Even though we ARE Nikon lovers,we are NOT affiliated with Nikon Corp. in any way.

English German French

Sign up Login
Home Forums Articles Galleries Recent Photos Contest Help Search News Workshops Shop Upgrade Membership Recommended
members
All members Wiki Contests Vouchers Apps Newsletter THE NIKONIAN™ Magazines Podcasts Fundraising

An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the D400...

nrothschild

US
10916 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

"RE: Now that's the truth Neil..."

nrothschild Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Registered since 25th Jul 2004
Tue 22-May-12 03:00 AM

>> suddenly people are talking as though FX is somehow "outstripping" DX.

I can only speak for myself and I have been very clear that I believe any near term future DX sensor will perform identically to the latest FX sensors in terms of performance per square millimeter (both shooting a DX frame).

But many do not understand why the D700/D3/D3s is so much better than the D300, and one stop of that is simply sensor size. That I also try to make clear. In some contexts FX will always "outstrip" DX (by one stop). Just depends on your context.

>> What isn't quite right here is that sometimes the DX shooter can sacrifice just as much DOF as the FX shooter - for instance when the DX shooter frames the shot with a 300 f2.8 and the FX shooter with a 500 f4.

According to my DOF calculator the DX shooter has a slight edge. But I try not to pay much attention to DOF calculators in a wildlife context. If I did I would conclude it is impossible to shoot a sharp image of more than one feather barb because the DOF is so thin . And I'm serious about that. Somehow, despite the numbers, we prevail.

>> But I thought I was quite clear in that I don't intend to adopt a strategy of deep cropping - ironically a strategy Nikon is promoting to sell D800s.

That's what you said but in fact part of your scheme is to crop looser for better composition. That looser crop will cost you almost one stop of the 1 1/3 stop improvement in noise performance you would get by updating the D300 sensor.

My solution was to shoot FX, such that you can continue to shoot 700mm, maintain the same millimeters of sensor across your subject, and get your looser composition.

You lose all the warblers that fall in between 7.5 and 16 feet. Another tiny percentage will be inconveniently close. Something always has to give...

Consider the odds of a warbler falling anywhere within a set of concentric circles, of which you are at the center.

I see the following important distance boundaries forming those concentric rings: The 7.5ft inner circle that comprises the area neither lens will focus. The 16 foot circle that comprises the area where the 300 will focus but the 500 will not. The 35 foot circle that comprises what I will call the maximum distance of optimum composition. And the final circle about 50 foot distant that is the maximum distance you might consider it possible or likely to get some sort of usable shot.

These are just numbers for arguments sake. Pick your own and do the math. It won't change the law of exponentially increasing odds as distance increases.

Of all the birds that drop inside the shootable zone, 2.35% will fall inside the 300mm MFD. Another 4.76% will fall in between the MFD's, favoring the 300mm. Another 53% will fall inside the optimum composition circle. The final 35% will fall inside the zone of marginal shots, and that number should probably be bigger because my distances may not be totally realistic.

If 50 feet is the max distance for the 700mm, then the max distance for 500mm must be 36 feet. You've totally given up about 35% of the opportunities in order to gain 4.75%. I think that is a bad bet.

Also consider that birds don't like people and tend to avoid them. I don't believe that in most of the world Warblers land evenly within that circle. I think the density increases as the distance increases. So my numbers are best case for most situations, and probably unrealistically optimistic for your plan.

Pelee is different and unique (along with Magee on the other side of Erie) because nature delivers exhausted half dead Warblers into a Disneyland type setup and the warblers are supposedly too exhausted to evade the people.

What you are trying to do might work for you at Pelee, and you might even live close enough that it is more than a 1-7 day adventure once a year. But for most everyone else in North America your scheme simply would not work.

I would not dig in my heels for a non-existent camera just because I spend one week a year at Pelee. I want something that works where I do most of my shooting, and if warblers really fall 10 feet from the boardwalk and just sit there, I'll take my 300mm and use whatever camera makes sense the rest of the year, and it should all work out fine. If the warblers are really too close for a 500 I should not need a 24mpx DX sensor to make that work.

I think you understand all this math, and your need for 24 mpx is based on the fact that with a 300mm lens, you are going to be doing some serious cropping. It is statistically inevitable.

I actually had a Prairie land 6 feet away from me yesterday (after I called it- I got what I deserved). Stuff happens but 4% (unrealistically best case) of possible ops can't drive the decision making process. For all the other ops I had, I would have been a loser at 300mm.

Over the past week I've been shooting almost every day. I can't count how many times I could have used high density FX. Once or twice I was too close. I should be so unlucky that I would worry about warblers being too close, too often.

I don't dwell on those flukes. I don't think most wildlife shooters do either. They know that no matter how they gear up, some shots will be lost. It's a game of statistics and statistically, a long lens and a big reasonably high density sensor will always prevail.


_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

This is a hot, active topic! An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the D400... [View all] , richardd300 Silver Member , Thu 26-Apr-12 07:41 PM
Subject
ID
Reply message I got two messages from near the top at Nikon a week ag...
1
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
2
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
3
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
4
     Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
6
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
9
     Reply message Next time I need ISO 1600 on my D300...
10
     Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
11
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
5
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
7
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
8
     Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
12
          Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
14
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
13
Reply message Yes the D800 has an "inner D7000" except for the viewfi...
15
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
16
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
17
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
18
     Reply message Hmm...
19
          Reply message RE: Hmm...
20
               Reply message RE: Hmm...
21
               Reply message RE: Hmm...
22
               Reply message RE: Hmm...
23
               Reply message RE: Hmm...
92
                    Reply message RE: Hmm...
93
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
24
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
25
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
26
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
27
     Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
28
          Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
29
               Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
30
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
34
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
31
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
32
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
33
     Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
35
          Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
36
          Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
37
               Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
38
                    Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
39
                         Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
40
                              Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
41
                              Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
42
                                   Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
43
                                        Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
44
                                             Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
45
                                             Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
47
                                             Reply message We've seen (and heard) this before Neil...
46
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
48
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
49
Reply message There are two types of too close Neil.
50
     Reply message RE: There are two types of too close Neil.
51
          Reply message RE: There are two types of too close Neil.
52
               Reply message RE: There are two types of too close Neil.
53
                    Reply message RE: There are two types of too close Neil.
54
                    Reply message I really don't see the relevance of this discussion Nei...
55
                         Reply message RE: I really don't see the relevance of this discussion...
56
                         Reply message Okay Neil, let's look at the pixel level...
61
                              Reply message RE: Okay Neil, let's look at the pixel level...
63
                                   Reply message I'm not sure where you're headed with this Neil...
68
                                        Reply message RE: I'm not sure where you're headed with this Neil...
72
                                        Reply message RE: I'm not sure where you're headed with this Neil...
73
                         Reply message RE: I really don't see the relevance of this discussion...
57
                              Reply message RE: I really don't see the relevance of this discussion...
58
                              Reply message RE: I really don't see the relevance of this discussion...
59
                              Reply message RE: I really don't see the relevance of this discussion...
60
                              Reply message I was too polite to comment there Richard...
70
                              Reply message I'm all ears and eyes Neil...
62
                                   Reply message RE: I'm all ears and eyes Neil...
64
                                        Reply message RE: I'm all ears and eyes Neil...
65
                                        Reply message RE: D400
66
                                             Reply message RE: D400
67
                                                  Reply message RE: D400
69
                                                  Reply message RE: D400
71
                                                  Reply message RE: D400
74
                                                  Reply message RE: D400
75
                                                  Reply message RE: D400
76
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
77
Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
78
     Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
79
     Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
80
          Reply message RE: An over fertile imagination perhaps, all about the ...
81
          Reply message That is just plain misleading Neil...
82
               Reply message No Jim, I was NOT misleading...
83
                    Reply message I'm not speaking for Jim or Jay...
84
                    Reply message If you want the best high ISO performance possible...
86
                         Reply message Now that's the truth Neil...
88
                              Reply message RE: Now that's the truth Neil...
90
                                   Reply message Well, I think we've beaten this one to death Neil...
91
                    Reply message RE: No Jim, I was NOT misleading...
85
                         Reply message RE: No Jim, I was NOT misleading...
87
                              Reply message RE: No Jim, I was NOT misleading...
89