User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » Third-Party Products »

Nikon D700 (12MP FX Sensor)


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Nikon D700 (12MP FX Sensor)
Page 3 of 5 Previous 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next Thread Tools
stevegong
www.stevegongphoto.com
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London
Send a message via AIM to stevegong Send a message via Skype™ to stevegong 
2008-08-09, 10:00

That's correct, it's 95% coverage. The viewfinder is very different compared to the previous cameras I've had: D300, D200 and the D70.

I'd say it's quite a bit nicer - things feel more dynamic and lifelike, probably because it's brighter and larger.

However, there are some weird things about it: The first day I got it, I thought I got a defective unit. When I set the diopter correct for the info strip, the scene did not seem to hold the same focus. I went to B&H to check their demo cameras, and they were the same. It seems a lot more obvious with my 17-35, especially at the wider ranges. Can someone think of a scientific explanation for this? I can't seem to find a single other person talking about this on the internets - am I just insane? The diopter difference between the strip and scene seem to be around 0.25. When the strip is in focus, at 0.0, the scene feels like it's -0.25. I do wear eyeglasses, and even with my eyeglasses, I don't think I'm at perfect eyesight. I think I'm still a little myopic at that.

The other thing that's weird about it, is that if you point the camera to a bright light source in a dark room, there seems to be some flares in the viewfinder. The red focus assist LEDs also look a lot brighter, and seem to bleed out of the focus box LCD in a diffused way. It kinda feels like you're looking through a huge piece of crystal, if that makes any sense.

TMI? Sorry if it's TMI.
  quote
stevegong
www.stevegongphoto.com
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London
Send a message via AIM to stevegong Send a message via Skype™ to stevegong 
2008-08-09, 10:19

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moogs View Post
Steve,

Didn't realize you were here on a temporary visa or... whatever the situation you have currently. Where will you go in September? Hopefully you've got something lined up?

Meantime I may humbly suggest that you think the American Dream is teh New York dream, only because you haven't been in Chicago for any length of time. Kidding. New York is a pretty cool place in some ways. There are enough detractors that I'd still prefer Chicago as a big city to live in but both have their merits and unique style.
I'm going back to Italy, and finally get the Italian citizenship that I've put off for 5 years. (You get citizenship when you turn 18, but I came to USA when that happened). Unfortunately, it's been so long since I've been in Italy that I feel a little uneasy. I've also changed so much that I'll be looking a Italy in a whole different way. Gosh, I have no idea what I'd be doing there. The place feels almost foreign to me now, and I spent the majority of my life there (14 years).

I've never been to Chicago! I really want to go, esp after this Batman stuff. Awesome.
  quote
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
2008-08-10, 14:42

hicago FTW. Well when you're off to Italy and you've found your footing after a few months or however long it takes... when you make your return visit you can do a couple nights in Chi-town and grab some great food / hit a jazz club or similar. Maybe concert in Millennium Park on the lake. New York - Chicago - SF, something like that... would be a pretty good photographer's trip!

Italy meanwhile... is an awesome place for photographers. If i had the money I'd spend a month over there photographing the small towns and countryside. Moogs' Italy book, coming to a Borders near you.

...into the light of a dark black night.
  quote
stevegong
www.stevegongphoto.com
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London
Send a message via AIM to stevegong Send a message via Skype™ to stevegong 
2008-08-17, 00:11

I tested out the camera with my 80-200 today. Something is not right, but I'm not sure what - it feels like it's underexposed yet overexposed at the same time. Maybe it's because I'm not used to Lightroom, which I'm forced to use until Apple bloody updates Aperture. So if you guys aren't too bored of this thread, here are two more pics, taken in Central Park.



  quote
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
2008-08-17, 17:47

Magically freckle-iscious. The bokeh there looks a little stark / not as subtle as one might expect. Maybe that's what you're noticing?
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2008-08-20, 15:48

So, for those watching, it looks like there are already some of those infamous euro-mag pages depicting the D3x and D90, as well as the Sony Alpha 900. Just a bit of pre-photokina German speculation perhaps, but it's a reasonable bet they already know something. Makes sense, Sony already announced the 24MP 35mm sensor some time ago. Some French retailers seem to be taking pre-orders for the D3X at 4,999 euros. The French often have the best early info. What's 4999 in $?

What ever, it's too much for me to spend, though for working photographers it will allow near medium format quality work

D90 is expected to be the D300 light. Could be good. Already been snooped in the bestbuy system bundled with a new 18-105VR for 1299.

.........................................
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2008-08-20, 16:05

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevegong View Post
Something is not right, but I'm not sure what - it feels like it's underexposed yet overexposed at the same time.
I've noticed that with many D3 shots (same sensor). I think it's just a consequence of the way the D3/D700 outputs files: plenty of mid-tone contrast, but tons of shadow detail if you want it in post, thanks to the ultra-low noise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
What's 4999 in $?
About $4999 in camera terms. Where will that leave the $8000 1Ds Mark III? Looks like the days of $8k camera bodies are nigh over. Nikon will soon give you more for less, and Canon will undoubtedly do the same very shortly, perhaps even with the 5D replacement. There's no longer any room for Canon to protect the 1Ds Mark III. A top of the range 35 mm film camera (e.g. Nikon F5, Canon EOS 1v) was never anywhere near $8k, so can the high-res full-frame sensor alone really justify $5k+? Looks like it won't in the very near future. I'm sure it costs nothing like $5k to manufacture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
D90 is expected to be the D300 light. Could be good. Already been snooped in the bestbuy system bundled with a new 18-105VR for 1299.
That lens sounds interesting, but so does the camera from what I've heard. Apparently it shoots video, which will be a first for a DSLR, and as far as I'm concerned, a bloody depressing development.

… engrossed in such factional acts as dreaming different dreams.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2008-08-20, 19:42

Could be useful if it portends of a really accurate (and fast) focusing live view mode. Toss in an articulating LCD and it will be worth the derision of more "serious" photographers.

.........................................
  quote
Eugene
careful with axes
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hillsborough, CA
 
2008-08-26, 05:23

Looks like the 50D is what the 40D should have been...
  quote
Eugene
careful with axes
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hillsborough, CA
 
2008-08-26, 05:26

Looks like the 50D is what the 40D should have been...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
D90 is expected to be the D300 light. Could be good. Already been snooped in the bestbuy system bundled with a new 18-105VR for 1299.
The rumored specs make it seem like a marginal upgrade, like the D60 was to the D40/D40x.
  quote
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
2008-08-26, 16:45

God I seriously hope they don't start adding video to DSLRs. The added circuitry and heat is likely to cause design compromises that could lessen what the image quality would've been otherwise. No thanks. Shoot video with video cameras (or crappy consumer cameras), stills with still cameras.

...into the light of a dark black night.
  quote
Frank777
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto
 
2008-08-26, 17:46

When is this mythical D90 supposed to debut?
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2008-08-26, 18:45

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post
When is this mythical D90 supposed to debut?
Patience, one more sleep...

In other news, the Canon EOS 50D debuted today, and it seems like quiet an upgrade over the 40D: 15.MP, 6fps frame rate, new anti-reflection coated 900K 3" LCD, and the kicker, Canon claims a one stop improvement in noise performance over the 40D. Might even be true, it supports expanded ISO sensitivities up to 12800. This is their APS-C sensor camera. Interesting.

.........................................
  quote
NUcleic Acid
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
 
2008-08-28, 09:22

Well the D90 is officially out if you will..... D90 from Nikon's Site
It features 12.3 MP and a new D-movie which allows it to shoot movies at up to 720p resolution (It uses manual focus). I think it uses the same chip that is in the D300. Shoots 4.5 frames per second. Lots more information. Really intrigued by this as it combines two of my upcoming purchases into one DSLR and a higher resolution video camera (I find the convenience of having both in one product pretty nice). Here is another "review" by one of the pre release testers..Chase Jarvis blog courtesy DaringFireball
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2008-08-31, 12:10

Has this thread lost a few posts?
Anyway. The video looks very interesting. It's AF and metering are not what most DV shooters are used to, but the sensor size is something that they would have never experienced before unless they shot film on actual film (where many of the same AF/metering comprimises exist) The APSC fame is just about the same size (a tad bigger, I think) as a 35mm motion capture (movie) frame. Suddenly all the same subject isolation and lens effects become possible. Stuff you needed either film, or exotic digital telecine stuff for in the past.

Current sensors have more than enough resolution for 1080P, just a matter of binning and writing the data fast enough for 24fps at that rate, probably why the D90 is limited to 720P. Storage? an issue.

Could be quite something in the hands of wedding photographer/videographers in the future...

.........................................
  quote
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
2008-08-31, 13:12

That's pretty much who it's made for IMO. Wedding photographers don't really need a D3 or similar. They just need clean noise performance and enough pixels to allow them some crop leeway, etc. If the thing can do video too... well that's a double-dip of wedding photo goodness there. I have a feeling 16GB cards will quickly become scarce....

...into the light of a dark black night.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2008-08-31, 21:34

I think that the 50D comparison might be an interesting one - sensors only, it's a different target market, though the D90 looks quite robust actually. It looks like Canon claims a generational gain in the performance of its APSC CMOS. If, at 15.1MP low light performance and dynamic range remain at least as good as the previous 8 and 10 MP sensors, then the detail and enlargeability of those files should begin that which only a full-frame could deliver just a few years ago.

.........................................
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2008-09-03, 13:10

Other interesting news: some Nikon Documents circulating the web indicate the existence of yet another camera format. DX and FX (the existing APSC crop and 35mm "full-frame") and something called MX?

Some think this might be a "rangefinder" design, but it's more likely an EVF based video/still system. I wonder if they'll introduce lenses with less flange back distance to capitalize on an absent mirror box?

.........................................
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2008-09-09, 05:56

The early samples from the 15MP 50D sensor look to be excellent - Looks like they approach the 12MP FX for noise performance right up to ISO 3200...
  quote
stevegong
www.stevegongphoto.com
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London
Send a message via AIM to stevegong Send a message via Skype™ to stevegong 
2008-09-09, 07:00

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
The early samples from the 15MP 50D sensor look to be excellent - Looks like they approach the 12MP FX for noise performance right up to ISO 3200...
Really. How are you comparing the noise levels, by pics taken in same lighting environment of same objects? If this is the case then it would be impressive, it's a smaller sensor AND it has higher pixel density.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2008-09-09, 08:01

Just rooting around the web fora on some Canon sites, sorry I don't have the specific links. But if you start at any of Luminous-landscape, fred miranda, photo.net, or Dpreview, you quickly find links to other Canon web sites.

It's very far from a scientific comparison, of which I wouldn't even know how to evaluate the methodology. I just look at the samples ...

So, the samples out there right now are resized, but we have crops to evaluate as well, and they're under brighter light, where most cameras are good, and we don't have a complete sense of the dynamic range, where often the larger sensors show their advantage, and I expect that might be limited in the crop camera, and they also show horizontal banding at 6400 and 12800, and maybe hints in the shadows of 3200, and it's got colour casts to it as well... Yet colour saturation at higher ISO, detail, and sharpness, upon admittedly superficial inspection, look to be a real improvement.

If I ask myself, how big will I print? I don't think I'm running into too many issues up to 10x14 or 12x16. In most lighting conditions based on a very limited sampling of photos out there, you could get the shot and sell it for news/editorial/wedding purposes. And you could do that with most of the crop cameras that have a decent focus and metering system. This sensor (and processing unit) is now a little better than the competition, then the competitions' will be a little better, and so on... etc... I'm a fan of progress

.........................................
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2008-10-02, 13:23

Think you may have taken Canon's marketing a bit seriously, Matsu, regarding the high-ISO performance of the new EOS 50D. Half-way down this page there is a comparison between the EOS 50D and Nikon D3 (same sensor as the D700). I have no idea who Roland Lim is, but unless he's an outright fibber the D3 fairly scalps the 50D in terms of both noise and detail at high ISO. Not only is there far less noise in the D3 examples, but the quality of the noise is more appealing too (the 50D has some dreadful artefacts and pattern noise going on at the extreme ISOs).

So a one-year-old full-frame sensor still handily beats a new crop-factor sensor. This shouldn't be surprising considering the superb performance of the three-year-old EOS 5D at high ISO. The 5D will likely also thrash the 50D in both noise and detail at high ISO.

I have a friend with a 5D. Excepting the menu system, which looks prehistoric compared to my Nikon D60's menus, and the chronic dust problems that 5D owners have to deal with, it's still a very nice camera today. Image quality soundly beats my D60's by all metrics in just about any situation.

Physics is a bitch.

… engrossed in such factional acts as dreaming different dreams.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2008-10-02, 21:29

How much of that difference would be visible under normal shooting conditions and sub 20" print sizes? Not just the 50d but other crop cams as well. I think the benefit of a D3 is supreme shooting flexibility and files with a lot of lattitude.

.........................................
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2008-10-03, 07:38

I have to agree, Dorian, upon reading that blog, it wasn't easy to read last night from my BB, so my apologies for the abbreviated post. I'll complete my thoughts here. It's obvious that in the upper ISO stratosphere the D3/D700 simply walks away from the 50D, and just about everything else, and considering that the test photos appear to be taken in decent light, it'll only get more dramatic in the dark.

However, up to merely 'high' ISO levels, say 1600-3200, you could get prints from the 50D that are good enough in the majority of cases, wouldn't you say?

4752 x 3168 gives you just shy of 20x13 at 240ppi, not bad. With a little care noise is not too damaging printed out at those densities. And when you can shoot at lower ISO, the sensor seems successful at pulling out more detail than it's predecessor. You have diminshing returns for sure, but you wouldn't get this performance from the first generation of full frame cameras from Kodak or Canon. That's kinda coool, no?

.........................................
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2008-10-03, 20:15

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
However, up to merely 'high' ISO levels, say 1600-3200, you could get prints from the 50D that are good enough in the majority of cases, wouldn't you say?
Definitely! And it's probably the best crop-factor sensor on the market at the moment. It's just interesting that even three years of development (assuming the 5D is also better than the 50D) can't get crop-factor sensors up to full-frame levels of noise performance. The manufacturers are clearly finding less and less low-hanging fruit in their efforts to make better analogue chips. A few years ago the gains were starker. Now it seems the manufacturers are relying heavily on better signal processing to deliver better results—a good thing too, of course.

That said, the improvements over the last few years have left us in a strong position. The image quality delivered even by crop-factor sensors is now superb for general purpose photography. Lenses are now the focus once again. And in this regard full-frame sensors have emerged with a significant advantage. Canon and even Nikon (despite all the pre-D3 pro cameras with DX sensors) never really committed a lot of resources to developing top-quality DX lenses. Probably because they could see the day an FX camera would be $3k, and maybe $1k in a few years.

Using FX lenses on DX sensors is a bit like using medium-format lenses on 35 mm film. Sure, you get the "sweet spot", perhaps with little or no drop-off in quality towards the corners of the DX frame, but the whole frame is softer than it would be with a lens designed for DX. At 15 megapixels with a 1.6x-crop factor, this becomes a significant factor.

Have a look at the following MTF chart for the infinity performance of the Zeiss Makro-Planar (100 mm f/2) for F-mount, set to f/4. This lens is known for its stunning image quality, and this is it at its best. This is practically as good as it gets in the consumer imaging world:



Looks great. The three sets of lines represent the transferred contrast at the usual spatial frequencies of 10, 20, and 40 line-pairs per mm, white light, etc.

A Canon EOS 5D has a 35.8 x 23.9 mm sensor with 4368 x 2912 pixels. Ignoring effects that reduce the actual resolution to below the Nyquist frequency, such as the real-world impossibility of a "brickwall" optical lowpass filter, that works out to about 60 lp/mm. So at the limits of the sensor resolution, the contrast at near 60 lp/mm is important. Extrapolating from the MTF chart, you can see that the contrast of that Zeiss at 60 lp/mm is probably below 60%. So lens quality is very important in getting the most out of a 5D.

But compare the above to the new Canon EOS 50D, which has a 22.3 x 14.9 mm sensor with 4752 x 3168 pixels. The Nyquist frequency of the sensor is well over 100 lp/mm! The contrast transfer of the Zeiss at 100 lp/mm is probably around 30-40%. I don't want to think what kit zooms are like at 100+ lp/mm.

The consequence of all this is that with an absolutely superb lens at optimum aperture you might coax more practical detail out of the 50D than the 5D. But in most shooting conditions with most lenses, you'll get more detail from the 5D. Certainly in handheld shooting, where the contrast at low spatial frequencies is more important than the peak resolution, the 5D will deliver more snap and sparkle than the 50D.

… engrossed in such factional acts as dreaming different dreams.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2008-10-03, 20:40

I wish I was diligent enough to really learn the underlying physics. I have a passing acquaintance and am happy enough to have a nose for sniffing out authoritative sources, to which I'm adding you. Luminous-landscape (Canadian boys, BTW!) have an interesting series of articles on diffraction, contrast and MTF. They surmise that for most purposes the point of diminishing returns on a FF starts at about 16MP, and 7-8 for DX...

I imagine that you could engineer DX sized glass to deliver more contrast at higher spatial frequencies, but that it would get huge and heavy and have no real size advantages over 35mm glass of equivalent speed and focal length after a certain point Likewise for FX. I imagine that you could engineer higher resolution glass to keep ramping up the total detail possible from a 35mm system, but that at some point diminishing returns limit what you can do, both in terms of size and weight and cost.

.........................................
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2008-10-03, 21:34

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
They surmise that for most purposes the point of diminishing returns on a FF starts at about 16MP, and 7-8 for DX...
That's probably a decent practical point of diminishing returns for general photography. For tripod-based work with carefully selected lenses the point will be higher of course, and lower for handheld work with fast lenses pushed to the limit at full aperture. The fact that a 50D will in perfect conditions reveal more detail than a 12-megapixel DX camera suggests it's still worth increasing the pixel count; most photography won't benefit from it, but a few images will (architecture work, for example).

Great lenses have some degree of response at even 200 lp/mm, at least on-axis, so until sensors hit that kind of resolution (about 60 megapixels for DX, 140 megapixels for FX), we'll continue to see slight increases in system resolution. Beyond the 50D the benefits of higher pixel densities will be very slight indeed though. And it will be a while before average mid-level SLR buyers are willing and able to deal with the workflow demands of those pixel counts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
I imagine that you could engineer DX sized glass to deliver more contrast at higher spatial frequencies, but that it would get huge and heavy and have no real size advantages over 35mm glass of equivalent speed and focal length after a certain point
You're probably right. You can start to see that by comparing the DX Sigma 30 mm f/1.4 to the FX Nikon 35 mm f/2. The Sigma is actually shaper at f/1.4 than the Nikkor at f/2! But it's much bigger, heavier and costlier than the Nikkor despite covering a smaller frame. (It also has widespread focusing problems, perhaps because Sigma had to reverse-engineer the focusing algorithms. This isn't relevant to this discussion except to highlight the lack of truly viable DX lenses on the market.)

It's the problem Olympus has run into with the Four-Thirds system too. Despite the smaller frame, the lenses are very large and heavy—sometimes bigger than equivalent full-frame lenses. But because they've been designed for the smaller sensor, they deliver superb optical results. It's a shame Olympus doesn't yet have a sensor to really take advantage of that optical performance.

Taken to a further extreme, consider a Zeiss DigiPrime lens for digital cinematography. These lenses are enormous, have up to 19 elements, weigh about 1.5 kg, cost tens of thousands of dollars each, and cover a frame just 9.59 x 5.39 mm (a crop-factor of 3.9 compared to 35 mm full-frame). But they have an MTF upwards of 90% at 56 lp/mm.

… engrossed in such factional acts as dreaming different dreams.
  quote
julesstoop
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Leiden, the Netherlands
 
2008-10-03, 22:16

The problem with high resolution sensors will be noise, simply because individual pixels will get too small. So small that per pixel photon count will be important.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...ensor-size.htm

A black hole is where god divided by zero.
http://settuno.com/
  quote
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
2008-10-04, 07:22

Quote:
Originally Posted by julesstoop View Post
The problem with high resolution sensors will be noise, simply because individual pixels will get too small. So small that per pixel photon count will be important.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...ensor-size.htm
Great article link Jules... thanks for posting that. Always good to brush up on some of this stuff....
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2008-10-04, 11:06

Hey Dorian, I guess it's a bit of a case of the more things change, the more they stay the same. It may be easier to provide larger sensors than it will be to make sharper lenses. And given that the cost of making sensors is bound to fall faster than the cost of making lenses, it points to good things for full frame followers.

I've read that the new Sigma 50 is also very sharp, and it is also huge compared to the Nikon and Canon 50s. Have you heard anything about it having focus issues?

I guess the next big advance is to have "full colour" sensors a la Foveon or some other multi-layer system. Nikon showed a patent drawing over a year ago that seemed to use a dicrohic micro-mirror arrangement to record R G and B values at each photosite.

.........................................
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 3 of 5 Previous 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Black and White Photos Thread Windswept Creative Endeavors 352 2022-03-03 08:33
Nikon Better Act Fast... Moogs General Discussion 171 2008-04-19 14:11
Clicking HDD due to oversensitive motion sensor? ghoti Genius Bar 4 2008-02-21 16:07
Nike + not recognizing the sensor Sargasm Genius Bar 0 2007-05-31 02:06


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:04.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova