Since getting my D700 I have noticed a big improvement in all my lenses, more so wide open and 1.4 and 1.8 etc. Insanely sharp. I find I just keep them wide open when possible. Sharpness is off the charts. Did any of you guys have similar experiences?
Full Frame lens performance
- Thread starter TonyNI
- Start date
The higher dynamic range, and lower pixel density are to blame
The lower pixel density is more tolerant of human or mechanical error, which is why you see so much concern regarding lens choice and good technique on the D800 threads.
another thing I wasn't too keen on was how the D7000 rendered skin(although its easily fixable in PP) When I was using the canon 5D MK2 it really made me think about how bad skin rendition was on my D7000. The skin tones seemed too saturated. Maybe Im just imaging it! i think the 5D MK2 without a doubt straight OOC renders colours amazingly accurate and the D700 adds that extra oomph to them!
Either way Im glad I got a FF camera and will maybe even get the rumoured D600
- Messages
- 7,821
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I always use "Neutral" picture control for serious portrait stuff, seems to give a nice skin tone, not as 'red' as the other settings
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
HoppyUK will be along later to tell you why in more detail but essentially it's because the lens is working less hard on a full frame camera. Think about it - you take a photo of a scene with lots of detail. You take the same photo on full frame and crop - the lens on the crop has to work harder to get the same amount of information into the image on the smaller sensor.
Simples.
Simples.
yeah. So why do manufacturers keep bumping the MP up to insane levels! Pixel peepers must be in their element these days. 12MP is enough for people that dont crop too often
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Exactly right. It's lens MTF at work, basic physics that most people seem to forget about. As resolution demands go up, so image contrast (that contributes most to perceived sharpness) goes down.
D7000 vs D700 is a good comparison because they have basically similar pixel counts, but the larger format gives the lens a much easier ride.
a) Because pixels sell cameras.
b) When it gets to the D800's 36mp level, you can effectively have two cameras in one. Cropped down to 1.5x format, there's still 16mp left - same as the D7000. Plus the camera will run at 6fps, and it stops eating memory cards and clogging up your computer.
Nikon users don't seem to have picked up on this much yet, still blinded by their pixel peeping. But the potential is there, and it's a trick Canon cannot match (yet
).
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 44,034
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
These days wouldn't it be great if someone decided to make something like 8-12mp and maximised for image quality?
I suppose it would have to be a high end niche model, be nice to see though.
Just in case you were not aware, young Tones has just upgraded to a D700 and would like everyone to know about it.
No doubt he will be soon talking about his inspiring new gold rimmed lens.
Just taking the **** mate.
Just as long as my pictures don't degrade to the quality yours son!! LOL
Full frame had no impact on me making money from photography all my work was booked before I even bought one haha
EDIT - Yeah the lens is great. Sorry you don't have one of the same standard lol ( the big sigma doesnt count!)
and I know you love me really biglad
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,864
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm in the same situation as yourself Tony.
I have a D7000, and on sunday managed to find a new D700 to buy. Since then I have been working my way through the menus to get it set the way I want it.
As far as the lenses go, I put on my "fussiest" lens, a Nikon 135mm f2 DC. On the 7000 this lens is not the easiest to use, and needs +18 in the finetune menu to get it sharp. Initially I was a bit disappointed, as this is supposed to be one of the sharpest lenses ever.
Anyway, put it on the d700, and what a difference ! Straight off, amazing, sharp images with no af fine tune.
To say I am a happy bunny is a huge understatement !
Raymond Lin
I am Groot
- Messages
- 10,564
- Name
- Raymond
- Edit My Images
- No
b) When it gets to the D800's 36mp level, you can effectively have two cameras in one. Cropped down to 1.5x format, there's still 16mp left - same as the D7000. Plus the camera will run at 6fps, and it stops eating memory cards and clogging up your computer.
Nikon users don't seem to have picked up on this much yet, still blinded by their pixel peeping. But the potential is there, and it's a trick Canon cannot match (yet
I don't know why they don't do this, they could do 1.3x rather than 1.6 and still have a reasonable high count from the 5Diii or 1DX.
Surely it is just a software that needs updating.
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
a) Because pixels sell cameras.
b) When it gets to the D800's 36mp level, you can effectively have two cameras in one. Cropped down to 1.5x format, there's still 16mp left - same as the D7000. Plus the camera will run at 6fps, and it stops eating memory cards and clogging up your computer.
Nikon users don't seem to have picked up on this much yet, still blinded by their pixel peeping. But the potential is there, and it's a trick Canon cannot match (yet
I think you're right about a).
b) I'm not so sure of. You can still crop in post and still gain the 16mp photos if you want. I'd rather do this in post without losing much (except file space), you do only gain 2fps as well, which if its that important, surely you'd go for a d3s or d4 instead. Its an interesting argument, but I suspect a distraction.
The same applies to the 'croppers' camera argument. Just because you have 36mp doesn't mean the principles of fill the frame and composition are gone.
Although I'll give you the file sizes though. I'm just retouching something which with the addition of 3 layers has somehow grown to a TIFF file size of 533mb. Flattened TIFFs are in the region of 200 mb, RAWS 45-50 which is liveable with though.
Its true, the camera does absolutely challenge your lenses, and you do need to consider this when editing. I'm not sure anyone who's really using it is pixel peeping though.
One thing that does appear to have gotten a little lost in all the pixel peeping/file size/challenges/speculators etc etc........ is the phenomenal image quality that comes out of it, the fantastic dynamic range,and the level of detail that it captures. Of course this needs to be offset against some of the challenges presented. But with good technique and the glass the body demands the photographs are fantastic.
What do you mean maximised for IQ? In what way?
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 44,034
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I mean maximised for image quality. Built to give the maximum possible image quality.
- Messages
- 1,864
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Surely that's what all the camera manufacturers aspire to?
- Messages
- 180
- Name
- Georges
- Edit My Images
- No
talking of pixels. I am not sure it does not matter and they re just a gimmick to sell.
Interesting article
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/pixel_matters.html
Interesting article
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/pixel_matters.html
- Messages
- 689
- Name
- Luis
- Edit My Images
- No
I guess you should also consider AF focus accuracy.
Maybe your old camera tended to front or back focus a little and that is more noticed when using bigger apertures.
Or maybe its AF was just not so good.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
That article was written in March, before either the 5D3 or D800 was actually available. Cameras like the D800 and also the little Nikon V1 (and some others) appear to contradict the 'higher pixel density equals more noise' theory.
I used to believe it myself, because that is what experience showed, but bottom line is there is the same amount of light falling on a sensor of given size, regardless of pixel density. So in theory, there's same amount of basic raw material available - photons - to work with.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Higher pixel density equals more noise if the image is not well exposed - i.e. when you are fighting for signal within the noise. Outside that, it shouldn't matter the density when you print it.
Pixel peeping will probably be different though....
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Generally, no. The smaller the sensor, the better the lens has to be to get the detail onto the pixels.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Often not, as Andy says. Because the same optical principles apply regardless of format.
But lens design includes a whole bunch of compromises, one of which is cost of course, but it's also true that if a lens only has to cover a smaller sensor area then that's one big limitation lifted.
For example, you can have more focal length range, or run lower f/numbers. Look at the incredible zooms we get on compacts, or the sub-f/1 lenses for M4/3rds, the f/2 zooms that Olympus makes. Can't do that on full-frame.
I think that if you were able to put a top grade lens from a M4/3rds camera on a full framer, or maybe one of the new Nikon lenses for the V1, then the performance would be astonishingly good, ie amazingly sharp. But you can't do that.
Bottom line is, when it all shakes out, bigger always wins.
- Messages
- 1,147
- Name
- Adam
- Edit My Images
- No
The higher dynamic range, and lower pixel density are to blame
The lower pixel density is more tolerant of human or mechanical error, which is why you see so much concern regarding lens choice and good technique on the D800 threads.
good point there
my 12mp D2XS is much more lens picky than my full frame 12mp D3
lovely when you get it right though
Cheers for explaining it makes more sense now I guess it proves less megapixels and larger sensor is better for getting better results with good glass.