D3 Vs D2x

[jclaice]

To Mr Blu

"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,"

Thanks but I do not own an 8x10 view camera and I am unsure of the availability to rent one in my area. So I must use the tools I have to work with. And believe you me I would really like to own an 8x10 view camera. In fact I would rather be shooting on film 99.99 % of the time .I really miss the old days where computers and memory cards and digital conversions and megapixels were not a factor, the days when a photographer used chemistry and enlargers, filter packs and viewing filters to determine proper exposures and color balance. Nitrogen burst aireation for color prints. While I rant and rave I wonder does anyone under 40 know what diffusion transfer process is. Well the wine is speaking now and I am very appreciative for the input and answers. Really Really. Thanks

Joseph

[ilkka_nissila]

<i>

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 </i>

<p>

This is certainly the case. But for most subject matter, if you can afford a D3, you'll most likely to be able to afford the right FL lens also. In much wildlife photography and some sports work <i>in bright light</i> with long lenses, the smaller sensor cameras are better. But that's specialized work. If the light is poor, like when shooting wildlife in a forest, the D3 may allow better results than a D300. Or when using a wide angle for wildlife work (e.g. Frans Lanting style).

<p><i>

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.</i>

<p>

True, but with a DX camera you're throwing away the data for >50% of the image area rendered by the lens, so in many cases you're losing even more image quality than by not using the very last bit of resolution the lens is capable of giving. This is certainly true of most prime lenses designed for full frame. Note that at high spatial frequencies the contrast rendered by the lens gets lower and lower. This is one problem with small pixel cameras. You do get many pixels per angle of view but the lens isn't really rendering the detail at high contrast at those frequencies. And CA often shows up uglily, whereas with the D3 detail is rendered with high contrast, and pixel level sharpness is often easy to obtain. <p>

<p>

Anyway, it has always been so that for wide angle to short tele landscape, product & people photography are better done with larger formats, whereas wildlife photography usually requires a small format. Digital has made it possible to use somewhat smaller sensors but generic statements that the D3 is not capable of high resolution whereas a DX camera is, are just plain wrong. It depends on what you're doing. Most people ultimately care about resolution in the final print, not at the sensor level. And there the D3 is superb.

<p>

Another issue which often is ignored in these discussions is the fact that the raw converter needs to be optimized for the specific camera. Nikon does this in Capture NX, whereas e.g. ACR is far from ideal on D3 images. The difference in conversion quality and the ease of optimizing image are far apart. I can imagine that many concerns about the D3 image quality has been due to not using the best raw converter available for each camera.

[oxide blu]

I was actually thinking med format, longer lens, and scanned negs. Lrg format, very long lens, scanned negs would be awesome but I suspect a handful to try and manage the stitching.

 

Btw, the whole idea of using film is the product of a quality zinfandel. :)

[John Crowe]

Joseph, with a few minutes of testing you can probably tell us the answer, since you have both.

 

 

In the few minutes of testing that I did with my D2X, Kodak SLRn (14 MP), Nikon 400/2.8 AIS and Nikon TC-14B, I was surprised by the performance of the full frame camera. The Kodak with the 400/2.8 and 1.4x nudged out the D2X with just the 400/2.8. I used the 1.4x to pretty much make the view of the full frame match the D2X. I only tested at the lowest ISO settings and wideopen apertures. It really surprised me since the 1.4x would have degraded the 400/2.8 and in my case should have degraded it even more since the glass is not in the greatest condition. However it did not.

 

 

Of course the SLRn is a slow antique compared to the D2X and will see very little sports action with the 400 attached, but for landscapes, and architecture it will be superb. There is something about the larger pixels that does work as many have tried to explain above. The other advantage the SLRn has, apparently, is not having an anti-aliasing filter which softens the image.

 

 

All in all I believe the D3 will outperform the D2X for your purposes. I have the Nikon 200/2 AI and it truly is an incredible lens, even wide open, and your version is supposed to be even better! If it performs similarly to my AI I still recommend stopping the lens down to f4 to take advantage of ridiculously sharp results.