I think were getting back to the good old days of gentle competition and incremental improvements to mature products. The really interesting aspect now is what Sony can push then to do.
Since then, Canon have continued incremental changes and matching of Nikon offerings (as in the 7D). Nikon more recently have produced a very expensive top of the line camera (as Canon are prone to do) and a warming over of a very successful model (D300s) again pretty much the sort of thing we're used to from Canon.
Neither company has an incentive to pull out all the stops and continuously give us more for less. I think were getting back to the good old days of gentle competition and incremental improvements to mature products. The really interesting aspect now is what Sony can push then to do.
Sep 09, 2009 at 07:11 AM
p.10 #3the d300s killer
willis wrote:
The really interesting aspect now is what Sony can push then to do.
Absolutely.
Affordable FF cameras, excellent zeiss optics, years of knowledge in electronics and sensor tech, with it's own fabs, and the backing of an enormous conglomerate behind them.
I'm really hoping Sony does very very well.
The really interesting aspect now is what Sony can push then to do.
Absolutely.
Affordable FF cameras, excellent zeiss optics, years of knowledge in electronics and sensor tech, with it's own fabs, and the backing of an enormous conglomerate behind them.
I'm really hoping Sony does very very well.
Sep 09, 2009 at 07:30 AM
p.10 #4the d300s killer
I absolutely hate Sony. Mostly because of that sneaky rootkit BS they pulled a number of years on their audio CDs (unrelated to photography I know but still).
However, it is good that they are pushing the big two in cameras.
However, it is good that they are pushing the big two in cameras.
Sep 09, 2009 at 08:13 AM
p.10 #6the d300s killer
Um...can anyone say DIFFRACTION? Guessing if you purchase an 18MP DX sensor...and downsize the results to 12MP will probably be impressive...but then you dont get 18MP worth now do you?
Limited to F/8 isnt my idea of ideal.
Nikon was smart to stay at 12MP....Canon should hhave done the same for their 1.6x lineup.
Then we factor in noise....which downrez would help with too...
So all in all, the18MP 7D makes a GREAT 12MP camera.
I already have a 12MP camera...so no ship jumping for me today.
Roman
Limited to F/8 isnt my idea of ideal.
Nikon was smart to stay at 12MP....Canon should hhave done the same for their 1.6x lineup.
Then we factor in noise....which downrez would help with too...
So all in all, the18MP 7D makes a GREAT 12MP camera.
I already have a 12MP camera...so no ship jumping for me today.
Roman
Sep 09, 2009 at 08:38 AM
p.10 #7the d300s killer
roman.johnston wrote:
Um...can anyone say DIFFRACTION? Guessing if you purchase an 18MP DX sensor...and downsize the results to 12MP will probably be impressive...but then you dont get 18MP worth now do you?
Limited to F/8 isnt my idea of ideal.
Nikon was smart to stay at 12MP....Canon should hhave done the same for their 1.6x lineup.
Then we factor in noise....which downrez would help with too...
So all in all, the18MP 7D makes a GREAT 12MP camera.
I already have a 12MP camera...so no ship jumping for me today.
Roman
+1
Yep, you hit the nail on the head. I was wondering how long it would take. Diffraction is the ultimate limit to resolution at small aperatures. The extra MP do provide benefit at larger aperatures but then lens aberations come into play so the extra resolution isn't helpful anyway, not until we start making perfect leneses anyway.
Um...can anyone say DIFFRACTION? Guessing if you purchase an 18MP DX sensor...and downsize the results to 12MP will probably be impressive...but then you dont get 18MP worth now do you?
Limited to F/8 isnt my idea of ideal.
Nikon was smart to stay at 12MP....Canon should hhave done the same for their 1.6x lineup.
Then we factor in noise....which downrez would help with too...
So all in all, the18MP 7D makes a GREAT 12MP camera.
I already have a 12MP camera...so no ship jumping for me today.
Roman
+1
Yep, you hit the nail on the head. I was wondering how long it would take. Diffraction is the ultimate limit to resolution at small aperatures. The extra MP do provide benefit at larger aperatures but then lens aberations come into play so the extra resolution isn't helpful anyway, not until we start making perfect leneses anyway.Sep 09, 2009 at 08:45 AM
p.10 #9the d300s killer
roman.johnston wrote:
Um...can anyone say DIFFRACTION? Guessing if you purchase an 18MP DX sensor...and downsize the results to 12MP will probably be impressive...but then you dont get 18MP worth now do you?
Limited to F/8 isnt my idea of ideal.
Nikon was smart to stay at 12MP....Canon should hhave done the same for their 1.6x lineup.
Then we factor in noise....which downrez would help with too...
So all in all, the18MP 7D makes a GREAT 12MP camera.
I already have a 12MP camera...so no ship jumping for me today.
Roman
Pardon me, but how did you calculate f/8 as the diffraction limit for a 1.6x crop sensor?
Um...can anyone say DIFFRACTION? Guessing if you purchase an 18MP DX sensor...and downsize the results to 12MP will probably be impressive...but then you dont get 18MP worth now do you?
Limited to F/8 isnt my idea of ideal.
Nikon was smart to stay at 12MP....Canon should hhave done the same for their 1.6x lineup.
Then we factor in noise....which downrez would help with too...
So all in all, the18MP 7D makes a GREAT 12MP camera.
I already have a 12MP camera...so no ship jumping for me today.
Roman
Pardon me, but how did you calculate f/8 as the diffraction limit for a 1.6x crop sensor?
Sep 09, 2009 at 09:48 AM
p.10 #10the d300s killer
roman.johnston wrote:
Um...can anyone say DIFFRACTION? Guessing if you purchase an 18MP DX sensor...and downsize the results to 12MP will probably be impressive...but then you dont get 18MP worth now do you?
Limited to F/8 isnt my idea of ideal.
Nikon was smart to stay at 12MP....Canon should hhave done the same for their 1.6x lineup.
Then we factor in noise....which downrez would help with too...
So all in all, the18MP 7D makes a GREAT 12MP camera.
I already have a 12MP camera...so no ship jumping for me today.
Roman
See Steve Perry's post at the top of the page.
Um...can anyone say DIFFRACTION? Guessing if you purchase an 18MP DX sensor...and downsize the results to 12MP will probably be impressive...but then you dont get 18MP worth now do you?
Limited to F/8 isnt my idea of ideal.
Nikon was smart to stay at 12MP....Canon should hhave done the same for their 1.6x lineup.
Then we factor in noise....which downrez would help with too...
So all in all, the18MP 7D makes a GREAT 12MP camera.
I already have a 12MP camera...so no ship jumping for me today.
Roman
See Steve Perry's post at the top of the page.
Sep 09, 2009 at 02:34 PM
p.10 #11the d300s killer
Adam L wrote:
Limited to F/8 isnt my idea of ideal.
Nikon was smart to stay at 12MP....Canon should hhave done the same for their 1.6x lineup.
Then we factor in noise....which downrez would help with too...
So all in all, the18MP 7D makes a GREAT 12MP camera.
I already have a 12MP camera...so no ship jumping for me today.
RomanSee Steve Perry's post at the top of the page.
You might want to read this...
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
roman.johnston wrote
Um...can anyone say DIFFRACTION? Guessing if you purchase an 18MP DX sensor...and downsize the results to 12MP will probably be impressive...but then you dont get 18MP worth now do you?Limited to F/8 isnt my idea of ideal.
Nikon was smart to stay at 12MP....Canon should hhave done the same for their 1.6x lineup.
Then we factor in noise....which downrez would help with too...
So all in all, the18MP 7D makes a GREAT 12MP camera.
I already have a 12MP camera...so no ship jumping for me today.
Roman
You might want to read this...
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
Sep 09, 2009 at 02:57 PM
p.10 #12the d300s killer
rsg_1 wrote:
Pardon me, but how did you calculate f/8 as the diffraction limit for a 1.6x crop sensor?
Tests of the micro4/3 12MP sensor (which have the same pixel density as the 18MP 7D) shows a slight loss of sharpness due to diffraction around f/11, so I assume it will be the same for the 7D. Hardly an issue anyway for a camera targeted for sport and wildlife IMHO.
Pardon me, but how did you calculate f/8 as the diffraction limit for a 1.6x crop sensor?
Tests of the micro4/3 12MP sensor (which have the same pixel density as the 18MP 7D) shows a slight loss of sharpness due to diffraction around f/11, so I assume it will be the same for the 7D. Hardly an issue anyway for a camera targeted for sport and wildlife IMHO.
Sep 09, 2009 at 02:59 PM
p.10 #13the d300s killer
Fred Relaix wrote:
Tests of the micro4/3 12MP sensor (which have the same pixel density as the 18MP 7D) shows a slight loss of sharpness due to diffraction around f/11, so I assume it will be the same for the 7D. Hardly an issue anyway for a camera targeted for sport and wildlife IMHO.
Pan a race car around the track at 1/60 of a second (or slower) on a bright sunny day. I'd say pack at least a 3 stop ND for use with than 7D.
rsg_1 wrote
Pardon me, but how did you calculate f/8 as the diffraction limit for a 1.6x crop sensor?Pan a race car around the track at 1/60 of a second (or slower) on a bright sunny day. I'd say pack at least a 3 stop ND for use with than 7D.
Sep 09, 2009 at 03:10 PM
p.10 #14the d300s killer
There's quite some confusion about the "diffraction limit" everyone states as being very detrimental to picture quality. The F/8 is the lowest aperture where diffraction can be seen in the picture, not some kind of "limit". A real sharpening algorithm (not "unsharp mask" then...) can retract some of the detail to previous shape, and you will still have an 18MP picture - though not as sharp.
The "REAL" hard-limit for diffraction in the 7D will not come into play until at ~F/18. At this aperture, the camera cannot distinguish two black lines separated by a white line and a wider, single black line. This does in true meaning reduce the resolution of the camera to half the original spatial resolution - that is 4.5MP.
No doubt Andre can verify my findings, the Rayleigh limit for bridging a two-line gap enough to make the middle line indistinguishable (in the 7D that's 2x4.3µm).
Yes, diffraction will be easily visible at F/11, and VERY visible at F/16, but it's still an 18MP image. From a purely technical point of view, there are no doubt benefits to downsizing an APS-size 18MP F/16 picture to 12MP compared to the picture taken directly on a 12MP F/16, but I doubt anyone could see a difference in a real picture. Both would look EXACTLY as (un)sharp.
This all depends on the 18MP camera fighting off the electrical losses and light losses that putting 1.5x more pixels on the same surface area will induce. But to be honest, the 7D seems to do just that, goning on par on high ISO performance to Nikon best crop-sensors.
The "REAL" hard-limit for diffraction in the 7D will not come into play until at ~F/18. At this aperture, the camera cannot distinguish two black lines separated by a white line and a wider, single black line. This does in true meaning reduce the resolution of the camera to half the original spatial resolution - that is 4.5MP.
No doubt Andre can verify my findings, the Rayleigh limit for bridging a two-line gap enough to make the middle line indistinguishable (in the 7D that's 2x4.3µm).
Yes, diffraction will be easily visible at F/11, and VERY visible at F/16, but it's still an 18MP image. From a purely technical point of view, there are no doubt benefits to downsizing an APS-size 18MP F/16 picture to 12MP compared to the picture taken directly on a 12MP F/16, but I doubt anyone could see a difference in a real picture. Both would look EXACTLY as (un)sharp.
This all depends on the 18MP camera fighting off the electrical losses and light losses that putting 1.5x more pixels on the same surface area will induce. But to be honest, the 7D seems to do just that, goning on par on high ISO performance to Nikon best crop-sensors.
Sep 09, 2009 at 03:49 PM
p.10 #15the d300s killer
A good resource on lens diffraction:
Diffraction Limited Photography
The business of f/8 as a diffraction limit is nonsense on a 7D pixel density sensor.
Diffraction Limited Photography
The business of f/8 as a diffraction limit is nonsense on a 7D pixel density sensor.
Sep 09, 2009 at 03:59 PM
p.10 #16the d300s killer
rsg_1 wrote:
A good resource on lens diffraction:
Diffraction Limited Photography
The business of f/8 as a diffraction limit is nonsense on a 7D pixel density sensor.
Well, if you're suggesting that a 7d pixel density sensor is free from diffraction limits, that is also nonsense. It's been well accepted for quite a while that f/11 starts the deterioration of the image on the d2x, which certainly has less density than the 7d.
Here's a relevant link, showing diffraction on the d200, a 10mp camera. Marianne is a very smart lady and has already explored this stuff long ago, as the date on this post would testify.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=21952208
There is also no doubt that high pixel density is extremely demanding on lenses, support systems and technique. Lenses that were great on 6mp cams, may be terrible on 12mp, let alone 18mp, even just using the center of the lens as APS-C and DX cameras do.
Personally, I don't much care about the latter issue. I own some of the best lenses that nikon makes. But, there are a ton of folks that don't own the best lenses and are quite happy with their photography. I don't at all condone shutting those folks out of photography or forcing them to expend lots of cash just to get acceptable images from their cameras. That's exactly where this is going, unless all of the makers intend to have all of their consumer lenses capable of out-resolving such high pixel density sensors.
A good resource on lens diffraction:
Diffraction Limited Photography
The business of f/8 as a diffraction limit is nonsense on a 7D pixel density sensor.
Well, if you're suggesting that a 7d pixel density sensor is free from diffraction limits, that is also nonsense. It's been well accepted for quite a while that f/11 starts the deterioration of the image on the d2x, which certainly has less density than the 7d.
Here's a relevant link, showing diffraction on the d200, a 10mp camera. Marianne is a very smart lady and has already explored this stuff long ago, as the date on this post would testify.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=21952208
There is also no doubt that high pixel density is extremely demanding on lenses, support systems and technique. Lenses that were great on 6mp cams, may be terrible on 12mp, let alone 18mp, even just using the center of the lens as APS-C and DX cameras do.
Personally, I don't much care about the latter issue. I own some of the best lenses that nikon makes. But, there are a ton of folks that don't own the best lenses and are quite happy with their photography. I don't at all condone shutting those folks out of photography or forcing them to expend lots of cash just to get acceptable images from their cameras. That's exactly where this is going, unless all of the makers intend to have all of their consumer lenses capable of out-resolving such high pixel density sensors.
Sep 09, 2009 at 04:49 PM
p.10 #17the d300s killer
There are some other variables in place, like the Anti-Aliasing filter that also affects diffraction. By using the calculator above in the link I provided, in a worst case scenario, something which has the 7D's pixel density will see diffraction at about f/16.
What will really be interesting is all the same people clamoring about diffraction will be singing the praises of a Nikon D400 when it appears next year with a 16-18 MP sensor. It reminds me of all the "tsk-tsk when will people learn that a full frame DSLR doesn't work" type talk that emerged right here on this forum about 4 years ago with the introduction of the 5D.
What will really be interesting is all the same people clamoring about diffraction will be singing the praises of a Nikon D400 when it appears next year with a 16-18 MP sensor. It reminds me of all the "tsk-tsk when will people learn that a full frame DSLR doesn't work" type talk that emerged right here on this forum about 4 years ago with the introduction of the 5D.
Sep 09, 2009 at 10:38 PM
p.10 #18the d300s killer
I don't know any other cameras, but my 5D's show diffraction badly at f22, to the extent of losing some 1.5 stops of detail (but sometimes you need f22). The diffraction is losing negligeable detail at f16 but is noticeable from f11, the crispness is far less than f5.6 though the detail is there. That's with far bigger pixels though. I wouldn't doubt that the effect is far more noticeable with the 7D though as it is with a 1Ds mkIII/5D mkII, one of the reasons I'm sticking with my 5D's, I need to stop down a lot.
Sep 10, 2009 at 01:27 AM
p.10 #19the d300s killer
rsg_1 wrote:
There are some other variables in place, like the Anti-Aliasing filter that also affects diffraction. By using the calculator above in the link I provided, in a worst case scenario, something which has the 7D's pixel density will see diffraction at about f/16.
It depends mainly on how hard you look for it and what level of deterioration that you find acceptable. The bottom line is that the higher the density, the faster diffraction will bite you. I like that calculator and have used it for years. Look at the VISUAL EXAMPLE: APERTURE VS. PIXEL SIZE and compare the grids generated. It's very easy to see the problem generated with smaller pixels. It's unfortunate that he hasn't updated that to show the newer sensors or allow for custom input for pixel size.
What will really be interesting is all the same people clamoring about diffraction will be singing the praises of a Nikon D400 when it appears next year with a 16-18 MP sensor. It reminds me of all the "tsk-tsk when will people learn that a full frame DSLR doesn't work" type talk that emerged right here on this forum about 4 years ago with the introduction of the 5D.
This juvenile fanboy crap is just so much tiresome nonsense and gets trotted out every time someone starts running out of facts. The 5d didn't introduce FF. There were a number of FF cameras that preceded it, IIRC, including nikon mount FF. There were people that actually used FF long before the 5d arrived and knew what problems it had.
FX doesn't work any better today than it ever did. Noise performance is not a property of FF. That is the product of light gathering capability of the individual pixel and technological advances, not sensor size. FX still has the same problems with most lenses for vignetting and edge/corner softness that it always has had. It is still expensive, more expensive than DX or APS-C. That's what I've always said and will continue to say, as long as it is true.
The same will apply with diffraction issues until you can show me that canon or nikon have repealed the laws of physics.
The bottom line is that the 7d looks to be a very significant camera for the canon APS-C users and any mature person should be glad to see it. I hope that the camera works well and doesn't have any issues, because good cameras offered by the competition are good for nikon users. But, that doesn't mean that I have to be foolish about the MPs, because the nikon marketing idiots will want to play the MP game. I'd much rather have seen a big increase in noise and DR performance for the 7d, than the big increase in MPs. A 14 or 15mp 7d with a stop or more of better noise performance over the 50d would have been very impressive indeed. Regardless, it is what it is and I hope that it works very well.
There are some other variables in place, like the Anti-Aliasing filter that also affects diffraction. By using the calculator above in the link I provided, in a worst case scenario, something which has the 7D's pixel density will see diffraction at about f/16.
It depends mainly on how hard you look for it and what level of deterioration that you find acceptable. The bottom line is that the higher the density, the faster diffraction will bite you. I like that calculator and have used it for years. Look at the VISUAL EXAMPLE: APERTURE VS. PIXEL SIZE and compare the grids generated. It's very easy to see the problem generated with smaller pixels. It's unfortunate that he hasn't updated that to show the newer sensors or allow for custom input for pixel size.
What will really be interesting is all the same people clamoring about diffraction will be singing the praises of a Nikon D400 when it appears next year with a 16-18 MP sensor. It reminds me of all the "tsk-tsk when will people learn that a full frame DSLR doesn't work" type talk that emerged right here on this forum about 4 years ago with the introduction of the 5D.
This juvenile fanboy crap is just so much tiresome nonsense and gets trotted out every time someone starts running out of facts. The 5d didn't introduce FF. There were a number of FF cameras that preceded it, IIRC, including nikon mount FF. There were people that actually used FF long before the 5d arrived and knew what problems it had.
FX doesn't work any better today than it ever did. Noise performance is not a property of FF. That is the product of light gathering capability of the individual pixel and technological advances, not sensor size. FX still has the same problems with most lenses for vignetting and edge/corner softness that it always has had. It is still expensive, more expensive than DX or APS-C. That's what I've always said and will continue to say, as long as it is true.
The same will apply with diffraction issues until you can show me that canon or nikon have repealed the laws of physics.
The bottom line is that the 7d looks to be a very significant camera for the canon APS-C users and any mature person should be glad to see it. I hope that the camera works well and doesn't have any issues, because good cameras offered by the competition are good for nikon users. But, that doesn't mean that I have to be foolish about the MPs, because the nikon marketing idiots will want to play the MP game. I'd much rather have seen a big increase in noise and DR performance for the 7d, than the big increase in MPs. A 14 or 15mp 7d with a stop or more of better noise performance over the 50d would have been very impressive indeed. Regardless, it is what it is and I hope that it works very well.
Sep 10, 2009 at 07:07 AM
p.10 #20the d300s killer
theSuede wrote:
There's quite some confusion about the "diffraction limit" everyone states as being very detrimental to picture quality. The F/8 is the lowest aperture where diffraction can be seen in the picture, not some kind of "limit". A real sharpening algorithm (not "unsharp mask" then...) can retract some of the detail to previous shape, and you will still have an 18MP picture - though not as sharp.
The "REAL" hard-limit for diffraction in the 7D will not come into play until at ~F/18. At this aperture, the camera cannot distinguish two black lines separated by a white line and a wider, single...Show more →
The maximum sharpness is achieved when the airy disky due to diffraction is equal to or smaller than the pixel size of the sensor. This assumes diffraction limited optics (i.e. no aberations) and ignors diffraction from other sources (like the aliasing filter). Using that defenition, diffraction effects on the 7D will start to show up at f/5 for red light (700nm) and f/9 for blue light (400nm). This will be visible to 20/20 vision under close inspection for any print 16"x12" (assuming the 300 dpi standard for excellent prints) or obivously visible in 27"x20" prints (assuming the 180 dpi standard for poor quality prints).
For complete resolution loss (i.e. where two adjacent pixels are completely within the airy disk), the diffraction limit is f/10 for red light (700nm) and f/18 for blue light (400nm). This is the equivalent of reducing the 18MP camera to a 4.5MP camera.
Edited on Sep 10, 2009 at 08:05 AM · View previous versions
There's quite some confusion about the "diffraction limit" everyone states as being very detrimental to picture quality. The F/8 is the lowest aperture where diffraction can be seen in the picture, not some kind of "limit". A real sharpening algorithm (not "unsharp mask" then...) can retract some of the detail to previous shape, and you will still have an 18MP picture - though not as sharp.
The "REAL" hard-limit for diffraction in the 7D will not come into play until at ~F/18. At this aperture, the camera cannot distinguish two black lines separated by a white line and a wider, single...Show more →
The maximum sharpness is achieved when the airy disky due to diffraction is equal to or smaller than the pixel size of the sensor. This assumes diffraction limited optics (i.e. no aberations) and ignors diffraction from other sources (like the aliasing filter). Using that defenition, diffraction effects on the 7D will start to show up at f/5 for red light (700nm) and f/9 for blue light (400nm). This will be visible to 20/20 vision under close inspection for any print 16"x12" (assuming the 300 dpi standard for excellent prints) or obivously visible in 27"x20" prints (assuming the 180 dpi standard for poor quality prints).
For complete resolution loss (i.e. where two adjacent pixels are completely within the airy disk), the diffraction limit is f/10 for red light (700nm) and f/18 for blue light (400nm). This is the equivalent of reducing the 18MP camera to a 4.5MP camera.
Edited on Sep 10, 2009 at 08:05 AM · View previous versions
Sep 10, 2009 at 07:58 AM