A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why Nikon should upgrade the D300



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 10th 12, 09:39 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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  
Old October 10th 12, 09:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old October 10th 12, 10:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
R. Mark Clayton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 334
Default 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  
Old October 10th 12, 11:40 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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  
Old October 11th 12, 12:47 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 241
Default 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  
Old October 11th 12, 01:14 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Trevor[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 874
Default 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  
Old October 11th 12, 02:33 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Trevor[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 874
Default 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  
Old October 11th 12, 04:36 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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  
Old October 11th 12, 07:00 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Apteryx
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default 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  
Old October 12th 12, 12:52 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 09:11 PM
Nikon 50mm 1.4 AFS on Nikon D40 - Should I upgrade lens or camera? RichA[_4_] Digital Photography 2 January 7th 09 08:34 PM
Nikon 50mm 1.4 AFS on Nikon D40 - Should I upgrade lens or camera? Floyd L. Davidson Digital Photography 0 January 7th 09 06:40 PM
Nikon 50mm 1.4 AFS on Nikon D40 - Should I upgrade lens or camera? ASAAR Digital Photography 0 January 7th 09 07:40 AM
D300 worth the upgrade from the D200 LuvLatins[_2_] Digital Photography 33 December 26th 07 05:17 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.