Why Nikon should upgrade the D300

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 11:38:06 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
.. .
It is not my definition - it is Trevor's. I am just pointing out that if
you regard DX as a "crop" of FX, then every format is in the same
(rather pointless sense of the word) a crop of some larger format, real
or theoretical.

My apologies. It sounds as though you and I agree. To regard a smaller
sensor as a crop of a larger implies that the smaller sensor is
restricted to the same lens as the larger. It might very well be able
to use the same lens but there is no reason why it should not use a
proportionally shorter.

So you choose to ignore the fact that 90% of Canon and Nikon lenses fit
either Dx or Fx bodies, (and the lens mount is the same)? And some Nikon Dx
lenses can be used in "crop mode" on an Fx body anyway? Fine, your choice.
Not like I should care :-)

Of course I don't ignore it!

But I feel no compulsion to use the same lens on my Dx camera as I
would on an Fx and I certainly wouldn't go around complaining that
images from my Dx are cropped versions of what I would produce with an
Fx.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 11:30:53 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:


"Apteryx" wrote in message
...
It is not my definition - it is Trevor's. I am just pointing out that if
you regard DX as a "crop" of FX, then every format is in the same (rather
pointless sense of the word) a crop of some larger format, real or
theoretical.

What total nonsense. If you mount a lens designed for 8"x10" on a 35mm body,
you are indeed cropping it's image! Since you cannot use a 35mm lens on an
8"x10" camera, the reverse is not possible. You can however crop the 8x10"
negative under the enlarger for the same result. What you choose as your
definitions makes no difference to physical reality.

I have already pointed out that a lens designed for a 4" x 5" camera
will cover a larger area than than 4" x 5". Similarly, a lens designed
for 8" x 10" will cover a larger area than 8" x 10". In that sense,
the fringes of all images are cropped.

It doesn't matter what the size of the sensor you are using: you
select the focal length of the lens you are going to use to project
the image of your choice on the sensor. For the same image, one will
obviously be using lenses of different focal lengths for 8" x 10",
4" x 5", 6 x 7cm, Fx and Dx, but how this enables you to claim that
one is a cropped version of another defeats me.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 11:54:12 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:


"Rob" wrote in message
...
Cropping is cropping, whether done in camera or in PS. The result is the
same for the example I gave.

I have a Dx camera. When I take a photograph I _never_ think in terms
of me cropping the image. I might decide to crop the image later in
processing but I never think I am cropping an already cropped image.


And why should you? - you take what you see, not what you may need later.

Actually the argument mentioned reach of lenses for wildlife, where you may
well shoot your longest lens knowing you still have to crop later. If the
image obtained is satisfactory for what you want, why should it matter if
it's uncropped, a crop or a "crop" of a crop". Simply unimportant
definitions as I have stated all along.


Well with so much BS being spread, it's still necessary to post the
facts
unfortunately.

The problem is that there is an enormous amount of obfuscation
generated by people who insist in thinking only in terms of a
still-camera image size based on the Edison Kinetographic film size of
1890. It doesn't matter what the sensor (film or silicon) size is:
it's not a 'crop sensor'.


Yep, that statement would certainly be "obfuscation"! :-)
The sensor is indeed "cropping" the image a Fx lens was designed for, and
isn't when used with a Dx lens.

Are you really so silly that you select the focal length of the lens
you are going to use without taking the sensor size into account?

Your choice, except Canon and Nikon only
give you a small choice of Dx only lenses. Of course my argument was not
based on simple definitions anyway, only on the fact that it *is* possible
to obtain similar results with the *same* lens on an Fx or Dx body. You can
ignore it all you like, define it away however you want, but it doesn't
change the physics, or final image that is possible.

You can "obtain similar results with the *same* lens on an Fx or Dx
body" only if that part of the image in which you are interested does
not fall outside the Dx sensor. But why use the same lens on each? If
the Fx image is satisfactory you should be able to use a shorter lens
on the Dx camera.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 13/10/2012 1:00 PM, Trevor wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
You still need a 44mm image circle, there are no lenses I know of that
have
rectangular or oval image "circles".

yes there are BTW - think movie lenses.

Which ones should I look up? All the C mounts I have used were a circular
glass design. Metal parts and hoods can be rectangular of course, which is a
totally different issue.

Trevor.



Have a look how they make cinema scope and project that. anamorphic
lenses. so they compress to fit a standard 35mm film then projected
with anamorphic projector lenses to uncompress.

Hope this helps.

On 13/10/2012 12:05 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote:

"Rob" wrote:

Why is it that with larger formats, the image feels better. 6x7cm
always looked better than 35mm.


Short answer: 35mm is crap, always has been, always will be.

Long answer: It's real clear if you make prints.

A 7x enlargement from good film is gorgeous, but 10x is pushing it. So
if you want to make a quality 11x14 print, even a 10 x 13 on 11x14 paper
with 1/2" margins, it's essentialy impossible from 35mm since that's at
least an 11x enlargement. But a 16x20 from 6x7 will stand up to the
closest nose-on-print inspection, assuming your images are interesting
enough for people to want to look at them for more than a brief glance.

So if you actually make prints, 6x7 is seriously wonderful and 35mm is
god-awful crap.

Another issue is that people with larger format film go looking for
images with the kind of detail that will be effective when printed
large. In the landscape magazines I get, the 4x5 stuff jumps at one even
at somewhat smaller sizes.

Nowadays, with super A3 printers widely available, 12x18 on 13x19 paper
is a natural thing to do, but that's completely unreasonable from 35mm,
and like falling off a log even with the now outdated 12MP FF cameras.

-- David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan




Exactly -

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Rob" wrote:

Why is it that with larger formats, the image feels better. 6x7cm
always looked better than 35mm.


Short answer: 35mm is crap, always has been, always will be.

Long answer: It's real clear if you make prints.

A 7x enlargement from good film is gorgeous, but 10x is pushing it. So if
you want to make a quality 11x14 print, even a 10 x 13 on 11x14 paper with
1/2" margins, it's essentialy impossible from 35mm since that's at least an
11x enlargement. But a 16x20 from 6x7 will stand up to the closest
nose-on-print inspection, assuming your images are interesting enough for
people to want to look at them for more than a brief glance.

So if you actually make prints, 6x7 is seriously wonderful and 35mm is
god-awful crap.

I can understand that argument in the case of film.

Another issue is that people with larger format film go looking for images
with the kind of detail that will be effective when printed large.

I can understand that as a probabilistic argument, i.e. that larger
format users are more likely to look for images with that kind of
detail, and I'm sure acquiring that kind of image detail is easier
with larger sensors. I have a natural tendency in certain kinds of
landscape (including urbanscape) shots to try to go for the maximum
amount of detail I can get. I like the kind of large prints which you
can stand in front of and let the curious eye take a leisurely and
interesting walk through the image.

But I don't have a medium format or even FF camera. My current DSLR is
a 14MP crop sensor (APS-C, DX, whatever) camera. So I've been
improving my lenses and my techniques. Tripod, remote release, shutter
speed and aperture combinations above those which show shutter
vibration, etc.. It's a struggle to get sharp A3 prints. I conclude
that my next camera should have more MP.

In the
landscape magazines I get, the 4x5 stuff jumps at one even at somewhat
smaller sizes.

Nowadays, with super A3 printers widely available, 12x18 on 13x19 paper is a
natural thing to do, but that's completely unreasonable from 35mm, and like
falling off a log even with the now outdated 12MP FF cameras.

-- David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



--
Chris Malcolm
"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss
events. Small minds discuss people." Eleanor Roosevelt.

On 2012-10-13 06:46:22 -0700, Chris Malcolm said:

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Rob" wrote:

Why is it that with larger formats, the image feels better. 6x7cm
always looked better than 35mm.


Short answer: 35mm is crap, always has been, always will be.

Long answer: It's real clear if you make prints.

A 7x enlargement from good film is gorgeous, but 10x is pushing it. So if
you want to make a quality 11x14 print, even a 10 x 13 on 11x14 paper with
1/2" margins, it's essentialy impossible from 35mm since that's at least an
11x enlargement. But a 16x20 from 6x7 will stand up to the closest
nose-on-print inspection, assuming your images are interesting enough for
people to want to look at them for more than a brief glance.

So if you actually make prints, 6x7 is seriously wonderful and 35mm is
god-awful crap.

I can understand that argument in the case of film.

Another issue is that people with larger format film go looking for images
with the kind of detail that will be effective when printed large.

I can understand that as a probabilistic argument, i.e. that larger
format users are more likely to look for images with that kind of
detail, and I'm sure acquiring that kind of image detail is easier
with larger sensors. I have a natural tendency in certain kinds of
landscape (including urbanscape) shots to try to go for the maximum
amount of detail I can get. I like the kind of large prints which you
can stand in front of and let the curious eye take a leisurely and
interesting walk through the image.

But I don't have a medium format or even FF camera. My current DSLR is
a 14MP crop sensor (APS-C, DX, whatever) camera. So I've been
improving my lenses and my techniques. Tripod, remote release, shutter
speed and aperture combinations above those which show shutter
vibration, etc.. It's a struggle to get sharp A3 prints. I conclude
that my next camera should have more MP.

I find myself in a similar situation to you with my 12.3MP, APS-C,
D300S. I am an amateur hobbyist photographer, and as much as I would
love to justify the purchase of a D600, D800(e), or D4 and the premium
glass needed to make those FF DSLRs perform as I would want them to, I
can't. I compromise with my D300S by working on my shooting technique
and exploiting the capability and features I paid for in the D300S.

When I have done what I need to, to capture a decent image, I am able
to get extremely sharp and detailed 13x19 prints using my R2880.
If you check the Dropbox link below, you will find an uncropped,
unmolested original, shot with the D300S and using a Nikkor 70-300mm
VR, only converted from RAW to jpeg, and resized from 2848x4288
uncropped to 1080x1626 for the web. That is compared with the cropped,
upsized to 3090x4890 to print the finished image. What you see here was
resized to 809x1280 for web.

Needless to say I got great 10x16, or 11x17.88 prints of that shot on
13x19 paper from my R2880. I might do better with a FF, or MF camera
and a different printer, but for now this is what I have to work with.
Maybe a D800, or D4 if I get up my nerve to damage my wallet.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7...on/FW-109-comp



--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-10-13 08:53:43 -0700, Savageduck said:

On 2012-10-13 06:46:22 -0700, Chris Malcolm said:

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Rob" wrote:

Why is it that with larger formats, the image feels better. 6x7cm
always looked better than 35mm.


Short answer: 35mm is crap, always has been, always will be.

Long answer: It's real clear if you make prints.

A 7x enlargement from good film is gorgeous, but 10x is pushing it. So if
you want to make a quality 11x14 print, even a 10 x 13 on 11x14 paper with
1/2" margins, it's essentialy impossible from 35mm since that's at least an
11x enlargement. But a 16x20 from 6x7 will stand up to the closest
nose-on-print inspection, assuming your images are interesting enough for
people to want to look at them for more than a brief glance.

So if you actually make prints, 6x7 is seriously wonderful and 35mm is
god-awful crap.

I can understand that argument in the case of film.

Another issue is that people with larger format film go looking for images
with the kind of detail that will be effective when printed large.

I can understand that as a probabilistic argument, i.e. that larger
format users are more likely to look for images with that kind of
detail, and I'm sure acquiring that kind of image detail is easier
with larger sensors. I have a natural tendency in certain kinds of
landscape (including urbanscape) shots to try to go for the maximum
amount of detail I can get. I like the kind of large prints which you
can stand in front of and let the curious eye take a leisurely and
interesting walk through the image.

But I don't have a medium format or even FF camera. My current DSLR is
a 14MP crop sensor (APS-C, DX, whatever) camera. So I've been
improving my lenses and my techniques. Tripod, remote release, shutter
speed and aperture combinations above those which show shutter
vibration, etc.. It's a struggle to get sharp A3 prints. I conclude
that my next camera should have more MP.

I find myself in a similar situation to you with my 12.3MP, APS-C,
D300S. I am an amateur hobbyist photographer, and as much as I would
love to justify the purchase of a D600, D800(e), or D4 and the premium
glass needed to make those FF DSLRs perform as I would want them to, I
can't. I compromise with my D300S by working on my shooting technique
and exploiting the capability and features I paid for in the D300S.

When I have done what I need to, to capture a decent image, I am able
to get extremely sharp and detailed 13x19 prints using my R2880.
If you check the Dropbox link below, you will find an uncropped,
unmolested original, shot with the D300S and using a Nikkor 70-300mm
VR, only converted from RAW to jpeg, and resized from 2848x4288
uncropped to 1080x1626 for the web. That is compared with the cropped,
upsized to 3090x4890 to print the finished image. What you see here was
resized to 809x1280 for web.

Needless to say I got great 10x16, or 11x17.88 prints of that shot on
13x19 paper from my R2880. I might do better with a FF, or MF camera
and a different printer, but for now this is what I have to work with.
Maybe a D800, or D4 if I get up my nerve to damage my wallet.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7...on/FW-109-comp

Oh!

What I also meant to say, was I would not turn down an updated/upgraded
APC-S D300S either.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 21:07:40 +1100, Rob wrote:
: On 13/10/2012 1:00 PM, Trevor wrote:
: "Rob" wrote in message
: ...
: You still need a 44mm image circle, there are no lenses I know of
: that have rectangular or oval image "circles".
:
: yes there are BTW - think movie lenses.
:
: Which ones should I look up? All the C mounts I have used were a
: circular glass design. Metal parts and hoods can be rectangular
: of course, which is a totally different issue.
:
: Trevor.
:
:
: Have a look how they make cinema scope and project that. anamorphic
: lenses. so they compress to fit a standard 35mm film then projected
: with anamorphic projector lenses to uncompress.
:
: Hope this helps.

It helps keep your previous statements from being wrong, but everyone here
understands that Cinemascope lenses (if that's how they work) are irrelevant
to the issues being discussed in this thread.

Bob

On 14/10/2012 12:46 AM, Chris Malcolm wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Rob" wrote:

Why is it that with larger formats, the image feels better. 6x7cm
always looked better than 35mm.


Short answer: 35mm is crap, always has been, always will be.

Long answer: It's real clear if you make prints.

A 7x enlargement from good film is gorgeous, but 10x is pushing it. So if
you want to make a quality 11x14 print, even a 10 x 13 on 11x14 paper with
1/2" margins, it's essentialy impossible from 35mm since that's at least an
11x enlargement. But a 16x20 from 6x7 will stand up to the closest
nose-on-print inspection, assuming your images are interesting enough for
people to want to look at them for more than a brief glance.

So if you actually make prints, 6x7 is seriously wonderful and 35mm is
god-awful crap.

I can understand that argument in the case of film.

Another issue is that people with larger format film go looking for images
with the kind of detail that will be effective when printed large.

I can understand that as a probabilistic argument, i.e. that larger
format users are more likely to look for images with that kind of
detail, and I'm sure acquiring that kind of image detail is easier
with larger sensors. I have a natural tendency in certain kinds of
landscape (including urbanscape) shots to try to go for the maximum
amount of detail I can get. I like the kind of large prints which you
can stand in front of and let the curious eye take a leisurely and
interesting walk through the image.

But I don't have a medium format or even FF camera. My current DSLR is
a 14MP crop sensor (APS-C, DX, whatever) camera. So I've been
improving my lenses and my techniques. Tripod, remote release, shutter
speed and aperture combinations above those which show shutter
vibration, etc.. It's a struggle to get sharp A3 prints. I conclude
that my next camera should have more MP.


I went from dx 12mp to fx 36mp DSLR there is no comparison between them.
And if you are thinking of Fx then get the biggest MP you can afford.




In the
landscape magazines I get, the 4x5 stuff jumps at one even at somewhat
smaller sizes.

Nowadays, with super A3 printers widely available, 12x18 on 13x19 paper is a
natural thing to do, but that's completely unreasonable from 35mm, and like
falling off a log even with the now outdated 12MP FF cameras.

-- David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan