D3 or D300? Dave Black discusses the merits of each

http://www.daveblackphotography.com/workshop/02-2008.htm

I have not hefted the D3, but I found the D300 to be a heavy camera (I still want one!). Either one would significantly lighten your wallet, however.

Thanks for the link, it was an interesting article with beautiful work -- worth reading on yet another cloudy day like I'm having here.

 

Reading Bjorn Rorslett's posts here: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00O1OV it looks like he prefers the D2x as a back-up to the D3. I'm looking forward to his review of the D300 -- this despite my already owning one.

 

A pithy firsthand comparison of one user of the D3, D300 and D2x can be found here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=26255786

 

Perhaps the best DPR post I can ever recall reading about why someone chose to "downgrade" to the D300 from a D3 can be found here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=26431958

Its been said the guy is noted as a marketing pusher for Nikon.

 

 

I listened to a Nikonians podcast where he was the guest speaker and I was a bit scratching my head. He says if you are a PJ you could set the AUTO ISO with a min shutter speed and he said let it rebound up and down b/c noise is never an issue. PJ - yup. Then he said, if you are a spots photog and need a full 2 page magazine spread, you can use the D3 and instead of a 400mm or 600mm lens, let a rookie take a 300mm lens and the editor can crop the photograph for a even more interesting shot. He also said something about a studio camera that the D3 is excellent for .. cannot remember .. maybe saving the power of the flashes/studios?

 

 

He says the D3 is the next wow camera release since the D1.

"D3 is excellent for .. cannot remember .. maybe saving the power of the flashes/studios? " - yes, if you spent so much money on D3, you have to try to save somewhere, and saving on electricity is one of options...

 

Perhaps boosting ISO to save on studio flash power is really ill adviced. Also using a 300 mm and cropping, instead of using 400/600 where there was need for longer lens, is another one... If you received more advice like that, so no wonder you were "scrathing my head"...

Mr. Black's site is absolute proof beyond any reasonable doubt that photography is all about the photographer and not the equipment.

Yeah, I was having lunch the other day with Thom and Ken after a conference, and we both were discussing the benefits of the entire Nikon and Canon line. Both lines seem to just get better and better. All of us were making note of how many great shots can be had by just showing up with a camera and lens in hand. We were laughing because all 3 of us carry a D40 and 18-135mm in a small LowePro wherever we go and some of the shots we have sold or get posted, were taken with that cam as well. Yeah, we all love our maxed out cam bods and bazookas, but if it's a D40, then shoot away. Point being, I really agree with Elliot and Frank and am scratching my head wondering if I was reading a review or a promo from Dave. Nice shots though.

 

Oh, that would be Thom Davis and Ken Nelson, both broadcast engineer friends of mine.

hi Anthony ...

 

yes, i remember reading Stany's post about "downgrading" from a D3 to a D300 (and i posted a reply). a great and honest post ... many are not willing to admit the same.

 

Stany's post is important because it reveals his honesty to photography. many non-pros will purchase a D3 merely for the bragging rights (though they'll never admit it). and many (non-pros) will purchase the D3 thinking it will produce better photographs.

 

it's important to choose your (pros and non pros) equipment carefully. each photographer must seriously consider what genre is their bread-n-butter (pros) or of their personal interest(s) (non-pros), do the research, then choose the body that best fits.

"... many are not willing to admit the same."

 

That is because others like me who have done it (returned the D3) get bashed.

Elliot, It is your money and your choices.

"That is because others like me who have done it (returned the D3) get bashed."

 

How many people have returned the D3 because of allegedly poor image quality? I do not bash you for not liking the D3, nor do I begrudge you for not being comfortable with the D3 and being dissatisfied because you had a hot pixel; but I challenge you when you spread misinformation about the D3 image quality and claim it is no better (or even worse) than the 5D. Even your own example here: http://www.photo.net/photo/6770521 illustrates that the D3 is better.

 

You just said the other day that "For my money, I would rather have the image quality of the 5D than the all the technology of the D300." Well, I don't think the 5D image quality is that much better than the D300, plus it costs less and has all that fancy technology.

