Jump to content
sharky1961

upgrade d300 to d3x/d700x

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

 

would an upgrade from D300 to D3x/D700x really make sense.

 

against:

1. bad wide angle cornersharpness with D3x/D700x as comparede to D300. See Stephen Frink's pool test

2. los of depth of field, so we need higher aperture for the same depth of field

3. the D3X's larger sensor means that the AF points don't have as much frame coverage as on the D300

4. no zoom Fisheye lens

5. costs

 

pro:

1. bigger viewfinder

2. better/quicker AF

3. higher useble ISO ( do we really need that underwater)

4. bigger sensor, less noise

5. more pixels

6. better dynamic range

 

 

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny, everyone seems to think that higher ISO is not a reason to switch to full frame.

 

It is the only reason I would consider switching.

 

I planning on staying with my D300 unless they make a camera that will fit in my D300 housing or they make compact camera with a DX or FX sensor. Of course with lenses that are usefull UW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice list!!!

I will try to add a bit on what I find important and not-so much important in your list:

 

Against:

1. bad wide angle cornersharpness with D3x/D700x as comparede to D300. See Stephen Frink's pool test. (Important)

2. loss of depth of field, so we need higher aperture for the same depth of field (Medium, I used to shoot with film like that)

3. the D3X's larger sensor means that the AF points don't have as much frame coverage as on the D300 (Is it so? if it is I would say Low Importance)

4. no zoom Fisheye lens (I don't use the Tokina, I would say Medium)

5. costs (Depend on one's pocket, Medium)

6. size (High, I like compact housings)

 

pro:

1. bigger viewfinder (High)

2. better/quicker AF (High)

3. higher useble ISO ( do we really need that underwater) (Low, High for your topside images, for UW I need ISO 50 and 25!!!)

4. bigger sensor, less noise (Low, we already have that at the ISO we use to shoot UW)

5. more pixels (Medium)

6. better dynamic range (Medium)

7. optical connector (On the housing I use (S&S) we have an optical connector on the D700 housing, nice but adds some size, Medium)

 

I think that a D300 (maybe D300s in a few months when housings start coming) + any good aluminum housing is the best equipment today for UW photo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if you can afford it and "drive" it, there's no question that the D3x is a mighty fine camera ... but the differences aren't as big as the prices might imply.

 

I think you have to ask yourself what you shoot and what you intend to do with the output and how much those marginal differences matter to you.

 

If you shoot at base ISO and you never print above 16 x 20, it would be hard to determine which of those three camera was used ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High ISO is the reason I bought a D700.

 

Underwater, if you want glorious colour and interesting lighting, you still need flash.

 

So unless you a recording deep wrecks in monochrome, don't bother.

 

I have a D200 outfit that I still use. I challenge anyone to tell the difference once the pictures are in print.

 

The D700 is great for photographing school plays!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really depends on what you shoot. High ISO has its place with fast action eg. baitballs where you need high shutter speed to freeze action (1/500 and higher) and strobes can't be used.

You have to be careful about garnering opinions, especially in general questions. Most will tell you what they want or need for their own shooting requirements. You already have 1 postive and 2 negative votes for high ISO.

If you shoot a lot of macro/fish portraits where DoF and flash matters most, FF is at a distinct disadvantage UNLESS you want to talk about resolution. Higher resolution gives you detail you'd otherwise lose with lower mp cameras. I shot the same subject (a leptocephallic eel) with a friend with a D3 I think (a 12mp job) and my 17mp camera picked up little black spots where his shot was just mush.

MP resolution is about detail which doesn't matter much on a A2 print but a 24x16 print, you'll start seeing the difference, and then you can crop too! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really depends on what you shoot. High ISO has its place with fast action eg. baitballs where you need high shutter speed to freeze action (1/500 and higher) and strobes can't be used.

You have to be careful about garnering opinions, especially in general questions. Most will tell you what they want or need for their own shooting requirements. You already have 1 postive and 2 negative votes for high ISO.

If you shoot a lot of macro/fish portraits where DoF and flash matters most, FF is at a distinct disadvantage UNLESS you want to talk about resolution. Higher resolution gives you detail you'd otherwise lose with lower mp cameras. I shot the same subject (a leptocephallic eel) with a friend with a D3 I think (a 12mp job) and my 17mp camera picked up little black spots where his shot was just mush.

MP resolution is about detail which doesn't matter much on a A2 print but a 24x16 print, you'll start seeing the difference, and then you can crop too! :blink:

 

You are absolutely right, of course. But isn't that the weakness of forums? The opinions are opinions of solitary people whereas opinions in print are subject to input from sub-editors and editors.

 

I am using my D700 next week for some natural light deep diving and need the high ISO capability. I just wish Tokina would make the lens I need and I'd use it for more general stuff too.!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if the right questions are asked, I think having multiple opinions from different people, it's easier to extrapolate information rather than a print article which is outdated in 6 months due to technology changes. Plus some trees are saved :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, if the right questions are asked, I think having multiple opinions from different people, it's easier to extrapolate information rather than a print article which is outdated in 6 months due to technology changes. Plus some trees are saved :blink:

 

So forums need sub-editors!!!

 

(I'm having a new front door fitted at the moment. It's made from trees. Sorry!)

Edited by John Bantin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then you can crop too! :blink:

 

It always amazes me that when people talk about MP's in forums they only ever talk about how big you can print the full shot. Well I guess most people are perfect and frame everything ideally every shot. Me, I screw up pretty often and want to be able to crop to get the best version of the picture I have taken. More megapixels allows you to do this and still print really nice A4 or even A3 prints.

 

Personally I am going to be very interested in a D700x when it comes out. If housing fit a D700 too then I will pull the trigger straight away. I am like John and use my D200 for underwater but I use a D700 for topside and love its flexibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So forums need sub-editors!!!

(I'm having a new front door fitted at the moment. It's made from trees. Sorry!)

 

I guess if Ken Rockwell doesn't have sub-editors, I don't think anybody needs them!!!

:blink:

From an all plastic/metal doors home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So forums need sub-editors!!!

 

(I'm having a new front door fitted at the moment. It's made from trees. Sorry!)

 

Yes, they're called other members. :blink:

 

My doors are mostly recycled refurbed wood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another reason for full frame is that is where Nikon is really putting their effort. Their best new lenses are almost all full frame. Better construction quality and better performance. 105VR. 14-24mm. 24-70mm. TS lenses. New 70-200mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the issue of edge sharpness is a bit of a misconception. When one compares similar FOV, I don't believe there is any difference. Obviously if you compare for example a 17-35 lens on DX vs FX, the DX will be sharper at 17, but the FOV equivalent for FX would be a 25mm lens.

If one compares the 12-24 for example on DX, to the 17-35 on FX, not only is the comparison more valid, but edge sharpness issues will be similar. With the Tokina 10-17 and 1.4 TC on my D700, I think the edges are quite comparable to the 10-17 alone on my D200.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With the Tokina 10-17 and 1.4 TC on my D700, I think the edges are quite comparable to the 10-17 alone on my D200.

With the lens alone and the D700 set at DX I agree there is no difference as it is the lens resolving power we are talking about.

The only perceived difference comes from the different image sizes, which might disappear on the D700x.

But when you add extra glass (even of the very good 1.4xTC) to the equation there must be some loss... even if not perceived at first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three reasons ISO, ISO, and erm....ISO!

And why would you want the d700x (which isnt even announced) or a d3x?!

With the extra pixels, you loose the iso advantage, and the d3x is pretty comparable is ISO to the d300. So you basicaly paying 5 times as much for just more pixels. The d3x (and d700x when it is announced) is a different beast than the d3/d700. d3 is meant for high speed sports and action, and where you need the extra frame rate and ISO advantage, while the d3x/d700x are meant mainly for studio/landscape work, where you have lots of lighting in place, and dont need the fast shutter speed. A d700 is perfect for underwater, as you can shoot up all way up to ISO 6400 is little or low noise, unlike te d3x which only goes up to 1600 at the most before quality degrades. As mentioned above, another benefit to full frame is the high quality glass available. Lenses such as the 14-24mm are simply outstanding. The d3x only shoots up to 5fps (and the d700x would be around 3 without grip). A d700 with grip goes up to 8! Oh, the d700 is 1/4 of the price of the d3x too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Raymond,

 

 

 

underwater I don't need a camera shooting 8fps. and the 14-24mm is an outstanding lense on land but underwater you can't use it. As for high ISO; I think ISO 1600 will do for me because with the D300 I didn't need to go over ISO 800 yet. What I want for my next camera is higher dynamic range and higher resolution so I can crop if I want to.

 

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing that is not so clear about noise: With a higher mpx camera we have more noise, ok. But you have an image with double information. When we downsize from 24 to 12 mpx a lot of noise can be taken out and a cleaner image results. So it is good to compare apples with apples, ie: same size images from different cameras.

 

I also don´t feel the need for high ISO, maybe I need lower iso (ISO 50 or 25) as sometimes ISO 100, f22, 1/250 keep blowing out the sun... All in all I still prefer DX for underwater use...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But when you add extra glass (even of the very good 1.4xTC) to the equation there must be some loss... even if not perceived at first.

In my own pool tests and the ocean images, I simply do not see any loss in image quality, at up to 17x24 prints. If someone were to count lines of resolution, I'm sure it's possible there might be some loss, just it does not appear to be significant in practice, which of course is the main concern.

I'm not sure there 'must' be some loss. One is effectively just adding elements to a lens, and in this case the elements appear to match well. More elements in a lens does not necessarily mean loss of quality.

For my own purposes, I've come to the conclusion that I gain more in corner sharpness using a fisheye + TC for superwide angle (Tokina or Nikon 16) than I appear to lose in overall sharpness and/or resolution compared to the widest rectilinears, when combined with a domeport underwater. I also find the distortion more pleasing, and if correction is needed, easier to correct in a pleasing way.

Furthermore I have not seen any worsening in some of the other known bad habits of the Tokina such as the purple fringing, autofocus seems to be the same, at least in good light.

The only, gripe I have with the Tokina + TC combination, is that in low light, my viewfinder is not as bright as I would like.

 

On the overall argument of DX vs FX, excellent images are possible with both. I personally like to play with higher ISO, at least at the moment. I've said it before elsewhere, but I really think there is more to high ISO than just noise, and that is improved perceptable dynamic range within the shadows, this is so clear to me when comparing the low light abilities of the D700 to a D300.

I think if one is mostly interested in shooting pretty standard images, both macro and wide angle, stick to DX, if one for some reason feels the need to explore high ISO, frame rates etc underwater, then FX in the form of the D700 does add some possibilities.

Edited by loftus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that many, many people think the D300 gives the D700 a run for its money underwater ... for a variety of good reasons ... I say get the D700x.

 

A D700x in DX crop mode is almost like a D300 ... 11mp or something.

 

So you have a D700 with 24mp and a D300 in the same camera.

 

If money were no object, personally I'd get a D700x and use the 10-17 in DX mode for wide angle and do macro in FX mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my own pool tests and the ocean images, I simply do not see any loss in image quality, at up to 17x24 prints. If someone were to count lines of resolution, I'm sure it's possible there might be some loss, just it does not appear to be significant in practice, which of course is the main concern.

In my experience, once you stop down to where you would anyway for other reasons, image quality with a good lens +TC is usually outstanding - and that's before you stick a port and a whole bunch of water in the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given that many, many people think the D300 gives the D700 a run for its money underwater ... for a variety of good reasons ... I say get the D700x.

 

A D700x in DX crop mode is almost like a D300 ... 11mp or something.

 

So you have a D700 with 24mp and a D300 in the same camera.

 

If money were no object, personally I'd get a D700x and use the 10-17 in DX mode for wide angle and do macro in FX mode.

But then you lose the DX DOF advantage when shooting macro - decisions, decisions. It would be nice to be able to select DX mode when using a FX lens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But then you lose the DX DOF advantage when shooting macro - decisions, decisions. It would be nice to be able to select DX mode when using a FX lens.

 

Just crop after taking the picture. The problem is framing for a DX shooting through an FX viewfinder without marks; are there DX marks on the FX viewfinders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just crop after taking the picture. The problem is framing for a DX shooting through an FX viewfinder without marks; are there DX marks on the FX viewfinders?

Depends how you do it; if you just use a DX lens, but don't turn DX lens recognition on in the menus (or you use a non-nikon lens like theTokina) then you simply get vignetting of the periphery. If you turn on DX recognition, then the image is cropped to DX size in the viewfinder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my own pool tests and the ocean images, I simply do not see any loss in image quality, at up to 17x24 prints. If someone were to count lines of resolution, I'm sure it's possible there might be some loss, just it does not appear to be significant in practice, which of course is the main concern.

I definitely see degradation in print and on screen. The Kenko DG, Canon EF and Nikon all degrade to image. Is it objectionable? That's subjective. I just see the effects and have to say it's noticeable to me whether on a 8mp or 24 mp camera.

and that is improved perceptable dynamic range within the shadows, this is so clear to me when comparing the low light abilities of the D700 to a D300.

I'm not sure the improvement you are seeing isn't just how bad the dynamic range is on the D300. The higher the ISO generally means lower dynamic range.

 

I think if one is mostly interested in shooting pretty standard images, both macro and wide angle, stick to DX, if one for some reason feels the need to explore high ISO, frame rates etc underwater, then FX in the form of the D700 does add some possibilities.

+1 vote even I use FF. :blink:

 

Isn't there the Focus Screen E from Nikon with the grid lines? Just draw your own markings for DX on the grid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...