D3 Vs D2x

[jclaice]

I am fortunate and own both a D3 and a D2x. I was deep in thought this morning(

a rare occasion) and I pondered this, The sensor on the D3 is larger than the

D2x, but both contain about the same megapixels. Would it be correct to say that

one would expect to get better results when making say 30x40 enlargments with

the D2x over the D3? Because the sensor on the D2x has "greater pixel density"

than the D3?

I have had spectacular results with my D2x and printing as large as 30x40 on a

lightjet. I have not attempted to make prints of this size with the D3, well not

yet anyways.

 

 

This brings me to my second question. When capturing Multi Row Panorama's what

body should I use, D3 or D2x?

 

Thanks in advance for your time and answers.

 

Joseph

[elliot1]

I have asked myself the same question and did a comparison with my 5D and D300. I did side-by-side tests of the identical shots and even with extreme crops, I could not find a difference even at low or high ISO. I was quite surprised as I was certain the 5D would have an advantage. I have no explanation. Perhaps someone can enlighten us... Anthony?

[ellis_vener_photography]

Nope, you have it backwards. I understand your thinking but smaller photosites create their own problems.

[squiggs77]

Higher pixel density of a sensor doesn't make any difference to a computer or printer, the higher pixel density sensor means that the pixels have less light hitting them, therefore, they are less accurate. That means that a D3 will get more accurate colors and have less noise at higher ISOs.

 

What makes a difference to a computer/printer is the image dimensions. Since both cameras are 12mpix (Roughly 4260x2840) the computer/printer has the same amount of detail to work with.

 

So in conclusion while they both can capture the same amount of detail, the D3 will have 'nicer' looking images if you don't take lenses into account.

[paul stewart]

As others have said - a larger sensor for the same megapixel size means less noise on the sensor = better prints.

[ilkka_nissila]

Larger pixels are also easier for a lens to give good contrast to, so in general unless the lens is optimized heavily for the center of the frame, the image quality will be better in the image captured by the physically larger sensor.

[peter_nelson1]

I'm not sure if other people here "get" your question, so here's how I interpret it . . .

 

With the same number of photosites on a smaller die the center-to-center distance of the photosites is smaller so, in theory, they should be able to record more detail. To be specific the D2X haa a pitch of just 5.5 microns. The D3 has an 8.46 micron pitch. So the D2X can record significantly more detail with the same lens.

 

Now, as a practical matter can you take advantage of this? The 5.5 micron pitch works out to roughly 90 linepairs per mm (lpmm). The average consumer kit zoom probably can't do much better than 60-70 lpmm so you won't see any advantage. But a good, sharp prime like the Nikkor 105 f/2.5 or 85 f/2 is perfectly capable of resolving 90 lpmm or better.

 

We often scold people here who refer to "cropping factor" as "magnification factor" but this is one of the rare instances where it's potentially true. Based on the numbers, I would expect, in a careful test that the Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 on the D2x (or D300) to record approximately the same amount of detail as the the 300mm f/2.8 on the D3, because of the finer photosite pitch of the DX sensors.

[Peter_in_PA]

Once you have a D3 there is no reason to use your D2X anymore except as backup or when

using two camera body lens/camera combinations. Period.

[wpahnelas]

an interesting question. but were i fortunate enough to own a D3, i'd be doing something besides contemplating pixel densities.

[peter_nelson1]

<i>an interesting question. but were i fortunate enough to own a D3, i'd be doing something besides contemplating pixel densities.</i><br><br>

 

The question has more than academic significance because if my math and reasoning are correct, the implication is that, for wildlife photography, a D300 with a 300mm f/4 should equal or outperform a D3 with a 400mm f/4 under good lighting conditions, but at a fraction of the size and weight. Since size and weight are major considerations in wildlife photography this is worth noting.

[hudspeth]

Ok, here's my 2 cents worth: The cone of light from the DX lens is smaller in diameter than the cone of light from the D lens. So if the guys at Nikon are engineers they might consider making a larger sensor to fit the cone of light from the D lens. If thats the case than the sensor pixels would be placed further apart to achieve the same detail recorded for the same number of pixels on the smaller sensor. Now as to the advantage of the D3 sensor larger pixels can collect more photons. Then when you digitally divide the number of photons to ascertain the depth of the color of that pixel you get more range. So the Photos from my D3 have better color than the photos from my D2hs.

The speed with low noise is also a great advantage over the D2hs.

[peter_nelson1]

<i>Ok, here's my 2 cents worth: The cone of light from the DX lens is smaller in diameter than the cone of light from the D lens.</i><br><br>

The D2X is a pro body so I don't imagine most people shooting with it were using DX glass. <br><br>

 

<i>So the Photos from my D3 have better color than the photos from my D2hs. The speed with low noise is also a great advantage over the D2hs.</i><br><br> I'm not sure how the D2HS got introduced into this discussion - it's old 4.1 MP design in a DX form factor - the worst of both worlds.

[paul stewart]

Peter Nelson,

 

We all 'got' the question.

 

But he (and you) are just wrong. Which everybody (apart from you realises..)

 

Of course if you really believe a DX camera gives better resolution than a full frame camera then I'm happy to swap my D80 for the D3..

 

I would give it a good home. :-)

[peter_nelson1]

<i>We all 'got' the question.

 

But he (and you) are just wrong. Which everybody (apart from you realises..) </i><br><br>

 

Feel free to explain why you think so.

[peter_nelson1]

<i>Of course if you really believe a DX camera gives better resolution than a full frame camera then I'm happy to swap my D80 for the D3.. </i><br><br>

 

Your D80 doesn't have the a small enough sensor element pitch. Look, at least <b>try</b> to follow the math and technical details.

[squiggs77]

Peter Nelson,

 

Yes, if you ONLY include the center area of the FX sensor by using it in DX mode, then the D2X will give you more detail. But for all practical purposes with a non DX lens, the D3 will give you better images.

[ellis_vener_photography]

I've shot a D300 side by side with a D3 . In absolute terms the D3 wins.

 

Among other things D3 photos have better dynamic range, and lower noise than the D300 at all ISOs. Noise affects resolution of shadow detail. Dynamic range has an effect on highlight detail. As the late bruce Fraser pointed out often: detail is difference.

 

There are a range of considerations you aren't taking into account beyond individual photo-site pitch Peter: the design of the anti-aliasing filter, the micro lens array, the sensor itself, and the signal to noise ratio.

 

But your real question lurking behind your others is this: how good is good enough. The answer to that is found i nthe answer t oanother question Good enough for what?

 

If for example you are shooting things, like wildlife, that move if you can get the same level of detail out of a D3 file at ISO 1600 or 3200 as you can out of a D300 at ISO 800 , then that difference equates to the difference between shutter speeds that allow some slight but detail destroying subject motion blur to creep in and shutter speeds that don't.

 

But another factor is, as you point out, the difference in size and weight of gear. If you are traveling and making photographs, a lighter , smaller camera with slightly lower quality that you have with you always beats the heavier camera that you left at home because it was too large and too heavy.

[peter_nelson1]

<i>Yes, if you ONLY include the center area of the FX sensor by using it in DX mode, then the D2X will give you more detail. But for all practical purposes with a non DX lens, the D3 will give you better images.</i> <br><br>

 

But for certain kinds of photography detail matters. I mentioned wildlife photography as an example of this. If you're trying to fill the frame with a small bird and show all the feather texture and detail, a D300 might outperform a D3 with the same (or somewhat shorter!) lens. (in addition to offering a smaller, lighter lens/body combo so you can get to the bird in the first place.). <br><br>

 

Morover, based on the sensor pitch of the D3, the sensor itself limits resolution to maybe 65 lp/mm, so you're not taking full advantage of the resolution the lens is capable of. <br><br>

 

Obviously the D3 has other advantages, especially at high ISO's, but at ISO 200 I don't think you'll see much difference in noise or color.

[peter_nelson1]

<i>Ellis Vener, Apr 03, 2008; 05:07 p.m.

Among other things D3 photos have better dynamic range, and lower noise than the D300 at all ISOs. Noise affects resolution of shadow detail. Dynamic range has an effect on highlight detail. As the late bruce Fraser pointed out often: detail is difference. <br><br>

 

There are a range of considerations you aren't taking into account beyond individual photo-site pitch Peter: the design of the anti-aliasing filter, the micro lens array, the sensor itself, and the signal to noise ratio.

</i><br><br>

 

Since I don't see any noise at all at ISO 100 on the D300, so if the D3 is less noisy, it can't be less noisy by much. And WRT dynamic range, wider dynamic range only contributes to extra detail at the edges of that dynamic range. If you have camera A with a dynamic range of EV-5 to EV+5 and camera B that goes from EV-6 to EV+6, camera B's isn't going to look any different for subject matter in the middle, which most of it should be with a proper exposure. <br><br>

 

WRT the antialiasing filters, AA filters are designed to match the sensor, so since the D3 sensor has a lower spatial frequency obviously its AA filter will roll off at a lower frequency to match. And WRT the the micro lens array and the sensor itself we have no information either way about those so I don't see how we can use those in this discussion. <br><br>

 

So again, I'm not saying that the D3 isn't a great camera with many advantages, but in terms of the ability to record fine detail in good light I'm claiming the D2X and D300 may be better.

[hudspeth]

Well Peter Nelson, one thing I think we can all agree on is certainly have your mind made up.

[squiggs77]

Peter, The D2X and D300 are only better at getting detail if you fill the frame with the image on them, and don't fill the frame with the D3.

[wj_lee]

D3 is much easier on the lenses, because of the less pixel density. As for printing as long as the images are equally sharp I can't see why D2X would results in better enlargements.

[jclaice]

WOW what responces. Thank you all for your input! I feel I need to address a few of the specifics. I was planning to do a multi row panorama of the City of Denver. The finished print will be measured in feet and not inches. I know I can use either camera to accomplish the task but I am a bit of a perfectionist and I would like to know in my mind I captured the image as best I can with the tools I have to work with. So instead of recording the image on an 8x10 view camera and stitching 3 frames together I will use my 200mm f/2 Nikon VR, This is an awesome lens and I am confident that the lens can record greater detail than either camera. So I suppose I am clarifying the lens should not be considered a factor in the equation.

Mr. Venre and Mr. Nelson are both in the GURU catogories in my oppinion. But I am still pondering. I do not want to start a pissing contest for lack of a better term (I am a photographer not a writer) but I am hungry for more input.

With proper instruction (input requested) I would like to conduct a test to satisfy my mind and possibly many others as to D3 or D2x when producing a multi row panorama and the greatest deatail possible.

Thanks again all for your input.

Joseph

[jclaice]

To Mr. Hamm, Ther are many reasons to use my D2x rather than my D3. One in fact is during wildlife photography. With the cropping factor I can use my D2x the 200mm f/2 my 2x tele and whamo I have a 600mm f/4. This is just one that pops into my mind.

[oxide blu]

>>> I was planning to do a multi row panorama of the City of Denver. The finished print will be measured in feet and not inches.

 

 

Interesting question. And now that we know your motive for asking it one word comes to mind; film.