D300 vs D700 at low ISO's

[ShunCheung]

Assuming that Steven's first image is the entire frame, here I superimpose the locations of the D700's AF points on top. Now the problem that the AF points being too concentrated in the center should be quite obvious. There are no AF points to cover the face when the camera is in the portrait orientation.<div></div>

[stevenseelig]

Shun,

Your grid overlay is very close to what I believe it was on this image and I agree 100% with you about the AF points are

too centralized. I guess a question I would have is given the lighting and motion, is it possible to achieve better focus.

Even with my focal point not on her face, DOF considerations should allow for her face to be in focus...Guess I will have

to do an experiment on and off tripod at the same settings and focal points. Or is my D700 not performing as it should.

 

And my only reason for commenting was under really world working and perhaps less than ideal conditions, the D700

seems to perform pretty well and I am not sure analytics is the full answer.... the judgement perhaps should come from

the concept 'does the tool satisfy your need in your working environment?' Not scientific/quantitative

 

Steven

[ShunCheung]

Attached is the entire frame of the following image:

http://www.photo.net/photo/8240885

 

Now those 51 AF points work much better for a sports image, although I still prefer the better frame coverage on the D300. I drew a red rectangle around those 15 cross-type AF points. They are all in the very center.

 

At the bottom is the pixel-level crop of the surfer. Even though this is big time action, sharpness looks very good to me.<div></div>

[stevenseelig]

The original image looks good to me, but when one looks at it at the pixel level it looks soft....what lens did you use to get

this image...and other picture details? Must have been a long lens...for sure. Steven

[ShunCheung]

It was the 200-400mm/f4 at 280mm, wide open at f4 and 1/2000. I could have zoomed in a bit more, but I typically leave some room for action shots and then crop in post processing so that I have some flexability for the composition. I added no sharpening at all. Looking at the white stripes on the wetsuit, I think sharpness is pretty good, especially for a long zoom wide open.

[stevenseelig]

Shun,

You made me smile... you look at the white strips....I look at the eye lashes..but on the other hand you can see very tiny

water droplets in the air. I think I am going to print the image that you think is soft (not for a billboard, but perhaps an 8x10)

and see how it looks. With the ability to look at individual pixels, I some times think the pixel peeking is not as helpful as

one would like....but certainly I do it all the time.. which generates lots of anxiety/frustration as to whether my pictures are

'sharp enough' ... by the way, I like your surfer image!

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I've been on the fence for a while - I love the wider AF coverage of the D300, but I really want the high ISO performance of the D300. I suppose the D700 will win out, and I'll just live with the placement of the AF sensors. Waiting has been fine so far - the D700 price is down about 17% since launch.

[ShunCheung]

There is nothing wrong with pixel peeping. Afterall, I always advocate high quality. But looking for eye lashes on a surfer who occupies a tiny portion of the frame at 280mm is over the top.

 

Here is another pixel level crop, from this image:

http://www.photo.net/photo/7919556

 

The focus is actually on the top sculpture, but it is the 14-24mm/f2.8 at 14mm, f11 so that I have a lot of depth of field. The crop is from the flight fixture below the railing in the background. It also shows you how excellent the 14-24mm lens is optically.<div></div>

[stevenseelig]

Shun,

Your image is great! For perspective, and an explanation of eye lashes, I consider this image to be sharp.

 

It is shot at ISO 200, f11, 1/125 at 60 mm with a 24-70mm lens on the D700

 

The original image sized down to 1024 is here: http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8300463-md.jpg<div></div>

[ShunCheung]

Steven, your new example looks good. Again, the big difference is that the head of your subject occupies more area in the frame than the entire body of the surfer in my image. You can't expect to see eye lashes from my sample.

 

In any case, I am still waiting for those who claim that the D700 provides soft images (other than Steven) to provide image samples to demonstrate the problem.

[stevenseelig]

Shun,

 

I really don't expect to see eyelashes in pictures like yours!! I was teasing a bit. But it brings to mind that 'sharpness' as

perceived by the viewer is some how linked to expectations. For me, the image of the woman walking, for which you felt

was soft, to me seemed not so bad...because my past experiences with shooting in these sorts of situations is difficult at

best and also because previous efforts with the D200 did not come close to the quality, at least in my subjective frame of

mind... not scientific/quantitative... just an impression.

[photo5]

I don't have any specific image examples to post, as I've already sold my D300 to offset the cost of the new D700. Bjorn has a good review of the D3 posted, Paul referred to it earlier in this thread. Here is a link to the page:<P>

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/D3/D3_rev06.html#top_page<P>

 

<i>"In terms of sharpness, pixel density has to be factored into the equation. Thus, given that the D300 has the (approx.) equal number of pixels as the D3, but packed into the half area, it is obvious that D300 potentially can record finer detail. Whether it does come out on top depends on the subject, though. I've seen examples of either camera delivering the "best" image under field testing although the tendency is for the D300 to have the upper hand. But since theory supports the notion that DX potentially can be sharper than the (current models of) FX, I accept this as a fact for now. However, in order to realise the better sharpness potential, you need to be able to focus more accurately and this requirement is not entirely compliant with the finders on these systems."</i><P>

 

I'm totally satisfied with the image quality of the D700, I have no issues. It's a small price to pay for slightly softer output, to see a total lack of noise in my images. It takes getting used to and so far, I am loving the ability to shoot full frame digital.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

You think D700 images are soft, but you can't find a single example to show us? Then why did you start this thread?

[photo5]

Robert, did you read the quote from Bjorn in the above quote?

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Yes, I saw the above quote. But it seems that, for the same field of view, and enlarged to the same print size, that sharpness would be pretty much identical if the lenses are up to the task. If anything, I would expect that the D300 is more demanding of lenses because the pixels are smaller.

 

Anyway, the high ISO performance of the D700 is seductive. Not sure that my wife will understand, though.

[photo5]

I've been learning more lately about the D700 way of rendering a scene, vs a DX bodied camera. I see the D700 vs. D300 as going from 35mm to medium format. There is a distinctively different look to the images from the D700. I've learned I can't expect the same results. But what I do see is a subtle difference in the tonal definition, just like I experienced with medium format. I think this camera can really capture subtle changes in tone nicely, which adds a new dimension to the photo. I'll have to make some large prints to see how they look. All in all I am finding the D700 a wonderful camera!

[Peter_in_PA]

Still would love to see some objective comparison to show what's up with low ISO images. Otherwise it's pure speculation, which is

okay, but maybe not so useful for the person who is researching cameras. And Dave, since you sold your D300, obviously you

can't do this comparison.

 

Also, I weary of the "sharpness" arguments sometimes. For instance, the 100% crop of Shun's surfer. We are so used to seeing

over-sharpened images everywhere... I think that sharpness is right, myself. The difference in Shun (the surfer) and Steven's(the

model) images (in sharpness) actually have nothing to do with the cameras, and more to do with the type of image.

 

Shun, I agree with you on the pixel-peeping statement, which I think is most of what this thread ended up being about.

[ilkka_nissila]

Bjorn's comment quote above seems to refer a situation where you have identical camera position and focal

length for both FX and DX. This is a really strange way to make a comparison between two different formats,

unless you don't have a long enough lens to get the shot with correct framing using FX. That's not the way

pictures are normally made. You choose the appropriate lens for the framing that you need. This means a 52%

longer lens for the FX camera. This should

be the basis of any fair comparison.

 

If Bjorn actually meant that even if you do use a 1.52X the focal length with the FX camera, you still get better

sharpness with DX, it would have been better if he had said it more clearly. There are some situations in macro

work where to get the same shot with FX you need to add more extension (outside of the normal distance range of

the lens) which leads to quality loss in the final results, since the optics are usually not designed to take a

great deal of extension. This has the final result of a sharper image of the same framing with DX than FX. But

this is a special case, not a universal result.

 

Outside of the "no lens is long enough" type applications, my experience is that FX typically yields better

results even at base ISO, not just in terms of dynamic range and noise, which are a given, but also in terms of

image definition. This is assuming the lens has reasonably even MTF across the frame, and that the user knows

what they're doing and runs the images through Capture NX. But of course there are individual differences between

lenses that create some special cases.

 

I've shot >20000 images with FX so far, and my impression of these cameras has been overwhelming delight - not

just for low-light applications, but general photography at ISO 200 as well. It has totally transformed my

photography.

[ilkka_nissila]

I should add to my previous post that my personal use experience with DX is with the D200. A friend of mine and I

have done macro and wide angle tests with FX and the D300. The D300 seems to be a better choice for subjects

which require greater than 1:1 on FX, but at lower magnifications FX was right up there. In the wide angle test,

FX at 24mm was better than DX with a 16mm lens. Which leads me to restate my main point: Since a different FL

must be used to get the same angle of view, the differences observed speak more about the differences between the

lenses than the cameras.

[photo5]

Ilkka, good point. I was thinking the same thing when I viewed the dpreview test of the D300 vs. the D700. The D300 used a Nikon 50mm f1.8 AF-D, while the D700 used a Nikon 85mm f1.8 AF-D. I think the 50mm might be a tad sharper than the 85mm, therefore giving the test a slight flaw. I would have used the same lens but positioned the camera differently to capture the same scene.

 

The D700 looks more "digital" to me than the D300. Yes, I do pixelpeep, it's part of the job I do every day at work. The D300 looks more like film, with the noise actually adding to the image. And the D300 noise looks film-like to me. The D700 just looks softer, like Nikon decided to use a strong anti-alias filter on it, like they did with the D100. So the D700 is the D100 of FX format to me. There will be future generations that will whip the D700, just as the D300 now whips the D100.

 

I still like the D700, but at ISO 200 I think I like the D300 better. I have examples I could post, but they are taken of the same subject on different days with different lenses. Hardly meaningful!

[kris_lamba1]

All hail the D800. Maybe...