Although the D300 has excellent noise characteristics, the pixels are small and this means that you need a very good lens and preferably at its optimum aperture to get 12 good megapixels from the rig. With the D3, it is much easier to find a lens which renders detail on its large pixels sharply. Even at wide apertures. Thus, between the D300 and the D3, noise performance is only 1/3 of the story. The other parts are lens availability (much better for FX/35mm size sensors unless you want to use superteles) and MTF. Of course, compact size, cost, and pixel density are pulling the other way (advantages of D300).

 

As for the 5D vs. D3 if you don't need the reliability and autofocus performance of the D3 then the 5D should be fine. Until the mirror drops out or something like that happens ;-) In any noise comparison, you must equalize contrast (tone curve) and saturation. If the image does not look visibly identical in terms of colors and brightness of all areas then you should not make a comparison between the noise of the two cameras. The D3 happens to produce very vivid colors even at high ISO settings and to pull such colors out of the 5D would increase the noise that you see in the final image. Just something to remember.

i never anticipated this thread to turn as it has. it's about choosing between the D300 and D3.

 

Anthony's reference to Stany's post at DPR was on topic (switching from D3->D300). Stany switched from the D3 to the D300 because the D3 didnt fit correctly with his photographic genre. if you're going to go saltwater fishing, why purchase freshwater gear? :)

The recent Pentax K-20D gives hope that there is enough room to have more pixels without reducing the pixel dimensions. The in-camera processing has also advanced very much and the camera manufacturers will make anything look peachy and noise free.

 

I am only worried about the final image quality at affordable prices. $5,000, etc price for a camera are the thing of a past. Sony's 24mp FF camera could be attractive if it is priced right.

 

The D300 is good value for money.

I agree with Vivek on the Pentax design, they shrunk the circuitry surrounding the sensor locations so the locations could have more room and be more effective gathering light. This is smart engineering something Pentax is known to do.

 

If you are not a pro who needs really wide angles, fast FPS, or iso 3200 then the D300 shares a lot of the same Nikon advances, engineering , build of its big brother. In fact the D300 has some real advantages, like the teles are effectively 50% longer with the same F-stop.

 

For an amateur the cost of the D3 is more of a financial decision either you got the money or not since you don't have a business to pay for it or a tax deduction for equipment.

 

Many worry about the size difference, all I can say is go work out at a gym 5 days a week like I do and do wrist rolls and curls so it will not be a problem. I sometimes have 2 Pentax 6x7 arround my neck and next to that the difference in weight between the D3 and D300 is minor. Someone around here said that how you work with a camera either gets you noticed or not, you are the one that draws attention not the camera.

For Harvey:

 

"I agree with Vivek on the Pentax design, they shrunk the circuitry surrounding the sensor locations so the locations could have more room and be more effective gathering light. This is smart engineering something Pentax is known to do."

 

> What role do micro lenses play? Are you suggesting that there was no light gathering being done between the photosites? Besides noise, another consideration is diffraction (see my link below).

 

"Many worry about the size difference, all I can say is go work out at a gym 5 days a week like I do and do wrist rolls and curls so it will not be a problem."

 

> You're obviously a stud. Me, I'm not complaining; it has a lot to do with how you balance the camera in your hand.

 

For Vivek:

 

"The recent Pentax K-20D gives hope that there is enough room to have more pixels without reducing the pixel dimensions."

 

> That remains to be seen. How will you feel if you are diffraction limited at f/9? http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

 

"$5,000, etc price for a camera are the thing of a past."

 

> They are still the present reality. In fact, Canon's latest 1Ds Mk III which is typically compared to the D3 (both being flagship cameras) is $8000. Of course, medium format digital backs and camera systems cost much more and will continue to for a long time. It's just like computers, you would have thought that they would have come down from $2000 for a what we would today consider a rudimentary system; and indeed you can buy much more now for much less, but you can also spend much more and many do just that.

 

"Sony's 24mp FF camera could be attractive if it is priced right."

 

> Might be $5000, it depends on how Sony packages it, and it seems Sony is really lacking a true pro DSLR.

 

"The D300 is good value for money."

