Should i upgrade to DX?

[Alfredo Fernández]

Hey,
i currently have a D300s and a 300mm F4..
normally subjects in peru are too far away but as im moving into Vancouver, CA next week most of the subjects are gonna be closer (hopefully)..
Im thinking about selling the D300s and buying an used D700 and the TC14eII..
i tryied one D700 last week and i was able to see lots more of details and better colors.. is this true? or was the camera/lens combination..
Should i upgrade or not?
and im going to buy a 500mm F4 in the next couple yeats..
Thanks
A

[Roger Clark]

Alfredo,
See the noise thread:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...867#post759867

Basically, smaller pixels act pretty much the same as a TC. So if you get a camera with pixels 1/1.4x smaller, it is like you added a 1.4x TC to your existing camera. Pixel size is the key, not crop factor (althought the cropped sensor cameras tend to have smaller pixels which confuses things). And when you get a larger lens, the smaller pixels will give more reach with that lens too. But every time you increase focal length by adding TCs or use a camera with smaller pixels, there is less light per pixel, so noisier images unless you can lengthen exposure time (longer exposure time = more light).

Roger

[Alan Melle]

Your question is a little confusing. Your D300s is a 12.2 (effective) megapixel DX body. The D700 you are considering upgrading to is a 12.1 megapixel FX body with a larger sensor. The pixels in the D700 are larger (8.5 µm vs 5.5 µm for the D300s) and give better low light image quality. I use both the D300 and the D700 for bird photography and prefer the image quality of the D700, however for effective "reach" the D300 or D300s is a better choice.

[Matt Fragale]

Alfredo,
See the noise thread:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...867#post759867

Basically, smaller pixels act pretty much the same as a TC. So if you get a camera with pixels 1/1.4x smaller, it is like you added a 1.4x TC to your existing camera. Pixel size is the key, not crop factor (althought the cropped sensor cameras tend to have smaller pixels which confuses things). And when you get a larger lens, the smaller pixels will give more reach with that lens too. But every time you increase focal length by adding TCs or use a camera with smaller pixels, there is less light per pixel, so noisier images unless you can lengthen exposure time (longer exposure time = more light).

Roger

Roger, every time I see you answer one of these types of questions, my brain starts to quiver in fear! I am a noob to these things, for the most part, and I'm in awe of your depth of knowledge on topics like this, but I generally get a very general feeling what you're saying without feeling like I've fully grasped it. Thanks for continuing to provide your knowledge, though. I have been living in hope that if I were to keep reading your web site after seeing the discussions here in context that things would start to click for me and I am somewhat proud to say that I THINK that I understand what you're saying here! EUREKA! So basically the larger pixels of the full frame cameras produce less noisy images because they are able to capture more light... but when you add a teleconverter, you reduce the amount of light available, thereby increasing noise, given the same exposure. And switching to a crop sensor camera also introduces noise, not because of the crop factor, but because of the smaller pixels used in those sensors, which result in less light being captured by each pixel. So if they made a crop sensor with nice, large, juicy pixels, it could be as noise free as the full frames. Did I get it? I hope I got it. I think I got it! *is feeling a little more enlightened right now*

To add a thought to my thoughts on your thought... if they DID make a crop sensor with larger pixels like a full frame... would that camera potentially make less 'sharp' pictures because of the larger pixels? It seems like it would have to.