Is D3 Recommended for Studio shoot?
- Thread starter surflim
- Start date
- Status
Here are some non-sports links from pre-production D3. It shows that you have not been following the postings.. ;p
http://cliffmautner.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/09/ok-its-after-1a.html
http://www.craigsactions.com/Tips/NikonD3FirstTest.html
http://press.nikonusa.com/2007/09/nikon_d3_sample_images.php
This link scroll all the way down for the portrait of the fireman by Joe McNally. I'll link it here..
Anyway, always remember, when you blow an image big, you are not going to view it up close. Many times, in the case of D2X, the sensor has outresolved the optics. IMO, 12mp is convenient for storage and editing. It is already larger than a 16-base 35mm film scan.
Otherwise, if you really need the resolution, I am speculating that Nikon might release a >20mp D3X end of next year or early 2009. If Nikon maintains the same pixel density as D300's sensor to give 12mp for DX, FX would give 27mp, but I guess it might probably be something in between to give maybe 10MP DX and 22MP FX to give a better noise performance than the D300. It will definitely be slower than D3 and you will have to sacrifice some high ISO performance.
If you look at the 100% image of the fireman, you willl find that the limiting resolution still seems to be the optics. If that's the case, you would not get any better image even if you up the MP count. So at the end of the day, it did made me think if it's really necessary to go for higher MP count. Maybe it would be useful if you do cropping a lot but the price difference between a D3 and a D3X might be able to get you a spare D300 body. ;p
Ah Np! Got it now!
Here are some non-sports links from pre-production D3. It shows that you have not been following the postings.. ;p
http://cliffmautner.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/09/ok-its-after-1a.html
http://www.craigsactions.com/Tips/NikonD3FirstTest.html
http://press.nikonusa.com/2007/09/nikon_d3_sample_images.php
This link scroll all the way down for the portrait of the fireman by Joe McNally. I'll link it here..
Anyway, always remember, when you blow an image big, you are not going to view it up close. Many times, in the case of D2X, the sensor has outresolved the optics. IMO, 12mp is convenient for storage and editing. It is already larger than a 16-base 35mm film scan.
Otherwise, if you really need the resolution, I am speculating that Nikon might release a >20mp D3X end of next year or early 2009. If Nikon maintains the same pixel density as D300's sensor to give 12mp for DX, FX would give 27mp, but I guess it might probably be something in between to give maybe 10MP DX and 22MP FX to give a better noise performance than the D300. It will definitely be slower than D3 and you will have to sacrifice some high ISO performance.
If you look at the 100% image of the fireman, you willl find that the limiting resolution still seems to be the optics. If that's the case, you would not get any better image even if you up the MP count. So at the end of the day, it did made me think if it's really necessary to go for higher MP count. Maybe it would be useful if you do cropping a lot but the price difference between a D3 and a D3X might be able to get you a spare D300 body. ;p
Isisaxon,
Sorry to bother! how do you really tells the different in resolution limiting in Optics and MP?
If a transition containing high resolution information (eg the edge of a sharp line) in the image stretches across more than 3-4 pixels, then it's optics limited. If it's sensor limited, that means the lens is sharp and should be able to form the transition within 2-3 pixels. It is rare to see transition across 1-2 pixels due to the anti-aliasing filter.
psychobiologist
Senior Member
why not? its a good choice.
you can use longer lenses, greater field of view due to no crop, and most importantly, increase in depth of field at a given working distance due to fullframe.
you can use longer lenses, greater field of view due to no crop, and most importantly, increase in depth of field at a given working distance due to fullframe.
chanjyj
New Member
:dunno:
increase in DOF? I think it's the other way round?
Whatever is DOF increase/decrease is very subjective.
psychobiologist
Senior Member
at a given working distance, using a film or a 1.5x crop factor cam, depth of field is different. i'm too lazy to do the math, but there is more depth of field on the FF, and greater field of view at the same time
at a len's min foc distance, film will have more dof than apc as well
wildstallion
Senior Member
Max A3 for raw? I completely disagree. We have printed above and beyond A3 with great results. If you know how to use it, the D2X cant print at A1 just as easily as A3 with no serious issue.
I think you're mixed up. APS-C gives slightly deeper DOF than APS-H, which in turn gives slightly deeper DOF than full-frame/35mm format.
I think you'll recall the joys of shooting on film and the subject pop from a large-aperture lens that seems a little subdued on APS-C.
If I'm not mistaken, a f/5.6 lens on 35mm/FF, will give the same DOF as an f/4 on an APS-C medium. I think the math works something like this.
Agree with you. Have gone beyond 16" x 24" colour print with no image quality lost on the D2X.
There are people who use D1X images to print huge posters!
Clockunder
New Member
Yes, you’re right.
If the working distance and focal length are the same, then there is more (i.e. deeper) DOF and field of view for full frame at a given aperture F number.
Mathematically, the “DOF equivalent aperture” is the full frame aperture F number multiplied by their relative image sensor size ratio.
For e.g.
DOF @F/5.6 on full frame = DOF @F/8.4 (i.e. 5.6 x 1.5) on a 1.5x crop sensor.
(or F/11.2 for Olympus DSLR).
This means that F/5.6 on a full frame has a greater DOF than F/5.6 on a 1.5x crop factor sensor.
However, that is only part of the whole story. Don't forget that the above is only for same working distance and same focal length.
As you’ve already mentioned, there is a wider field of view in the full frame at the same working distance and focal length.
For the same composition and perspective (i.e. same shooting distance), the full frame would be using a longer focal length. For e.g. 75mm on full frame vs 50mm on 1.5x crop factor camera.
Mathematically again, the DOF effect of focal length is the 1/(square of their relative focal length ratio) and so, the DOF equivalent is the aperture f number divided by the square of their relative focal length ratio (which is also their relative image sensor size ratio in the case where the 2 sensor sizes are different).
For e.g.
DOF @F/5.6 on full frame at Xmm for e.g. 75mm focal length = DOF @F/2.5 (i.e. 5.6/(1.5x1.5) = 2.5) on a full frame at X/1.5mm (for e.g. 50mm) focal length.
Note that the DOF effects of sensor size and focal length are in the opposite direction and the DOF effect of focal length is twice as powerful as the DOF effect of sensor size.
Combining the 2 effects above, the net effect is a DOF equivalent aperture effect of 1/(relative sensor size ratio).
So,
DOF @5.6 on full frame at for e.g. 75mm = DOF @F/3.7 (i.e. 5.6/1.5) on a 1.5x crop factor camera at 50mm.
(You can verify all the above DOFs easily with any online DOF calculators)
So practically, a full frame will give a shallower DOF than a 1.5x crop factor camera for the same composition and perspective at the same aperture F number.
The same reasoning accounts for the tremendous DOF in compact Point and Shoot cameras which have very small sensors and use very short actual focal lengths.
Sensor size will not affect DOF. It is never a variable in the calculation. DOF will only change when you vary the focal length to capture the SAME image on a different sensor size. Same focal length, f-stop, camera to subject distance on a different format will still get same DOF.
V
vince123123
Guest
Sensor size will affect the DOF indirectly if you want to keep the subject the same size relative to the frame. In doing so, you need a longer focal length, and therefore indirectly affected the DOF.
Scaglietti
New Member
Wrong! Sensor size is a critical factor of determining DOF.
Just an example using the calculator here: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm
Same image, same focal lenght, same aperture size but different sensor size...
Subject distance: 2m
50mm f/2.8
DX format: DOF=0.193m
FX format: DOF=0.290m
... DOF is different.
There are 2 other factor which we usually assume constant which will affect DOF. They are print size and viewing distance. Read the article I linked above and you will understand.
BC
chanjyj
New Member
To put it simply, if the subject iw captured at the same size, DOF will be greater on the DX sensor produced image.
Some like more DOF, some need less DOF (i.e. news). So we cannot just say an increase/decrease is better.
For me, I would prefer more, and les DOF at the same time because ofthe variety of things I photograph. (headache)
Some like more DOF, some need less DOF (i.e. news). So we cannot just say an increase/decrease is better.
For me, I would prefer more, and les DOF at the same time because ofthe variety of things I photograph. (headache)
Scaglietti
New Member
I think we need to qualify the above statement.
If the subject is captured at the same distance with same FOV, DOF will be greater on the DX sensor produced image.
BC
I think it's not sensor size per se but rather the circle of confusion determined by the pixel size. Anyway, are we getting out of topic? ;p
Scaglietti
New Member
Not pixel size lah... pixel size does not come into the equation.
Circle of confusion is determine by the 'resolution' of the human eye. The ability of the human eye to detect the blur in the image. The circle of confusion is expessed in the final image/print and the distance at which the image is viewed.
Focal length and aperture will determine the "amount of blur" projected onto the sensor/film. The 'blur' is than magnified into the final image/print. The amount of magnification is affected by the size of the sensor/film and how big the final image is. How much blur can be detected by the human eye is also affected by the distance you are viewing the photo.
This should be discussed in another thread. (I think this has been discussed before.)
BC
- Status
Similar threads