 

> It's stunning just how much has happened in the last two years. The changes have come overnight and seem to have been driven hard by the 5D, the D200, and now the D300. How this will translate to those of us waiting for an affordable FX DSLR? I wouldn't be surprised if the prices go back up to around $3000 before they come down to current 5D prices; heads rolled at Canon over the 5D and its aggressive price point may be deterring others from coming out with 35FF format DLSRs because there isn't enough profit margin there to justify the product to the bean counters.

"Sony's 24mp FF camera could be attractive if it is priced right."

 

I don't want 24mp. Strange as it seems, even shooting with my D300 today, I realized that every shot would print out at 24x36 inches looking gorgeous. Why could anyone possibly need more than 12mp? I hope to keep the D300 until it's worn out and doesn't work anymore. That might be 13 years. I hope so.

Dave, once you can confirm that the D300 does print gorgeously and consistently for 24x36, I will commit to finally upgrade.

 

Harvey, I assure you that whenever I go out with a 'blad and biggish tripod people come up and take a close look regardless of how discreet I try to be. I never have the same problem with a D70 and 50mm combo.

 

It's pretty hard not to not notice something the size of a D3.

Thanks Anthony for the compliment but I go to the gym to prevent my body from losing its strength, flexibility, tone and for preventing bone loss and maintaining cardio fitness. Four children are more than enough for me. I honestly believe these cameras are not beyond the average persons ability to use if they do simple exercises twice a week for 15 minutes.

<i>That remains to be seen.</i>

<p>

?? Such things (expansion of actual pixel area while reducing circuitary area) have been used by Olympus 4/3 cams such as the current 510, Anthony.

<p>

And the link and the question you pose following that applies to your D300 as well! I am quite familiar with diffraction. Unlike most, I have the luxury of using many diffraction limited lenses starting with a Repro Nikkor 85/1 (diffraction limited at f/2.8).:)

Anthony, you certainly know the ins and outs of cameras more than me, and probably more than anyone here on this forum. I can only judge pictures by their quality. I may have been the first, but I am not the only one who has stated that the 5D can produce similar or superior results to the D3. But I think any 5D owner that tries the D3 will come to the same conclusion as me when it comes to IQ up to ISO 3200.

 

I had a host of issues with my D3. As I have mentioned, I have considered the possibility that my D3 was defective. Yet I have read of others having similar problems. I assure you I have been quite reserved in my comments because I really don't know for sure.

 

One of my biggest issues was Nikon telling me it was normal for D3s to have hot pixels. It took numerous calls and emails to get them to agree to look at it and correct. By then it was too late as I had already sent it back to the store I had bought it from. While Nikon has not lost me as a customer (I just bought a used D200 for one aspect of my business where the 5D does not give me the results I need), they have lost a lot of respect from me.

 

With regards to the sample you posted, it is of unprocessed images, a comparison I believe is unfair in any comparison test. Here is a link to a side-by-side pre and post of the crop:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6770525&size=lg

 

I don't see a difference. For those of you who have not seen this before, the Nikon was taken at ISO 4000 and the Canon was at ISO 3200. I processed both images with Dfine 2.0 software (2 passes).

 

The D3 and D300 are both capable of incredible results in the hands of a gifted photographer. But so are other cameras. My original comment about Mr. Black's site being absolute proof that photography is all about the photographer and not the equipment stands. Would his pictures look any different if he was using a D40? I don't think so!

 

I do feel the 5D gives a photographer a bit of an edge over other cameras. Its focus is dead on as is its exposure (non-flash), better than any camera I have ever used. Until you try a 5D for yourself and really use it, you will not have the understanding of what it can do for you and how it compares to other cameras.

 

A good photographer will get great results with virtually any camera he/she uses. And as long as you the photographer is happy with your results, who really cares what anyone else things. Do I mind using a featureless camera? Of course! But the IQ speaks volumes and I now and will always choose superb IQ over features. I assure you I would have kept the D3 if I was getting the kinds of results I get with my 5D.

