Which camera for best print quality - Wildlife Photography?

[jonpaulgallery]

<p>I would love input from people who have experience with the D3, D700 and even the D3x.<br />I shoot wildlife with a D300. I like the crop factor for reaching out to animals. However, I do <br />have some noise issues. I like to do large gallery prints (prefer at least 32x48). I know most people don't do this, so I am hoping for experienced input, not technical gueses please.<br>

I am thinking that the D700 and D3 will give much less noise...thus I can shoot a little higher iso and get sharper images. I just wonder how sharp relative to showing detail in large prints. Also, do the smaller pixels of the D3x truly allow for sharper larger images? I will first look at whcih camera will be best for me, then I will deal with my budget issues.<br>

I know about the extra details of using a tripod, turning off VR, etc. to maximize quality with technique.<br>

I also hope to shoot some landscapes with the camera in travel situations where my view camera can't be used.<br>

I appreciate any input from those that have evaluated these issues.<br>

THanks!<br>

Jon</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>It would probably help if you mentioned the ISO and other exposure details that you find yourself typically using. Is this usually low-light work? Oh, and lenses... which lenses are you using?</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Do you have many lenses? If not, you should look at the Canon 5D mk II as well.</p>

[hawkman]

<p>For such large print 12 mpixels is not sufficient, even 24 mpixels would hardly make it. If you want to produce art gallery quality prints of 48" size with critical detail you need to look at a 40 Mpixel medium format back or produce an equal mosaic by stiching several images. </p>

[wpahnelas]

<p>if you're used to a D300, a D3/D700 will produce cleaner output, but at the price of losing the extra reach of the 1.5 "crop". i use a D300 and D700, and the FX sensor simply produces images with much less noise -- especially apparent if i do any cropping and sharpening. if my style depended more on long, fast lenses, instead of working mostly on foot and shooting hand-held, i'd stick with the D700. as it stands, i still use my D300 a great deal outdoors.<br>

as arash notes, however, for what you want to do, neither the D700 nor the D3X is really adequate. if very large print size is what you're after, you will require much higher resolution.</p>

[rffffffff]

<p>The D3 doesn't seem to be much better than the D300 in creating large prints unless you are at higher ISO and have much better glass. Its not to say that the D3 isnt great, but if you are looking at shooting a D300 with a 400 f/2.8 or a D3 with a 600 f/4, you are really are not going to see much of a difference. The inability to go to 2.8 will mitigate the high ISO performance somewhat and using the center portions of the lens only may (not verified) actually lead to better performance from the D300. When you are at a wedding and have a choice between an 85 1.4 or a 50 1.4, for instance, the D3 is great, but when reach is a concern and budget is involved its probably not the best camera for that circumstance. </p>

<p>The D3X, although I haven't used one, will most likely suit your needs better, but once again, you are going to need to make sure the lenses you have aren't relegating your images to the DX crop, because, in some sense, all you have then is a $7000 D300.</p>

<p>I don't shoot wildlife much, but when I am looking for a long lens, budget (wife) has me outgunned and a crop body would likely be a better scenario than a $5000 lens that I really don't need other than for trips to the zoo!</p>

[stephen_worth]

<p>You might do better with film.</p>

[hawkman]

<p>Oh I didn't see that you shoot wildlife, that's what I do too :) Sorry medium format and mosaic is no option because you need fast AF and high frame rate. It is very challenging if not impossible to produce a 50" print of say a bird in flight and honestly I have never seen such a print and I don't think it would be possible. The largest prints that I have made from BIF is 18X12 and that is when I get the bird to fill the entire frame! <br /> As it is D300 is your best choice going to D3X will not improve anything because you will lose pixel density and not gain so much in terms of noise not to mention you lose fps unless you use crop mode all the time. D3/D700 will provide a better output for prints if you compensate the loss of pixel density by using a longer lens, i.e. if you are using 400 now you will need to a get 500+TC or 600, so if you don't plan to get a new lens D300 is your best bet.</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Jon, IMO you already own the best DSLR Nikon currently sells for wildlife photography. I use a D300 for wildlife too although I also have a D700. Back in April, I attended a seminar by well known photographer Frans Lanting. I am sure he can afford any camera Nikon makes, and he was using a D300 also: <a href="../nature-photography-forum/00TCtL">http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/00TCtL</a></p>

<p>The Lanting seminar was held at his gallery in Santa Cruz, California. He has all sorts of huge prints of his work over the last 2, 3 decades on display there. Most of those were captured with 35mm film, which he does not use any more.</p>

<p>If somehow you and I are not creating great wildlife images, I am quite sure that the problem is not the camera.</p>

[hawkman]

<p>Here is an example when you can get the bird to fill the entire frame and thus you are not focal length limited, it is not a super BIF but it is a good example because it is sharp and shows the best scenario for a BIF shot a 12 Mpixel camera (D700 in this case) can produce. You can print this up to 18X12 and it will still have critical detail, beyond that it wouldn't be so nice upon inspection. If you had the D3X in this case you might have been able to print 26X17 but not larger. So I guess you need to relax your print requirements, good luck!</p>

 

[hawkman]

<p>Here is the shot</p><div></div>

[tri-x1]

<p>Sorry, I don't agree. You do not need 40 megapixels to make 48-inch prints. A 12 megapixel DSLR can produce larger sharp photos that any 35mm film SLR. In addition, the larger the print the farther back a person should stand to view it so there's no need for it to be tack sharp when its 48 inches wide. If you need that sharpness buy a 4x5 or larger view camera.</p>

 

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>I like to do large gallery prints (prefer at least 32x48)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It all depends on where you stand, my friend.</p>

<p>I have seen a few 40-plus-inch images come out of Canon gear, and as much as I hate to admit it, the results were quite impressive. On the other hand, you COULD actually make a print this size from 35mm film - just make sure to stand BACK a several feet when you look at it. If you pixel peep, the film grain from 35mm is going to be very distracting. But if you stand back 6 to 10 feet, the quality will look amazing even from 35mm film or a 6 to 10 MP camera.</p>

<p>If you shoot VERY sharp files an "up res" them in Photoshop CS4, I would imagine that a D3x would give acceptable results at 50 inches. A D3 or D700 might be fine as well as long as you STAND BACK a bit as discussed above. For a D3 or D700, 20 x 30 is a very nice print size (with upresing) and 24 x 36 is still going to look pretty good. The D3x doubles the pixel density, so reasonably detailed 50-inch prints should be possible if you use great lenses and your capture discipline was on the money.</p>

<p>If you want to pixel peep and see every microscopic hair on the model's face in a 50-inch print, be prepared to shoot with large format film or medium format digital sensors (coupled with the VERY BEST lenses, of course).</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>I updated the thread title to specify the focus on wildlife photography.</p>

[steve_vanslow]

<p>I used to work at the place that does the printing for Frans Lanting in Santa Cruz. The single most asked question I used to get was "How large can I print this file???" The two types of printers we used, Epson inkjets and a Lightjet, make different prints, and they both have their pluses and minuses. One of the Lightjet's strong points is it's ability to go BIG. With good PS work and a little testing to get the sharpening right, I think you can print with the D300 as big as you want on the lightjet. I would suggest that you try some tests. Crop out a section of a file, send it to your favorite pro-lab and have them print it. Also, if you can get past the customer service people and actually talk to the techs that do the printing, ask them how to best prepare your files for their printers. <br>

I hope this helps Jon.<br>

Steve</p>

[alvinyap]

<p>Hello Steve,<br>

would it be right to say that at larger than usual sizes, say 12x18in, a lightjet/inkjet print would provide more detail from a same file versus a print from frontiers/noritsus?<br>

Alvin</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I use a D700 only for all my photography and I have to agree with Shun about what is best for wildlife. If I had the funds I would also have a D300 permanently attached to my 500mm f4 P. Instead I have a 1.4 TC to bring me closer losing a stop.</p>

[steve_vanslow]

<p>Alvin,<br>

I've never worked with frontiers/noritsus, so I can't speak to them, but I doubt many people could tell the difference at that small of a size. So, no, I don't think your statement is true. <br>

Printing small (under 16"x20") is easy, taking the same file and printing at the size Jon wants isn't. But the right person, with the right equipment, can make HUGE prints with that same file.<br>

Steve</p>

[alvinyap]

<p>Thank you Steve. I have recently seen some really large (for me anyways ;-) ) prints, roughly twice the size of 12x18s, and they had so much detail even when I was up close like 2-3 feet away. Not crazy detail but still.... anyways, so as not to derail this thread too much I'll post a new question in the digital darkroom when I get back home. Perhaps its my technique that I have to work on to improve the technical aspects of the pictures.<br>

Regards,<br>

Alvin</p>

[sudeep_amin]

<p>D300 should give you the ability to create the large prints that you talk about. 12MP is sufficient. However you need to (and probably are) make sure that your pictures have the sharpest capture. If resolution is your main concern (and budget is not an issue) D3X is your camera. For low light performance you cannot beat the D3. Your best compromise will be the D3. But the D300 should be ample for what you are trying to do. You mayt also want to ask in the Digital Darkroom forum how to get the best quality prints for large sizes. Photoshop has scaling options that preserve most of the image quality when resizing up. I am not an expert on this but telling you what I have seen/heard over the years.</p>