Why Nikon should upgrade the D300

On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:30:55 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:
:
: "Rob" wrote in message
: ...
: Or are we still talking about Fx lenses and claiming they lose size
: and
: weight when added to a Dx body? :-)
:
: compared with the equivalent lens for FX, sure, FX needs 1.6x more long
: lens, converter or not converter
:
: You can buy a 1.7x converter for your FX lenses - to make them feel like
: having a dx camera
:
: Or how about create a 1.6 crop "action" in Photoshop?
:
:
:
: My FF automatically changes to DX crop when I attach a DX lens. Will that
: do ?
:
:
: Absolutely! You already have the best of both worlds as I have been saying
: all along. Those who've never owned a FF DSLR just don't seem to get it.
: Or maybe prefer to fool themselves that a Dx body is actually an advantage
: over Fx, rather than just a cost saving.

DX cameras do cost less, but less weight is an advantage too. The other night
I covered a panel discussion with my two 7D's, one with a FF 70-200 and the
other with a 17-55 APS-C lens. Believe me, that was plenty heavy for an old
geezer like me. And more importantly, the increased resolution of, say, a D800
wouldn't have made a particle of difference for my application.

: (but they don't seem to be buying Nikon V1's in droves though :-)

A silly comparison, as the smiley suggests. The underlying assumption, that
only clueless snapshooters or self-delusional fools buy DX cameras, is
nonsense.

Bob

On 2012.10.20 09:00 , Robert Coe wrote:

I don't know how Photoshop handles cropping, because I've never used it. But
of those photo editors I have used, some make cropping easy and convenient
while others make it surprisingly cumbersome. YMMV.

The basic photoshop crop is simple and sophisticated - as usual you can
arbitrarily crop as you like.

But it also has time saving features such as allowing you to set the
crop so that it results in a specific number of pixels in each dim.

Say I set it to crop 1200 px by 800 px (HxV). Then the cropping tool
enforces that proportion - when the crop is activated, and resamples the
image. From there one only needs a USM and it's ready to save.

Or, set the print dpi (say 360) and the dimensions in inches. (eg: 12in
X 8in @ 360 dpi). It then enforces that proportion and when the crop is
activated, crops and re-samples the image to 4320 x 2880 pixels. USM
and ready to print.

All in one shot. And to clear the settings there's a simple 'clear'
button and you're back at arbitrary cropping.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/v8np7c8rnc...0.05.29%20.jpg

All the above, BTW, without a dialog box. It's right there in the main
toolbar when the crop tool is selected.

So it's powerful and simply implemented all at the same time.

--
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
-Sir John A. Macdonald

Trevor wrote:

The *only* benefits of a crop camera are cost
and body size and weight these days.

Higher pixel density. Important when your object won't fill
the image due to limited focal length (not many have 1000mm
available).

Image storage space is hardly an issue
for most people any more.

How much is cloud storage for backup these days?
Amazon Glacier is $0.01 per GB per month, so a terrabyte (easily
filled) is $123 per year, each year. That starts to add up after
some point.

-Wolfgang

Savageduck wrote:
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

Yep, in some circumstances it works, of course.

However, angering the cheetah by showing him Nikon equipment
(just notice how the hair on his nape bristles --- he'd much
prefer Canon!) isn't considered good sportsmanship.

-Wolf;-gang

On 2012-10-20 09:06:50 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg
said:

Savageduck wrote:
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

Yep, in some circumstances it works, of course.

However, angering the cheetah by showing him Nikon equipment
(just notice how the hair on his nape bristles --- he'd much
prefer Canon!) isn't considered good sportsmanship.

Naah! The reaction was to the compact and phone cameras in the group
seated in the back of the open LandRover. The cheetah was more than
happy to have its image captured by fine Nikon equipment. Canon in the
field is just so passé.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/20/2012 9:02 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 12:50:06 +1100, Rob wrote:
: On 17/10/2012 11:28 AM, Trevor wrote:
: "Rob" wrote in message
: ...
: Or are we still talking about Fx lenses and claiming they lose size and
: weight when added to a Dx body? :-)
:
: compared with the equivalent lens for FX, sure, FX needs 1.6x more long
: lens, converter or not converter
:
: You can buy a 1.7x converter for your FX lenses - to make them feel like
: having a dx camera
:
: Or how about create a 1.6 crop "action" in Photoshop?
:
: Trevor.
:
:
: My FF automatically changes to DX crop when I attach a DX lens. Will
: that do ?

For those who put DX lenses on FF cameras, anything will do. :^)


Sorry.
A D lens on either the D800 or D4, will produce a better image than on
my D300.
Canon mileage may vary. ;-)


--
Peter

On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 18:06:50 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:
: Savageduck wrote:
: 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
:
: Yep, in some circumstances it works, of course.
:
: However, angering the cheetah by showing him Nikon equipment
: (just notice how the hair on his nape bristles --- he'd much
: prefer Canon!) isn't considered good sportsmanship.

As a Canonian, he's irritated at seeing the Nikon photographer approach him so
well equipped. He's STILL WAITING for his new 1DX.

Bob

Le 20/10/2012 23:07, Robert Coe a écrit :

As a Canonian, he's irritated at seeing the Nikon photographer approach him so
well equipped. He's STILL WAITING for his new 1DX.

He's waiting for his brand new Panasonic GH3 to take shots of tourists...

jdd

On 10/20/2012 3:26 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 10/20/2012 9:02 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 12:50:06 +1100, Rob wrote:
: On 17/10/2012 11:28 AM, Trevor wrote:
: "Rob" wrote in message
: ...
: Or are we still talking about Fx lenses and claiming they lose
size and
: weight when added to a Dx body? :-)
:
: compared with the equivalent lens for FX, sure, FX needs 1.6x
more long
: lens, converter or not converter
:
: You can buy a 1.7x converter for your FX lenses - to make them
feel like
: having a dx camera
:
: Or how about create a 1.6 crop "action" in Photoshop?
:
: Trevor.
:
:
: My FF automatically changes to DX crop when I attach a DX lens. Will
: that do ?

For those who put DX lenses on FF cameras, anything will do. :^)


Sorry.
A D lens on either the D800 or D4, will produce a better image than on
my D300.
Canon mileage may vary. ;-)



That should read "DX"
I am having keyboard issues on my laptop, but waiting to see how the new
ultra slims are configured.

--
Peter

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
: Or are we still talking about Fx lenses and claiming they lose
size
: and
: weight when added to a Dx body? :-)
:
: compared with the equivalent lens for FX, sure, FX needs 1.6x more
long
: lens, converter or not converter
:
: You can buy a 1.7x converter for your FX lenses - to make them feel
like
: having a dx camera
:
: Or how about create a 1.6 crop "action" in Photoshop?
:
:
: Creating a Crop Tool preset at a specific aspect ratio and resolution
: setting is simpler, and more useful. Particularly when it comes to
: isolating a specific potion of the image, rather than a generalized
1.6
: crop with little control other than the resize.
:
:
: Yes, I was being faceteous. I'd never want an automatic crop anyway, and
: those who don't know how to crop, sure wouldn't know how to create an
action
: in PS :-)

I don't know how Photoshop handles cropping, because I've never used it.
But
of those photo editors I have used, some make cropping easy and convenient
while others make it surprisingly cumbersome. YMMV.


It's one of the easiest things you can do in PS, but then I've never found
any photo software where it's all that difficult.

Trevor.