Well...in August...http://www.adorama.com/INKD700.html?sid=1216427555246359What's with the .72x zoom?? I thought the FX was a full sensor with no crop or zoom or anything like that.1poorguy
The .72x zoom refers to the magnification factor of the viewfinder. Coverage is 95%.http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9980754-1.htmlThe D300 is 0.94x, the D700 0.72x, and the D3 is 0.70x. The lower magnication is typical of viewfinders on full-frame cameras; the Canon 1Ds Mk III's viewfinder magnification is 0.76x. They have lower magnification because they're cramming a larger field of view into nearly the same space. You can deduce that since the 1Ds III's viewfinder is 0.76x / 100% coverage, the viewfinder is larger than the 0.72x / 95% coverage of the Nikon D700. - Gus
If I were going to order the D700 (and I am not) I would go to B&H before Adorama. Or even Ritz who has free shipping for those that don't already get it.My understanding is that the D700 is going to be great for portraiture photography, but for those doing nature it would not be money well spent. At this point, I would rather put money into lenses than yet another body.Birgit
If I were going to order the D700 (and I am not) I would go to B&H before Adorama.There's absolutely nothing wrong with Adorama. I've purchased quite a few things from them, and while they're not as lightning fast at fulfilling orders as B&H is, there's no reason to avoid them, either.Ritz is generally very pricey compared to either one. They want $830 for the EF-S 10-22, for example, vs. $710 from B&H or Adorama (those stores tend to match prices). I'd only by from Ritz if I absolutely had to buy something from a local shop for some reason.I suppose the comment about the D700 being "not good" at nature photography refers to the lower pixel density. While it has more pixels (12.1 million) overall, inside the 1.6 crop area it's 2784 x 1848 (5.1 million) vs. 3872 x 2592 (10 MP) for the D80. Double sounds like a lot, but it's really only about 40% more in each dimension, and honestly anything over about 8 MP in a 1.6 crop sensor is exceeding the resolution limits of almost all lenses.For 1poorguy, the least expensive full-frame DSLR body is very attractive, because he has a bunch of existing lenses geared toward full-frame bodies and no 1.6x crop DSLR body at present. - Gus
I somehow missed the fact that the D700 can take both DX and FX format lenses the last time around. I can't see Canon doing anything similar, because the EF-S mount depends on a smaller mirror box. EF-S format lenses actually protrude a bit into the camera body, which is part of why the EF-S 10-22mm manages 10mm on the short end. On a full-frame body, even if you could mung the mounting plate, the mirror would slam into the back of the lens. - Gus
For 1poorguy, the least expensive full-frame DSLR body is very attractive, because he has a bunch of existing lenses geared toward full-frame bodies and no 1.6x crop DSLR body at present.Correct. And like you I suspect I will be a pixel fiend (did you call it "pixel counter"?). I'll be driven nuts by pixelation and other artifacts. So the better the resolution the happier I will be. If it really is at the limit of the lenses, then that's all I could ask of anything (including film).1poorguy
For 1poorguy, the least expensive full-frame DSLR body is very attractive, because he has a bunch of existing lenses geared toward full-frame bodies and no 1.6x crop DSLR body at present.Canon 5D? I heard a price drop is on the way and will put the 5D at $1600 new..
I'll be driven nuts by pixelation and other artifacts.Have you seen a print from a DSLR with 6+ MP the size you would normally print?
Yep. Once. There was a white rail fence going from lower left towards upper right. Up close I could see the stair-step pixelation.My lower-end blow-ups are 16x20. 1poorlady likes 24x36, and we have three of those in the house now. All film, of course.Just hoping to clarify what Gus was talking about. Lower pixel density sounds bad.1poorlady was shooting her D80 this weekend. Not sure if she's going to keep it (she's up-tight about the cost), but 67 shots later we had a nice time. Maybe she likes it... :-)1poorguy
Yep. Once. There was a white rail fence going from lower left towards upper right. Up close I could see the stair-step pixelation.Someone must have post processed incorrectly and over sharpened the photo for your viewing distance of (guessing 6 inches) if that was the result from a DSLR.
(guessing 6 inches)Yep. About that. Actually, I could see something was "funny" from about 2-3' away. At about 6' it looked fine.The shot was in a photo shop. They were obviously trying to show off their wares.1poorguy
1poorguy,You can print 24x36 all day long with DSLRs even old 6mp ones shooting RAW can do it just fine. Do not let the camera sharpen your images, and if you can swing a 5D that has a great sensor or even a 1.3x crop sensor you will be pleasantly surprised. For color gradients like blue skies the 14bit cameras offer a lot of latitude when editing before banding shows on large prints but a properly exposed 8 or 12bit shot works as well.
if you can swing a 5D that has a great sensor With about $3K sunk into Nikon glass there is little chance of that. Those lenses are wonderful, and far too expensive to change systems on a whim.We've had that 6MP debate before. Sorry. I don't buy it. I've seen examples and they simply don't measure up to film, IMO. If you do the math it become obvious it shouldn't, also. Even 10MP seems low when you do the math, but at some point the human eye probably can't tell anymore.1poorguy
With about $3K sunk into Nikon glass there is little chance of that. Those lenses are wonderful, and far too expensive to change systems on a whim.I agree, did not remember or realize that.We've had that 6MP debate before. Sorry. I don't buy it. I've seen examples and they simply don't measure up to film, IMO. If you do the math it become obvious it shouldn't, also. Even 10MP seems low when you do the math, but at some point the human eye probably can't tell anymore.What math?
