How big a difference - D300 to D3 noise

[yeux tortu]

For those of you who have actually used these cameras for awhile for events/wedding, just how much difference is

there in actual use and results between the sensors. Assuming correct exposure are you seeing a significant

difference in dynamic range and detail above iso 800. I have googled this forum and have found a lot of technical

discussion and comparison of samples..., but would like to have a real world opinion from actual shooters who have

used both of these cameras extensively. I have read the hype, but is it real? I have seen the websites and low res

samples on a monitor, but have never seen actual prints. I would appreciate feedback from folks who have made

prints from both.

 

I am on the list for D700 and am willing to pay for higher IQ for available light, but need to hear that the extra 1400 is

going to make a "noticeable" difference for the money. I have all FX lenses and am not worried about losing the DX

reach nor that excited about true wide angle on FX. My decision is being driven only by IQ of results and I am

waivering on whether 1 stop makes a difference. Now if I hear 2 stops....

[joe_appel]

It was a big enough difference for me to plunk down the extra $.

 

I planned to buy a 300, but changed my mind when I had the opportunity to try both side-by-side at a news event.

 

I've not once regretted the choice.

[ShunCheung]

Concerning high-ISO image quality, the D3 is about 1 to 1.5 stops better than the D300.

At this point I can only assume that the D700 performs the same way as the D3 in this area.

[ilkka_nissila]

Because the D3 has such large pixels, it is forgiving to lenses, which only need to resolve well at 1/1.5x of the spatial resolution, to produce similar image quality than a 12 MP DX camera would. This, in my opinion, gives an additional two stops, give or take, to the high-ISO noise difference, if you use f/1.4 or f/2 glass. I base my opinion on using the D3 and D200 extensively, I don't have the D300 that you asked about.

 

I can shoot with the 24-70 at f/2.8 and get really good quality on the D3, whereas with the D200+17-55 DX, I need to stop the lens down to get comparable sharpness. With D3+50/1.4 ZF, compared to D200+35/2 ZF, the difference in sharpness at f/2 is very considerable. For someone like me who shoots most pictures around f/2-f/2.8, this is of considerable significance.

[james_symington1]

Ron,

 

I shot this comparison between the two in December. Please see here:

 

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Ng7Q

 

James

[photo5]

I believe the correct term is 'photosites', according to Thom Hogan, to describe the light gathering devices on a digital sensor. 'Pixels' is a term used to describe the elements that make up a digital image. That being said, dpreview.com has just announced they will include the 'pixel density' for sensors on digital cameras from now on in their reviews.

 

Thom Hogan's article using the term 'Photosite':

 

http://www.bythom.com/ccds.htm

 

Dpreview.com's article using the term 'Pixel Density':

 

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08070301pixeldensity.asp

[jose_angel]

In my experience, the D3 is below two stops better; sadly, the D300 image is very slightly blurred but still valid to check the difference:<div></div>

[jose_angel]

Forget to say that both are 100% crops, straight .jpg without processing.

[richard_driscoll]

I don't think that dpreview are being as helpful as they might be. As Thom points out it is the active area of each photosite that matters not the photosite spacing or density itself.

 

Buried in the Exif data for my D40 is the statement : "Sensor Pixel Size: 6.05 x 6.05 um", whereas the photosites are spaced at 23.7/3008 = 7.88 um. This means that only about 59% of the area is actually collecting light.

 

It may be that this information is not available for all cameras so they can't quote it.

 

Anyone care to look at the Exif data for their camera and see what's quoted. It would be interesting to compare a D300 and a D3?

 

By the way my information came from a camera JPEG - I don't know if any of the editing programs lose it.

[jose_angel]

I think I never have seen this EXIF info on NX: Which application are you running?

[richard_driscoll]

I used exiftool. It's free:-

 

http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/

 

I use the Linux version but it's available for Mac and Windows too.

 

It looks as if not all EXIF viewers are created equal. Some lose focus distance for example:

 

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00IfoF

 

I'm amazed at the amount of stuff there is in there - just wish I knew what it all meant!

[yeux tortu]

Thank you for all the great responses.

 

Nikon sure is making it harder these past 10 months with their incredible range of product offerings.

[ShunCheung]

Ron, it is actually very simple. If high-ISO performance is important to you, get the D700.

 

Nikon is certainly introducing a lot of excellent choices in the last 10 months. If anything, they are making life much easier for their customers. The only people who have a harder time are those working for Canon and perhaps Sony.