Reading mode: Light Dark

D3300 to D810/D850 for landscape photography?

Go to last post
a-b

a-b

New member
Messages
5
Reaction score
1
Location
US
I've had my first DSLR, a Nikon D3300, for two years now. I originally bought it for bird photography with a used Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 which has been quite enjoyable (despite the optical stabilization being incompatible with the firmware). About a year ago I bought a Tokina 11-20mm f/2.8 for a trip to the southwest and have been really enjoying landscape photography. I have a lot of 12"x18" prints that I'm happy with, but I would like to print at 24"x36" and larger, and the detail in RAW files from the D3300 just don't seem to cut it even at ISO 100. A bit more room for highlights and less shadow noise would be nice too.

Studio scene comparison, D3300, D750, D810, D850

I've looked at the D750 in the studio scene comparison and it seems a bit sharper than the D3300 but without really adding much detail (although it doesn't look artificially sharpened like the A7 iii either). I wouldn't expect to be able to print any larger from the D750. The D810 and D850 seem noticeably better than either even if you handicap them at ISO 400, presumably just due to resolution.

I don't expect a new camera to suddenly compose better photos for me, but I also don't want to end up with a heavier and more expensive body that I'm not getting value out of. When I bought the D3300 I had convinced myself that it was the sweet spot of price/performance and now that comes back to haunt me whenever I consider upgrading to full frame.

Do you think upgrading to a D810 or D850 is worth it? A used D810 would leave a reasonable lens budget. With the price of a D850 I would probably stick with my Tokina 11-20mm for now as it fills a full frame image circle at 16-20mm. I'm wary of spending more on a body and skimping on lenses though.
 
Keep D3300; get 50 mm f1.8 G, shoot at f8, stitch
 
I will not try to talk you out of upgrading to a D8XX series camera, I am thinking of getting a D810 myself, but would ask that you question your MP needs. I currently only have 24MP bodies, but have printed as wide as 54" with very nice results. Going FX may open up some nice options regarding wide angle lenses, and that itself may be worth the upgrade. I think with the smallish premium for D810's vs D750's it may be a logical jump for you given your preference for landscapes, but you should insure the premium you pay is warranted.

On the question of D850 vs D810 I think if you'd have to use DX lenses with the former, the better move would be to spend a bit less on the body to leave some budget for the lenses.
 
Last edited:
I tried the Tokina 11-20 on my D850 and the results are really bad. Sharpness is nowhere near what I get with my 20mm f/1.8 or a 24-70 VR. Maybe it's just my copy which is bad, but it performs reasonably well on my D500.
I think it would be good thing if you would rent a D810 or D850 and test it with your lens as a first step. Or just try it in a store with your lens and take the test pictures home for closer inspection.

If you really want the pixels and the dynamic range, a D810 and a a good lens (20mm f/1.8, 16-35 f/4, 18-35 f/3.5-4.5G, samyang/rokinon/irix/laowa UWA...) is the most sane choice I think.

If you don't have to look too closely at your budget, I would always pick the D850 over the D810 because of all the small improvements. Though nothing really necessary for landscape work except the focus shift and focus peaking maybe.

And be aware since you are coming from a D3300, the FX world is usually way bigger and heavier (cameras and lenses). So maybe you additionally have to spend some bucks on a better tripod + head, bigger backpack, yadda yadda yadda.

And be prepared for the huge RAW files a D810/D850 delivers. ;)

HTH,
Rico
 
a-b said:
I've had my first DSLR, a Nikon D3300, for two years now. I originally bought it for bird photography with a used Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 which has been quite enjoyable (despite the optical stabilization being incompatible with the firmware). About a year ago I bought a Tokina 11-20mm f/2.8 for a trip to the southwest and have been really enjoying landscape photography. I have a lot of 12"x18" prints that I'm happy with, but I would like to print at 24"x36" and larger, and the detail in RAW files from the D3300 just don't seem to cut it even at ISO 100. A bit more room for highlights and less shadow noise would be nice too.

Studio scene comparison, D3300, D750, D810, D850

I've looked at the D750 in the studio scene comparison and it seems a bit sharper than the D3300 but without really adding much detail (although it doesn't look artificially sharpened like the A7 iii either). I wouldn't expect to be able to print any larger from the D750. The D810 and D850 seem noticeably better than either even if you handicap them at ISO 400, presumably just due to resolution.

I don't expect a new camera to suddenly compose better photos for me, but I also don't want to end up with a heavier and more expensive body that I'm not getting value out of. When I bought the D3300 I had convinced myself that it was the sweet spot of price/performance and now that comes back to haunt me whenever I consider upgrading to full frame.

Do you think upgrading to a D810 or D850 is worth it? A used D810 would leave a reasonable lens budget. With the price of a D850 I would probably stick with my Tokina 11-20mm for now as it fills a full frame image circle at 16-20mm. I'm wary of spending more on a body and skimping on lenses though.
Click to expand...
Low shutter count D800e 999

Sigma 50 799

Nikon 24mm 1.8 750

Samyang 14 379

Total 2927

Welcome to world class landscape photography. Any of the Nikon 1.8 G series are excellent, 20, 24, 28, 35, 50. I mostly use the 28, which is my best balance of angle of view vs distortion. If I need wider than 28, I stitch.
 
a-b said:
Do you think upgrading to a D810 or D850 is worth it? A used D810 would leave a reasonable lens budget. With the price of a D850 I would probably stick with my Tokina 11-20mm for now as it fills a full frame image circle at 16-20mm. I'm wary of spending more on a body and skimping on lenses though.
Click to expand...
Consider a D800 or D800E. Indeed, for landscapes shot at f/11 there isn't going to be an appreciable difference between a D800, a D800E, or a D810. Also, consider a better DX camera such as a D7200. If I were you I would stick with DX and concentrate on getting better lenses.

In addition to better lenses you also need a good tripod, in that order (though your Tokina might be good enough on a DX camera to justify buying the tripod first). Cranking up the ISO is not the answer, so if your not living at ISO 100 when wind or other motion is not an issue than you are not optimizing the gear you have when it comes to landscapes. Last point I would make is that when going from DX to FX you will be stopping the lens down more, and doing that equivalence becomes an issue too, so often there is no appreciable difference going from a D7200 to a D750 if all you are doing is going from ISO 100 on the D7200 to using ISO 200 on the D750 (though lenses will become a factor).
 
  • Like
Reactions: a-b
a-b said:
I've had my first DSLR, a Nikon D3300, for two years now. I originally bought it for bird photography with a used Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 which has been quite enjoyable (despite the optical stabilization being incompatible with the firmware). About a year ago I bought a Tokina 11-20mm f/2.8 for a trip to the southwest and have been really enjoying landscape photography. I have a lot of 12"x18" prints that I'm happy with, but I would like to print at 24"x36" and larger, and the detail in RAW files from the D3300 just don't seem to cut it even at ISO 100. A bit more room for highlights and less shadow noise would be nice too.

Studio scene comparison, D3300, D750, D810, D850

I've looked at the D750 in the studio scene comparison and it seems a bit sharper than the D3300 but without really adding much detail (although it doesn't look artificially sharpened like the A7 iii either). I wouldn't expect to be able to print any larger from the D750. The D810 and D850 seem noticeably better than either even if you handicap them at ISO 400, presumably just due to resolution.

I don't expect a new camera to suddenly compose better photos for me, but I also don't want to end up with a heavier and more expensive body that I'm not getting value out of. When I bought the D3300 I had convinced myself that it was the sweet spot of price/performance and now that comes back to haunt me whenever I consider upgrading to full frame.

Do you think upgrading to a D810 or D850 is worth it? A used D810 would leave a reasonable lens budget. With the price of a D850 I would probably stick with my Tokina 11-20mm for now as it fills a full frame image circle at 16-20mm. I'm wary of spending more on a body and skimping on lenses though.
Click to expand...
Goal: Images with more resolution to print larger

Essentially two paths present themselves:

1) All-in-one solution with new camera of higher resolution, e.g. D850, Canon 5Dsr, etc. and lenses (perhaps the Tamron 15-30 for example). High cost, lower effort.

2) Supplement D3300 with tripod, ballhead, clamps, and nodal slides for multi-exposure image stitching (effective resolution can greatly exceed that of all-in-one, btw). Low cost, higher effort.

I don't have weight figures, but there are trade-offs (heavier body and lenses versus added tripod and supports) on both paths.

Which is of interest to you?
 
Sara Valentine said:
Goal: Images with more resolution to print larger

Essentially two paths present themselves:

1) All-in-one solution with new camera of higher resolution, e.g. D850, Canon 5Dsr, etc. and lenses (perhaps the Tamron 15-30 for example). High cost, lower effort.

2) Supplement D3300 with tripod, ballhead, clamps, and nodal slides for multi-exposure image stitching (effective resolution can greatly exceed that of all-in-one, btw). Low cost, higher effort.

I don't have weight figures, but there are trade-offs (heavier body and lenses versus added tripod and supports) on both paths.

Which is of interest to you?
Click to expand...
Problem with the second option is that the D3300 has no MLU which makes any kind of tripod work problematic.
 
Tony Beach said:
Sara Valentine said:
Goal: Images with more resolution to print larger

Essentially two paths present themselves:

1) All-in-one solution with new camera of higher resolution, e.g. D850, Canon 5Dsr, etc. and lenses (perhaps the Tamron 15-30 for example). High cost, lower effort.

2) Supplement D3300 with tripod, ballhead, clamps, and nodal slides for multi-exposure image stitching (effective resolution can greatly exceed that of all-in-one, btw). Low cost, higher effort.

I don't have weight figures, but there are trade-offs (heavier body and lenses versus added tripod and supports) on both paths.

Which is of interest to you?
Click to expand...
Problem with the second option is that the D3300 has no MLU which makes any kind of tripod work problematic.
Click to expand...
That’s rather overstated. OP can use delayed timer mode first and compensate through additional captures at slightly larger focal lengths first. If at that point resolution is still lacking, the lack of mirror up release can be addressed.
 
TOF guy said:
Sara Valentine said:
TOF guy said:
Sara said:
Tony said:
Problem is that the D3300 has no MLU which makes any kind of tripod work problematic.
Click to expand...
That’s rather overstated.
Click to expand...
No that is correctly stated

--
Thierry - posted as regular forum member
Click to expand...
False. I can do plenty of tripod work without mirror up release. And so can the OP. It is misleading in its entirety.
Click to expand...
Sure you can and come up with a lot of images which won;t be tack sharp :-P .

--
Thierry - posted as regular forum member
Click to expand...
You don't need tack sharpness when you have infinite resolution.
 
Last edited:
Sara Valentine said:
You don't need tack sharpness when you have infinite resolution.
Click to expand...
There is no such a thing as infinite resolution. But more resolution does not alleviate the need for tack sharp pictures, quite the contrary.
 
Sara Valentine said:
TOF guy said:
Sara Valentine said:
TOF guy said:
Sara said:
Tony said:
Problem is that the D3300 has no MLU which makes any kind of tripod work problematic.
Click to expand...
That’s rather overstated.
Click to expand...
No that is correctly stated
Click to expand...
False. I can do plenty of tripod work without mirror up release. And so can the OP. It is misleading in its entirety.
Click to expand...
Sure you can and come up with a lot of images which won;t be tack sharp :-P .
Click to expand...
You don't need tack sharpness when you have infinite resolution.
Click to expand...
There are two problems with your argument (aside from Thierry's point about "infinite" resolution), which is why it is "problematic." First, delays in triggering the MLU slow down a process that is already slow. Second, if there is detail that is unresolved at 50mm and you increase the focal length to 100mm then the factors that caused you to lose detail at 50mm are magnified (camera shake will increase at the longer focal length and the need for support will increase accordingly) which means in a best case scenario you are getting diminishing returns as you increase by a factor of four (two extra frames on each axis) the work you are putting into attempting to double the resolution (which will not double, if it in fact does anything other than just make your final file significantly larger with little or no extra resolution).
 
Last edited:
Tony Beach said:
Sara Valentine said:
TOF guy said:
Sara Valentine said:
TOF guy said:
Sara said:
Tony said:
Problem is that the D3300 has no MLU which makes any kind of tripod work problematic.
Click to expand...
That’s rather overstated.
Click to expand...
No that is correctly stated
Click to expand...
False. I can do plenty of tripod work without mirror up release. And so can the OP. It is misleading in its entirety.
Click to expand...
Sure you can and come up with a lot of images which won;t be tack sharp :-P .
Click to expand...
You don't need tack sharpness when you have infinite resolution.
Click to expand...
There are two problems with your argument (aside from Thierry's point about "infinite" resolution), which is why it is "problematic." First, delays in triggering the MLU slow down a process that is already slow. Second, if there is detail that is unresolved at 50mm and you increase the focal length to 100mm then the factors that caused you to lose detail at 50mm are magnified (camera shake will increase at the longer focal length and the need for support will increase accordingly) which means in a best case scenario you are getting diminishing returns as you increase by a factor of four (two extra frames on each axis) the work you are putting into attempting to double the resolution (which will not double, if it in fact does anything other than just make your final file significantly larger with little or no extra resolution).
Click to expand...
Let's be accurate Tony.

The D3300 doesn't have MLU as you pointed out. I don't know what strawman this is you're creating here so I can't address it.

Second, the main factor that led to loss of such detail at 50mm is lens based, i.e. MTF at high spatial frequency. Hence using a longer focal length which will, generally, have greater MTF for those details which are now at a lower spatial frequency.

Are the returns diminishing, yes. But that doesn't preclude the D3300 from accomplishing the current goals of the OP. The OP doesn't have to go out and buy $5000 of new gear simply because the D3300 lacks Mup mode.
 
Sara Valentine said:
Tony Beach said:
Sara Valentine said:
TOF guy said:
Sara Valentine said:
TOF guy said:
Sara said:
Tony said:
Problem is that the D3300 has no MLU which makes any kind of tripod work problematic.
Click to expand...
That’s rather overstated.
Click to expand...
No that is correctly stated
Click to expand...
False. I can do plenty of tripod work without mirror up release. And so can the OP. It is misleading in its entirety.
Click to expand...
Sure you can and come up with a lot of images which won;t be tack sharp :-P .
Click to expand...
You don't need tack sharpness when you have infinite resolution.
Click to expand...
There are two problems with your argument (aside from Thierry's point about "infinite" resolution), which is why it is "problematic." First, delays in triggering the MLU slow down a process that is already slow. Second, if there is detail that is unresolved at 50mm and you increase the focal length to 100mm then the factors that caused you to lose detail at 50mm are magnified (camera shake will increase at the longer focal length and the need for support will increase accordingly) which means in a best case scenario you are getting diminishing returns as you increase by a factor of four (two extra frames on each axis) the work you are putting into attempting to double the resolution (which will not double, if it in fact does anything other than just make your final file significantly larger with little or no extra resolution).
Click to expand...
Let's be accurate Tony.

The D3300 doesn't have MLU as you pointed out. I don't know what strawman this is you're creating here so I can't address it.
Click to expand...
If you don't know what I'm talking about, then don't presume it's a "Strawman argument." The issue is that the D3300 is not a good choice for landscape work because it doesn't have MLU -- full stop.
Sara Valentine said:
Second, the main factor that led to loss of such detail at 50mm is lens based, i.e. MTF at high spatial frequency. Hence using a longer focal length which will, generally, have greater MTF for those details which are now at a lower spatial frequency.
Click to expand...
You're ignoring the role of DOF and diffraction, so as you stop down to get back DOF you increase diffraction, and you also slow down the shutter speed (or raise the ISO). You are also ignoring the greater magnification of vibration that a 100mm lens will record compared to a 50mm lens. Finally, if you have a blurry 50mm shot then even disregarding all of the above you may well any resolution replacing it with a blurry 100mm shot.
Sara Valentine said:
Are the returns diminishing, yes. But that doesn't preclude the D3300 from accomplishing the current goals of the OP. The OP doesn't have to go out and buy $5000 of new gear simply because the D3300 lacks Mup mode.
Click to expand...
An $800 D7200 will do, but thanks for the excellent example of a Strawman argument.
 
Tony Beach said:
Sara Valentine said:
Tony Beach said:
Sara Valentine said:
TOF guy said:
Sara Valentine said:
TOF guy said:
Sara said:
Tony said:
Problem is that the D3300 has no MLU which makes any kind of tripod work problematic.
Click to expand...
That’s rather overstated.
Click to expand...
No that is correctly stated
Click to expand...
False. I can do plenty of tripod work without mirror up release. And so can the OP. It is misleading in its entirety.
Click to expand...
Sure you can and come up with a lot of images which won;t be tack sharp :-P .
Click to expand...
You don't need tack sharpness when you have infinite resolution.
Click to expand...
There are two problems with your argument (aside from Thierry's point about "infinite" resolution), which is why it is "problematic." First, delays in triggering the MLU slow down a process that is already slow. Second, if there is detail that is unresolved at 50mm and you increase the focal length to 100mm then the factors that caused you to lose detail at 50mm are magnified (camera shake will increase at the longer focal length and the need for support will increase accordingly) which means in a best case scenario you are getting diminishing returns as you increase by a factor of four (two extra frames on each axis) the work you are putting into attempting to double the resolution (which will not double, if it in fact does anything other than just make your final file significantly larger with little or no extra resolution).
Click to expand...
Let's be accurate Tony.

The D3300 doesn't have MLU as you pointed out. I don't know what strawman this is you're creating here so I can't address it.
Click to expand...
If you don't know what I'm talking about, then don't presume it's a "Strawman argument." The issue is that the D3300 is not a good choice for landscape work because it doesn't have MLU -- full stop.
Click to expand...
It's clear in black and white above, Tony. "First, delays in triggering the MLU slow down a process that is already slow" You wrote that. There is no MLU in the D3300.
Tony Beach said:
Tony Beach said:
Second, the main factor that led to loss of such detail at 50mm is lens based, i.e. MTF at high spatial frequency. Hence using a longer focal length which will, generally, have greater MTF for those details which are now at a lower spatial frequency.
Click to expand...
You're ignoring the role of DOF and diffraction, so as you stop down to get back DOF you increase diffraction, and you also slow down the shutter speed (or raise the ISO). You are also ignoring the greater magnification of vibration that a 100mm lens will record compared to a 50mm lens. Finally, if you have a blurry 50mm shot then even disregarding all of the above you may well any resolution replacing it with a blurry 100mm shot.
Click to expand...
It's better to have a longer shutter duration if worried about vibration from mirror slap.

I'm not ignoring the magnification from the change in focal length. I'm saying it's not as limiting an issue as you claim it to be and that there are more impactful issues to deal with: MTF of the lens.
Tony Beach said:
Tony Beach said:
Are the returns diminishing, yes. But that doesn't preclude the D3300 from accomplishing the current goals of the OP. The OP doesn't have to go out and buy $5000 of new gear simply because the D3300 lacks Mup mode.
Click to expand...
An $800 D7200 will do, but thanks for the excellent example of a Strawman argument.
Click to expand...
You're right Tony. Bringing up a D7200 is another excellent example of the strawmen you like to create.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top