"Such things (expansion of actual pixel area while reducing circuitary area) have been used by Olympus 4/3 cams such as the current 510"

 

> Such things can be effective in increasing the size of the photosites, but will have no effect on diffraction as the problem is that once the Airy disc starts covering multiple photosites the laws of physics have made it impossible to resolve any greater detail. Not only do increased pixel densities not help; they end up hurting.

 

"...the link and the question you pose following that applies to your D300 as well!"

 

> First, regarding noise we will see how the Pentax K20D does (I'm not saying it isn't possible); and as far as noise is concerned, the pixel pitch of the D300 is smaller than all the cameras in its class and yet it currently has the best high ISO noise performance.

 

Second, regarding diffraction, the fact remains that making the photosites smaller and smaller forces limitations. Yes, I am aware of the limitations of the D300 in this regard; and I also see it as a trade off. My own feeling is that 10-12 MP is the sweet spot for DX and APS-C sensors; for FX I think the sweet spot is 16-18 MP (you can't simply size up because to get the same theoretical DOF you need to stop down the lens one more stop).

<i>Such things can be effective in increasing the size of the photosites, but will have no effect on diffraction as the problem is that once the Airy disc starts covering multiple photosites the laws of physics have made it impossible to resolve any greater detail.</i>

<p>

Confusion caused by the assumption as indicated in the next sentence, I believe.

<br>

<i>Not only do increased pixel densities not help; they end up hurting.</i>

<p>

We (me and Harvey) were talking about the increased total resolution of the sensor while keeping the pixel density the same by reducing the wasted area of the circuitary required for CMOS sensors.

<p>

Olympus have a nice illustration

<a href="http://www.olympus-esystem.com/dea/products/e330/feature/index.html">here</a>.

For Elliot:

 

"But I think any 5D owner that tries the D3 will come to the same conclusion as me when it comes to IQ up to ISO 3200."

 

> That's not true, I see significant differences in ISO 1600 files.

 

"With regards to the sample you posted, it is of unprocessed images, a comparison I believe is unfair in any comparison test."

 

> I have seen your processed comparisons, but such measures are destructive. What you are basically saying is that you can make both files equal by blurring detail equally. Just adjust the 5D file to match the D3 file and look closely and you will see that the D3 file is retaining more detail.

 

"Would his pictures look any different if he was using a D40? I don't think so!"

 

> Not as small website presentations, but he also does large prints. He might beg to differ. Besides that, features such as better UI and AF are at least as important as base ISO image quality.

 

"I do feel the 5D gives a photographer a bit of an edge over other cameras."

 

> Whatever works for you Elliot, I have no issue with that. However, your opinion is at odds with most of the competent photographers I have read, particularly as regards the D3 but also as regards the D300.

 

"I assure you I would have kept the D3 if I was getting the kinds of results I get with my 5D."

 

> I understand your position. However, you once sent me two images taken with the 5D and the D3 and the D3 image was clearly superior (both my girlfriend and son concurred with me that the fine detail was visibly sharper in the D3 file than the 5D file -- it might have been because you sent me a 5D JPEG and a D3 RAW).

 

For Vivek:

 

"We (me and Harvey) were talking about the increased total resolution of the sensor while keeping the pixel density the same by reducing the wasted area of the circuitry required for CMOS sensors."

 

> Funny, I completely forgot what thread I was in as I was replying to Harvey and your posts -- they really are OT. Nonetheless, micro lenses go over the on-chip circuitry and thus can gather light from the entire sensor surface area. Sure, at larger aperture settings you can get more resolution and noise can be handled by more efficient designs; but diffraction is an inescapable fact. So I ask you again, how will you feel being diffraction limited at f/9? Personally, I find that creatively limiting and particularly bothersome -- I think it is primarily a market driven phenomenon.

Elliot, I calculated the relative luminosity noise (% of the signal) of a section on the red candle (?) in the left part of your image (the original, unprocessed versions on the right). The section of the Nikon image has 5% of luminosity noise, the corresponding part of the Canon image 23%. I didn't even have to try to quantify the chroma noise. The results of my quantitative image quality evaluation support the very opposite of what you're trying to show with your example images.

 

I think we should all focus on photography more instead of talking about technology without the appropriate expertese. I don't mean to offend anyone.