D300 vs D3 - comparision at home!

Flashlight · Dec 7, 2007

Michael S. said:
You're almost right - IF you do have bigger photosites then you need
less
"power" so therefore you get a "lower noise" picture out of it.
I can't follow what you mean with studio - excepte if you meant in a
studio you have your strobes and can always stay @low-iso - yes - it
will be easier BUT it does not change how your electrons react -
meaning, even, as shown in my comparision with both cam on iso100 -
the cam with the bigger photosites still is in advance...THAT does
not change.

If you shoot at base ISO you only have to deal with the noise at that level, which is (almost) invisible with any good camera. Therefore the basic advantage of the bigger photosites is practically zeroed out. As far as I understand it the difference in detail should be marginal between the two cameras at lowest ISO.

Michael S. said:
Michael S. said:

There's, also because of the larger pixels, more DR in the D3 image.
In a studio that is, again, not a big thing, because you're in
control of the lighting and therefore in control of the DR.

Click to expand...

Again - not 1000% correct - still you can better hold - same settings
on cameras,
same metering, same positon of strobes, your details, especially in
the whites.

I never said I was 1000% correct

When you work in the studio you're in control of the contrast in the scene through the lighting. What you need to do to get a good balanced photo is match the contrast, or DR of the scene, to the DR of the camera. Therefore more or less camera DR is not something I see as very important for studio work.

Michael S. said:
Michael S. said:

No doubt the D3 has the edge in IQ but I would be surprised if it's
really significant for studio use.

Click to expand...

Right - as I wrote above - on the framed picture, your customer would
not really see it...

No, and in 100% crop the difference should, IMO, not be as clearly visible as in your example. I downloaded your photos (no, not a scientific test, I know), upsized the D300 shot to 112% to make the labels same size, edited the contrast to make them more equal and applied a good deal of sharpening (too much I guess). Now we only have to decide in what degree the lesser quality of the D300 shot (right) is caused by upzizing it to 112%

.

--
Philip

ecube · Dec 7, 2007

a very interesting OBJECTIVE comparison between to cameras from the same company (Nikon). That, I like!

IMHO, you succeeded in making a home edition "non-scientific" test as you call it, which explains eye approximation of camera to subject distances. I do not have either camera but have allocated the funds for the D3 and the 3 FX Nikkkor lenses. I am ignorant of the lens you used (85mm f1.4 NIKKOR), so please help me out.

Is that a DX or an FX lens? I assume you would know where I am headed.

If it is possible, could you make a matrix (similar to a spreadsheet) with the Category on first column, D300 on the second column, and D3 on the third column. Naturally, the rows under the Category are the parameters and the corresponding values for the D300 and D3 under their respective columns.

I hope you do not take my post as a negative criticism.

Thanks
--
ecube

ecube · Dec 7, 2007

Michael S. said:
Ellar said:

A totally useless comparison. Proves nothing.

Click to expand...

As I stated...NOT a scientific test...

Michael S. said:

Sorry but some people on this forum, with the latest toys, need to
get out more.

Click to expand...

WHY that offence? - I AM shooting out in the real word...not color
charts
or anything else - so, I just made a quick shoot in the room where I
have
my camera/lens storage...I AM shooting indoor-sports, in opera-houses
and
theatres...

If you can't live with what other people have, do own - then keep
your comments
for yourself...that's all.

--
Michael S.

Well said Michael !!!!!!

--
ecube

Michael S. · Dec 7, 2007

Flashlight wrote:
Lot's of work you did...

One suggestion - we mentioned in the posts above that looking at the shoulder pad of the Stormtrooper and the Stormtrooper itself is quite a good example for
better DR of the D3 - not the apple...

But let us not forget - we are "comparing" (I never did...just showing) a 4700,- cam with a 1800,- one...
--
Michael S.
Austria/EUROPE
NIKON NPS Member
(check equipment via profile)

http://www.pbase.com/bountyhunter
pbase-supporter

Michael S. · Dec 7, 2007

Greetings!

ecube said:
I am ignorant of the lens you
used (85mm f1.4 NIKKOR), so please help me out.

The trusty 85mm f1.4 is an "FX" lens - kind of old, but its a Full-Frame lens
if that suits it better and I would say (IMHO) that's it's one of the sharpest
and the best portrait lens by NIKON.

Member said:
If it is possible, could you make a matrix (similar to a
spreadsheet) with the Category on first column, D300 on the second
column, and D3 on the third column. Naturally, the rows under the
Category are the parameters and the corresponding values for the D300
and D3 under their respective columns.

As written - the settings for the in-camera jpgs AND the settings in postprocessing for both RAW-files of the two cameras have been 100% identical.
Really every single parameter you can change in each camera...

kind regards,
--
Michael S.
Austria/EUROPE
NIKON NPS Member
(check equipment via profile)

http://www.pbase.com/bountyhunter
pbase-supporter

Max Savin · Dec 7, 2007

the close up pictures look as though, with a little more usm and saturation in the d300 crop, you could not tell them apart. i think it is expected that 2 very different cameras will produce slightly different results. two d3s, or two d300s might show as much variation. but is the difference here going to mean anything to a client purchasing photos from either of these two cameras? i don't think so. they are both excellent optical input computers.
--
max

photoforfun · Dec 7, 2007

Bernie Ess said:
.... If you want to justify the expense by the better detail resolution of the D3, you are fooling yourself.

Hi Bernie,

The difference in detail starts to be obvious from iso 400 upwards, above iso 800 D3 is just another world, and the difference in DR is as big as between D200 & S5pro... All depends how much these advantages are worth to the user...

Kindest regards,
Stany
I prefer one really good picture in a day over 10 bad ones in a second...

http://www.fotografie.fr/

ecube · Dec 7, 2007

On D300, is it fair to say that the lens translate to approximately 122 mm?

I used to have 105mm f/2.0, my favorite for portrait. Gave it to my daughter together with my Nikon F some 15 years ago.

Thank you . . . or should I say Danke schoen?

Michael S. said:
ecube said:

I am ignorant of the lens you
used (85mm f1.4 NIKKOR), so please help me out.

Click to expand...

The trusty 85mm f1.4 is an "FX" lens - kind of old, but its a
Full-Frame lens
if that suits it better and I would say (IMHO) that's it's one of the
sharpest
and the best portrait lens by NIKON.

Michael S. said:

If it is possible, could you make a matrix (similar to a
spreadsheet) with the Category on first column, D300 on the second
column, and D3 on the third column. Naturally, the rows under the
Category are the parameters and the corresponding values for the D300
and D3 under their respective columns.

Click to expand...

As written - the settings for the in-camera jpgs AND the settings in
postprocessing for both RAW-files of the two cameras have been 100%
identical.
Really every single parameter you can change in each camera...

kind regards,
--
Michael S.
Austria/EUROPE
NIKON NPS Member
(check equipment via profile)

http://www.pbase.com/bountyhunter
pbase-supporter

--
ecube

OleThorsen · Dec 7, 2007

Michael S. said:
v_ said:

Guten Abend!

The images speak for themself! A whole lot more details recorded into
the D3 pics, if you ask me. I was wishing for something like that.
Looks really promising!
Better ignore the ignorant comments! I think it was a very
informative test with easy to read results. Easy to see that there is
image quality difference from an almost ff 12MP and a DX 12MP. Yes!

Click to expand...

Its just been a "test" of about 5 minutes...I will just say that I,
personally, see two things that are obivous:

1) the D3 did hold more details in the white stormtrooper (as
expected with larger photosites and so more dynmanic range)

Your framing is not the same with the two camera setups. For a reasonable comparison your D300 should have been closer to the subjects. I have measured the objects to be 12% larger on the D3 picture than the D300 picture due to the difference in framing. So with this setup the D3 should have more details. I would bet, if you had framed them opposite with the objects 12% larger in the D300 picture your conclusion would also have been the opposite.

I know it's shot at f8 1/250s but did you use Mirror-Up to avoid any trace of mirror slap induced vibrations? And then try next time to frame them identically.

Michael S. said:
2) less noise even set a iso100 in the d3 - as seen in the shadow
parts of the shiny tin can (also - as you may have expected from the
technical readouts of both cams before - too because of larger
photosites)

I don't see any noise at all in neither the D3 nor D300 picture. The only shadow I can find in the picture is at the top of the breast below the black part sticking out, and there is absolutely no noise in any of the two samples.

Regards
Ole Thorsen
http://www.pbase.com/ole_thorsen

OMNISCIENCE

Knowing what
thou knowest not
is in a sense
omniscience.
(Grook by Piet Hein)

Daniel Bliss · Dec 7, 2007

Doing what I expected -- the D300 is pushing the resolution limit even of that lens. It's much like what I see from Canon's test images from the 1DSIII that they have on their web site.

I am curious what the practical impact of this will be, other than bringing the megapixel race to a close. But full-frame is looking more and more attractive, despite the horrible weight penalty on bodies and lenses. And the high ISO performance on the D3 takes the sting out of that weight penalty on longer lenses, allowing you to use smaller aperture lenses like the 300 f4 without the consequences you'd have faced with older digital bodies and film.

Grig · Dec 7, 2007

Max Savin said:
is the difference here going to mean anything to a
client purchasing photos from either of these two cameras? i don't
think so. they are both excellent optical input computers.

Absolutely... until you go above ISO1600... then they are totally different animals... ;o)

--
Real photography - it's just the ability to see what was already created by God!
http://www.pbase.com/grig

Kabe Luna · Dec 7, 2007

mostly I see less DOF from the D3. In terms of resolving power at this ISO, there isn't much between them. Except for DOF, you'd never be able to tell in a print. Which is what one would expect given their very similar identical pixel counts.

v_ said:
Guten Abend!

The images speak for themself! A whole lot more details recorded into
the D3 pics, if you ask me. I was wishing for something like that.
Looks really promising!
Better ignore the ignorant comments! I think it was a very
informative test with easy to read results. Easy to see that there is
image quality difference from an almost ff 12MP and a DX 12MP. Yes!

Viktor
'Happy shooting!'

--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.garlandcary.com

RedFox88 · Dec 7, 2007

v_ said:
Guten Abend!

The images speak for themself! A whole lot more details recorded into
the D3 pics, if you ask me. I was wishing for something like that.

The d300 crop seems to have less contrast than the d3 image making it appear to have less detail as contrast adds depth and detail.

RedFox88 · Dec 7, 2007

It is clearly a brighter image. This is why the d300 appears to handle highlights better, have more detail ,etc. Just compare the histograms. The d300 is slid more to the right than the d3. Plus the FOV's are not the same.

I think the d300 would have done better if it had the same comparative exposure as the d3 had.

Daniel R Kane · Dec 8, 2007

What I'm saying is that this comparison only works for you because you DID process these images. You didn't simply post a link to the RAW files out of the camera. You made decision about the processing (how much to sharpen, crop, whatever) that me or someone else might not have made with the RAW files and you made decisions about the JPG settings on the camera (Like how much sharpening) that others might not have made. I can't use your comparison to judge between the images because I wasn't looking over your shoulder as you made these processing decisions and I don't know how much your processing altered the original RAW images. See what I mean?

Now, I'm not angry or calling you an idiot or anything; I think you had the best of intentions and I'm glad you took the time to do this. I'm just saying I can't make any judgements based on your evidence as it's been tampered with.

Daniel
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielkphoto/

Michael S. · Dec 9, 2007

Good Morning!

Daniel R Kane said:
Now, I'm not angry or calling you an idiot or anything; I think you
had the best of intentions and I'm glad you took the time to do this.
I'm just saying I can't make any judgements based on your evidence as
it's been tampered with.

Understood...and I have to add for "real-life photography" that all does not count,
just the man (woman?) behind the machine...

Both cams are good tools - not more and the D3 is not the holy grail of photography...

kind regards,
--
Michael S.
Austria/EUROPE
NIKON NPS Member
(check equipment via profile)

http://www.pbase.com/bountyhunter
pbase-supporter

Martin Datzinger · Dec 9, 2007

LG - Martin (aus Großhöflein)

--
http://www.datzinger.net

Michael S. · Dec 9, 2007

Servus Martin!

yup...and with proud!

;-)

--
Michael S.
Austria/EUROPE
NIKON NPS Member
(check equipment via profile)

http://www.pbase.com/bountyhunter
pbase-supporter

Martin Datzinger · Dec 9, 2007

Could you do the following?

D3+24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8+TC 1.4 vs. D300+17-55/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 at comparable FLs and aperures, same subject distance, shutter speeds and lighting conditions?

e.g. D300 17mm/5.6 ISO 400 vs. D3 27mm/8.4 ISO 1000?
D300 200mm/4.0 ISO 640 vs. D3 280mm/6.0 ISO 1600+crop?

If you ever come across Vienna, we could do the test with my 17-55 and TC.

Kind regards,
Martin

--
http://www.datzinger.net

Michael S. · Dec 9, 2007

Hi Martin!

Martin Datzinger said:
Could you do the following?

D3+24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8+TC 1.4 vs. D300+17-55/2.8 and 70-200/2.8
at comparable FLs and aperures, same subject distance, shutter speeds
and lighting conditions?

To make long stories short - I sold my 17-55mm DX 2 weeks ago...cause I thought (as I did the months before) - I did not use it often on the former D200, cause for reportage/newspaper the 18-200mm VR has been the all-time mounted lens on it.
--
Michael S.
Austria/EUROPE
NIKON NPS Member
(check equipment via profile)

http://www.pbase.com/bountyhunter
pbase-supporter

D300 vs D3 - comparision at home!

Veteran Member

ecube

Guest

ecube

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

ecube

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts