1. gramps

    gramps

    Messages:
    32,147
    Edit My Images:
    No
    ATM I think it's too early to say, I've seen both good and bad results and wonder if it's camera or user that is getting the results.
    At the moment it's £1600+ grey and £1700+ UK ... maybe at £1k I would consider it but only if I felt there was enough real advantage in improving my photography and that is yet to be established :)
     
  2. Swanseajack

    Swanseajack

    Messages:
    3,637
    Name:
    Simon
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Just a thought, and turning your question around @BillN_33 is the older glass outperformed by the newer sensors and why Nikon seem to be improving some of their lenses with the newer Phase Fresnel/Fluorite designs?
     
    wezza13 likes this.
  3. htid

    htid

    Messages:
    2,533
    Name:
    Chris
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Isn't that to decrease the weight?
     
  4. Swanseajack

    Swanseajack

    Messages:
    3,637
    Name:
    Simon
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Possibly a combination of both?.

    I'm sure I have read in the past, some of the older design lenses were for cameras like the D700 which is 12MP. We are up to 36MP (24mp more common) with Nikon and more with Sony and Canon. Again, IIRC Sony are designing lenses to outperform their current 42MP A7Rii camera.
     
  5. gramps

    gramps

    Messages:
    32,147
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I don't think PF affects IQ, as Chris says it significantly reduces weight and size, the F (Flourite) lenses are more to do with combating CA, dust & water so neither would seem to be aimed at meeting some new camera technology advancement ... however the E (Electronic Aperture) is designed to meet the higher frame rate of the newer cameras. Nowt to do with IQ though :)
     
  6. htid

    htid

    Messages:
    2,533
    Name:
    Chris
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Uh oh...I hope that doesn't mean I won't be able to get 10fps on my 500mm then since that's the older D type :confused:
     
  7. gramps

    gramps

    Messages:
    32,147
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I think it's more precautionary that de facto Chris ... D5 is 12fps continuous for up to 200 shots, when I believe it stops in case it's been activated 'in bag'. :)
     
  8. Swanseajack

    Swanseajack

    Messages:
    3,637
    Name:
    Simon
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Just had a look on the Nikon site for the 300mm PF.... Looking at their blurb it also helps with sharpness along with CA and Ghosting. Also it goes onto say that they are better for peak performance from Full Frame cameras. The old design had been around for a few years and needed updating even if it was just for VR. These new designs are the way forward, but are they worth the extra bucks for the longer lenses like the 500mm and what would the improvement be on a camera like the D810 or D500?

    "But handling isn't the only advantage; the PF element also performs brilliantly—achieve new levels of sharpness and clarity with virtually no chromatic aberration or ghosting".

    "The AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4E PF ED VR is a cutting-edge lens engineered to draw peak performance from high-resolution full-frame cameras. The Phase Fresnel element nearly eliminates chromatic aberration on its own. When combined with an Extra-low Dispersion (ED) glass element and Nano Crystal Coat (N), it delivers strikingly clear, accurate images".


    http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-nikkor-300mm-f%2f4e-pf-ed-vr.html
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2016
  9. htid

    htid

    Messages:
    2,533
    Name:
    Chris
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
  10. gramps

    gramps

    Messages:
    32,147
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I'm not surprised that Nikon 'gild the lily' on description ... take out some of the bumph and it's basically what I said above :)
     
  11. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    12,825
    Edit My Images:
    No
    shapeshifter and gramps like this.
  12. sk66

    sk66

    Messages:
    6,214
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    DX sensors make the most of FF glass because they only use the (higher IQ) center portion of the FOV... not that I ever really care about the corners w/ wildlife/sports. DX lenses are easier to design/make for the same reason, they only have to optimize a smaller image circle (or smaller portion of it).

    I've used the 300 PF lens... I would call it more of a tradeoff than an improvement. Plenty sharp and lighter, but weird bokeh (like a mirror lens).

    Sensors do out resolve lenses now, particularly depending on how they are used (aperture). But they all have more resolution than you need/can see. So loosing resolution isn't really "a problem," and there are some benefits to the higher resolution sensor even if it doesn't come through as detail (i.e. color information).

    F/11 equates to ~16MP on a full frame sensor, regardless of how many pixels the sensor has... but that's still more than you need. F/8 is ~13MP on APS, which is right around the limit of what you need. F/8 is also right at the diffraction limit for the D500 (around f/7 is the limit for the D7200).
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2016
  13. sk66

    sk66

    Messages:
    6,214
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Yeah... but that's wrong/oversimplified...
    It's not about the size of the sensor or even cropping exactly... It's about the resolution of the sensor (pixel size), resolution of the lens (IQ/aperture), and what you have left after cropping/not cropping. Simply saying DX vs FX leaves too many variables.
     
