If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
D3x versus D300 high ISO
So you think a camera *5.5 x the price* would give you at least 3 times
better pictures, right? Wrong! Selecting both still life pictures from imaging-resource.com in the comparometer, I took both in 1600 ISO and printed them on an A4 in highest possible resolution with ultra gloss paper on an Epson printer. It's not possible to show it on a site, but I can tell you, the difference is so small, I would be crying if I had paid so much money for the D3x. I showed both to my wife to tell me which was the expensive one. She put on her glasses and after a while she choose the D300 print, because it was a little brighter... Of course at some point the D3x will beat the D300 in resolution, but who really needs that? Other thoughts: no build-in flash (even if it was only to work as a master), much bigger and heavier, slower and less lenses that fit, unless you use DX lenses in crop format... I made up my mind and will stick with the D300. For the difference in price I can buy a used 4x4 and shoot picture where no man has gone before ;-) -- Focus |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
D3x versus D300 high ISO
Focus wrote:
So you think a camera *5.5 x the price* would give you at least 3 times better pictures, right? Wrong! No,I didn't think that. Dave Cohen Selecting both still life pictures from imaging-resource.com in the comparometer, I took both in 1600 ISO and printed them on an A4 in highest possible resolution with ultra gloss paper on an Epson printer. It's not possible to show it on a site, but I can tell you, the difference is so small, I would be crying if I had paid so much money for the D3x. I showed both to my wife to tell me which was the expensive one. She put on her glasses and after a while she choose the D300 print, because it was a little brighter... Of course at some point the D3x will beat the D300 in resolution, but who really needs that? Other thoughts: no build-in flash (even if it was only to work as a master), much bigger and heavier, slower and less lenses that fit, unless you use DX lenses in crop format... I made up my mind and will stick with the D300. For the difference in price I can buy a used 4x4 and shoot picture where no man has gone before ;-) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
D3x versus D300 high ISO
Dave Cohen wrote:
Focus wrote: So you think a camera *5.5 x the price* would give you at least 3 times better pictures, right? Wrong! No,I didn't think that. Neither did I, but I did think "trim reply" and "set f-u" so as to not bother our bretheren in aus. photo. Try to be considerate, "Focus". -- lsmft |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
D3x versus D300 high ISO
Focus wrote:
So you think a camera *5.5 x the price* would give you at least 3 times better pictures, right? Wrong! Selecting both still life pictures from imaging-resource.com in the comparometer, I took both in 1600 ISO and printed them on an A4 in highest possible resolution with ultra gloss paper on an Epson printer. It's not possible to show it on a site, but I can tell you, the difference is so small, I would be crying if I had paid so much money for the D3x. I showed both to my wife to tell me which was the expensive one. She put on her glasses and after a while she choose the D300 print, because it was a little brighter... Of course at some point the D3x will beat the D300 in resolution, but who really needs that? Other thoughts: no build-in flash (even if it was only to work as a master), much bigger and heavier, slower and less lenses that fit, unless you use DX lenses in crop format... I made up my mind and will stick with the D300. For the difference in price I can buy a used 4x4 and shoot picture where no man has gone before ;-) Yeah sure. A4 is a real test of those two! Try a 20x30 inch print and report back. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
D3x versus D300 high ISO
Very good point Dave.
The D3x will show ZERO advantage over a D3, D300, and D700 until you get to perhaps 16x20 prints, or probably 20x30 and above. And there, I imagine the D3x will be superior (at least at ISO 200). But then, how many of us really EVER print at 20x30 and above? Perhaps 0.0001% of the prints produced in the world are over 16x20. John "Dave" wrote in message ... Focus wrote: So you think a camera *5.5 x the price* would give you at least 3 times better pictures, right? Wrong! Selecting both still life pictures from imaging-resource.com in the comparometer, I took both in 1600 ISO and printed them on an A4 in highest possible resolution with ultra gloss paper on an Epson printer. It's not possible to show it on a site, but I can tell you, the difference is so small, I would be crying if I had paid so much money for the D3x. I showed both to my wife to tell me which was the expensive one. She put on her glasses and after a while she choose the D300 print, because it was a little brighter... Of course at some point the D3x will beat the D300 in resolution, but who really needs that? Other thoughts: no build-in flash (even if it was only to work as a master), much bigger and heavier, slower and less lenses that fit, unless you use DX lenses in crop format... I made up my mind and will stick with the D300. For the difference in price I can buy a used 4x4 and shoot picture where no man has gone before ;-) Yeah sure. A4 is a real test of those two! Try a 20x30 inch print and report back. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
D3x versus D300 high ISO
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:32:59 +0000, Focus wrote:
So you think a camera *5.5 x the price* would give you at least 3 times better pictures, right? Wrong! Selecting both still life pictures from imaging-resource.com in the comparometer, I took both in 1600 ISO and printed them on an A4 in highest possible resolution with ultra gloss paper on an Epson printer. But how would you compare several D300 landscape and portrait shots against the D3X after you crop each about 25% and then print them at 16x25? On the D3X you are working with double the pixels and double the sensor. You should see a major difference. It's not possible to show it on a site, but I can tell you, the difference is so small, I would be crying if I had paid so much money for the D3x. I showed both to my wife to tell me which was the expensive one. She put on her glasses and after a while she choose the D300 print, because it was a little brighter... Of course at some point the D3x will beat the D300 in resolution, but who really needs that? Other thoughts: no build-in flash (even if it was only to work as a master), much bigger and heavier, slower and less lenses that fit, unless you use DX lenses in crop format... I made up my mind and will stick with the D300. For the difference in price I can buy a used 4x4 and shoot picture where no man has gone before ;-) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
D3x versus D300 high ISO
The real potential of D3x is not in 1600 ISO, but in 100 ISO, in studio or
landscape, where the quality and dynamic range difference from any other camera in this format is exceptional. Every other comparison is just nonsence. -- Dimitris M αφαιρέστε τα δύο ταφ πριν το παπάκι απο την διεύθυνση Very good point Dave. The D3x will show ZERO advantage over a D3, D300, and D700 until you get to perhaps 16x20 prints, or probably 20x30 and above. And there, I imagine the D3x will be superior (at least at ISO 200). But then, how many of us really EVER print at 20x30 and above? Perhaps 0.0001% of the prints produced in the world are over 16x20. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
D3x versus D300 high ISO
Exactly!
"Dimitris M" wrote in message news:1232655289.209591@athprx04... The real potential of D3x is not in 1600 ISO, but in 100 ISO, in studio or landscape, where the quality and dynamic range difference from any other camera in this format is exceptional. Every other comparison is just nonsence. -- Dimitris M αφαιρέστε τα δύο ταφ πριν το παπάκι απο την διεύθυνση Very good point Dave. The D3x will show ZERO advantage over a D3, D300, and D700 until you get to perhaps 16x20 prints, or probably 20x30 and above. And there, I imagine the D3x will be superior (at least at ISO 200). But then, how many of us really EVER print at 20x30 and above? Perhaps 0.0001% of the prints produced in the world are over 16x20. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
D3x versus D300 high ISO
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:27:57 -0800, John Smith wrote:
Very good point Dave. The D3x will show ZERO advantage over a D3, D300, and D700 until you get to perhaps 16x20 prints, or probably 20x30 and above. And there, I imagine the D3x will be superior (at least at ISO 200). But then, how many of us really EVER print at 20x30 and above? Perhaps 0.0001% of the prints produced in the world are over 16x20. 20x30 may be rare but a cropped (25%) 16x20 is a good size if you want to matte, frame, and hang and I think you would see a big advantage. I would say the same goes for the Canon 5DII and the 50D. John "Dave" wrote in message ... Focus wrote: So you think a camera *5.5 x the price* would give you at least 3 times better pictures, right? Wrong! Selecting both still life pictures from imaging-resource.com in the comparometer, I took both in 1600 ISO and printed them on an A4 in highest possible resolution with ultra gloss paper on an Epson printer. It's not possible to show it on a site, but I can tell you, the difference is so small, I would be crying if I had paid so much money for the D3x. I showed both to my wife to tell me which was the expensive one. She put on her glasses and after a while she choose the D300 print, because it was a little brighter... Of course at some point the D3x will beat the D300 in resolution, but who really needs that? Other thoughts: no build-in flash (even if it was only to work as a master), much bigger and heavier, slower and less lenses that fit, unless you use DX lenses in crop format... I made up my mind and will stick with the D300. For the difference in price I can buy a used 4x4 and shoot picture where no man has gone before ;-) Yeah sure. A4 is a real test of those two! Try a 20x30 inch print and report back. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
D3x versus D300 high ISO
What does "cropped (25%) 16x20" mean? How does 25% play into your
statement? "measekite" wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:27:57 -0800, John Smith wrote: Very good point Dave. The D3x will show ZERO advantage over a D3, D300, and D700 until you get to perhaps 16x20 prints, or probably 20x30 and above. And there, I imagine the D3x will be superior (at least at ISO 200). But then, how many of us really EVER print at 20x30 and above? Perhaps 0.0001% of the prints produced in the world are over 16x20. 20x30 may be rare but a cropped (25%) 16x20 is a good size if you want to matte, frame, and hang and I think you would see a big advantage. I would say the same goes for the Canon 5DII and the 50D. John "Dave" wrote in message ... Focus wrote: So you think a camera *5.5 x the price* would give you at least 3 times better pictures, right? Wrong! Selecting both still life pictures from imaging-resource.com in the comparometer, I took both in 1600 ISO and printed them on an A4 in highest possible resolution with ultra gloss paper on an Epson printer. It's not possible to show it on a site, but I can tell you, the difference is so small, I would be crying if I had paid so much money for the D3x. I showed both to my wife to tell me which was the expensive one. She put on her glasses and after a while she choose the D300 print, because it was a little brighter... Of course at some point the D3x will beat the D300 in resolution, but who really needs that? Other thoughts: no build-in flash (even if it was only to work as a master), much bigger and heavier, slower and less lenses that fit, unless you use DX lenses in crop format... I made up my mind and will stick with the D300. For the difference in price I can buy a used 4x4 and shoot picture where no man has gone before ;-) Yeah sure. A4 is a real test of those two! Try a 20x30 inch print and report back. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
TV screens big versus Small LCD versus Plasma. | Little Green Eyed Dragon | Digital Photography | 0 | March 2nd 07 08:04 PM |
Could high-tech, high-brow equipment be failing us | Matt | Digital SLR Cameras | 18 | September 13th 06 04:35 AM |
5D versus 20D | Rich | Digital SLR Cameras | 14 | October 29th 05 02:14 AM |
4:3 versus 3:2 | Rich | Digital SLR Cameras | 21 | October 28th 05 03:46 AM |
High quality high resolution images. Please see my new website! | Keith Flowers | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | December 13th 03 12:13 PM |