FF IQ vs. Cropped IQ

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>Seems tough to get a definitive answer on this.</p>

<p>What kind of image quality difference could and should be expected by someone upgrading from a cropped sensor to a full one? Say from the D300 to D700.</p>

<p>As someone who knows nothing about body internals, I surmise that bigger is better. However, assuming there is an IQ difference, would this difference be easily visible or more of a 300% zoom kind of thing?</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Cal</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>At lowest ISO it`s hard to find a difference between D700 and D300 images. At high ISO there is a difference, bigger as higher is the ISO. Also, some lenses have better performance in the bigger sensor, and other lenses seem to work better in the smaller sensor due to the "sweet spot" issue.<br /> There are many interesting threads about this topic. You must search them.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>There is less noise at equivalent ISO when recording images with the D700 compared to the D300. This is simply because the FX sensor collects a lot more light. Detail is better in situations when it is limited by the lens rather than the sensor (i.e. fast lenses such as the 50/1.4 wide open). In some cases you can get inferior rendition of detail in the corners with the D700, e.g. with the 70-200/2.8 but superior in the center.</p>

<p>At the 12MP level, key advantages of the D700 are 1) less noise especially at high ISO, 2) lenses designed to produce 24x36mm images can be used as they were intended, i.e. PC(-E) wide angles, short primes, lenses often used for portraits like the 85/1.4, etc. 3) a larger viewfinder image makes manual focusing and viewing of the subject easier, 4) fast glass typically performs better wide open. The advantages of the D300 include 1) more dense matrix of photosites leading to better detail in tele and macro shots when you don't have a lens long enough to fill the frame with FX (i.e. wildlife photography, etc), 2) a wider coverage of the image area with AF sensors, 3) lighter weight, 4) availability of certain lenses i.e. 16-85, 5) lower price.</p>

<p>Another thing is that if you have use for very high resolution (i.e. 24MP), if you purchase DX lenses they won't be able to take advantage of future high resolution FX sensors. Therefore, by going with the D700 now and with lenses that work well on it, you are better equipped for higher resolution bodies that will become available later on, hopefully at more economical price points than the D3X today. Not everyone needs 24MP though, and there is a performance penalty at high ISO.</p>

<p>I use PC lenses a lot for architecture, landscapes, and close-ups. Also, I like to take portraits and action shots of people indoors in low available light which usually means that apertures f/2 or faster are needed. I have a bunch of manual focus lenses. These factors have led me to use FX.</p>

 

[andreas_manessinger]

Hmm, Ilkka is right on all points. Tiny differences at base ISO, big differences where the D300 tops out, and then the D700 still goes way up.

<p>

For me the reason to stay with DX is the availability of much cheaper lenses. The Sigma 10-20 certainly does not perform as well as the Nikon 14-24, but it does what it does (and it does quite decently so) at less than a third of the price, half the bulk and half the weight.

<p>

Basically, a smaller image circle to cover, that's the main secret of the much famed Olympus Four Thirds lenses. Not that every cheap third-party lens is a winner, far from that, but some are, and there is a lot of choice.

<p>

Sure, going from D300 to D700 would give me something between a 1.5 and 2.5 stops, depending on use and quality standards applied, but from D200 to D300 I got more than one stop in 1.5 years. I expect a similar step forward with the D400 or D500, whenever I upgrade. At least ISO 6400 should become usable in about the same way as 3200 is now. And then? Even now with the D300 I can work quite well on the streets at night. Using a dirt-cheap 35/1.8 or a Sigma 30/1.4, I have no problem recording night scenes. Thus, for my street photography use, the D300 is more than sufficient. For action or sports in dim light, even a D700 with the most expensive glass you can buy, may be only a compromise. It depends on what you shoot and how much money you have to burn.

<p>

Remember: even if you buy the D700 now, this will not be the end. There will be a D800 or whatever, it will be better and it will be available ... when? In a year? If at all that long? What are you going to do then? Buy it? And 18 months later again? And would you do the same thing with cars?

<p>

I suppose we have the same situation that we have in most areas of consumer goods today: It's a good idea to skip a generation at times. At least that's what I do. I tried to avoid DX lenses for a while now, but why should I have said no to the 35/1.8? I may even buy the new Nikon 10-24 DX zoom if it's really good.

[carl_becker2]

<p>The two main reasons I upgraded from a D200 to a D700 where the high ISO preformance and the larger view finder to use with manual focus lenses. This was a compromise as I also use a 500mm telephoto that would work better on a D300. Either body had enough IQ to satisfy me. I do pixel peep and crop but I only print up to 11x14. I do miss the lower base ISO of the D200 as I like to show motion sometimes. An ND filter or two filters solve that issue.</p>

[kuryan_thomas]

<p>I'll add an agreement with Andreas's 2nd paragraph. FX systems can be hard on lenses. Even in the Nikkor lineup, you will find your choices limited, depending on what you want to shoot. It can be frustrating. I speak from experience, having switched from a DX system to an FX system.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Kuryan, which lenses that you need don't exist for FX? For me one problem with DX was the lack of well performing short primes (now things are improving with the 35/1.8 Nikkor and the 20/3.5 Voigtländer.) For FX there is a much broader range of primes, old and new, that work well (thanks in part to Zeiss). The only area which I find seriously lacking is middle aperture zooms (i.e. 28-105/4, 70-200/4) but Nikon doesn't make any for DX either. A minor issue is the limited number of AF-S primes, but that's gradually being rectified.</p>

[kuryan_thomas]

<p>Ilkka - a good 70-200 suitable for landscape photography. I'll take f/2.8 or f/4. It so happens this is a range I use a lot, probably second only to the 24-35 range. I was shocked at how poor the 70-200 turned out to be on FX. I settled for the 80-200 but it has its own issues too, and I end up using my 200 f/4 Micro to avoid the CA and distortion issues of the 80-200 at the long end.</p>

<p>Since I have to hike and need the compositional convenience of zooms, I'm fairly happy with the wide zoom choices, but fuming at the lack of mid-telephoto zooms. ("Zooming with feet" is not always an option in the field, and it can't replace a true zoom since the perspective will often change as the lens axis shifts when you move the tripod.)</p>

<p>I agree that the prime lens field of choice is excellent, particularly with the Zeiss models. I am contemplating a ZF 21mm as the ultimate wide angle.</p>

[donald_weston1]

<p>It is a funny coincidence, that since I have been comparing images from these specific cameras, as I own both. I used the D300 exclusively for over a yr, and felt I needed the D700 for the things it was good at, namely most of what has been mentioned above, that being high ISO photography. The humor is that for more normal shooting, images although beautiful from either camera, have more apparent bite[detail] from the D300 in my opinion on print. Now alot depends on the lenses as have been mentioned. I own a great sample of a very plebian 55-200 VR afs, which is extremely sharp, where as for the D700 I was using, maybe a not so great sample of the 70-300VR. This same 70-300 was very sharp on the D300, but less apparently so on the FF body. IT is this disparity in final images that has me perplexed. My quandry now, is to keep everything as is, I do not intend to invest in better bigger zooms for the FF, if anything, I may end up trying my primes again. OR eventually sell, the 12MP FF, and save up for a moderately priced 24Mp Nikon body, with a closer pixel pitch to the D300. DO I need high ISO, when I shoot most landscapes on tripod or could use a fast prime?? I did last fall before I got the D700, for high school sports, not so much now as my commitment to that is over, my kids are in college. I guess all in all, the D700 for me came too late, but I am not willing yet, to sell it, but it is not a slam dunk owning it as I thought, also if it puts such demands on shooting, what of the 24mp cameras, is this not the same?? I think much care and introspection is needed to evaluate what the specific shooting needs are, alas no rental companies exist in my area outside of NYC. Also, one must really consider others advices here about top lenses with D700 or better cameras, average optics are a fools gambit, but I really do NOT want to carry or purchase such bohemoths as 14-24 afs or 24-70afs lenses would require. DO I want to use just primes?? Maybe, will have to see, a couple of small primes is not too bad, and I own such lenses, but what does that do for different subjects???<br>

Primes offer much in the values that I have, and maybe will be the final conclusion for this endeavor. For the landscapes anyway, for which I am after, this may work, and then to use the DX gear for the other situations that don't demand such fine detail or that allow not the time to swap out lenses.....<br>

The other factor in this is my prints start pretty much at 16x24 inches and go up from there....there in lies the need for such resolution....things to ponder..</p>

<p> </p>

[glenn_c1]

<p>FX and DX are hard on lenses in different ways. DX demands more angular precision from a lens - an imperfection in the lens' output of a given angular magnitude will be larger in terms of pixel size. FX simply uses a greater field of the lens' output and we all know the effects of that. In the end, which is better depends on the lens as well as the camera. However, the advantage does not go clearly to FX.</p>

<p>Advantages of FX are light-gathering performance and - less than in the past - wide angle performance.</p>

<p>Disadvantages of FX are that a given level of lens performance demands a much larger lens or some other compromise in the lens' qualities - zoom range, aperture, etc. That is just purely on theoretical grounds, in practice we see it often, but not always. For example, the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 is probably fairly equivalent to the FX-capable 17-35 f/2.8 but a fraction the cost and much smaller (shorter zoom range, yes). There is on the other hand no FX-capable equivalent to the 16-85 VR. And there are lenses such as the 70-200 f/2.8 which are stellar on DX but less so on FX. However there is nobody claiming that any lens on DX can equal the 14-24 on FX, one instance that works to FX' advantage.</p>

<p>And of course if you shoot long telephotos from which you have to crop, you want to pack as many pixels in as small an area as possible, and in this case D300=D3x, and D300>D3.</p>

<p>Whenever I consider an eventual transition to FX these observations are what slow me down.</p>

<p>Of course who would say no to vastly improved low-light performance? Not me, but I can't help thinking I'd still want a good DX camera as well as a good FX camera, which means keeping up-to-date bodies in both formats, and that is a much bigger commitment than simply a one-time FX-body purchase.</p>

[kuryan_thomas]

<blockquote>

<p>no rental companies exist in my area outside of NYC</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Donald, you might consider LensRentals.com. They do mail-order rental. I have just begun to do business with them: a rented Nikkor 85mm PC-E arrived today. So far, they seem very customer oriented. They also rent camera bodies, although you can't buy damage insurance on those.</p>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Yes, the 70-200 can be a problem. One way to go around it would be to use D700 in the short end and the D300 (or D2X(s)) for the long end. You'd get more reach too. I found the 70-200 excellent for landscapes on the D200. If you use the D3X I suppose the 70-200 should work reasonably well in the 4:5 and DX modes. What you do you think about this?</p>

<p>I usually pack the 24-70 along with a 100mm ZF and the 180/2.8, or alternatively the 24-70, the 85 PC-E and the 135/2. These setups work well for me, and I get the ability to shoot high quality close-ups. A 70-200/4 would be super, though.</p>

<p>Donald, when choosing what to spend money on I think it's a good general principle that the glass should cost 3-5 times the cost of the bodies to keep things in balance and obtain the best results for your money. You're applying the inverse of that principle. Also, 12 MP FX doesn't really give much added value for long lens shooting; the big gains are more in the short and normal FL ranges. For long lens work you can usually pick a faster shorter FL lens if you need to work in lower light (i.e. 200/2 instead of 300/2.8 for FX) so the benefits of FX there are not all that obvious.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>There are other issues that could be interesting for Calvin. Check here my first <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00QLHD">D700 thoughts</a> after buying the D700, as a D300 owner. The image quality was not an issue for me when the D3 appeared (same sensor of the D700)... I was used to lowest ISO and flash shooting. In fact at that time I was inmersed in a small wedding photo business, and didn`t miss all the D3 wonders, specially at such price.<br /> After some time with the D700 my way of working changed, now I like to shoot at 800 or even 1600 ISO to avoid the use of flash (I`m not a pro). I must say that I use more a 14-24 than any lens over 105mm.</p>

[glenn_c1]

<blockquote>

<p>If you use the D3X I suppose the 70-200 should work reasonably well in the 4:5 and DX modes. What you do you think about this?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes absolutely I would think so, should be identical, right? </p>

<p>I suppose the essence of it isn't really DX vs FX but low-pixel-density vs high-pixel-density. D3x acts like DX camera with extra pixels. Has some advantages of both and some disadvantages of both, but no disadvantages compared to DX except price.</p>

 

[kuryan_thomas]

<p>Ilkka - yes, I tried using the 70-200 in 5:4 mode on my D3x and it was fine. However, compositionally I'm just more used to the 3:2 format and prefer to shoot that way. I could keep using the 70-200 in DX mode or on my D2x body, but the issue is moot now anyway, as I traded the 70-200 on a new 80-200. I'll manage with that until Nikon comes up with something new, if they do.</p>

<p>The Zeiss 100 plus the Nikkor 180 is very tempting.</p>

[kuryan_thomas]

<blockquote>

<p>no disadvantages compared to DX except price</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's very hard on lenses. Every flaw is relentlessly exposed.</p>

[glenn_c1]

<p>Here's something I've been curious about. Everybody talks about how hard the D3x is on lenses, which makes a lot of sense as it shares both the pixel density of a D300 and the film-sized frame of a D3.</p>

<p>Yet people don't say the same, by and large, of medium-format and larger-format cameras which would seem to have at least equal requirements for lens resolution.</p>

<p>Is it mainly that the digital cameras make it so easy to compare lenses? Or is it that Nikon lenses are lousy compared to lenses used on MF and have more flaws to reveal? Or something else?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Is it mainly that the digital cameras make it so easy to compare lenses? Or is it that Nikon lenses are lousy compared to lenses used on MF and have more flaws to reveal? Or something else?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is exactly the opposite. Traditionally, medium and large-format lenses are inferior to 35mm lenses in terms of resolution. However, you are dealing with a much larger film/sensor area so that you don't need to magnify nearly as much. Even 6x4.5 is almost 3 times the area as FX. Therefore you can get away with somewhat inferior optics.</p>

<p>When you need to put 20, 24MP on 24x36mm, you are really challenging the optics.</p>

[kuryan_thomas]

<p>Glenn, I should point out that Ilkka called me out on my gripe session. In my post, I implied that I was lacking many lenses for my D3x. When Ilkka asked for examples, note that I was only able to come up with the 70-200. Considering my focal length range is from 17mm to 300mm, that's not a huge gap. The 80-200 does perform well on the D3x, seriously revealing its flaws only between 180 and 200. So for a range of 17-300, I have a 20mm performance gap and a 100mm jump from 200mm to the 300 f/4. The focal length jump wouldn't be an issue if I bought the 200-400 f/4, and then I would have continuous excellent coverage from 17mm to 400mm except for the 20mm performance gap.</p>

<p>I wouldn't call that terrible. In fact, I would call that pretty damn good. I was just having a good time whining. Sorry.</p>

[glenn_c1]

<p>Shun, your answer makes perfect sense. I suppose it means that instead of needing a high linear resolution, the MF lenses instead must maintain resolution over a very large image circle. They must be very good at this to avoid being soft away from the center of the frame. I haven't thought it out but this must imply other compromises in their design.</p>

<p>Kuryan, fair enough. It's all relative, of course. Buy a D3x and you are entitled to expect the best of everything.</p>

<p> </p>

[kuryan_thomas]

<p>There's also a focal length jump between the 24-70 and the 80-200. Another no-big-deal. My point is that Nikon actually has very good lenses. And if you add Zeiss and others in the mix, there is no problem finding lenses worthy of the D3x. (Of course, you have to put out the cash for them, but that is a different issue.)</p>

<p>It was just very frustrating to me that I had spent all this money in 2006 on a 70-200 and then found it was terrible on my 2009 camera. So I never miss a chance to gripe about that!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I wouldn't say the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR is terrible on FX. This topic has been discussed many times and I provided images to show the exact problem. The 70-200 is not going to give you corner-to-corner sharpness near 200mm on FX, but it only affects the extreme corners. If that doesn't meet your needs, just use something else. For a lot of people, including me, that is largely a non issue.</p>

[donald_weston1]

<p>SHUN - would you not agree that sample variation can also contribute to this lens varied reputation....I also had a less then stellar copy of the 70-200/2.8 and sold it, and am now happy with an older 80-200.2.8...each to their own</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>SHUN - would you not agree that sample variation can also contribute to this lens varied reputation</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have used exactly one copy of the 70-200mm/f2.8: my own. So I have no experience with other samples. I have been suggesting that perhaps photo.net should borrow another one from Nikon for further testing, or perhaps I can rent one or two for a day, but I haven't done either one of those yet.</p>

<p>However, I have tested some 5 different copies of the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S and they are all very consistent. That leads me to believe that those so called "sample variations" is largely not ture for lenses at this level. (For those plastic-mount lenses that cannot sustain much impact before getting out of alignment, it would be a different story.) The more likely difference is that different photographers have different techniques and different levels of tolerance conerning quality.</p>

<p>Bjorn Rorslett, DPReview and other tests, including mine, on the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR all indicate that the problem is in the extreme corners. At least to me, that seems to be quite consistent also. Think about this: if you shoot portraits, weddings, parties, sports ..., the extreme corners are likely to be way out of focus filled by background anyway. Why would you care about image quality in those areas? For those types of photography, I would much rather have a lens that is extremely good in the center and weak in the corners.</p>

<p>For landscape, that may be a totally different story, but then a 70-200 that is maximum f4 may be a lot more appropriate. That is one of those "missing" lenses in Nikon's lineup (i.e. 70-200mm/f4 with AF-S and VR).</p>