Nikon d300 and d700

[Mav]

100 isn't the best. The "best" ISO for a given camera in terms of image quality is whatever the base ISO is. On the 300 and 700 it just happens to be 200, along with my D40 due to properties of the sensor designs. On my D80 it's 100. The further you deviate from the base ISO in either direction, the more quality will drop off.

If you were trying to capture wave action with a D300 and needed to slow things down past ISO 200, you'd be better off just popping on a 1-stop ND filter than dropping the camera's ISO to Lo 1.0 (ISO 100) or whatever they call it. Dropping ISO will drop quality, but not a 1-stop ND filter. For that photo of the lifeguard stand above, a faster base ISO of 200 actually would have helped, because then I'd only have needed a 7-8 second exposure vs 15 for the same quality, which lets me keep moving and taking more photos faster, and it also sucks up less battery per shot. Higher or lower base ISO can either hurt you or help you all depending on what you're trying to do. Generally I prefer the faster base ISO, but for trickier situations like this it can actually get in the way. But the easy workaround is an ND filter, so no big deal.

 

[Golfer_Cody]

whats the ND filter? like what is it what do you mean put it on? and how bad would the waves look if i just used the base iso 200?

 

[Mike_E]

Hi Cody, if you don't mind my butting in here, here is what you need:
1. A D700 with the battery grip.
2. A 24-70mm f/2.8. (the same as 16-47mm on a DX)
3. A 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S VR.
4. Two SB800s and an SB600.
5. A semester or two at your local college in a photography course were you will be the talk of the class and have a great time learning the finer points of photography.

 

[kundalini]

Aww, c'mon Mike, let's not get snippy. I agree with the gear though.

Cody, a ND (Neutral Density) filter will effectively reduce the amount of light that enters your lens and loads up your sensor. They are produced in the amount of stops they reduce that light. This will give you the creamy effect your are after for water movement. They are neutral because they do not affect the color of the scence, only the amount of light *read: longer shutter speeds*. The more stops of the filter, the longer the shutter speed. Here's a note worthy to consider. This is another case of you get what you pay for. Don't go on the cheap for filters.

Here's an example. Notice the water flow shows movement, but the color of the leaves on the rocks still hold their color.

Finally, don't think of the baseline ISO of the D300 of 200 is a detriment. You could do far worse.

 

[JerryPH]

For sports higher ISO will definitely come in handy. But if you can't get very close, FX will actually work against you since it lacks a crop factor. You need a 300mm lens on FX to get the same field of view that 200mm gives you on DX.

I never get this issue people see about crop factors. On an FX, I will get a broad image. If I strategically crop it in software by 50%, I will have EXACTLY what a DX has. The DX cannot do this.

Zoom has nothing to do with this becuase at a 1:1 ratio, the cropped part of the FX pic and the DX pic will be the same... 100% (assuming you cropped the pic to match).

The issue with using a DX lens on the D700 will cause one thing that I don't really like... pics drop from 12 MP to 5 MP.

If you are considering using the 18-200, the D700 is NOT the camera for you on a couple of levels:
- You more than half the resolution with the DX lens
- you will not be able to take anywhere near the advantage of the D700s full potential
- Your experience level doesn't really justify getting a D700 (time will change that)

A camera like the D700 demands top level lenses to get the best out of it. Using a DX lens on it, lowers it's level to that of a mid range point and shoot camera. I am thinking that the D300 would be MORE than enough camer for you for at least 2-3 years, if not more.

If you look at some of the equipment lists of well known photographers, you will see that the money invested in lenses vs camera is about a 2 to 3 to one ratio. Meaning for every $100 they spent on a camera, $200-$300 was spent in lenses. There are very good reasons why this is so.

In the case of the OP, reversing this method brings down the quality of the results, not raises them.

 

[Mike_E]

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound "snippy" the OP said that he had more to learn and the easiest and fastest was is to get someone to teach you.

If he has the wherewithal to buy the equipment then paying for lesions is the next logical step.

And I really believe that if he goes into a class with said equipment, he's going to be popular.

 

[Mav]

I never get this issue people see about crop factors. On an FX, I will get a broad image. If I strategically crop it in software by 50%, I will have EXACTLY what a DX has. The DX cannot do this.

Zoom has nothing to do with this becuase at a 1:1 ratio, the cropped part of the FX pic and the DX pic will be the same... 100% (assuming you cropped the pic to match).

The issue with using a DX lens on the D700 will cause one thing that I don't really like... pics drop from 12 MP to 5 MP.

Ah so they're not "EXACTLY" the same. Right. If you crop an FX to the DX view you only have 5MP left whereas the same view on DX you still have your original 10/12MP. This is why a lot of bird shooters and people that shoot long are still going to be sticking with their DX cameras. The DX cameras park more resolution where they need it. If you do the same 50% crop on a DX now you have 5/6MP and an even longer "view", and the FX would be down to a whopping 2/3MP, even less image.

If you are considering using the 18-200, the D700 is NOT the camera for you on a couple of levels:
- You more than half the resolution with the DX lens
- you will not be able to take anywhere near the advantage of the D700s full potential
- Your experience level doesn't really justify getting a D700 (time will change that)

A camera like the D700 demands top level lenses to get the best out of it. Using a DX lens on it, lowers it's level to that of a mid range point and shoot camera. I am thinking that the D300 would be MORE than enough camer for you for at least 2-3 years, if not more.

With the lower linear resolution of FX, if anything you can get away with cheaper lenses since the FX sensor in 12MP form isn't demanding as much resolution out of lenses as the 10/12MP DX sensors are. There's absolutely no reason that you can't put a great and cheap lens like the Nikkor 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 lens on the D700 and get outstanding results. I just picked one of these up for my F100 and it works great. I've also tried it on my D80 which is more demanding of lenses and it works great there too. Very sharp, even at 105mm and wide-open at f/4.5. Cost me a whopping $140! I guess putting a lens like this on a D700 or D3 would be a "faux pas" but it'll still work great.

Saying the camera would be no better than a point-n-shoot with a DX lens is ridiculous. I do agree that it's kinda silly to put DX lenses on an FX camera, but come on. You're still getting the SAME great iso6400 performance, and you'll still be getting the same sharpness and overall image quality. Just only across the DX portion of the sensor. I guarantee you that a D700 with any DX lens including the cheap little 18-55 will still blow the crap out of any P&S out there.

If you look at some of the equipment lists of well known photographers, you will see that the money invested in lenses vs camera is about a 2 to 3 to one ratio. Meaning for every $100 they spent on a camera, $200-$300 was spent in lenses. There are very good reasons why this is so.

Probably because they have 2 or 3 lenses for every body they have, and if they're really professionals they're probably buying mostly professional glass, which costs as much as a body does. In general I don't disagree though. Put money into glass first, and the body secondarily, if only for investment purposes. I can still get great results with my cheap crappy lenses like the 18-55 and 28-105 and 18-135, etc. In fact, stopped down at daylight apertures, there's ZERO difference between these lenses and my $1200 pro 17-55DX lens. Speaking of which, the cheap $500 70-300VR lens has better corner performance for landscape photos on FX than the $1700 70-200VR lens does! :lmao: I can't wait to pick one of these up cheap when a newer version comes out and everybody ditches theirs. :mrgreen:

In the case of the OP, reversing this method brings down the quality of the results, not raises them.

There are many holes in blanket statements like this.

 

[JerryPH]

Granted it may be swiss cheese, but the specs support it more than deny it. A picture taken at 5MP on a D700 with the 18-200 is not going to be anywhere near the quality of the 70-200 at full resolution on the same camera.

Resolution is lower and glass quality is lower.

We have a user that wants to put out a lot of money, then effectively strangle off more than half the quality of what the camera can do based on choice of lens alone... or they could save $1500+, still have a camera that would challenge them for YEARS and offer results as good as or better.

 

[peterbj7]

There is another rumor floating out there that perhaps by the end of August, Nikon will introduce the D900 with 24MP. Price in the $3-4K range.

I thought Nikon's stance was that there was no need to produce a camera with as many mp as Canon's 1Ds III as there was no benefit, and Canon were just doing it as a marketing ploy. Were they wrong, or have they decided they want to take advantage of the same marketing ploy?

Can you clarify some Nikon terms for me - just what do "fx" and "dx" mean? Are they simply "full size sensor, the same size as 33mm film" and "reduced size sensor"? I'm not clear what "x" and "d" stand for in this context. And presumably all Nikon reduced size sensors are reduced by their standard factor of 1.5?

 

[dEARlEADER]

Granted it may be swiss cheese....

Please leave the Swiss people and their dairy products out of your dispute of resolution. The Swiss people make excellent cheese and as such, it should not be degraded or compared with inaccurate descriptions simply because it has holes. Also, some of the finest people I've never met happen to be Swiss.

 

[Mav]

I thought Nikon's stance was that there was no need to produce a camera with as many mp as Canon's 1Ds III as there was no benefit, and Canon were just doing it as a marketing ploy. Were they wrong, or have they decided they want to take advantage of the same marketing ploy?

If any of that was for real then it was just marketing BS trying to deflate the better Canon products as not being needed to prevent floods of Nikon users from streaming out the doors. Marketing is BS central, and I even had a director of marketing admit that to me once.

 

[Chewbecca]

Oh, GOD.
Forget all this.
I'll be upgrading to a D300 sometime within the year.

I think my blood sugar just lowered reading all of this.

 

[Mav]

Granted it may be swiss cheese, but the specs support it more than deny it. A picture taken at 5MP on a D700 with the 18-200 is not going to be anywhere near the quality of the 70-200 at full resolution on the same camera.

Resolution is lower and glass quality is lower.

We have a user that wants to put out a lot of money, then effectively strangle off more than half the quality of what the camera can do based on choice of lens alone... or they could save $1500+, still have a camera that would challenge them for YEARS and offer results as good as or better.

The only thing you're "strangling" is quantity, not quality. Does the ISO performance get horrible if you're just using the center portion? No. You can still make FULL use of that even if you're only on the DX portion of the sensor. And are you saying it's not possible to take "quality" pictures on a 5/6MP DX frame? If so I have more than a few photos off of my D40 that I'd be more than happy to post. 6MP has still been enough to get nice 20x30" prints done off of my D40 too. 12MP is already overkill for general use IMHO. For on-screen viewing and any normal print size up to maybe 8x12 I think you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between 5/6MP and 10/12MP.

I'm really just playing devil's advocate here because I agree that putting DX lenses on FX is silly. You're paying a big premium for the bigger sensor, so you might as well be using all of it. Kinda like buying a car with the optional bigger engine but then grannying the thing everywhere you go. Why bother? You'll still be able to get outstanding photos with an 18-200VR on a D700 in DX crop mode though, and take full advantage of its high ISO capabilities and shoot in all sorts of crazy low light and not bother with a tripod.

Personally I think it's a shame that Nikon has discontinued most of their good and reasonably priced film zooms, and that the ones that are left are sorta sub-par, like the 24-120VR, and the 24-85 f/2.8-4. Canon has much better stuff in this area IMHO, but of course they've had full frame DSLRs for a very long time now too. Actually it was probably all a strategic move by Nikon to discontinue their good cheap film mid-zooms knowing what would be coming out in 2-3 years. That then forces people into buying more of the absurdly expensive PRO lenses which are way more than a lot of people need.

For a do-everything lens I'd look for a used 28-200G or look into this Tamron 28-300 VC lens which seems to be pretty good. I'd try to find either of those before I'd ever consider putting an 18-200VR on an FX camera, mostly just on principle.

 

[Garbz]

Were they wrong, or have they decided they want to take advantage of the same marketing ploy?
Can you clarify some Nikon terms for me - just what do "fx" and "dx" mean?

It's marketing. I've heard countless claims, Nikon doesn't have the technology for blah blah blah, it's all a load of crap. Engineers release a super 12mpx sensor, give it to the marketing department and say "you tell the people of the world why this is better than Canon's 1DsMkIII." The company only sounds like it is doing a backflip on what they said previously, but the reality is it's just two different departments doing their thing.

FX = Full format, DX = APS-D format (1.5x crop)

Marketing is BS central, and I even had a director of marketing admit that to me once.

I took marketing at uni. First lecture was that marketing is selling a product to people who don't need it. It is BS, the trick is to not make it sound like it.

I'm really just playing devil's advocate here because I agree that putting DX lenses on FX is silly. You're paying a big premium for the bigger sensor, so you might as well be using all of it.

What about weight? I'd rather walk around with a Sigma 10-20mm for DX sensors on my lens all day than carry something equivalent for FX. Ok I probably wouldn't but the forum is full of people who pick convenience over quality. Just look at the success of the 18-200. A small light superzoom. Yes you take the quality hit using a DX lens, but it has a convenience factor that I would tip makes this the new debate to add to the "JPGvsRAW" "Superzoom vs multilens" debates that are raging.

 

[kundalini]

I thought Nikon's stance was that there was no need to produce a camera with as many mp as Canon's 1Ds III as there was no benefit, and Canon were just doing it as a marketing ploy. Were they wrong, or have they decided they want to take advantage of the same marketing ploy?

If any of that was for real then it was just marketing BS trying to deflate the better Canon products as not being needed to prevent floods of Nikon users from streaming out the doors.

It's marketing. I've heard countless claims, Nikon doesn't have the technology for blah blah blah, it's all a load of crap.

It could all very well be just speculation, rumor, high hopes or whatever, but this is not the only place I've read of the possibility of the D900. If it comes to fruition, I think it is a very clever marketing ploy by Nikon. Time will answer the questions I guess.