The deciding factor for upgrade

[Tuhin]

Hello Everyone ,

 

To me the most important factor for deciding whether to upgrade or not, is the image

quality. I will look into color reproduction and overall sharpness of the image .

 

An image captured by D70 ( my present camera) and the same subject captured by

D90 and D300s ( keeping other variables like lense , lighting , ISO etc , constant ),

are the images comparable ? In other words , would the human eye be able to pick up the differences in the images ?

 

According to dpreview , the resolution of the sensor of the D70 , D90

and D300s are the following -

 

 

Nikon D70 Horiz LPH - 1600 1850

Vert LPH - 1450 1850

 

Nikon D90 Horizontal LPH - 2200 2450

Vertical LPH - 2150 2450

 

Nikon D300S Horizontal LPH - 2300 3200

Vertical LPH - 2250 3200 .

 

 

Neither the numerical values nor something as the "D300s is a better camera", are as

important to me as the basic ability of the human eye to differentiate ( the same subject

captured by D70 ,D90 and D300s ) and pick up the winner.

 

Looking forward to your inputs and thanks in advance for them ..

 

Rgds ..Tuhin

[munchy]

<p>I think that the "lighting" variable could make for some very discernible differences. For example, a bright, sunny day might produce fewer differences whereas a very low light scene, shot on the different cameras, might be a good test to see differences. I actually do not make my purchasing decisions so much on image quality as I, myself, don't think I could tell a D70 from a D80, D90 or D300s for most well lit subjects. Look at the sample images on this site or sites such as DPReview for each camera. Even though the subjects might be different, pick a few with consistent lighting and try to tell the difference. I really don't believe most could differentiate, though some would tell you they could. For me, upgrading is about the feature set and some things like better low light performance (less noise at higher ISO)</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>One thing the human eye can detect is an out-of-focus subject. So, if the D300's much better AF system gets you a sharper image of a tricky subject, then of course the resulting image - in practical terms - is going to be better. Does this matter? It may not - but you're not saying anything about your subject matter, shooting style, and the circumstances in which you shoot. And: are we talking about 4x6 prints, 100% on-screen pixel-peeping? 30-inch canvas prints?</p>

[Tuhin]

Thanks Doug Moench and Matt Laur ..

 

I wanted to know this -

 

Studio set up > Subject lets say a still life > photo captured with D70 , D90 and D300s with lighting , aperture , shutter speed , white balance , ISO remaining same (lower noise free) > I take 4x6 and 20x16 prints of each ..

 

 

Since the sensor of D300s has better resolution , would the differences stand out even in 4x6 prints ( this is the best print hence the camera must have been D300s ) . Probably , the differences would become more evident when the prints become larger . I say 'probably' because I do not know and hence I have posed this question .

 

Resolution and sharpness although are not equivalent terms , both contribute , apart from the color , to the overall feel of the image . Sharpness can be adjusted through hardware and software but not the resolution .

 

I am not arguing on the technological advancement of D300s over D70 and D90 . My question is on image quality ( keeping the varibles constant ) and hence I did not mention my subject matter , shooting style etc .

 

I do photography for fun and passion , subject matter can be anything eyecatching while I trek or go around in city .

 

Rgds .. Tuhin

[rob_piontek]

<p>The basic image quality is very similar. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference. You do get higher resolution, though. I compared my D300 with my D50 and was surprised how similar they were, at both ISO 200 and 1600. The most significant difference to me was that the D300 uses more noise reduction, which is most notable in the shadows. Blacks are blacker and lose detail (and have less noise). If you use a non-nikon RAW converter you won't see this. IMO basic image quality is not a reason to spend money on a new camera for you. For the price of a D90 or D300 you can get a nice lens.</p>

<p>The only reason you need more resolution is if you print big. Have you already printed large prints and not been happy? Be honest with yourself. It's funny, the biggest prints I ever made (once!) were from a 5MP canon P&S camera, must have been 11x14. I just sent in the JPEG out of the camera. It looks great, even up close, let alone from a normal viewing distance.</p>

[Tuhin]

Thanks Rob .. I have taken some 20x16 prints and they came out quite satisfying . But based on the resolution data given in my first post , would a 20x16 print of an image captured by D70 and the same image ( under same conditions ) captured by D300s differ "noticeably" ?

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>They'd differ less at ISO 200 than at ISO 1600.</p>

<p>Low Light performance and the ability to crop in further and still print big... big deals for some.</p>

[sandysocks]

<p>Depends on the brightness range. With some subjects, the differences will be dramatic even at base ISO but with others, you won't be able to tell the difference. And generally 14 bit raw gives better results than 12, but usually you can't look at any specific image and say which was used.</p>

[Tuhin]

Thanks Peter Hamm and RL Potts ..

 

 

...But based on the resolution data given in my first post , would a 20x16 print of an

image captured by D70 and the same image ( under same conditions ) captured by D300s

differ "noticeably" ? .. .

 

Hello members , I would appreciate a more direct answer to this ( if studio test shots are not available ) .

[stephen_worth]

<p>My deciding factor is usefulness. Does the equipment I have do what I want it to? Is there something better than can do things I can't do right now that I wish I could? I'm not into incremental upgrades. That's a waste of money. But if a new tool can do something entirely new that I need, then it's worth it.</p>

[rob_piontek]

<p>If you think your 20 X 16 prints look good then I don't think you'll see much improvement. There are many factors so there is no straight yes or no answer. I can tell you that after getting my D300, I am now looking to replace my stolen D50 possibly with a D70 and the 6 vs 12MP is nothing I'm going to worry about. But I'm not printing big.</p>

<p>If you don't already, you might also look into how to properly up-scale your resolution so that it's optimal for your print size, and pay attention to things like sharpening. I personally don't know anything about it, but it's possible you could get more out of what you already have.</p>

 

[mart_e]

<p>I moved from a D70 to a D90 late last year. Whilst the resolution difference does exist, it's not a huge factor - whether the benefits of extra pixels are visible to the human eye in printing will depend on too many other variables, not least lighting, size of print, amount of sharpening carried out (in my experience sharpening works better with more pixels to play with - this alone can start to show the difference between D70 + D90 images).</p>

<p>In terms of IQ - I noticed more benefit in the dynamic range than pure resolution, but that does vary depending on the subject and conditions. I loved my D70 - and have kept it for back up rather than part with it.</p>

<p>Martin</p>

[Tuhin]

Thanks Stephen , Rob and Mart E ..

 

Deciding factor is usefulness + if the technological [ picture quality ( better sensor and image processor ) along with other features such as better focussing etc etc ] , advancement is remarkable .. Agreed .

 

I did the 20x16 prints following the Incremental method of upscaling and generally follow the luminous method of sharpening ( I must admit that I am yet to master different ways of sharpening ) . I personally feel the 20x16 print from D300s would look better because of the sensor having better dynamic range and producing better shadow details , apart from the resolution . I welcome any additional information to be shared . Thank you all for the discussion .

[stephen_worth]

<p>With good light and proper exposure, I doubt if you would see any real significant difference between the image quality of the D70, D90 and D300s on a print. Lenses would make much more difference than the body.</p>

[Tuhin]

If the image quality do not differ "noticeably" ( D300s owners would not be happy ) , one would look into the other features and decide based on his requirement . If it is a qustion of withstanding harsh conditions of nature ( such as subzero temperature ) , D300s is a safer option . I do not know the performance of D70 in prolonged subzero condition ( such might be the condition in the Himalayan region in and around the snowline ) . In the digital era , bodies with their sensors , image processors weather sealing etc etc are also important . True , it is more important have the right lense . But like everything else , lenses are also getting better and better . But strangely no body talks of "lens peeping" . I thank you all for participating in this thread . Visit India and the Himalayas . Rgds and best wishes to you all .