What math?As you well know, the math actually supports digital cameras at this point, not film. And has since pixel count climbed above 8MP. Full frame cameras like the D700 actually provide an image superior to that of 35mm film, in terms of MTF. Roughly 30%-40% more line pairs per millimeter for a 12 MP camera like the D700.http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.htmlI gave up discussing this with 1poorguy when he started pixel-peeping on a photo that was already blown up to 41" x 27", effectively blowing it up to 160" x 100". With some people, they're so convinced that film is better that they won't do real comparisons to objectively judge, they'll always find some way to find film superior.I shot film for ~30 years, and I don't miss it. - Gus
As you well know, the math actually supports digital cameras at this point, not film. And has since pixel count climbed above 8MP. Full frame cameras like the D700 actually provide an image superior to that of 35mm film, in terms of MTF. Roughly 30%-40% more line pairs per millimeter for a 12 MP camera like the D700.http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.htmlAh I remember that article, have not seen it in quite some time!I gave up discussing this with 1poorguy when he started pixel-peeping on a photo that was already blown up to 41" x 27", effectively blowing it up to 160" x 100". With some people, they're so convinced that film is better that they won't do real comparisons to objectively judge, they'll always find some way to find film superior.I think we have had some of these conversations as well :) , but I will just go back to taking photos now. I shot film for 10 years, and thought that dynamic range was the limiting factor more than anything. 14bit files and even some cameras with 12bit raws really took care of that issue for me. Funny thing is not all DSLRs have the same dynamic range even thought they may equally produce 12bit raw files.Funny just the other day I found myself on ebay look at the Fuji 645 Medium format camera. I have never really done anything with medium format and using my digital to take some snaps before taking the film shot seemed like a neat or fun thing to do. Reality sank in and I realized I would probably not do this, and I have to wonder about the quality of the scans at the lab. I sold my medium format film scanner a while back, purchased to scan my wedding medium format negs and all my 35mm film negs/slides. Had I kept it who knows! :)
As you well know, the math actually supports digital cameras at this point, not film. And has since pixel count climbed above 8MP.He said 6MP. As I said, I've seen a couple of blow-ups at that level and they did not impress. That would be 2000x3000 'dots' on a print. On a 4x6 it's fine. On a 24x36 it can't be (that's only about 84 'dots' per inch).Can't say that I've ever seen an 8MP blow-up, so can't comment beyond noting that I've read a few times that ISO100 film is the equivalent of 30-40MP (I usually split the difference and quote 35).With some people, they're so convinced that film is better that they won't do real comparisons to objectively judge, they'll always find some way to find film superiorI don't know that that's fair comment. At 6MP I would definitely make that argument. At 12MP I'm much more interested. I know I've said before that I knew digital was inevitable, but just not "ready" yet. At 8+MP it is more than ready for most people, and at 12+MP it may very well be ready for anal-retentives like me. I have been quite impressed with how 1poorlady's new D80 is performing. Very nice (at least on a laptop screen...and, yes, I did do some zooming). This has me even more interested in the D700.And you invited me to pixel-peep, if you'll recall! :-) I didn't say it was a bad image. But you claimed there were no artifacts, yet I saw a few. You also didn't make clear it was a 160x100 equivalent (or I would have cut considerably more slack...I may be a fanatic but I'm not THAT unreasonable!).1poorguy
MP does not equal final print size at x dots per inch.This is a comparison of a 6x7 medium format film camera and 3200 dpi scan to an 11mp Canon 1DS. I know we were talking 35mm but 6x7 versus 11mp seems unthinkable.http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtmlShocking to say the least.I really think the files being outputted are post processed incorrectly or they are JPEG images from the camera not raw.
I know we were talking 35mm but 6x7 versus 11mp seems unthinkable.Obviously medium format is superior to 35mm, so clearly this would be a tougher challenge for digital.I remember you linking this before. Kinda interesting because one image I prefer the film shot, and the other I prefer the digital. The one comparing the glass skyscrapers I note the film shows the detail of cross-pieces on the panes (where the digital does not show them at all). OTOH, the shot of the "York" building it seems the digital shows better resolution. Not sure I understand why this would be.1poorlady shot JPEG this vacation we just finished. Looks pretty good. We should probably try RAW, though I understand that you need bigger memory cards because the files are huge. I'm assuming we need Photoshop to convert to something usable (by printers like Costco, or by PC's to display, etc).It does seem clear to me that film's days are numbered. With cameras routinely at 10MP (and I think Canon has one that is 15MP now), it seems the only advantage of film is basically gone. Using 1poorlady's D80 I don't mourn it (except that my F100 is wonderful, and still in perfect order). I look forward to blowing up one of her shots to see how it looks at 10MP at 16x20 or 24x36.1poorguy
With cameras routinely at 10MP (and I think Canon has one that is 15MP now)The 16MP Canon 1DS MKII is a previous generation, the 1D MKIII is 21MP. Price with these cameras becomes an issue but I have seen the 16mp Canon for $3800 used.In the window pane compairson they blew up the Digital image to equal the 6x7 in size. The original may have had it who knows.I wonder what it take to compare to LARGE format?
I find this discussion fascinating. I guess I would label it the battle of the anal-retentives. I think most people don't blow up photos to 24x36 on a regular basis and use a magnifying glass to find the problems in the photo. Even blownup, most people wouldn't notice the difference from viewing distance which is several feet away.The clear advantage of digital over film for many people is cost. Due to developing cost of film, many people will avoid taking many photos. At a recent horse show, I took around 200 photos. Many of the shots were to try to capture the horse at the right position in the air over a jump. If I had been shooting film, there is no way I would have shot 9 rolls of film. What good is a camera if you're skip a bunch of shots because you're thinking about the costs of development?PSUlimited wallet
The clear advantage of digital over film for many people is cost.And I thought it was the ability to change ISO on the fly?For the masses of family shooter it is not cost that made digital so widely accepted. It was instant gratification of seeing the photo right after it was taken. If we were a society based on saving money and reducing cost we would be much further along today.