  14. gramps

    gramps

    Messages:
    32,147
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Re: DX verses FX cropped, there is a 'technical' argument and an 'in the field' argument .. personally I am of the view that for much of the wildlife shooting I do an FX cropped just does not offer the benefit of DX.
     
    shapeshifter likes this.
  15. BillN_33

    BillN_33

    Messages:
    11,994
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    This would be logical, but I have read this several times but I have also read that certain (FF) lens perform poorly on DX bodies

    I will try to find the references, but I think the Canon 70 200mm was mentioned

    but one source says one thing and the other source another
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2016
  16. sk66

    sk66

    Messages:
    6,214
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I've seen/heard of numerous cases where an old FF lens design performs worse on digital, and sensors w/ smaller pixels will emphasize that. And it's not too uncommon for older lens designs to require significant AFMA.

    And there's always specific lens/body combinations that work better/worse... I have lenses that work better on the D810 than they do on the D4, and vice versa.
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2016
  17. sk66

    sk66

    Messages:
    6,214
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    It may not; or just as likely, there is no benefit to FF cropped...so why pay for it?

    I had a D800 and a D7000 at the same time... the D800 DX crop was/is essentially identical to the D7000.
     
  18. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    12,825
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Yep I get that, but there's been an ongoing argument that a cropped FX will look better than an uncropped DX that's all :p

    Looking at that review though the D500 is sharper/ shows better detail than the D5 using the same lens so this throws some argument against the statement that DX can never be as sharp as FX due to the extra demands on the lens. Of course there's the aa filter to consider (God knows why they put this on the D5, or any modern camera for that matter) and the fact that the lenses may or may not have been calibrated, but still. A £1.7k DX body 'appears' to produce better/sharper images than a £5k FX body :eek:
     
  19. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    12,825
    Edit My Images:
    No
    That's surprising as they're roughly the same MP. In this case I would expect FX to be better :confused:
     
  20. sk66

    sk66

    Messages:
    6,214
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    It *can*... it depends on what you get out of the smaller sensor, and what size they are displayed/printed at.
     
    snerkler likes this.
  21. sk66

    sk66

    Messages:
    6,214
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Why? All of the advantages the D800 sensor has are being cropped away/discarded...
    If you are only left with a DX sensor area, then it *is* a DX sensor (or 4/3, 1", etc).
     
  22. sk66

    sk66

    Messages:
    6,214
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    BTW, one way to prevent moire is "oversampling," and that's essentially what the high resolution (small pixel) sensors do. They don't need an AA filter because they have very high resolutions but are generally displayed/printed much smaller.
     
  23. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    12,825
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Well I would have expected the D800 to have less noise and better DR etc. Resolution would be the same but I'd expect the D800 to look cleaner and sharper.
     
  24. sk66

    sk66

    Messages:
    6,214
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    It doesn't work that way... If the area remaining is the same size, and the pixels are the same size, then the image is made up with the same information (qtty of light, noise, color, etc, etc).

    Check out the comparisons in screen display mode (pixel for pixel)... http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D800-versus-Nikon-D7000___792_680

    The advantage the D800 has in the "print comparison" is due to oversampling (printing/displaying relatively smaller).
     
  25. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    12,825
    Edit My Images:
    No
    OK, if I get this right are you saying that if you downsample a D810 to match the resolution of the D7000 then the D810 will show less noise, but if you crop the D800 to match the D7000 the appearance of noise will be roughly the same? ( I say roughly as the D800 pixel size is marginally larger)
     
  26. sk66

    sk66

    Messages:
    6,214
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Yes. And the same is true for color information, DR, etc... pretty much everything. That's because for the same smaller size print/display (D7000 at 100%) the information of 4 pixels from the D800 are being combined. That's 4x the light, color data, etc, for a given pixel displayed. But when cropped that can't happen.

    We really cannot just simply say FX vs DX any more... resolution and size both affect things, but they are not directly related and they don't even necessarily correlate any more.


    *Edit: we *can* say FX vs DX when it comes to uncropped/printing
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2016
    snerkler likes this.
  27. shapeshifter

    shapeshifter

    Messages:
    1,147
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    How did you come to the conclusion that "focusing on a par" with the D7100 ?
     
  28. Gremlin

    Gremlin Cynthia

    Messages:
    13,735
    Name:
    Ingrid
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Because the guy that owned had also owned a D7100 and D7200
     
    shapeshifter likes this.
  29. BillN_33

    BillN_33

    Messages:
    11,994
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    FX v DX .... I have in the majority times found FX images to be better, (less noise) than DX, (D750 v D7200, but certainly D810 v D7200) .........but I think it may depend on the shot and how near you are

    say a small bird from 8 to 10 - FX v DX ....... and certainly if you are very near .. at almost cropable portrait head distance .... are less noisy taken from the same distance and cropped FX v DX ........ not sure what the cut off point is

    with the latest NR software, especially if you have a clean background, noise can be reduced considerably on the DX image bringing it near the FX ...... in many cases .. but when you have to go into the bird, NR get noticeable

    as I said, just my experience

    .....
     
  30. Gremlin

    Gremlin Cynthia

    Messages:
    13,735
    Name:
    Ingrid
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Perhaps I should add that the guy also had a D4s as a spare body
     
  31. sk66

    sk66

    Messages:
    6,214
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    That's why I don't own DX any more... but it also depends on your uses and how you are comparing them (100% zoom, same size print, 2048x web, etc)
    I rely on actual focal length/magnification (expensive) and getting closer. But when that is not an option, the tradeoffs become more vague.

    The general tradeoffs as I see them:
    FF captures more light per pixel (or area) and therefore has lower noise. But it requires a longer FL which (generally) has a smaller max aperture and therefore may require using a higher ISO.
    TC's increase FL for less cropping of the FF (or any) sensor. But they cost 1-2 stops of light and therefore may require a higher ISO. Plus they degrade IQ somewhat and that costs another stop or two in order to regain it (if that's even possible).
    DX/cropping doesn't require TC's or longer FL's so you can use a wider aperture/lower ISO, but they have more noise at lower ISO's (same generation/pixel count/smaller pixels).
    There is no clear winner here and it will really be dependent on the specific camera characteristics/tradeoffs being compared...
    DOF is another quality that varies with FL/TC's/sensor size/cropping...and it's not one that the calculators are much help in with understanding (I can't put it into definitive/empirical terms).

    But there is one general truth that can be applied... The larger the size of negative you have (sensor area remaining) the better the image quality will be for any given display/print size.
    Sensor resolution doesn't really matter that much because all modern sensors have more than you really need... (ever wonder why DOF/sharpness calculators (COC requirements) don't change with sensor resolution/MP's?)
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2016
  32. xmh

    xmh

    Messages:
    277
    Name:
    Jerry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Thanks. I'll guess at the distance at approx 25' - 30' for the White throat and closer for the PF about 15' - 20'

    The White throat is cropped to remove all the twigs and shrubbery that surrounded it, then reduced in size for the web, then sharpened with USM. Less cropping with the Pied but basically the same process. I did apply some light NR to the pied background.
     
    snerkler likes this.
  33. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    12,825
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Thanks for this, appreciate it.
     
    xmh likes this.
  34. macvisual

    macvisual

    Messages:
    5,401
    Name:
    Peter
    Edit My Images:
    No
    All this talk here is healthy alright, but we need photo's please.
     
    wezza13 likes this.
  35. micloi

    micloi

    Messages:
    4,903
    Name:
    Michael
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Here you are :)
     

    Attached Files:

    xmh and macvisual like this.
  36. redhed17

    redhed17

    Messages:
    5,323
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Ooh, my camera's arrived, :banana: and now waiting seemingly ages for the battery to charge. :mad: :rolleyes: :LOL:

    It didn't come with a manual (grey import), but looking back at the listing it isn't mentioned as being in the box. Ah well, I can peruse the manual with on the tablet. :)
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2016
    htid likes this.
  37. xmh

    xmh

    Messages:
    277
    Name:
    Jerry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Only about 90 mins, will seem like 300 though :D
     
  38. trevorbray

    trevorbray

    Messages:
    4,671
    Name:
    Trevor
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    FLIPPIN 'eck.
    I've got a D750 which I've taken 9 frames with since last October. Now I NEED a D500 to put with a 200-500 which I don't own....HELP...!!
     
    sk66 likes this.
  39. twist

    twist

    Messages:
    14,308
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Sell it.
     
    trevorbray and snerkler like this.
  40. wezza13

    wezza13

    Messages:
    3,224
    Name:
    Wez
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Some nice images there, Michael. Thanks for posting (y)

    Which lens were these taken with?
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice