From D300 to D700

when you use a FX camera, you have less DOF at the same aperture
thats all you need to know

eNo said:

harold1968 said:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/digitaldof.html

Click to expand...

Which makes this misleading statement: "For an equivalent field of view, a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera has at least 1.6x MORE depth of field that a 35mm full frame camera would have - when the focus distance is significantly less then the hyperfocal distance (but the 35mm format needs a lens with 1.6x the focal length to give the same view)."

I say misleading, and not false, because I know what he wants to say, which is "if you step back with a DX camera to obtain the same FOV."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's easy to argue about equipment and technique, but hard to argue with a good photograph -- and more difficult to capture one .



Gallery and blog: http://esfotoclix.com
Special selections: http://esfotoclix.imagekind.com
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22061657@N03

Click to expand...

harold1968 said:

when you use a FX camera, you have less DOF at the same aperture
thats all you need to know

Click to expand...

For the last time, not unless you want to achieve the same FOV. So there's more to know and think about, as it turns out. Read my original response, and even go out and try it for yourself. Disregard FOV, keep camera-to-subject and subject-to-background distances constant, use the same lens to keep things simple, and voila! DOF is the same. If you step back with a DX camera to achieve the same FOV, then yes, DOF gets deeper at the same aperture, but you haven't kept the distances I suggested constant. Therefore, what has changed is not DX's ability to achieve a given DOF, but physical distance. The sensor has nothing to do with DOF, and a 50mm lens, or whatever focal length lens you pick, retains its same optical characteristics regardless of what camera it mounts onto.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's easy to argue about equipment and technique, but hard to argue with a good photograph -- and more difficult to capture one .



Gallery and blog: http://esfotoclix.com
Special selections: http://esfotoclix.imagekind.com
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22061657@N03

eNo said:

Disregard FOV, keep camera-to-subject and subject-to-background distances constant, use the same lens to keep things simple, and voila! DOF is the same.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but no one takes an actual picture that way.

To come home with the same photo from two different formats, no one disregards the FOV.

Framing the same shot on DX or full frame, it'll have a shallower DOF on the full frame.

I come home with the same image on my D300 and on my D700 at the same aperture, and the D700 will have the shallower DOF.

I like that about the D700, and that's why I said I like the shallower DOF.

-=-Joe
--
http://portfolio.streetnine.com/index.html
daily photo at http://joesnyc.com/index.html

Joseph O. Holmes said:

Joseph O. Holmes said:

Disregard FOV, keep camera-to-subject and subject-to-background distances constant, use the same lens to keep things simple, and voila! DOF is the same.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but no one takes an actual picture that way.

To come home with the same photo from two different formats, no one disregards the FOV.

Framing the same shot on DX or full frame, it'll have a shallower DOF on the full frame.

I come home with the same image on my D300 and on my D700 at the same aperture, and the D700 will have the shallower DOF.

I like that about the D700, and that's why I said I like the shallower DOF.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. Now we're in agreement. But let's always add that "same shot/same FOV" caveat to statements that otherwise make it sound like somehow sensor size, or even a DX vs. FX lenses with the same focal lengths and apertures somehow change DOF one way or the other, when it's really the case that FOV and trying to keep it the same across formats is really the differentiator.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's easy to argue about equipment and technique, but hard to argue with a good photograph -- and more difficult to capture one .



Gallery and blog: http://esfotoclix.com
Special selections: http://esfotoclix.imagekind.com
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22061657@N03

Joseph O. Holmes said:

I'll leave the DOF discussion to others.

But here's another point about D300 vs. D700 -- don't think that better high-ISO quality matters only to those who shoot at night or in the dark.

For everyday shooting, including in sunlight, I have no hesitation to routinely set my D700 at ISO 400, or even 800.

Click to expand...

That's a very good point. I cringe at having to set ISO 400 during a daytime event so I can keep my shutter speeds at around 1/1000 sec. With my D90 I now hesitate less, but peek into blue skies, and even at lower ISOs you start seeing noise. A D700 would cure that for sure...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's easy to argue about equipment and technique, but hard to argue with a good photograph -- and more difficult to capture one .



Gallery and blog: http://esfotoclix.com
Special selections: http://esfotoclix.imagekind.com
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22061657@N03

I must confess I too fret quite a bit about noise. But I wonder what these pros would have done back in film days. In most situations a D300 matches up or bests film grain performance, especially above ISO400 and to about ISO1600. The D700 is a giant step above, but let's get real. Many wonderful photographs have grain, and so long as digital noise is of the luminance kind (not chroma), it really should not disturb us much. One other thing I've been noticing lately is how that blue sky noise simply disappears when I print up to 11x14. This gets said often, but we should judge IQ at the final display size, on the final display medium and at normal viewing distances. 100% pixel peeping is a fool's errand.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's easy to argue about equipment and technique, but hard to argue with a good photograph -- and more difficult to capture one .



Gallery and blog: http://esfotoclix.com
Special selections: http://esfotoclix.imagekind.com
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22061657@N03

eNo said:

I must confess I too fret quite a bit about noise. But I wonder what these pros would have done back in film days.

Click to expand...

I just took a second walk through the massive Robert Frank "Americans" exhibition at the Met this morning, and this time I spent some time taking a closer look at these 35mm B&W prints -- the grain is simply beautiful. Even in the images with lots of grain, it's simply beautiful.

In fact, I believe that kind of grain can be faked pretty damned well in Photoshop if you know what you're doing. (Protect the highlights and shadows, for instance.) I was specifically looking at some of the prints with that in mind.

But of course it's nothing like digital noise. So even though we can shoot with less grain (noise) and shoot at higher ISOs, I think we're in maybe even a slightly worse position as far as shooting high ISO.

That is (and I'm making wild speculation here), I think shooting at ISO 1600 or more in digital still compares with film's ISO 400 or so, because even grainy film looks great while noisy digital just doesn't.

What do you think?

-=-Joe
--
http://portfolio.streetnine.com/index.html
daily photo at http://joesnyc.com/index.html

Hi Dennis,

I shot round about 10,000 frames with the D300 in the last 15 month (mostly portrait but also, travel, land- and cityscapes, nature, street). Two weeks ago I finally bought a used D700. So my experience with this camera is still very limited. Up to now these are my subjective and non-scientific findings about these two excellent cameras.

Here is what I prefer with the D300:

• price
• weight and size
• 100% viewfinder
• better spread of AF-points
• CF-card door-release instead of info-button
• better choices of non-professional zooms for DX
• easier to cover a hugh focal range with zooms on DX

Here is what I prefer with the D700:

• noise performance (no low-iso noise, less high-iso noise, less shadow noise)
• colours (deeper and richer, higher consistency at higher iso)
• smoother tonal transitions
• no slowing down at 14-bit
• easier to choose a set-up of few high quality primes on FX
• easier to focus MF-lenses on FX

All in all I would not say that the D700 is the better camera in all situations. But for my style of shooting it seems to be the preferable tool. If I could afford it, I would keep both.

Joseph O. Holmes said:

eNo said:

I must confess I too fret quite a bit about noise. But I wonder what these pros would have done back in film days.

Click to expand...

I just took a second walk through the massive Robert Frank "Americans" exhibition at the Met this morning, and this time I spent some time taking a closer look at these 35mm B&W prints -- the grain is simply beautiful. Even in the images with lots of grain, it's simply beautiful.

In fact, I believe that kind of grain can be faked pretty damned well in Photoshop if you know what you're doing. (Protect the highlights and shadows, for instance.) I was specifically looking at some of the prints with that in mind.

But of course it's nothing like digital noise.

Click to expand...

I wonder why that is so... To me chroma noise is hideous, so we agree there, but luminance noise has the same feel, especially in blue skies. I've heard comments like yours, but I'm still trying to figure out the romance with film grain vs. the aversion to luminance noise -- which as it happens, composes the majority of the visible noise within the "reasonable" (let's say, ISO1600 and below) ISO range for a D300 or a D90.

BTW, when we talk about noise we should couple in considerations about detail and sharpness. I have taken up the practice of leaving noise in, as it was in the original RAW, unless it is absolutely a distraction. When I do apply NR, I often do it selectively to trouble areas, like skies or very visible mid-tones. Too much aversion to noise can lead to loss of detail. Just as I heard a chef defending fat in food by saying "fat is flavor" we should say "noise is detail" -- up to a point, of course. BTW, I think I read either in this discussion or in a separate thread someone claim the D300 is more detailed than the D700, which shocked me, since they're both 12MP machines.

Joseph O. Holmes said:

So even though we can shoot with less grain (noise) and shoot at higher ISOs, I think we're in maybe even a slightly worse position as far as shooting high ISO.

Click to expand...

For B&W film, perhaps. But for color film? Hmm. Not sure I agree with you there.

Joseph O. Holmes said:

That is (and I'm making wild speculation here), I think shooting at ISO 1600 or more in digital still compares with film's ISO 400 or so, because even grainy film looks great while noisy digital just doesn't.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

I've read the opposite from "experts" as recently as last month (Outdoor Photographer?) I think it comes down to what we're used to. We got used to film grain, and we now think of it with fondness and nostalgia. I wonder how younger generations of photographers growing up on digital will feel about noise when all they can get out of a P&S is spotless perfection.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's easy to argue about equipment and technique, but hard to argue with a good photograph -- and more difficult to capture one .



Gallery and blog: http://esfotoclix.com
Special selections: http://esfotoclix.imagekind.com
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22061657@N03

Hi everybody, The opinions are still being aired but in a friendly manner which is good, I have no intention of rubbishing the D300 I have had mine for 2 years and have taken a lot of excellent quality pictures with it and I have difficulty in saying why I want to change, I call it digital fever which is the same as pixel fever which at last is settling down. I feel the need to try an FF camera and for better or worse I am now commited. I also have to agree re. grain in pics. with film but somehow then it did not matter too much but even then photographers were temted with low ASA film to lessen grain, I used to use a 400 ASA film which did give grain and also Kodak infra red film with grain like marbles but you took pictures which suited this films qualities. So I have always been a keen photographer and love taking pictures so thankyou all once again and keep on snapping whatever camera you use, it is the photographer not the camera that makes the good images. Kind regards to you all, Dennis.

I've used and continue to use both professionally. Ever since I got my D700 my D300 is an excuse to not buy a TC...

I wanted to use both side by side but end up swapping lenses instead of cameras - the difference is that big...

Handling the D700 feels a lot more "natural", the resulting files are a lot smoother, less digital, at any ISO, tonal transitions, dynamic range, you name it.

It might be "newer is better syndrome" but my D300 is up for graps to fund another D700 and a TC...

--
Best Regards

Thorsten
-----------------------------
http://www.dokome.de

no, DOF at given distances changes depending on sensor size
whats not to understand ???
you are trying to compicate something which is really straight forward

eNo said:

Joseph O. Holmes said:

eNo said:

Disregard FOV, keep camera-to-subject and subject-to-background distances constant, use the same lens to keep things simple, and voila! DOF is the same.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but no one takes an actual picture that way.

To come home with the same photo from two different formats, no one disregards the FOV.

Framing the same shot on DX or full frame, it'll have a shallower DOF on the full frame.

I come home with the same image on my D300 and on my D700 at the same aperture, and the D700 will have the shallower DOF.

I like that about the D700, and that's why I said I like the shallower DOF.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. Now we're in agreement. But let's always add that "same shot/same FOV" caveat to statements that otherwise make it sound like somehow sensor size, or even a DX vs. FX lenses with the same focal lengths and apertures somehow change DOF one way or the other, when it's really the case that FOV and trying to keep it the same across formats is really the differentiator.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's easy to argue about equipment and technique, but hard to argue with a good photograph -- and more difficult to capture one .



Gallery and blog: http://esfotoclix.com
Special selections: http://esfotoclix.imagekind.com
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22061657@N03

Click to expand...

harold1968 said:

no, DOF at given distances changes depending on sensor size
whats not to understand ???
you are trying to compicate something which is really straight forward

Click to expand...

Sigh. I think we're done here... Best way for you to get this is to go out with FF and DX cameras and one lens, and take one shot with each keeping camera-to-subject and subject-to-background distances the same. There's nothing like hands on experience to demonstrate what is "really straight forward."

EDIT: Alternatively, if you want to do the math, check out the depth-of-field formula. Get back to us on which variable represents the size of the sensor.

http://www.dofmaster.com/equations.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's easy to argue about equipment and technique, but hard to argue with a good photograph -- and more difficult to capture one .



Gallery and blog: http://esfotoclix.com
Special selections: http://esfotoclix.imagekind.com
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22061657@N03

eNo said:

eNo said:

So even though we can shoot with less grain (noise) and shoot at higher ISOs, I think we're in maybe even a slightly worse position as far as shooting high ISO.

Click to expand...

For B&W film, perhaps. But for color film? Hmm. Not sure I agree with you there.

Click to expand...

True -- I'm only thinking of B&W film. And I don't do B&W photography any more.

I shot only B&W for my first 15 years or so, and then switched to color film. And then digital in the past 5 years.

So it's been a long, long time since I shot B&W film.

eNo said:

eNo said:

That is (and I'm making wild speculation here), I think shooting at ISO 1600 or more in digital still compares with film's ISO 400 or so, because even grainy film looks great while noisy digital just doesn't.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

I've read the opposite from "experts" as recently as last month (Outdoor Photographer?) I think it comes down to what we're used to. We got used to film grain, and we now think of it with fondness and nostalgia. I wonder how younger generations of photographers growing up on digital will feel about noise when all they can get out of a P&S is spotless perfection.

Click to expand...

It's hard to know.

All I can tell you is, those Robert Frank (B&W) prints were just gorgeous, grain and all, but I've never felt that way about (color) digital prints with noise.

I'll never be able to separate out my fondness for film grain. Which puts me in mind of Yeats:

http://www.artofeurope.com/yeats/yea7.htm

-=-Joe
--
http://portfolio.streetnine.com/index.html
daily photo at http://joesnyc.com/index.html

I have both and use them for quite different purposes (D300 mainly for sport because of the extra reach I can get with the 70-200VR).

I grab the D700 for almost everything else. It really shines in difficult lighting conditions and I'm not talking just low light but when the DR would challenge any other camera the D700 has this fantastic ability of not only dealing with it but giving amazing results to boot. It has a wonderful smoothness to the photos and is brilliant at capturing the mood of the moment. Providing the exposure's right, I'm still often very pleasantly surprised at how well it prevents blown highlights in difficult situations. I think Nikon have hit the nail on the head with the pixels to sensor size ratio with the D700, it's a sweet balance.

Yes it's heavier than the D300 and I would prefer a locking card door, but you can't have everything.
--
Ingrid

If the grass is greener on the other side of the fence ....
WATER YOUR OWN LAWN !!!
http://ingridmatschke.smugmug.com

Besides higher low noise ISO capability of the D700, the only other reason to go to FX is super wide lenses wider than the 15mm (full frame equivalent) currently available for DX bodies. The Nikon 14-24mm is a great lens, but in terms of coverage will not give you much more than the current 15mm wide limit of DX lens/body combos. The last time I looked the widest you can get with a rectilinear lens is the full frame Sigma 12-24mm lens (which I own and love). Its existance is the only reason I own a D700.

Based on DPR review of the D300s that low ISO images (at least blue skies) are also somewhat noisy, and Camera Labs comparative review of the D300s v the D700, seems to show noticeable noise from the D300s (none at this level from the D700) at ISOs greater than 400.

I'd like to be able to shoot exteriors down at ISO 200 where appropriate, but also interiors in available light with some modest noise up to, say, 1600 ISO. The D700 is a big budget jump for me, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with the lower ISO noise reviews so far for the D300s.

I use Lightroom quite comfortably but I'm not so sure I want to go to Nikon software to change my workflow. How successful (while fairly user friendly) would careful use of Noise Ninja or one of the other noise reduction software deal with my noise concerns if I end up choosing the D300s?

I'd like to improve the noise results of my D200 and my former D80.

Jim Mohundro