{ Nikon D300 crop @ ISO 6400 w/ED 17-55mm F2.8 }
{ Nikon D700 @ ISO 6400 w/ 24-70mm F2.8 G ED }
If you’ve been trying to convince yourself that full frame isn’t that big of a deal, well you’ve been lying to yourself. As I said before, that bigger sensor makes a difference and most of that is evident in a little something called “image quality” (imporant to quite a few photograhers I hear). Full frame provides better, crisper, clearer, cleaner images. There’s a terrific example of this advantage at Japanese site DC Watch with excellent comparison shots of the D700, D3, and D300. As expected the D700 and D3 look quite similar. And while removed from this context the D300 looks very good, it just can’t compete with its siblings in overall IQ. When the ISO gets cranked up it falls even further behind. This has been repeated ad nauseum, but the D3 (and D700) have just utterly ridiculous noise management at high ISO. This amazes me because 6400 ISO looks like 400 ISO on my D80. True, the D300 is infinitely better performing than the D80, but the D700 gives even more detail, and even less noise, at a $2000 discount to the D3 (for right now).
In short full frame matters.
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
arnolf
07.31.08 at 11:05 am
Better at 6400 iso, but not sure under 1600. Normal amateurs photographers take most of their pics under 1600 isos, so the difference is not so valuable than what your article let think…
Nevertheless the difference is quite huge on these pics, night shooters would appreciate that.
Patrick
07.31.08 at 11:01 pm
arnolf,
Regardless of iso, the D700 is bringing home more detail than the D300. Edges are crisper, textures more detailed, etc. That’s a nice thing to have.
And as an amateur, many times I would like to crank to 1600, just to stop motion in a low-light situation, not night time per se. With the D80, there’s no point, because to my eye the noise isn’t usable , so I end up not taking shots, which is the worst case scenario.
Michael Cuddy
08.11.08 at 4:48 pm
A relatively small camera like the Nikon D40 with 18-200 lens will always be a handy for travel, but there is no doubt, with the advent of consumer full frame cameras, that one should be hesitant in spending any more money on DX lenses.
The Nikon D700 is illustrated using a $1,700 lens and performs fantastically against the D300 with its $1,400 lens. Full frame is clearly the winner.
However, how would these two cameras compare using non-professional lenses such as the Nikon 70-300 VR on the D700 and the Nikon 18-200 DX lens on the Nikon D300?
Patrick
08.11.08 at 5:10 pm
You’re right, that does even things out a bit. Given budget constraints, clearly the D300 is the obvious smart choice, until you think about the good possibility of the D300x being a full frame camera, and your DX lens collection (that 18-200 vr ain’t cheap for non-pro) starts to make you feel a little sad.
Otto Uberswengen
08.24.08 at 6:32 pm
OK, FX is better than DX…and Medium Format is better than FX…or maybe,
Halle Berry is better than your wife…does that mean you ditch your wife or everyone must cart around a Hassle-Blad?
Try taking a photo on top of Lake Louise on a ski trip at -20deg with your D700/D3…just maybe, your humble Fuji E900 will do the job perfectly well and will also fit into your ski jacket!
The point?
You can’t have everything or you might not want everything. Between ISO 100-800, Most cameras are good enough for Most photographers. Bigger is not better. “Better” is not better in every sense. Just live within your means. For my money and usage, none of the above is better than the beloved FM2, FA, F3, or even the superseded D200(by just months)…
Maybe start worrying about the fact that something bought (new) 6 months ago can now be on the top of the trash heap.
Jeff Solomon
08.31.08 at 4:11 pm
Why not use the same lens for both the D700 and D300 comparison and crop.
Also what about the pixel density advantage of the D300 in telephoto?
Patrick
09.01.08 at 8:53 am
Jeff,
I had posted before a same lens comparison, but here’s the link to it:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D700/noise.shtml. Starting at 800 ISO I see a difference. But you’re right that pixel density will be an advantage to some photographers wanting the most from their zooms, everyone is obviously going to have different needs, and budgets.
Hermann
11.09.08 at 10:47 am
Sorry to say that, but that is simply ‘BULLSHIT!’.
The performance between D300 and D700 is not significantly in terms of image quality. That is proven by several experts (see e.g. verdict of Ken Rockwell with comparison of D300, D700 and D3.).
Till ISO 1600 you won’t be able to say the difference and now ask yourself how often you’re shooting with ISO 6400 and above. So, actually the full frame doesn’t matter at all, unless someone shoots all the time high iso.
And is this worth the difference in costs??? I’m not sure about this. For most people who are having a D300, no point at all to upgrade to D700. Waste of money!
Patrick
11.09.08 at 7:53 pm
Hmmmm…. I’m inclined to disagree with you Herman, but you’ve made your case–quite strongly.
Shawn
11.15.08 at 12:33 pm
Low light, “true” lens focal lengths, ie 24 mm is 24mm on a Full frame (my new D700), vs my old trusty D200 is worth my upgrade price by far.. It is a much more versatile camera allowing lighting which is just off the charts…
I love my D700.. yes to me.. the upgrade from the D200 was worth the investment.. Full Frame is the way to go!!
Patrick
11.15.08 at 3:53 pm
Hey,
I’m with you on this one Shawn!
Patrick
11.19.08 at 2:35 pm
Herman,
Your rudimentary, over simplified evaluation of the differences between a DX and FX sensor are pretty entertaining. The fact that you list Ken Rockwell as your headline “expert” is even more entertaining. You seem to be a loyal DX person which is fine. You do seem to be ignoring some of the advantages of the FX sensor. For instance, take a tripod mounted shot with a DX camera and then mount an FX camera on the same tripod and take the same shot. Compare them and see how much you are missing on the DX version. Also, sensor density is an important thing but people often make the mistake of discounting this below a certain ISO as you have (and as Ken Rockwell has). Both cameras have 12 megapixel sensor (differing by .2 to be specific). The pixels on the DX sensor are more tightly crammed together which gives the potential for more noise. The pixels on the FX sensor are not so crammed so the sensor in the FX format has better low noise performance. Most people will say that the better performance is at high ISOs. This is in fact a flawed statement. The sensor layout has an exponential effect on the performance of the sensor, not a linear effect as you seem to be suggesting. The quality of the images is not magically the same under 1600 ISO. It is actually better. Your criteria for the amount of noise below 1600 is less stringent than above 1600 so the FX sensor’s better performance at ISOs 1600 and below is mistakenly passed of as being equal to the DX sensor version when it is not. Can we as humans percieve this quality difference below 1600 ISO? Probably not. Like I said before, reduced expectations, less effort put into actually evaluating the images make saying that the images are the same quality below 1600 ISO the easy way out. Most people would be inclined to believe that statement but it is not true in the real world.
Patrick
11.19.08 at 9:42 pm
Patrick,
Excellent analysis, and thanks for taking the time to leave it in the lowly comments.