Why Nikon should upgrade the D300
 

Why produce a top flight APS camera? Why object to the top camera being a
D90 "upgrade" with a FF sensor and not a D300 upgrade with an APS sensor?
Now that APS has hit 24 megapixels, it has to be considered it offers the
best option for wildlife photography, outside of the D800, but more
importantly, it does give lenses greater "reach" so somone can shoot
wildlife with a relatively portable 300mm lens versus a much larger and
heavier and much more expensive 400mm lens.
Linear resolution comparison of a 24mp APS and a 300mm lens and the D800
36mp and a 400mm lens gives APS about a 8% resolution advantage, so for all
purposes, they offer the same resolution. However weight savings of the
camera-lens combos gives the APS a distinct advantage.
In fact, it may be possible that true resolution comparisons would show
even greater advantages due to higher stability offered by the lighter
combination, either on tripod/monopod or off. It would require testing to
determine that.
I wish they'd release a 40mp APS sensor for low ISO, high resolution work.

Why Nikon should upgrade the D300
 

"Rich" wrote in message
...
Why produce a top flight APS camera? Why object to the top camera being a
D90 "upgrade" with a FF sensor and not a D300 upgrade with an APS sensor?
Now that APS has hit 24 megapixels, it has to be considered it offers the
best option for wildlife photography, outside of the D800, but more
importantly, it does give lenses greater "reach" so somone can shoot
wildlife with a relatively portable 300mm lens versus a much larger and
heavier and much more expensive 400mm lens.

Actually you just crop that D800 36Mp image with a shorter lens, back to
24Mp, and there is no practical difference, except you can still get 36Mp
wide angle shots when you want. Or reduce noise by averaging back to 24Mp
when you want that.
Best of both worlds!


Linear resolution comparison of a 24mp APS and a 300mm lens and the D800
36mp and a 400mm lens gives APS about a 8% resolution advantage, so for
all
purposes, they offer the same resolution. However weight savings of the
camera-lens combos gives the APS a distinct advantage.

Not much if you compare as above. Only the body weight is higher, and some
of that is materials used, not just sensor size.


In fact, it may be possible that true resolution comparisons would show
even greater advantages due to higher stability offered by the lighter
combination, either on tripod/monopod or off. It would require testing to
determine that.

Extra weight reduces the effect of vibration, not less weight, especially on
a tripod.


I wish they'd release a 40mp APS sensor for low ISO, high resolution work.

You won't have to wait long I bet, but probably far longer for low weight
APS lenses with resolution that can actually use it. I don't see too many at
the moment.

Trevor.

Why Nikon should upgrade the D300
 

On 9/10/2012 5:07 p.m., Trevor wrote:
"Rich" wrote in message
...
Why produce a top flight APS camera? Why object to the top camera being a
D90 "upgrade" with a FF sensor and not a D300 upgrade with an APS sensor?
Now that APS has hit 24 megapixels, it has to be considered it offers the
best option for wildlife photography, outside of the D800, but more
importantly, it does give lenses greater "reach" so somone can shoot
wildlife with a relatively portable 300mm lens versus a much larger and
heavier and much more expensive 400mm lens.

Actually you just crop that D800 36Mp image with a shorter lens, back to
24Mp, and there is no practical difference, except you can still get 36Mp
wide angle shots when you want. Or reduce noise by averaging back to 24Mp
when you want that.
Best of both worlds!


Linear resolution comparison of a 24mp APS and a 300mm lens and the D800
36mp and a 400mm lens gives APS about a 8% resolution advantage, so for
all
purposes, they offer the same resolution. However weight savings of the
camera-lens combos gives the APS a distinct advantage.

Not much if you compare as above. Only the body weight is higher, and some
of that is materials used, not just sensor size.


In fact, it may be possible that true resolution comparisons would show
even greater advantages due to higher stability offered by the lighter
combination, either on tripod/monopod or off. It would require testing to
determine that.

Extra weight reduces the effect of vibration, not less weight, especially on
a tripod.


I wish they'd release a 40mp APS sensor for low ISO, high resolution work.

You won't have to wait long I bet, but probably far longer for low weight
APS lenses with resolution that can actually use it. I don't see too many at
the moment.

Trevor.


It's not quite that easy.
These are actual relative VF sizes, with CAM3500 AF point placement,
D800 / D300:
http://i45.tinypic.com/549e8n.png
(users of Fx models often make the mistake of comparing typical APS-c
viewfinders in cameras they've handled with Fx models, which are about
the size of the "dx crop" brackets shown in the D800 VF. Yes - the Fx
viewfinder is larger, but not /that/ much larger than the D300. The Fx
model in Dx crop mode is about the same size view as entry level APS-c
cameras). The VF in D300 (and D7000 models) is actually pretty damned good.

There's also the probability that as the D300/s could do 6/7/8 fps, then
the hypothetical "D400" would at least match that, and probably an
updated "D400" would allow for a much larger (frames) buffer than the
D800. Sony manage to get extremely high frame rates with their sensor
in the a77, the data readout and image processing speed is about 50%
higher than the D800 (or D4).

As for cheap lightweight telephotos, I expect even the "cheap 'n
cheerful" Nikkor 55-200 VR would be fine with 24mp APS-c sensor. OK -
you're not likely to want to shoot sport with it, but the resolution is
extremely good.

The "D400" would probably cost $1200 less than the D800.

Finally, unless you're prepared to fork out big $$$ and carry the weight
of superb lenses like the Nikkor 14-24, then even at the wide-angle end,
the "improvement" gained by lenses like the Nikkor 16-35 VR over some of
the better APS-c WA zooms is marginal - especially for edge performance.

The D7000 sensor shouldn't be used as an expectation of what to expect
from a new APS-c sensor. The D4, D800, and D600, when used in Dx crop
mode, all exceed the D7000 performance. (BTW the D800 in DX crop mode
is about 16mp, not 24mp).

Why Nikon should upgrade the D300
 

On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 22:12:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Not always true. It depends on the tripod. More weight can easily
mean worse vibration depending on how it deflects the tripod and the
head. Also, there is no guaranteed outcome when hand-holding lighter
or heavier cameras. A heavy camera which appears to "damp out" some
vibration can set-up more involuntary tremors in the hands and arms of
the person holding it. You just have to test each camera-lens
combo.

I guess I don't get it. I guess if you have a lightweight Walmart 3000
tripod, and a heavy lens with VR on, you could see that. I mean every
breeze will cause problems. On some soils, I could induce shake just
by walking around the tripod. And lighter lenses suffer more from
shutter slap.

OTOH, when I use a decent heavy (non-carbon) tripod like one of my
Bogens or Manfrotto 90 pro's, I can mount my RB67 well, or my D7000
w/300mm AI-S Nikkor 4.5, and get good results. Worse comes to worse, I
can always hang a canvas sack of sand from the tripod for even more
stability. BUt you do need to turn the VR off, as the motor will
induce vibration rather than reducing it.

A-

Why Nikon should upgrade the D300
 

Not always true. It depends on the tripod. More weight can easily
mean worse vibration depending on how it deflects the tripod and the
head. Also, there is no guaranteed outcome when hand-holding lighter
or heavier cameras. A heavy camera which appears to "damp out" some
vibration can set-up more involuntary tremors in the hands and arms of
the person holding it. You just have to test each camera-lens
combo.

I think hand held takes you into lower frequency movement, which can
at least partially be overcome by higher shutter speeds. And what
fool mounts a camera on a tripod in a manner designed to promote pitch
movement? On a a tripod, roll is just about eliminated, and yaw can be
controlled by proper mounting with a lens collar (on long lenses). I
would never hang a long lens on a camera body and then screw the
"camera" to the tripod. That's just asking for pitch problems. And, if
there's local vibration from heavy machinery or highway traffic, you
can always lay a sandbag on the lens to damp it even more.

A-

Why Nikon should upgrade the D300
 

"Me" wrote in message
...
snipo
(BTW the D800 in DX crop mode is about 16mp, not 24mp).

My point is a Dx camera is simply permanent cropping in camera Vs the
ability to crop whatever you want in software with a Fx camera. 24Mp images
are easy from a Nikon D800. The *only* benefits of a crop camera are cost
and body size and weight these days. Image storage space is hardly an issue
for most people any more. As you rightly point out, you do have the option
of 16Mp images when it does, AND the ability to switch back and forth at
will.
However I can definitely see a market for both existing for some time yet.

Trevor.

Why Nikon should upgrade the D300
 

Rich wrote:

Why produce a top flight APS camera?

Because Canon has a 7D (and will have a 7DX, or so rumors murmur).
Should Nikon not compete?

Why object to the top camera being a
D90 "upgrade" with a FF sensor and not a D300 upgrade with an APS sensor?

Because Nikon has stuck to crop and "crop forever" for a long
time, lots of people bought crop glass. Using that on a FF in a
"DX mode" is a waste of cash. Buying new FF lenses means lots
of expenses, at least if you want such conveniences as VR and
autofocus, which are common enough on crop lenses.

Now that APS has hit 24 megapixels, it has to be considered it offers the
best option for wildlife photography,

No, it has not. For *some* types of wildlife photography it's a
good option: when you simply have no lens and extender to actually
fill the frame with the animal.

outside of the D800, but more
importantly, it does give lenses greater "reach" so somone can shoot
wildlife with a relatively portable 300mm lens versus a much larger and
heavier and much more expensive 400mm lens.

A 400mm lens is too short even on crop bodies for much of
wildlife photography.
There are enough shots where a 500mm lens + a 1.4x or 2x converter
on a 1.3x crop camera just fills the frame --- and others where
you still need cropping. 910mm FF, 1,213mm FF --- and you're
talking about measly 450mm FF!

Linear resolution comparison of a 24mp APS and a 300mm lens and the D800
36mp and a 400mm lens gives APS about a 8% resolution advantage, so for all
purposes, they offer the same resolution.

Have you measured that? Some reports say that the D800 increase
in (linear) pixels didn't yield a similar increase in (linear)
resolution --- which is obvious, as lenses do not offer infinite
resolution. BTW, is that 8% linear or 8% per area more resolution?

However weight savings of the
camera-lens combos gives the APS a distinct advantage.

Additionally, quite a few wildlife shots need high ISO: under
the cover of trees animals often don't have a full ray of sunlight
on them but are in deep shadows, they are active during twilight,
even fast long lenses mean smaller apertures (worse with
extenders), short exposure times are needed because the rule
of the thumb of 1/(mm FF) seconds breaks down somewhere
around 200-400mm FF and you need even faster speeds than that
--- even with a tripod you need fast speeds!

And then you probably want a printable image, not some noisy
shot. That might mean you need FF.

In fact, it may be possible that true resolution comparisons would show
even greater advantages due to higher stability offered by the lighter
combination, either on tripod/monopod or off. It would require testing to
determine that.

In fact, a higher weight means more inertial mass. It needs
more force to cause the same amount of rotation ...

I wish they'd release a 40mp APS sensor for low ISO, high resolution work.

You're in luck, they released a 40 MPix sensor for just such
stuff. In fact they managed to improve a lot upon the reach,
making it smaller and packing it into a phone. Which means it's
much lighter to carry than even an crop body, never mind the
long lenses, giving it not only a distinct, but a strong
advantage!

-Wolfgang

Why Nikon should upgrade the D300
 

Chemiker wrote:

OTOH, when I use a decent heavy (non-carbon) tripod like one of my
Bogens or Manfrotto 90 pro's, I can mount my RB67 well, or my D7000
w/300mm AI-S Nikkor 4.5, and get good results. Worse comes to worse, I
can always hang a canvas sack of sand from the tripod for even more
stability. BUt you do need to turn the VR off, as the motor will
induce vibration rather than reducing it.

What --- has Nikon not managed a tripod detection in their VR
lenses yet?

-Wolfgang

Why Nikon should upgrade the D300
 

On 2012-10-10 09:47:48 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg
said:

Rich wrote:

Le Snip

Now that APS has hit 24 megapixels, it has to be considered it offers the
best option for wildlife photography,

No, it has not. For *some* types of wildlife photography it's a
good option: when you simply have no lens and extender to actually
fill the frame with the animal.

outside of the D800, but more
importantly, it does give lenses greater "reach" so somone can shoot
wildlife with a relatively portable 300mm lens versus a much larger and
heavier and much more expensive 400mm lens.

A 400mm lens is too short even on crop bodies for much of
wildlife photography.
There are enough shots where a 500mm lens + a 1.4x or 2x converter
on a 1.3x crop camera just fills the frame --- and others where
you still need cropping. 910mm FF, 1,213mm FF --- and you're
talking about measly 450mm FF!

While I would love to have all the extra MPs and/or FF and premium long
glass, the D300S + 70-300mm VR will do (has done) in a pinch for
wildlife photography.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...C_3633B-1w.jpg



--
Regards,

Savageduck

Why Nikon should upgrade the D300
 

In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

OTOH, when I use a decent heavy (non-carbon) tripod like one of my
Bogens or Manfrotto 90 pro's, I can mount my RB67 well, or my D7000
w/300mm AI-S Nikkor 4.5, and get good results. Worse comes to worse, I
can always hang a canvas sack of sand from the tripod for even more
stability. BUt you do need to turn the VR off, as the motor will
induce vibration rather than reducing it.

What --- has Nikon not managed a tripod detection in their VR
lenses yet?

long ago, although they still recommend turning it off.