D300s vs D700 vs D3s (1 Viewer)

[Dave Williams]

Under another thread Horukuru asked this question which I think should be a topic of its own !

Duke and the rest,

I have a question. Can we see the differences when we cropped same image taken with DX and FX camera, the resolution and etc ?

I have been shooting with D300s for 2 years and most of the time my default ISO is at 1600 to get at least 1/80s in the rainforest with my scope at 500mm f5.9 but the output resulted in noisy images especially after I cropped 33% with Nikon Capture NX2.

Any advice ?

A friend recently purchased a D3s and we had a trial session using my lens selection as he is in two minds which would be most suitable with an FX camera.
He is seriously considering the Sigma 300-800 but we don't know anyone who has one to try first.
Using my 500mm f4 I was seriously impressed by the crop quality at 100% on Nikon NX2. On my D300s I don't go above 50% usually, only pushing it to 66% rarely as the IQ suffers.
I was so envious of the noise free IQ at huge ISO's that I tried my D300s at 1600 to see what the results were like, which surprised me as they were better than I expected. The D3s on the other hand appeared noise free at ISO6400 and acceptable at 12800.
There is a price to pay of course, the D3s is three times the price of a D300s.From my very limited trial it appears that the crop factor of the DX D300s is countered by the better pixel quality of the D3s so it's all square there.
The real advantage is the high ISO performance which enables much higher shutter speeds which are often critical to getting a decent shot when it comes to wildlife.
It would be interesting to know how the D700 compares with the D3s if anyone has any knowledge of having tried both.
cheers Dave

 

[Duke Leto]

Dave, a question I ask myself frequently, I know a pro sports photographer who would marry his D3S if it would bare off spring, mated with a 300/2.8 under floodlighting its superb at the high ISO's with or without a 1.4tc.
His 2nd body is a D700 (previously he had D2X's and backed up by a D300), he rates that equally to his D3S and often uses it when traveling light being a pap.

I would dearly love to get my hands on them and try. If I could see that the heavier crop factor on a D3S matched at the least the image from a D300 with a mild crop I would make the move and go to the D700 (as it takes the MB-D10 battery pack in which I run an EN-EL4a to get the full 8fps) so one less thing to buy.

If I had £10K today to spend I would px my 400 for a 300/2.8 and use the £10K to buy a D3S and a 600/4

I would be very interested in any examples posted of the same subject being shot through the same lens on a 300, 700 and D3S cropping them to ensure that the subject is the same size in all images

 

[Helios]

I have both a D300 and a D3 which is very similar to the D3s. The D300 will resolve slightly more detail at low ISO but there's really not a lot in it. The images from the D3 are very sharp straight from the camera and require little processing when compared to the D300. I see less noise at ISO1600 with the D3 than at ISO400 with the D300 (or it seems that way as I use less noise reduction with the image processing). The autofocus is also more responsive than the D300, so with the high ISO performance and the shooting speed it makes an excellent camera for BIF.

The buffer isn't quite there to keep up with the shooting speed when using RAW (one of the major improvements with the D3s). Both cameras can get the white balance wrong in certain overcast conditions.

I use both and there's plenty of examples in my gallery.

 

[Helios]

The left is the D300 and right is the D3. I think I was approximately the same distance. Both shots taken handheld with a 500/4 with a 1.4 teleconverter.

 

[Duke Leto]

Helios, could you when you have 5 mins take something detailed like a page of text with both bodies at say 10mtrs and post them, you could then ensure the crop offers exactly the same size final image at a set distance
Thanks

 

[swainsons]

Barring Hi Iso's, I dont think there is much between the lot, honestly. Both have pro's and cons, and its been debated to shreds to say the least.

The reality is that the best pictures are taken under the best lighting conditions, and that means native ISO (100 or 200).

So, I would just buy a D7000......

All the best.

 

[Duke Leto]

Apart from AF performance, weatherproofing up to 11fps as opposed to 6fps, quadruple battery life and as you say the exceptional noise management of the 3DS and of course the quiet shutter mode, needed occasionally to stop spooking the subject, theirs not a lot of difference Maybe Nikon should sell the D3S for a little more than the D7000

Anyway back on track
I've asked my friend to do some test shots, if I get them I will post them

 

[Dave Williams]

One thing I didn't like about the D3s is the picture playback and enlargement which doesn't have the one touch button of the D300s but goes back to the command dial style that the D200 has. A lot more fiddly !
cheers Dave

 

[pe'rigin]

I think we have to be a bit wary of comparisons; I’ve always taken such analysis with a pinch of salt, especially with cameras.

All digital sensors have a defined ceiling of reproduction limitations; these parameters are set in stone, nothing to do with any individual manufacturer, more the laws of physics.

We judge the quality of any image at it final stage; this could be monitor viewing to high-end reproduction. To get to this final stage, there has to be sets of circumstances that will ultimately affect the image we view. What affects an image already has been said, i.e. light, exposure, skill, lens quality, enlargement and resolution ect.

If we take one process that we all have, the monitor viewing, the colour variation and quality individuals see will differ. This is because the range of monitors will differ, costs ranging from £2K plus to £100 jobs from PC World, so we are interpreting at differing levels.

Nikon to their credit have kept their sensors to an acceptable level (12Mbs), which at the moment suits the lens range. This size is more that adequate for 99.9% of users. I personally think that we are in for a pixel war, in theory the more the better enlargement factor, but it doesn’t work out like that at the higher end, as colours deteriorate through inadequate lighting, no matter how much fiddling with ISO.

I take on board what Steve’s written, but his sports friend has a different set of criteria, where speed is essential, and the quality of reproduction is way down in the priority list.

It would be wonderful if Nikon made affordable products, which we could change willy-nilly, but they don’t.

 

[Chalky W]

Dave,

I can't answer the question regarding the camera bodies but I do shoot with a 300-800 on a D300 and it is an excellent lens, all the birds in my gallery for the last year or so are taken with it, any dodgy pictures will be down to me.

The Stonechat series if you find them were taken at ISO 800, wide open on an overcast day and the bird was about 20ft away. One thing I will say to your friend is that its not a light lens but I can carry it on the shoulder strap for most of the day.

Dunno if it helps but thought I'd mention it as there aren't many around who use it.

 

[Dave Williams]

Thanks Chalky, I think he has almost decided the 300-800 route so your thumbs up will help convince him !
cheers Dave

 

[Chalky W]

Dave,

I'll also add that the 300-800 does need a bit of work to get the best out of it and a stable tripod setup is essential. As I'm sure with all big lenses, instant gratification shouldn't be expected. Just wish I had the cash for a D3....

Let us know how he gets on.

Cheers.

 

[RMWD]

D7000 and Nikkor 500mm F4

Dave,
I tested a D3s with my 500mm F4 VR2 against the D7000. In normal and medium light it was no contest. The D7000 had significantly better resolution and detail retention in the feathers. I didn't get the D3s. While at the shop (Calumet) I also tried the D3X. This gave a similar resolution and detail to the D7000 but little extra high iso gain and huge price. I saved myself a shedload of money and have enjoyed how good the D7000 is with the Nikkor 500mm.

I would say looking at pictures around the net that the D7000 and Nikor 500mm gives as good detail as the Sigma 300-800 with a D300.

My Flickr site has lots of examples and even with Flickr's poor compression algorithms this is visible when viewed at original size.

I hope the D400 when it comes out has at least the resolution, RD and iso performance of the D7000 and the AF of the D3s. I shall then upgrade to that.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/

Hope this helps

 

[swainsons]

Dave,
I tested a D3s with my 500mm F4 VR2 against the D7000. In normal and medium light it was no contest. The D7000 had significantly better resolution and detail retention in the feathers. I didn't get the D3s. While at the shop (Calumet) I also tried the D3X. This gave a similar resolution and detail to the D7000 but little extra high iso gain and huge price. I saved myself a shedload of money and have enjoyed how good the D7000 is with the Nikkor 500mm.

I would say looking at pictures around the net that the D7000 and Nikor 500mm gives as good detail as the Sigma 300-800 with a D300.

My Flickr site has lots of examples and even with Flickr's poor compression algorithms this is visible when viewed at original size.

I hope the D400 when it comes out has at least the resolution, RD and iso performance of the D7000 and the AF of the D3s. I shall then upgrade to that.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/

Hope this helps

Would you then say that the D7000 is significantly better than a D90??

Regards

 

[Dave Williams]

Dave,
I tested a D3s with my 500mm F4 VR2 against the D7000. In normal and medium light it was no contest. The D7000 had significantly better resolution and detail retention in the feathers. I didn't get the D3s. While at the shop (Calumet) I also tried the D3X. This gave a similar resolution and detail to the D7000 but little extra high iso gain and huge price. I saved myself a shedload of money and have enjoyed how good the D7000 is with the Nikkor 500mm.

I would say looking at pictures around the net that the D7000 and Nikor 500mm gives as good detail as the Sigma 300-800 with a D300.

My Flickr site has lots of examples and even with Flickr's poor compression algorithms this is visible when viewed at original size.

I hope the D400 when it comes out has at least the resolution, RD and iso performance of the D7000 and the AF of the D3s. I shall then upgrade to that.
cheers Dave

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/

Hope this helps

Very interesting observations I have to say.
I haven't really had a good look at the D7000 but the quick look I did have suggested it was lacking in manual settings. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
I find it hard to believe the D7000 out performs the D3s in everything bar AF which, surprisingly, I found no better on the D3s than the D300s !
I am certainly waiting for the next step forward, if the leap is as big as it was from the D200 to D300 it's worth waiting for before shelling out shed loads of cash !

 

[pe'rigin]

The one thing I would say, if the final usage destination of the images is the internet, then you don’t need a camera such as a D3s, better to use your money on better glass. But even that statement is contradictory as the Internet is such low resolution and covers a multiple of sins; you certainly don’t need to buy the best glass.

Nikon D3s cameras are really at the high end of reproduction, I’ve written many times the image you see on the monitor will change when it goes through the process of reproduction and printing, this shift is purely down to the process and physics.

But, and it’s a bit but, it’s toys and boys, I don’t think anybody could refuse any fellow human of owning one of the finest DSLR cameras out there.

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

Thanks Rioja for the thread :king:

So means the D700 would be much better than D300s when we cropped the same images let say 50% ?

 

[RMWD]

Would you then say that the D7000 is significantly better than a D90??

Regards

Yes I would. It also produces files that respond much better to post processing now I've worked out how best to do this. I still have my D90 but Only use it with the kit lens that came with the D7000.
Cheers Rich

 

[RMWD]

I find it hard to believe the D7000 out performs the D3s in everything bar AF which, surprisingly, I found no better on the D3s than the D300s !
I am certainly waiting for the next step forward, if the leap is as big as it was from the D200 to D300 it's worth waiting for before shelling out shed loads of cash !

So did I. It was very difficult to test a D3s head to head with any camera due to difficulty of sourcing one to use, but calumet Birmingham were brilliant. I went ready to buy a D3s and didn't. They let me test it with my 500f4 and my 300 f2.8 alongside my D7000. Obviously in dim light the D3s would shine.
I photograph weekly with a friend who uses a D300s and it and the D3s outperform the D7000 for Af when taking BIF shots. Hence my comment about the hoped for D400.

 

[Jaff]

Can I just check what does a standard D3 do that a D700 doesn't, taking aside the FPS as I'd imagine most that use one would have the Bat. Grip. I know I would. You can pick up a D700 s/h for £1300-1400 and a D3 will set you back around the £2000 mark. From everything I've read I can't see a D3 being £600 more camera.