Re: Any wildlife photographers prefer the full frame over DX mode?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rita Berkowitz, Mar 15, 2008.

  1. Richard wrote:

    > I'm thinking of upgrading from a D2Xs to either a D3 or a D300, but
    > I'm worried about the loss of that extra virtual focal length with the
    > D3. A 500mm. lens is just that, 500mm., not 750mm. or thereabouts.


    You won't miss it, get off your ass and zoom with your feet.

    > I love the D2Xs with its DX format and the high speed crop that acts
    > as a built in tele converter. Great for the birds. For that reason I
    > would opt for the D300, but the D3 has greater appeal.


    Either one will be fine. The D3 gives you better high-ISO performance and a
    bunch of other features. If you are coming from a D2xs the D300 will be a
    step up in image quality at higher ISO.

    > Does anyone miss the extra DX focal length?


    No!

    > I read somewhere that it is possible to switch over to DX mode on the
    > D3. Is this correct? I use the shortcut switch on the front of the
    > D2Xs for this.


    It's just a simple crop and a waste of time since it only gives you a 5 or 6
    MP image. Shoot full frame and crop if needed. Ideally you would be
    zooming with your feet and composing your shot prior to pulling the trigger.




    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Mar 15, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rita Berkowitz

    Ali Guest

    "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >> I'm thinking of upgrading from a D2Xs to either a D3 or a D300, but
    >> I'm worried about the loss of that extra virtual focal length with the
    >> D3. A 500mm. lens is just that, 500mm., not 750mm. or thereabouts.



    > You won't miss it, get off your ass and zoom with your feet.



    Yup, but what if the wildlife is a wild hippo, polar bear, etc? ;-)
     
    Ali, Mar 16, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ali wrote:

    >>> I'm thinking of upgrading from a D2Xs to either a D3 or a D300, but
    >>> I'm worried about the loss of that extra virtual focal length with
    >>> the D3. A 500mm. lens is just that, 500mm., not 750mm. or
    >>> thereabouts.

    >
    >
    >> You won't miss it, get off your ass and zoom with your feet.

    >
    >
    > Yup, but what if the wildlife is a wild hippo, polar bear, etc? ;-)


    If you can't get the shot with a 500 or 600mm Nikkor and a 2X TC then it's
    not worth worrying about.




    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Mar 16, 2008
    #3
  4. Rita Berkowitz

    Ali Guest

    Of course, you can also put yourself in a place where they can't actually
    get to you, even if they wanted to.


    "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >>>> I'm thinking of upgrading from a D2Xs to either a D3 or a D300, but
    >>>> I'm worried about the loss of that extra virtual focal length with
    >>>> the D3. A 500mm. lens is just that, 500mm., not 750mm. or
    >>>> thereabouts.



    >>> You won't miss it, get off your ass and zoom with your feet.



    >> Yup, but what if the wildlife is a wild hippo, polar bear, etc? ;-)



    > If you can't get the shot with a 500 or 600mm Nikkor and a 2X TC then it's
    > not worth worrying about.
     
    Ali, Mar 16, 2008
    #4
  5. Ali wrote:
    >
    > "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>> I'm thinking of upgrading from a D2Xs to either a D3 or a D300, but
    >>> I'm worried about the loss of that extra virtual focal length with the
    >>> D3. A 500mm. lens is just that, 500mm., not 750mm. or thereabouts.

    >
    >
    >> You won't miss it, get off your ass and zoom with your feet.

    >
    >
    > Yup, but what if the wildlife is a wild hippo, polar bear, etc? ;-)



    This is so obvious! I don't like to call people stupid,
    unlike certain perople around here but ....

    ASSUMING that the pixel size of the full frame camera is not
    larger than that of the crop camera and

    ASSSUMING that the mirror mechanism and electronics of the full
    frame are fast enough that it will shoot as fast as the crop camera, then

    you can simply ignore the outer parts of the full frame and get the
    EXACT SAME PICTURE as if using the same lens on the crop camera.

    Now there are other quibbles, such as that it is likely true that
    the viewfinder view of the "crop area" in the full frame's
    viewer will be smaller than in the crop camera's. But that
    wont change the actual image.

    Where you lose with the full frame camera is that it will be
    bigger and heavier.

    Doug McDonald
     
    Doug McDonald, Mar 16, 2008
    #5
  6. Rita Berkowitz

    Chris W Guest

    Doug McDonald wrote:
    > This is so obvious! I don't like to call people stupid,
    > unlike certain perople around here but ....
    >
    > ASSUMING that the pixel size of the full frame camera is not
    > larger than that of the crop camera and
    >
    > ASSSUMING that the mirror mechanism and electronics of the full
    > frame are fast enough that it will shoot as fast as the crop camera, then
    >
    > you can simply ignore the outer parts of the full frame and get the
    > EXACT SAME PICTURE as if using the same lens on the crop camera.
    >
    > Now there are other quibbles, such as that it is likely true that
    > the viewfinder view of the "crop area" in the full frame's
    > viewer will be smaller than in the crop camera's. But that
    > wont change the actual image.
    >
    > Where you lose with the full frame camera is that it will be
    > bigger and heavier.
    >
    > Doug McDonald



    That is all true, but in the case of the D3 vs the D300, both sensors
    have the same number of pixels so on the D3 they are bigger. Simulating
    the DX mode on a D3 by cropping will loose a lot of those pixels.

    If you need long lenses I see the D300 as a huge advantage. You can use
    a 300mm lens and have almost 500mm with a less expensive and much
    lighter lens. Of course then you make a sacrifice in the wide angle
    area. Or buy a new wide angle lens, which I guess I will need to do
    sometime after my D300 gets here. But still lots less money than a D3.



    --
    Chris W
    KE5GIX

    "Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
    learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"

    Ham Radio Repeater Database.
    http://hrrdb.com
     
    Chris W, Mar 17, 2008
    #6
  7. Rita Berkowitz

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Chris W" <> wrote in message
    news:2vjDj.50731$...
    > Doug McDonald wrote:
    >> This is so obvious! I don't like to call people stupid,
    >> unlike certain perople around here but ....
    >>
    >> ASSUMING that the pixel size of the full frame camera is not
    >> larger than that of the crop camera and
    >>
    >> ASSSUMING that the mirror mechanism and electronics of the full
    >> frame are fast enough that it will shoot as fast as the crop camera, then
    >>
    >> you can simply ignore the outer parts of the full frame and get the
    >> EXACT SAME PICTURE as if using the same lens on the crop camera.
    >>
    >> Now there are other quibbles, such as that it is likely true that
    >> the viewfinder view of the "crop area" in the full frame's
    >> viewer will be smaller than in the crop camera's. But that
    >> wont change the actual image.
    >>
    >> Where you lose with the full frame camera is that it will be
    >> bigger and heavier.
    >>
    >> Doug McDonald

    >
    >
    > That is all true, but in the case of the D3 vs the D300, both sensors have
    > the same number of pixels so on the D3 they are bigger. Simulating the DX
    > mode on a D3 by cropping will loose a lot of those pixels.
    >
    > If you need long lenses I see the D300 as a huge advantage. You can use a
    > 300mm lens and have almost 500mm with a less expensive and much lighter
    > lens. Of course then you make a sacrifice in the wide angle area. Or buy
    > a new wide angle lens, which I guess I will need to do sometime after my
    > D300 gets here. But still lots less money than a D3.
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Chris W


    The flip side is that the D3 will be better in low-light situations.

    If you are shooting animals in the sweet light of dawn or sunset, the D3
    would be the better choice -- same thing if you are shooting in forest
    areas.

    Assuming, of course, you can get close enough to get the shot you want.

    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 17, 2008
    #7
  8. Another advantage is the "uprezzing" seems to be a lot better than my oder
    camera.

    When I first got the D3 I noticed that I was really struggling with the loss
    of the crop for shooting sport. To the point where I was actually thinking
    I had made a mistake. Then I slapped myself around the head and thought,
    how did I do this when I shot film. Now I would not change back, in fact I
    have trouble shooting with the D2Xs.

    Mick Brown


    On 17/3/08 12:29 PM, in article APjDj.100410$w57.9075@edtnps90, "Dudley
    Hanks" <> wrote:

    >
    > "Chris W" <> wrote in message
    > news:2vjDj.50731$...
    >> Doug McDonald wrote:
    >>> This is so obvious! I don't like to call people stupid,
    >>> unlike certain perople around here but ....
    >>>
    >>> ASSUMING that the pixel size of the full frame camera is not
    >>> larger than that of the crop camera and
    >>>
    >>> ASSSUMING that the mirror mechanism and electronics of the full
    >>> frame are fast enough that it will shoot as fast as the crop camera, then
    >>>
    >>> you can simply ignore the outer parts of the full frame and get the
    >>> EXACT SAME PICTURE as if using the same lens on the crop camera.
    >>>
    >>> Now there are other quibbles, such as that it is likely true that
    >>> the viewfinder view of the "crop area" in the full frame's
    >>> viewer will be smaller than in the crop camera's. But that
    >>> wont change the actual image.
    >>>
    >>> Where you lose with the full frame camera is that it will be
    >>> bigger and heavier.
    >>>
    >>> Doug McDonald

    >>
    >>
    >> That is all true, but in the case of the D3 vs the D300, both sensors have
    >> the same number of pixels so on the D3 they are bigger. Simulating the DX
    >> mode on a D3 by cropping will loose a lot of those pixels.
    >>
    >> If you need long lenses I see the D300 as a huge advantage. You can use a
    >> 300mm lens and have almost 500mm with a less expensive and much lighter
    >> lens. Of course then you make a sacrifice in the wide angle area. Or buy
    >> a new wide angle lens, which I guess I will need to do sometime after my
    >> D300 gets here. But still lots less money than a D3.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Chris W

    >
    > The flip side is that the D3 will be better in low-light situations.
    >
    > If you are shooting animals in the sweet light of dawn or sunset, the D3
    > would be the better choice -- same thing if you are shooting in forest
    > areas.
    >
    > Assuming, of course, you can get close enough to get the shot you want.
    >
    > Dudley
    >
    >
     
    Michael Brown, Mar 17, 2008
    #8
  9. Rita Berkowitz

    John Sheehy Guest

    "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in
    news:APjDj.100410$w57.9075@edtnps90:

    > The flip side is that the D3 will be better in low-light situations.


    > If you are shooting animals in the sweet light of dawn or sunset, the
    > D3 would be the better choice -- same thing if you are shooting in
    > forest areas.


    > Assuming, of course, you can get close enough to get the shot you
    > want.


    That last statement is very important. The D3 will give excellent results,
    better than any 12MP or less APS-C or -H camera, if you can fill the frame
    with what you want to and don't need to crop. If you must crop, however,
    the D3 becomes, for example, a 5.4MP APS-C camera with more image noise.
    Cropping is exactly like having a smaller sensor with less pixels.

    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    John Sheehy, Mar 17, 2008
    #9
  10. Rita Berkowitz

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <Xns9A64B1C34BA9Bjpsnokomm@130.81.64.196>, John Sheehy
    says...

    > That last statement is very important. The D3 will give excellent results,
    > better than any 12MP or less APS-C or -H camera, if you can fill the frame
    > with what you want to and don't need to crop. If you must crop, however,
    > the D3 becomes, for example, a 5.4MP APS-C camera with more image noise.


    Well, even then the D3 pixels are still bigger than APS-C ones, so noise
    will be lower.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
     
    Alfred Molon, Mar 17, 2008
    #10
  11. Alfred Molon wrote:

    > Well, even then the D3 pixels are still bigger than APS-C ones, so
    > noise will be lower.


    Zooming with your feet eliminates all of this.





    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Mar 17, 2008
    #11
  12. Rita Berkowitz

    PixelPix Guest

    On Mar 18, 9:52 am, "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote:
    > Alfred Molon wrote:
    > > Well, even then the D3 pixels are still bigger than APS-C ones, so
    > > noise will be lower.

    >
    > Zooming with your feet eliminates all of this.
    >
    > Rita


    ...it eliminates the need for different focal lengths too. But oddly
    we all still carry around a shitload of glass? lol
     
    PixelPix, Mar 18, 2008
    #12
  13. >> Well, even then the D3 pixels are still bigger than APS-C ones, so
    >> noise will be lower.

    >
    >Zooming with your feet eliminates all of this.


    Gets you eaten by bears, bitten by snakes, drowned in the
    ocean, and beaten to a pulp by gangsters too...

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Mar 18, 2008
    #13
  14. Rita Berkowitz

    Dave Busch Guest

    On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:25:45 -0700 (PDT), PixelPix
    <> wrote:

    >...it eliminates the need for different focal lengths too. But oddly
    >we all still carry around a shitload of glass? lol


    Well, I still own a crapload of lenses, but I carry around a lot fewer
    since I got the 17-35, 28-70, and 70-200 VR. The others come into
    play for specific purposes (e.g., I left the 28-70 and 70-200 at home
    when I traveled extra light to Spain last October, finding that the
    28-300G and a monopod could handle the photos I had planned.)

    Dave
    -------------------------------------
    Everything I know, and then some:
    http://www.auctionmyths.com
     
    Dave Busch, Mar 18, 2008
    #14
  15. Rita Berkowitz

    John Sheehy Guest

    Alfred Molon <> wrote in
    news::

    > In article <Xns9A64B1C34BA9Bjpsnokomm@130.81.64.196>, John Sheehy
    > says...
    >
    >> That last statement is very important. The D3 will give excellent
    >> results, better than any 12MP or less APS-C or -H camera, if you can
    >> fill the frame with what you want to and don't need to crop. If you
    >> must crop, however, the D3 becomes, for example, a 5.4MP APS-C camera
    >> with more image noise.

    >
    > Well, even then the D3 pixels are still bigger than APS-C ones, so
    > noise will be lower.


    That is not true at all, as far as the image is concerned.

    The noise of an image is not directly proportional to the noise of a
    pixel. The noise of an image is more directly related to photon capture
    per unit of relative area, and pixel read noise divided by the linear
    resolution, vs displayed brightness.

    Some day all you pixel-centric thinkers will wake up and find that you've
    been staring at individual trees all along and have been making comments
    about forests from them.

    Big pixels are ultimately inferior, as far as filling a given sensor
    space is concerned; they are confusers of photon locations (enemies of
    resolution), and arbiters of high image read noise, especially at low
    ISOs or in systems unoptimized for high ISO (minimal circuitry between
    the photosites). They are only universally more useful if they are big
    because the sensor itself (or the crop used) is also relatively big.

    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    John Sheehy, Mar 18, 2008
    #15
  16. Rita Berkowitz

    John Sheehy Guest

    "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote in
    news::

    > Zooming with your feet eliminates all of this.


    Zooming with your feet is great for buildings, trees, fearless humans, and
    pets.

    For real wildlife it usually means waving bye-bye to your subject as it
    fades into infinity.

    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    John Sheehy, Mar 18, 2008
    #16
  17. Rita Berkowitz

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "John Sheehy" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9A65D20F1B41jpsnokomm@130.81.64.196...
    > "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> Zooming with your feet eliminates all of this.

    >
    > Zooming with your feet is great for buildings, trees, fearless humans, and
    > pets.
    >
    > For real wildlife it usually means waving bye-bye to your subject as it
    > fades into infinity.
    >
    > --
    >
    > <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    > John P Sheehy <>
    > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><


    Perhaps my memory is worse than I thought, but, it doesn't seem all that
    long ago that Rita posted a reference to a pro-Canon shooter who went Nikon.

    Well, people pooh poohed it, and then they got to reminiscing about how good
    the pro was. And, before you know it a few folks were bringing up their
    favourite documentary / TV specials and the many other fantastic things he
    did.

    There are two things, in particular, that come to mind. One was how
    impressed people were that he lay down in the path of a charging elephant to
    get some great shots. The other was that he was shooting over his shoulder
    as he sprinted to outrun an angry hippo.

    If that isn't "zooming with your feet," I don't know what the hell is...

    As usual, you aren't far off the mark, Rita.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 18, 2008
    #17
  18. Dudley Hanks wrote:

    >>> Zooming with your feet eliminates all of this.

    >>
    >> Zooming with your feet is great for buildings, trees, fearless
    >> humans, and pets.
    >>
    >> For real wildlife it usually means waving bye-bye to your subject as
    >> it fades into infinity.

    >
    > Perhaps my memory is worse than I thought, but, it doesn't seem all
    > that long ago that Rita posted a reference to a pro-Canon shooter who
    > went Nikon.
    >
    > Well, people pooh poohed it, and then they got to reminiscing about
    > how good the pro was. And, before you know it a few folks were
    > bringing up their favourite documentary / TV specials and the many
    > other fantastic things he did.
    >
    > There are two things, in particular, that come to mind. One was how
    > impressed people were that he lay down in the path of a charging
    > elephant to get some great shots. The other was that he was shooting
    > over his shoulder as he sprinted to outrun an angry hippo.
    >
    > If that isn't "zooming with your feet," I don't know what the hell
    > is...
    >
    > As usual, you aren't far off the mark, Rita.


    LOL! You can't please all of the people.... But that's the whole point, if
    you want the shot bad enough you are going to do whatever it takes to get
    it. It seems no matter whet lens one has on their camera at the time it is
    always going to be either too long or too short, even if you carry multiple
    lens and body combinations. People just make excuses for being lazy. Even
    when I shot with a dSLR that had a 1.3x and 1.5x crop factor I still wanted
    more reach. So, at the end of the day it is ultimately back to zooming with
    your feet.





    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Mar 18, 2008
    #18
  19. Dudley Hanks wrote:
    >
    > Perhaps my memory is worse than I thought, but, it doesn't seem all that
    > long ago that Rita posted a reference to a pro-Canon shooter who went Nikon.
    >
    > Well, people pooh poohed it, and then they got to reminiscing about how good
    > the pro was. And, before you know it a few folks were bringing up their
    > favourite documentary / TV specials and the many other fantastic things he
    > did.
    >
    > There are two things, in particular, that come to mind. One was how
    > impressed people were that he lay down in the path of a charging elephant to
    > get some great shots. The other was that he was shooting over wihis shoulder
    > as he sprinted to outrun an angry hippo.
    >
    > If that isn't "zooming with your feet," I don't know what the hell is...
    >
    > As usual, you aren't far off the mark, Rita.


    Interesting remark! How long have you been reading here, Dudley?

    "Rita" does hit the mark occasionally, same as a chap with a 12 guage
    and blindfolded will hit the broad side of the nearby barn. And that's
    hyperbole, same as "she" uses.

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Mar 18, 2008
    #19
  20. Rita Berkowitz

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Dudley Hanks wrote:
    >>
    >> Perhaps my memory is worse than I thought, but, it doesn't seem all that
    >> long ago that Rita posted a reference to a pro-Canon shooter who went
    >> Nikon.
    >>
    >> Well, people pooh poohed it, and then they got to reminiscing about how
    >> good the pro was. And, before you know it a few folks were bringing up
    >> their favourite documentary / TV specials and the many other fantastic
    >> things he did.
    >>
    >> There are two things, in particular, that come to mind. One was how
    >> impressed people were that he lay down in the path of a charging elephant
    >> to get some great shots. The other was that he was shooting over wihis
    >> shoulder as he sprinted to outrun an angry hippo.
    >>
    >> If that isn't "zooming with your feet," I don't know what the hell is...
    >>
    >> As usual, you aren't far off the mark, Rita.

    >
    > Interesting remark! How long have you been reading here, Dudley?
    >
    > "Rita" does hit the mark occasionally, same as a chap with a 12 guage and
    > blindfolded will hit the broad side of the nearby barn. And that's
    > hyperbole, same as "she" uses.
    >
    > --
    > John McWilliams
    >


    Isn't it interesting how two people can look at the same picture. One sees
    an old lady, the other a pretty gal...

    One's frame of reference often determines what one grasps...

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 18, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Keddy

    Any one prefer to discuss about Cisco Certificate

    Keddy, Nov 11, 2004, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    565
    TechGeekPro
    Nov 11, 2004
  2. SniperSquad
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    626
    Carlos
    Jan 20, 2004
  3. Theo Markettos

    VOIP over VPN over TCP over WAP over 3G

    Theo Markettos, Feb 3, 2008, in forum: UK VOIP
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    940
    Theo Markettos
    Feb 14, 2008
  4. Rita Berkowitz
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    283
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Mar 25, 2008
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    417
Loading...

Share This Page