For the masses of family shooter it is not cost that made digital so widely accepted. It was instant gratification of seeing the photo right after it was taken. If we were a society based on saving money and reducing cost we would be much further along today.I think cost and instant gratification is intertwined. If it was just instant gratification, then polaroid would still be popular. People will take hundreds of shots because they can instantly see the results. Out of all those shots, they'll get a few prints made. With film, they may find only 4 good photos out of 24 and they didn't get a good one of any important event. I'm guessing many people think about the costs each time they change a roll of film.Personally, the instant results allow me to make adjustments. I'm not a professional so I don't automatically know the proper ISO, shutter speed, aperature or other settings with each shot. I'll take a shot, look at the results and make adjustments. If this was film, I'd need to write down each setting in a notebook and then match those settings up when the film is developed. It is an expensive way to learn.PSU
Yes, cost is a factor. As a film photographer (for a while longer...depending on whether 1poorlady takes pity and springs for the D700) I am choosy about my shots. I don't just rip off a roll in continuous mode. I spend some time to compose and decide if I really like it or not. In fact, I borrowed 1poorlady's D80 to do test shots on a few occasions (trying different exposure compensation values till I found the one I liked), then I'd shoot with those same settings on my F100.**Dave is correct that the ability to change ISO on the fly is very cool. You aren't locked into whatever the film was that you loaded. 1poorlady made use of that several times last week (though it still didn't help when we spotted the bear...too dark at any ISO, and too far for flash). Also, the ability to review the shot and re-shoot if you don't like the first result is nice. It's sad to walk away from a location only to find when you get the film developed that there was a problem you didn't know about.No, not everyone blows up to 24x36. Heck...most of ours are 16x20. But we do have a few 24x36's. Some people hang wooden or metal things they bought at some decor store, we hang our photos (mostly). Up until recently film had the advantage here (IMO...obviously Dave disagrees). But it seems digital has reached a level where it is as good (at least at the levels I'm interest in). Thus my interest in a full-sensor camera like the D700.1poorguy**Actually, I wonder if digital will make me lazy and sloppy. There were times 1poorlady was just shooting like mad as we drove by the King's River. It was photo-worthy, but there was no place to pull-over. So she just shot, and we'll be reviewing the photos to see which ones came out. She did several already and tossed several blurred ones. Not a lot of skill in that, though. Almost like rolling dice.
On a 24x36 it can't be (that's only about 84 'dots' per inch).What you're not realizing here is that film has a definite resolution limit as well, and it's a lot lower than you seem to believe it is. As measured on that site I linked, a very high quality film like Fuji Provia 100F has a 50% MTF of about 45 line pairs per millimeter.In effect, this means that your 24 x 36 print of a really excellent film and lens combination is about 90 DPI, not much better than your example. Of course it's analog, so the results are blurry rather than jaggy, but the information content is the same. If blur looks better than hard edges between pixels, you can use a printing algorithm that softens the pixel edges.This is also just pure resolution, and completely ignores the issue of grain, which is present in film, and absent in digital photography.Can't say that I've ever seen an 8MP blow-up, so can't comment beyond noting that I've read a few times that ISO100 film is the equivalent of 30-40MP (I usually split the difference and quote 35).Which is likely a number a film snob just pulled out of the air. 35 MP implies a sensor of about 7200 x 4800. That's far above the MTF of any lens you'll find for a 35mm camera. It doesn't matter if it's a film or digital body, any lens you might use will blur detail well above that point.Now, if you were talking medium format, that'd be different. - Gus
Some people hang wooden or metal things they bought at some decor store, we hang our photos (mostly).I've been slowly moving in this direction. Historically, I've either looked at 4 x 6 prints or looked at photos on a 12 x 15 (19" diagonal) monitor. I while back I bought that fancy 13 x 19 photo printer, and the 8 x 10s I made were significantly better looking than the same image on the monitor. No surprise, the effective DPI is the photo limit (230 DPI at 8x10) instead of the monitor resolution (85 DPI).I made a 7 x 19 print of that Macchu Picchu panorama I like so much, which my wife intends to mat and frame at some point. And... it's a little disappointing. Not because it's digital, but because it was taken with a digicam. Since it's a composite image, the resolution is actually about 5200 x 2300, or 275 DPI. The issue is that it's taken with a digicam-grade lens with a ridiculous focal range. So it's kind of soft looking.There are reasons why SLR lenses cost the big bucks. - Gus
Personally, the instant results allow me to make adjustments. I'm not a professional so I don't automatically know the proper ISO, shutter speed, aperature or other settings with each shotActually the Cameras LCD is not representative of what a print will look like. Its good to make sure the photo is not entirely black or blown to high heaven and entirely white.Looking at the LCD indoors our outside in the shade will make a huge difference as well.If it was just instant gratification, then polaroid would still be popular. This was not instant gradification, but dance around and wave the photo in the air for 2 minutes to see what you got.
What you're not realizing here is that film has a definite resolution limit as well,...Of course I realized that. The lower the ISO the better (in general) the resolution (and the more light it needs). That's grain size....and it's a lot lower than you seem to believe it is.If your site is accurate (which I have no reason to believe it isn't), then apparently so. They did discuss sharpening. How much of this goes on in the software of the camera? It makes no sense that if you have 6MP you could get a better image (on a similar sized substrate) than something with 3-4x that (since you don't like the 35MP number...as I said, I've read multiple estimates for ISO100 film and they typically quote in the 30-40MP range). Looking again this morning (I was curious), I'm now seeing numbers closer to 15MP (on "Yahoo Answers"). Ken Rockwell says 25MP (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm). Shall we split the difference and say 20MP?Anyway...I've seen lower MP images that did not impress, but the ones produced by 1poorlady's D80 are impressing me. I can only imagine what the D700 will do.**Now, if you were talking medium format, that'd be different.Yep. Not a fair comparison, either. But I don't plan to go to medium format (too bulky) despite it's superior imaging.1poorguy**I have noted on some of her images that there's a round spot in the same place on several of them, and it is a lighter color than the rest. Only visible when it falls on the sky in a shot. Easy to fix in photoshop, but still puzzling. A defect in the sensor?
Ken Rockwell says 25MPI thought we had established that Ken Rockwell is an idiot who routinely spouts stuff that's flat-out wrong.It makes no sense that if you have 6MP you could get a better image (on a similar sized substrate) than something with 3-4x thatWhy do you keep insisting that film has higher resolution than it actually has? The 3-4x figure is a made-up number.I've read multiple estimates for ISO100 film and they typically quote in the 30-40MP rangeWhich says that they don't know what they're talking about, because that's about 1.5x-2x the resolution limit of a professional 35mm lens. If you look at Photozone.de - http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests - they routinely find in tests that some lenses aren't up to the resolving limits of a 10MP Nikon D200. Even a very expensive lens like the 17-35mm f/2.8 D IF-ED shows ~2049 lines rather than the full 2592 at 35mm and f/4 through the center. Corner sharpness is of course less than that.I'm a bit afraid to bring this up because I don't want to confuse the issue or give you something else to latch on to, but it's important to note that the D200 is a APS-C (24mm x 16mm) sensor camera, not a full frame (36mm x 24mm) camera. So the sensor pitch is 6.1 microns, or 164 pixels / mm. The D700 actually has a lower pitch, pixels are 8.45 microns wide, or 118 pixels / mm.10 million pixels (3872 x 2592) packed into a smaller sensor means the pixel density per millimeter is higher than the 12 MP (4256 x 2832) sensor of the D700. So the smaller sensor is more demanding of lens resolution than the larger sensor. To get roughly that demanding of the lens in a full-frame camera, you need something like the 21 MP Canon 1Ds III, which is 5616 x 3744 with a 6.4 micron pitch, just slightly less dense than the Nikon D200.Since a 21 MP full-frame camera has better resolving power than most professional lenses, it follows that the 30-40 MP figure you vague remember and the 25 MP figure that Rockwell bandies about are made up numbers. Your lenses simply will not resolve that, no matter what body you use.Note that these are the figures for the lenses. Actual film isn't that sharp, even modern 100 ISO film. The Nikon D700 you're looking at will outperform a film body by a factor of about 1.3. Remember that the tested 50% MTF - for benchmark-quality 100 ISO film is 90 pixels per mm, not the 118 pixels / mm for the D700's sensor. And the Canon 1Ds III's 21 MP gives you 156 pixels / mm, or about 1.7x that of film.To recap:A professional-quality lens can resolve more than the limits of the film in the body.Modern 1.6x crop DSLRs are more limited by the lens than by the pixel resolution of the sensor. They far outperform film, on a mm of sensor basis.The Canon 1Ds III is as also in that same class.A 12 MP sensor in a full-frame body isn't up the lens limit, but it's better than film. - Gus
I thought we had established that Ken Rockwell is an idiot who routinely spouts stuff that's flat-out wrong.I've heard that assertion. On the other hand, Dave links him frequently (or he used to). I'm somewhat agnostic about him.Why do you keep insisting that film has higher resolution than it actually has?I wasn't insisting. Trying to figure out how you can have higher resolution from something that has fewer pixels (though I will grant that equating grain size and pixel size is probably an oversimplification...perhaps even accounting for spacing of grains/pixels -pitch-). You'll note that I didn't dispute the results of your linked website. In fact, it was quite interesting. The Moire pattern would be annoying, but unless one of my subjects is wearing a striped outfit it is unlikely it would ever be noticed (and most of my stuff is scenics where I wait for people to leave before I shoot).The D700 actually has a lower pitch, pixels are 8.45 microns wide, or 118 pixels / mm.Actually, you mentioned that before, but there was no reply when I asked for more detail. I am curious about this and what it does to picture clarity and accuracy of scene reproduction.It does sound like you're saying the 12MP D700 is a step down from (for example) the D80 (10MP). I would want a full-sensor camera because I have $3K sunk into ED glass, and replacing that (plus the cost of the new camera, e.g. D80) would be more than getting the full-sensor body alone.BTW, what are the limiting factors of the lens? They should not be at the wavelength limit even at f/22 (though a UV filter is not a bad idea...ordinary glass filters most UV, but not all of it and most achromats aren't designed with that wavelength in mind). They correct for chromatic and spherical aberrations with achromats and such. What's left? Just being geeky here.1poorguy
Dave links him frequently (or he used to). I'm somewhat agnostic about him.I do like some of what Ken Rockwell has to say. His basic message is good light rules, good photos will not come to you, you must get out at odd times to get the best photos. Gear is not everything, get out and shoot.From the standpoint above I like what he says, some of the other stuff is a bit nutty in my opinion but Gus and I have yet to start our photography blog! :)
Gus and I have yet to start our photography blog! :) Weeeelllllllll..................??????We're waiting!(channeling Judge Smales)Seriously...you guys oughta do it. You could probably scoop enough material from your posts here to really get it off to a running start without too much additional work (i.e. most of the work is already in your existing posts).I'd read it.1poorguy
It does sound like you're saying the 12MP D700 is a step down from (for example) the D80 (10MP).Yes and no. Mostly no. I knew I was opening Pandora's Box with this one...Lenses have definite limitations. It's beyond my expertise to speculate as to precisely why, but if I had to guess, I'd think it had to do with limits to precision in manufacturing. I suspect that there are design issues as well, since modern lenses have 8-15 elements.In any case, they exist. And obviously any lens errors are going to be angular ones, a given photon refracted at slightly the wrong angle. When you project an image on to a smaller surface and then enlarge the result, you're also enlarging the angular errors produced by the lens.In at least one sense, any image taken with a 1.5x crop camera like the D80 is effectively an enlargement. If you're using a full-frame lens, the D80's sensor captures only about 45% of the image. If you look at a 8 x 10 print of two images of the same object, one taken with the D80 and one with the D700, the D80's image was taken either with a shorter lens or farther away, the center cropped to form the image.All photos are enlargements, since we generally don't stare at 36 x 24mm negatives, we look at prints or projected slides. Since the D80's sensor is only 24 x 16mm, it's just more of an enlargement than a film negative or a D700 image.Since the D700 image is enlarged less, the lens errors are smaller. Through the center of the lens, the D700 will produce a better image, again because there is less enlargement of the image formed by the lens. On the other hand, the D700 also uses the corners of the lens, where the errors are larger. Which effect - the enlargement, or the corners - is more important probably depends on the lens and the aperture. And probably the focal length to boot, you know how lenses are. It's not really something I've seen anyone address - every image quality comparison I've seen focuses on center-of-the-lens quality, where the larger sensor is going to produce better results every time.Aside from the corner sharpness issue of lenses, a D80 is going to be better than a D700 if you're using a DX lens. If you force the D700 to crop, it will just simply have fewer sensor pixels to work with. So don't do that.I would want a full-sensor camera because I have $3K sunk into ED glass, and replacing that (plus the cost of the new camera, e.g. D80) would be more than getting the full-sensor body alone.Are you sure about that? I'm not really trying to push you away from a full-frame body, I'm just saying that for a proper cost comparison, you have to take into account how much you could get for your old lenses. Or even if you want to replace them at all. Above 70mm or so, there's no reason not to use a full-frame lens with a D80. It's only for short, normal to wide angle lenses where you should seriously consider DX lenses for a D80.Imagine for the moment that I had an expensive Nikon lens setup and a Nikon film body. Say, a 70-200 f/2.8 VR ($1630) and a 24-70mm f/2.8 ($1700), total $3330 from B&H. If I bought a D80, there's little reason to replace the 70-200. A 17-55 f/2.8 DX runs $1180, so that's only $2600 for the lens and a D80 body, less than the $3000 for the D700 body. And I could probably sell the 24-70 f/2.8 for at least $1200-1300, so the real cost would be more like $1300-1400.The usual story is the reverse, of course. Someone who bought a crop body like the D80, bought some DX lenses, and then sold the DX lenses when he purchased that expensive full-frame body like the D3. But if you're looking at the real costs, and like the D80 except for the lens issue, it seems like the less expensive way to go. - Gus
I would want a full-sensor camera because I have $3K sunk into ED glass, and replacing that (plus the cost of the new camera, e.g. D80) would be more than getting the full-sensor body alone.MI personally like my 1.3 crop sensor, not as cropped as a 1.5/1.6 and not full frame where the edge of the glass is just plain nasty. Gives me the in between crop that I think is perfect. I have played with a 1Ds MKII 16mp full frame body and it really showed me that my 17-40 L and 24mm L were just not up to the task in the corners.Now, even on a 1.3x crop I can see where the glass/lens starts to break up as opposed to the crystal clear center. I have and use the Zeiss Distagon 21mm f2.8 lens with an adapter. The lens is manual focus and manual aperture, this lens is clean and sharp edge to edge. I have yet to see an auto focus lens from Canon or Nikon that can compete in the corners. Good things is the Zeiss can be mounted with an adapter to any of the DSLRs and usually the manual focus is fine since most of use to not do action photography at 21mm on any crop body or full frame. Its perfect for wide angle shots.
I knew I was opening Pandora's Box with this one...:-)I'd think it had to do with limits to precision in manufacturing.Sure. One would expect that. One would also expect that at $1500 per lens that they have some pretty tight tolerances. Obviously nothing is perfect, of course.It's true I didn't factor in what I could do if I were to sell my existing lenses. They are sweet pieces of glass! Difficult to part with them.Since the D700 image is enlarged less, the lens errors are smaller.Makes sense. You could think of it as a larger format camera (albeit only slightly larger...we're talking millimeters here!). So if I use my existing lenses with something like the D700, I won't have any crop, less lens distortion, and better images.I'd want to handle a D700 before committing to it. Your scenario for getting a usable D80 is not a bad one except that I'd lose the focal range from 55 to 80mm (my big lens is 80-200mm, and you're proposing the 17-55mm to replace my smaller lens).How are the aberrations with the low-end of the range on that lens? IIRC, making low focal length lenses is non-trivial, and edge aberrations are a major problem. I've wondered about that for a while since they became standard on crop bodies.1poorguy
Keep in mind that 55-80 is 82-120mm in terms of the field of view you're used to with a 1.5 crop body (note: Canon's APS-C bodies are 1.6x crop, Nikon's are 1.5). 82-120 is a lot less valuable focal range in my experience than 55-80. I have a similar gap in my lenses right now, since my standard lens is a EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, and my long lens is a EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS. So I'm missing 55-70, x1.6 for the 40D's crop is 88-112. On the India trip, which is the only one I've done with precisely this gear, I never found myself wanting anything in precisely that range. Now and then I got down to 70 on the long lens, but never any real need for say 65mm exactly.I don't own any Nikon lenses, so I can't say for certain how good the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 DX is. Photozone reviewed it, though.http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/231-n...My read on the review is that it's roughly as sharp as the 24-70 f/2.8, though with a bit more chromatic abberation at f/2.8-f/4 at shorter focal lengths than the full-frame lens. - Gus
So...let's suppose for the sake of argument that you had some "found money". Which would YOU get...the crop body and lenses you described, or the full-sensor body with the full frame lenses you already own (that, per your review, are somewhat better than the crop lenses)?Just curious. (I'd also be interested in knowing "why". Examining the thought processes helps me a lot.)1poorguy
I did go the crop body route with Canon, since I owned first a 350D, and now a 40D. However, most of my reasons for doing so except for price don't apply to the Nikon D80.Still, price is a pretty powerful incentive. Particularly since we're talking about $3000 for the full-frame body. As I said, you can probably get the D80 + a suitable DX lens for around $1400 if you sell your old lens. $1600 is enough that I probably wouldn't go for the full-frame.The degree of chromatic abberation they're talking about on the f/2.8 DX lens isn't that much. It's comparable to the test results on my EF-S 10-22, and I've only really noticed chromatic abberation in my real photos once, and then only because I was doing some pixel-peeping. At a reasonable viewing size the real effect was to give the building a slightly hard edge against a white sky. What we're talking about here is a possible 1-pixel border if you're shooting wide open and the subject contrast is very high.A few years back, crop bodies were at a severe disadvantage for wide angle photography, and wide angles lenses are important to me. But both Nikon and Canon have put out some very good short focal length crop lenses.My own transition was film SLR -> digicam -> Digial SLR, so I didn't have existing lenses to complicate the decision for me. And to be honest, the lenses I owned with my EOS 650 were relatively inexpensive lenses, roughly kit-quality. I think I paid no more than $250 or so for any of the lenses I owned then. When I bought a DSLR, full-frame bodies were so prohibitive that I didn't even consider anything but the 350D and an EF-S lens.Looking over the Nikon stuff makes me glad I returned to Canon when I bought a DSLR. I'm not knocking the quality so much as feeling that I just have more options right now. Nikon doesn't offer anything like the EF-S 10-22, and I like the fact the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 has image stabilization. Granted, most people don't seem to end up doing hand-held available light photography in ruins like I do, where IS and f/2.8 are important in a relatively short lens. Though admittedly Canon has lagged Nikon in Live View support, so until I bought my 40D that was a drawback. Live View is another specialized feature - I found it's absolutely great for focusing with astrophotography.If I had an infinite amount of money, I think the 40D + the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS would still be my preferred standard combination. It's the only lens I know of in the 28-90mm FOV range which offers both f/2.8 and image stabilization, and it's optically superior to lenses like the EF 24-105 f/4L IS. - Gus
Sorry to those that want to see this thread die, but I'm finding it quite useful (and I'm a selfish SOB!).Still, price is a pretty powerful incentive.Yes, it is. But for something important to me I'm willing to pay a bit more for "better". Within reason, of course.So it looks like (to get comparable performance to what I have now) I would need: http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lense...f/2.8 throughout. Appears to be compatible with all Nikons. $1200 at Adorama (http://www.adorama.com/NK1755DXU.html). Not VR, but probably not really needed in this range. If I'm lucky I could probably sell my 28-70mm IF-ED for about $700-800 (based on Ebay). It's a great lens. Factoring that in, the D80 would be the cheaper route to take.Now...is there any benefit to the added information recorded in the D700? It has an extra 2+MP of information per shot. And, as we discussed before, it is a "larger format" camera in that the sensor is bigger. Is all the benefit lost due to aberrations around the edges? There must be some benefit to the D700 or Nikon wouldn't offer it.If I do this, it will be "the last time" (yeah, right). I don't want to change bodies every few years chasing the latest "gee whiz" things. I want to get the best I can and use it forever. I used my N2000 until it died (and then I ended up bringing it back to life when I found a camera shop that said they could do it...but I had my F100 by then). My F100 is still going strong, and I could only get about $250 for it on Ebay. The N2000 is only worth about $50, it seems.In the end, lenses are the key, of course. We are a Nikon family at this point. I wouldn't get a Canon because then 1poorlady and I could not share lenses. I popped her 300mm VR on my F100 while in Yosemite and got a GREAT shot of Nevada Falls (if I do say so!). I wouldn't want to lose that ability. And my f2.8 glass is really outstanding. I've been thoroughly pleased with it since I got it. I would never go back to f5.6 glass**. Fast glass rules!1poorguy**With the noted exception of the occasional borrowing of the 300mm VR. But not for my all-day every-day stuff.
f/2.8 throughout. Appears to be compatible with all Nikons.That's the lens I linked before. I rather assumed that it was what you wanted. It is of course a DX lens, so "compatible with all Nikons" doesn't include the D3 or your F100.It has an extra 2+MP of information per shot.Which isn't really that much. It's best to look at the linear (horizontal or vertical, take your pick) resolution to get some feel for the apparent increase in quality. Doubling the number of pixels only results in about a 40% increase in quality, and and 10 MP -> 12 MP is only about a 10% increase in subjective terms.Is all the benefit lost due to aberrations around the edges?I wish I could say with any authority, but with no way to test it myself, and no articles addressing that specific point, I just don't know.There must be some benefit to the D700 or Nikon wouldn't offer it.Hard to say, again. There are people who simply won't consider DX lenses at any price, considering them a "dead end" technology. I don't agree, but that's how it is. And of course there are people who have sunk far more money into wide-angle full-frame lenses than you have.I don't want to change bodies every few years chasing the latest "gee whiz" things. I want to get the best I can and use it forever.Unfortunately, DSLRs are computer technology. It's a fairly sure bet that they'll improve significantly in 4-5 years. Not in resolution, except as a marketing gimmick, because as I said before the D80 is limited by the lenses, not its sensor. But I wouldn't be surprised if noise improves, so that 400 ISO 4-5 years from now looks like 100 ISO does now.You should be aware that even the lenses improve, though not as quickly as computers. Lenses today are significantly better than lenses designed 20 years ago. Image stablization for example, and the time will probably come when almost all lenses are image stabilized, much as almost all digicam lenses are now. Canon has a kit lens that includes image stabilization now, and it only adds $100 to the cost of the bundled camera. - Gus
It is of course a DX lens, so "compatible with all Nikons" doesn't include the D3 or your F100.If I were to do this it wouldn't matter (the F100 would be gone), but I thought the F100 (and D80 and others) could take any lens. The problem was with the D60 which could not because of the auto-focus motor (it MUST be in the lens because it's not in the D60). Did I misunderstand that?I know the D80 will take my 80-200mm (not DX, of course) because 1poorlady tried it. The only problem there would be the crop factor on the low-end of the range (i.e. it won't go down to 80mm...more like 100mm, I think, after accounting for crop). And my F100 took her 80(?)-300mm VR lens (that's how I got the Nevada Falls shot in my latest album).But I wouldn't be surprised if noise improves, so that 400 ISO 4-5 years from now looks like 100 ISO does now.Sure. I would expect something like that too. I don't know what the quantum limit would be, but I would expect improvements for some time until they hit that.1poorguy
It is of course a DX lens, so "compatible with all Nikons" doesn't include the D3 or your F100.The D3 will take DX lenses, but it will limit how much of the sensor is used (5mp)
The D80 will take any Nikon lens, both DX and full frame. DX lenses are crop lenses, they're smaller diameter than the full-frame lenses, and they won't illuminate the entire frame on a F100 or a D3. With Canon, the EF-S lenses will not physicaly mount on a full-frame camera. I know the D700 can take DX lenses, but will only use about 45% of the sensor if you do so. I thought you couldn't mount DXs on the F100 or D3, but I may be mistaken. - Gus
What do you think of the D300? I note it's ISO range doesn't go as low as the D80, and it's heavier. Obviously 12.1MP vs 10.2MP. Has the sensor vibrator that someone here said didn't work.My first thought is I'd take the D80 over this one. The D700 still calls, however...1poorguy (may have to have someone tie me to the mast...)
What do you think of the D300?I ♥ ♥ ♥ my D300Andy
But I've finally decided to keep my D80 as my backup. Shot a wedding this past weekend and had my 70-200 f2.8 on my D300 and my 35-70 f2.8 on my D80. Good cameras and fast glass, it doesn't get any better than this. :-)Andy
If you look at Photozone.de - http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests - they routinely find in tests that some lenses aren't up to the resolving limits of a 10MP Nikon D200. Even a very expensive lens like the 17-35mm f/2.8 D IF-ED shows ~2049 lines rather than the full 2592 at 35mm and f/4 through the center. Corner sharpness is of course less than that.Finally got around to checking that website. Pretty cool. They loved my 28-70mm IF-ED lens. The 17-55mm you flagged seems to have some nasty barrel distortion. A little surprising from an expensive Nikkor lens. (I knew I got some good glass.)Also, I was thinking about the focal ranges...the crop factor of a D80 is going to make my 80-200mm lens more like a 120-300mm, yes? So I'd be missing the entire range from 55mm to 120mm with that DX lens. I need to keep looking to see if there's an appropriate fit.I wonder if Nikon is going to come out with a full-frame body that has the tighter pitch of the D80...that would be a winner!1poorguy (sorry not to let this thread die, but it's been very interesting and educational)
Also, I was thinking about the focal ranges...the crop factor of a D80 is going to make my 80-200mm lens more like a 120-300mm, yes? So I'd be missing the entire range from 55mm to 120mm with that DX lens. I need to keep looking to see if there's an appropriate fit.Aren't you covering that with your 28-70?I wonder if Nikon is going to come out with a full-frame body that has the tighter pitch of the D80...that would be a winner!A lot of rumors on the proposed D90 floating around gives it fx. I'm inclined not to believe that since the D700 has just been introduced. But I agree that would be a winner.Andy
Aren't you covering that with your 28-70?Gus' suggestion was to buy the D80, plus the 17-55mm f/2.8 lens, and sell my 28-70mm f/2.8 lens. Then I'd be out less than if I bought the D700. And he's right, I would be. But the DX lens has barrel distortion (per the extremely helpful review website he linked for me), and I'd lose that rather large focal range.I actually find I use that range a lot. Sometimes I have my smaller lens on and at 70mm it's not quite enough, so I swap to the bigger one and end up around 90mm or 100mm. And sometimes vice-versa. Kinda annoying having to swap all the time, in fact, but an all-in-one lens just isn't as good as this pair together (I know. I had one previously).1poorguy (just got back from Saguaro National Park...first time there)
Also, I was thinking about the focal ranges...the crop factor of a D80 is going to make my 80-200mm lens more like a 120-300mm, yes?Correct, but it also makes the 17-55 into a 26-82. So the range you're missing is 83-119mm, not 55 to 120. Covering that gap with a 1.5x crop body requires a lens in the 55-80mm range.That's a gap that's just big enough that I can see it might be a problem. Anything less than 1.4 I consider unimportant, but 80 / 55 = 1.46, so I can see you might now and then find something that falls into that gap.I wonder if Nikon is going to come out with a full-frame body that has the tighter pitch of the D80...that would be a winner!It'll also be hideously expensive. The 1Ds III is exactly like that, and $7800. - Gus
It'll also be hideously expensive. The 1Ds III is exactly like that, and $7800.I 1Ds MKII (2) can be had for $3300 16mp full frame... :)
1poorguy,Get the D300 you will not be happy with a crop body and will end up with a full frame at some point.The 28-70 and 70-200 should take of most everything.Get the 14mm f2.8 prime for wides, if you want a zoom try the 14-24. Good glass, excellent camera and not compromises. Expensive yes, but the results will be great.
1Ds MKII (2) can be had for $3300 16mp full frame... :) Yeah, but he asked for a full-frame camera with a similar pixel pitch to the crop cameras.D700: 8.4 micronsD80 : 6 microns1Ds II: 7.2 microns1Ds III: 6.4 micronsNow, I don't think you really need that, personally. The difference between 6.4 microns and 8.4 microns isn't huge. But if that's what he wants, the 1Ds III is much closer to the D80's pitch than the 1Ds II. - Gus
Gus,Where do you get this info?? That is soooooo cool! What is the pitch of the D300 that Dave mentioned? Costco has that one for $1600. Per Nikon that is a DX sensor (cropped).I thought the 17-55mm lens you flagged was for a crop body, so one didn't have to adjust the effective focal range. No?Interesting how they play with the pitch. I wonder if it's a statistical thing (i.e. the more pixels the more likely one will be bad and the sensor will have to be scrapped during manufacture). Typically with memories we have a set design rule (i.e. pitch) for the cells, and we just add more to make bigger memories. That does increase the likelihood of a failure, but the amount of increase is so small that we don't really care. We drive the other end of the equation by trying to make the manufacturing process cleaner and more robust.1poorguy
Where do you get this info?Usually www.dpreview.com. Sensor size, pixels, and often pitch are mentioned in the camera's specs. If the pitch isn't mentioned, I'll divide sensor width (36mm for full-frame sensors) by pixel width.I usually use the alphabetic index, it's fastest.http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/default.asp?view=alphaThe D300 is a 23.6mm x 15.8mm sensor (mentioned on the second page), image size is 4288 x 2848, so it's 5.5 microns.I thought the 17-55mm lens you flagged was for a crop body, so one didn't have to adjust the effective focal range. No?No. Digicams rarely give their real focal ranges, which are usually incredibly short because of the small sensors. But SLR lenses always give the real focal ranges. So with any SLR lens, you must adjust it for the cropping factor to get the effective full-frame field of view.Interesting how they play with the pitch. I wonder if it's a statistical thing (i.e. the more pixels the more likely one will be bad and the sensor will have to be scrapped during manufacture). Typically with memories we have a set design rule (i.e. pitch) for the cells, and we just add more to make bigger memories.With cameras, they're always working within a constrained sensor size. Either 36 x 24 or 23.6 x 15.8 for Nikon bodies. Making the sensor bigger as they added more pixels would have terrible results, typically the extra pixels would be outside the image projected by the lens.Statistics do have something to do with it, in that they're one major reason why all cameras aren't 20+ megapixels. It's clear that it's more expensive to manufacture a 16 MP chip with 7.2 micron pitch than a 12 MP chip with 6 micron pitch. - Gus
Wow! 5.5 µm. That compares quite favorably to the others you listed. And 12.3 MP. So if I went this route I'd need to get an ultra-wide to fill the lower focal range vacated by the use of the crop sensor. The best appears to be the 14-24mm f/2.8, but it won't take a filter (due to the shape of the front element). Barrel distortion is basically negligible.Other interesting technical details...the D80 goes down to ISO100, but the 300 and 700 both only go to ISO200.By the way, I was thinking about this today...does using a non-DX lens on a DX camera result in reduced speed of the lens (i.e. does my f/2.8 glass lose some of its sensitivity) due to not all of the light falling on the sensor? Seems to me there would be fewer photons falling per unit area of the sensor, and therefore an effective slowing of the non-DX lens.1poorguy
5.5 µm. That compares quite favorably to the others you listed.I think you've got the wrong idea about pitch. All else being equal, a higher-pitch sensor will give you better results. If two sensors are both 3200 pixels wide, you'd rather have a 10 micron, 32mm wide sensor than a 5 micron, 16mm wide sensor.The smaller, higher pitch sensor means you're enlarging the image cast by the lens to get the same field of view. So the smaller sensor doubles the angular defects in the lens.Smaller, higher pitch sensors are also more susceptible to noise. Which is why digicams with their 9mm-11mm sensors typically get results at 200 ISO that aren't any better than a 24mm DSLR sensor at 1600 ISO.It's some like 35mm cameras vs. medium format. You expect the larger frame of a medium format camera to give you much better results.For a sensor 23.6 mm wide, resolutions over about 3400 pixels wide are exceeding the limits of the lens. A full-frame (36mm) sensor reaches that limit at around 5200 pixels.So if I went this route I'd need to get an ultra-wide to fill the lower focal range vacated by the use of the crop sensor.I happen to liked ultra-wide lenses myself, but you don't currently have a lens that wide right now. 17mm on a 1.5x crop body is a 26mm field of view, vs. your current 28mm widest angle.does using a non-DX lens on a DX camera result in reduced speed of the lens (i.e. does my f/2.8 glass lose some of its sensitivity) due to not all of the light falling on the sensor?No. f/ratio is the objective diameter divided by the focal length. Sensor size has nothing to do with it.Seems to me there would be fewer photons falling per unit area of the sensor, and therefore an effective slowing of the non-DX lens.Per unit area, the light intensity is the same. The field of view is smaller, but the light density is the same. - Gus
Per unit area, the light intensity is the same. The field of view is smaller, but the light density is the same.If we assume a single sensor (of whatever dimension, pick your favorite), and a standard lens, then some amount of light 'x' strikes the sensor. But this is less than the amount of light that entered the lens (due to crop). A DX lens focuses the entire image on the same sensor, yes? In which case more light is striking the same sensor using the DX lens. If the sensor hasn't changed, then the amount of light per area must have. If my understanding of the DX lens is incorrect, then that may account this.I think you've got the wrong idea about pitch. All else being equal, a higher-pitch sensor will give you better results. If two sensors are both 3200 pixels wide, you'd rather have a 10 micron, 32mm wide sensor than a 5 micron, 16mm wide sensor.[snip]It's some like 35mm cameras vs. medium format. You expect the larger frame of a medium format camera to give you much better results.I'll have to think about that. The larger format film (camera) spreads the light over a larger area of film. But assuming the same density of emulsion grains, there are more "pixels" on the larger film. So of course it's better. In your digital example I'm not (yet) seeing any advantage if your number of pixels is the same (assuming the optics project over the entire sensor in each case, of course).1poorguy
DX lenses aren't any different from other lenses, other than being smaller diameter. The same focal length gives you the same results. There's no funny business going on with light intensity.You're correct about "pixels" in a medium format camera - it's not an exact analogy. The one thing that is the same in both systems is that a larger sensor (or film) area means you're doing less enlargement for your print / projection, so you're not magnifying lens errors as much.The uniquely digital issue is that smaller pixel sensors, as I said, are more vulnerable to noise effects. This is getting better, but Canon's 5D has comparable or better noise performance to a 40D, despite being a couple of generations older, because the individual pixels are larger.Suppose noise is a fixed effect, say +/- 5 electrons per sensor. A pixel well that is 5 microns wide might collect 200 photons and convert them to 100 electons, +/-5 electrons from read noise. A pixel well that is 10 x 10 microns collects 4 times as much light, 800 photons and converts them to 400 electrons. The error is still only +/-5 electrons, but now that's 1.2% of the signal instead of 5%. - Gus
By the time you finish this conversation the next two models will be out. :)
By the time you finish this conversation the next two models will be out. :) If it has a full sensor, larger than most, and a tight pitch, then it will be worth it!;-)1poorguy (presently digging into sensor sizes based on the "large format" hypothesis)
1poorguy (presently digging into sensor sizes based on the "large format" hypothesis)In the end the print is going to tell all. Since you have good Nikon glass the D300 or D700 are your best choices. If you want full frame you just made your choice.Happy shooting..
If it were me, and I were shooting Nikon, and I absolutely had to have full frame, I'd probably stick to film for now. $3000 is more than I'm prepared to spend for a camera body.I feel the advantages of digital are worth accepting the slight compromises of crop bodies and crop lenses, but I'm not 1poorguy. - Gus
I feel the advantages of digital are worth accepting the slight compromises of crop bodies and crop lenses, but I'm not 1poorguy.Full frame does not appeal to me as well, the edges of all lenses get worse and I do not want that in my photos. I love me 1.3x crop body.
I love me 1.3x crop body.Have I mentioned recently that you're weird? - Gus, wants his wide angles as wide as he can get 'em.
Suppose noise is a fixed effect, say +/- 5 electrons per sensor. A pixel well that is 5 microns wide might collect 200 photons and convert them to 100 electons, +/-5 electrons from read noise. A pixel well that is 10 x 10 microns collects 4 times as much light, 800 photons and converts them to 400 electrons. The error is still only +/-5 electrons, but now that's 1.2% of the signal instead of 5%.Hey, is this going to be on the final exam?AndyHaving a school flashback
Have I mentioned recently that you're weird?Why is that? :)- Gus, wants his wide angles as wide as he can get 'em. In all reality you can save a ton of money and get much more detail by taking 1-3 shots using glass that is not at wide. By doing this you eliminate distortions, mushy edges, you save money on the camera and lens that you use. In all practicality unless your wide shots demand that you shoot in a split second doing the above solves the problem easily.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |