Why FF bodies better

[Harshad Barve]

Dear All
I have just shifted from DX format D300 to FX format D700
When I crop big on files of D300 ( around 50%) there is loss of IQ but I can easliy crop 50% on D700

Would like to know more about this , Is it like FF camera handle pixels better than cropped body ?

Regards
Harshad

[arash_hazeghi]

Harashad,

This is because pixels on a D700 sensor are 2.25 times larger in area compared to D300, they gather more light and electronics have more space the "breathe" and can carry cleaner signals. Also due to larger pixel pitch the imaged that is projected on the sensor by the lens is sampled at a lower frequency which puts less of a burden on the lens. All of these factors lead to higher IQ and more cropping capability on larger pixel sensor.

Here is a 100% crop from D700 at ISO 1600. no noise reduction applied.

http://www.stanford.edu/~ahazeghi/Photos/examples/full%20crop.jpg

[Desmond Chan]

When I crop big on files of D300 ( around 50%) there is loss of IQ but I can easliy crop 50% on D700


That's what I noticed, too, that time I saw a large crop image from a guy who shot it with a full-frame camera. The details were amazing. We all wondered how he could get that close to the bird until he said it was a large crop of the original photo.

BTW, that's a nice shot of that harrier, Arash !

[Stuart Hill]

Shouldn't the d300 images at low iso be better? I thought because of the higher pixel density it should carry more info?

Asking because its the only reason I've not jumped to the d700 from the d300. Could you explain please.

kind regards.
Stu.

[arash_hazeghi]

Shouldn't the d300 images at low iso be better? I thought because of the higher pixel density it should carry more info?

Asking because its the only reason I've not jumped to the d700 from the d300. Could you explain please.

kind regards.
Stu.

You are asking a different question, at any ISO and when inspected at 100% D700 photos will have better per pixel crispness than D300 and therefore withstand heavier cropping.

However a photo from D700 will have fewer pixels on a given subject compared to a D300 photo taken with the same lens from the same distance. D300 photo will have 2.25 times as many pixels on the subject and therefore 1.5 times the linear resolution, however the signal from these pixels is not as clean as D700. In general when light is good and exposure is perfect down-sampling D300 photo to D700 size will yield better overall resolution. This is referred to as D300 having more telephoto "reach". But in low light and high ISO, harsh exposure conditions when you need to lift the shadows etc. D300 image will be grainy and even down-sampling will not save you. In those condition fewer but cleaner pixels of D700 win as indicated in the ISO 1600 shot above. If you are a serious Nikon user it is better to get a D700 and compensate for the reach by either getting a longer lens, using a teleconverter or get closer where possible.

[Doug Brown]

Have to agree with Arash here. Bigger pixels look better at 100%. 1D Mark III images at high ISO look better at 100% than do 50D or 7D images. But in good light the extra pixels really shine on a body like the 7D.

[arash_hazeghi]

Have to agree with Arash here. Bigger pixels look better at 100%. 1D Mark III images at high ISO look better at 100% than do 50D or 7D images. But in good light the extra pixels really shine on a body like the 7D.

Yup when the light is good 7D puts all of those pixels into use, especially if you have premium optics like 500 f/4 or 400DO here is a sample. (http://ari1982.smugmug.com/Animals/Avian/10191557_hsE3k#706690238_P4Wna-O-LB) Cheaper lenses and TCs can struggle a bit wide open to deliver the needed resolution though.

[Stuart Hill]

Thanks for the help Arash. Lots to thinks about.

Kind regards.
Stu.