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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Why Nikon should upgrade the D300
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:18:20 -0700, 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 Exif says this was taken with your D300 (presumably before it was stolen). -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Why Nikon should upgrade the D300
On 2012-10-10 13:39:44 -0700, Eric Stevens said:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:18:20 -0700, 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 Exif says this was taken with your D300 (presumably before it was stolen). Yup! The D300 + 18-200mm VR were stolen 5 days after that shot was taken. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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. No you want the wider field of view of an FF sensor and a lens that wil fill it (albeit the lens will be heavier than the equivalent APS flavour one. 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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Why Nikon should upgrade the D300
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 22:13:36 +0100, "R. Mark Clayton"
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. No you want the wider field of view of an FF sensor and a lens that wil fill it (albeit the lens will be heavier than the equivalent APS flavour one. The size of the sensor does not on its own determine the field of view. Its the size of te sensor combined with the focal length of the lens which determines the field of view. While the FF sensor does not provide a wider field of view it does require a longer (and larger and heavier) lens to obtain the same field of view as a smaller 'crop' sensor. 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. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Why Nikon should upgrade the D300
On 10/10/2012 1:55 p.m., Trevor wrote:
"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. Not really. Dx (APS-c) is a legitimate and popular format, as is 4/3. They aren't "cropping" - the format is what it is. I doubt you'd say that 35mm format is "simply permanent cropping" compared to medium format, but saying that is just as valid as what you are saying. There are advantages to smaller formats - it's not a case of "bigger = better". snip |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Why Nikon should upgrade the D300
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message ... On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 22:13:36 +0100, "R. Mark Clayton" 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. No you want the wider field of view of an FF sensor and a lens that wil fill it (albeit the lens will be heavier than the equivalent APS flavour one. The size of the sensor does not on its own determine the field of view. Its the size of te sensor combined with the focal length of the lens which determines the field of view. While the FF sensor does not provide a wider field of view it does require a longer (and larger and heavier) lens to obtain the same field of view as a smaller 'crop' sensor. NOT if you simply *choose* to crop later rather than having the camera give you no choice! Given the same lens, and same pixels per sq inch sensor types, you would get exactly the same results if the Dx crops in camera, or you crop the Fx image in PS. (but yes a Dx only lens can be a little smaller than a Fx one for a given focal length, however in practice I don't really see enough difference to justify locking yourself into a Dx only system.) I'm amazed there are people still arguing about this. Trevor. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Why Nikon should upgrade the D300
"Me" wrote in message ... On 10/10/2012 1:55 p.m., Trevor wrote: "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. Not really. Dx (APS-c) is a legitimate and popular format, as is 4/3. They aren't "cropping" - the format is what it is. Perhaps, but put a Fx lens on a Dx body, and in camera "cropping" of the lens image is *exactly* what you get! I doubt you'd say that 35mm format is "simply permanent cropping" compared to medium format, Well yes I would if you put a MF lens on a 35mm camera and then pretended to compare the lens reach as is being done here. but saying that is just as valid as what you are saying. There are advantages to smaller formats - it's not a case of "bigger = better". Of course, as I said all along. Size, weight, cost are always valid considerations. However pretending that the same lens on a Dx body has greater reach for wildlife shots etc. is NOT one of them IMO. Simply wrong thinking. Trevor. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Why Nikon should upgrade the D300
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:14:12 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 22:13:36 +0100, "R. Mark Clayton" 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. No you want the wider field of view of an FF sensor and a lens that wil fill it (albeit the lens will be heavier than the equivalent APS flavour one. The size of the sensor does not on its own determine the field of view. Its the size of te sensor combined with the focal length of the lens which determines the field of view. While the FF sensor does not provide a wider field of view it does require a longer (and larger and heavier) lens to obtain the same field of view as a smaller 'crop' sensor. NOT if you simply *choose* to crop later rather than having the camera give you no choice! We are talking about DSLRs most of which have interchangeable lenses. Normally the user chooses the lens so as to enable the camera to obtain the required field of view. Given the same lens, and same pixels per sq inch sensor types, you would get exactly the same results if the Dx crops in camera, or you crop the Fx image in PS. Cropping an image is an entirely different matter. What is the image you are cropping? (but yes a Dx only lens can be a little smaller than a Fx one for a given focal length, however in practice I don't really see enough difference to justify locking yourself into a Dx only system.) I'm amazed there are people still arguing about this. Me too. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Why Nikon should upgrade the D300
On 11/10/2012 2:33 p.m., Trevor wrote:
"Me" wrote in message ... On 10/10/2012 1:55 p.m., Trevor wrote: "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. Not really. Dx (APS-c) is a legitimate and popular format, as is 4/3. They aren't "cropping" - the format is what it is. Perhaps, but put a Fx lens on a Dx body, and in camera "cropping" of the lens image is *exactly* what you get! Have you checked whether any of your "FX" lenses might in fact have image circles that would cover a medium format (ie, any format larger than 36mm by 24mm)? If they would, then they are in fact MF lenses, but are producing only "cropped" images on your FX camera. In fact, since 36mm by 36mm is a format larger than 36 by 24mm, and therefore is a medium format, it is pretty much inevitable that the lenses you think of as FX are in fact MF (unless their image "circle" is not a true circle). They would be producing "crops" of what they could display on a possible MF camera with that format when used on your FX camera. And given the way in which many Nikon DX zoom lenses, although only needing to cover a sensor a little smaller than 24mm by 16mm, nonetheless have image circles that will cover an FX sensor over part of their zoom range, I would be surprised if none of their FX zoom lenses would not in the same way cover a sensor 44mm by 33mm, which is in cameras marketed as digital MF Apteryx |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Why Nikon should upgrade the D300
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:28:19 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote: On Oct 10, 8:33*pm, "Trevor" wrote: "Me" wrote in message ... On 10/10/2012 1:55 p.m., Trevor wrote: "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. Not really. *Dx (APS-c) is a legitimate and popular format, as is 4/3. They aren't "cropping" - the format is what it is. Perhaps, but put a Fx lens on a Dx body, and in camera "cropping" of the lens image is *exactly* what you get! I doubt you'd say that 35mm format is "simply permanent cropping" compared to medium format, Well yes I would if you put a MF lens on a 35mm camera and then pretended to compare the lens reach as is being done here. but saying that is just as valid as what you are saying. There are advantages to smaller formats - it's not a case of "bigger = better". Of course, as I said all along. Size, weight, cost are always valid considerations. However pretending that the same lens on a Dx body has greater reach for wildlife shots etc. is NOT one of them IMO. Simply wrong thinking. Trevor. Pixel density in a scene determines resolution, provided the lens can handle it. 24mp into a DX scene produces a higher pixel density and resolution than a 36mp FX camera. It depends how you measure pixel density. You are right if you express the density in (say) pixels/mm but wrong if you express it in pixels/image-width. Assuming of course that you select lenses to project the same image on the sensor. The 36 mp sensor will always produce an image of higher resolution. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon 50mm 1.4 AFS on Nikon D40 - Should I upgrade lens or camera? | trouble | Digital Photography | 1 | January 7th 09 08:11 PM |
Nikon 50mm 1.4 AFS on Nikon D40 - Should I upgrade lens or camera? | RichA[_4_] | Digital Photography | 2 | January 7th 09 07:34 PM |
Nikon 50mm 1.4 AFS on Nikon D40 - Should I upgrade lens or camera? | Floyd L. Davidson | Digital Photography | 0 | January 7th 09 05:40 PM |
Nikon 50mm 1.4 AFS on Nikon D40 - Should I upgrade lens or camera? | ASAAR | Digital Photography | 0 | January 7th 09 06:40 AM |
D300 worth the upgrade from the D200 | LuvLatins[_2_] | Digital Photography | 33 | December 26th 07 04:17 AM |