Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
Nikon Df vs. Nikon D5300 Surprise and a kita!
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
Dec 7, 2017 06:20:59   #
jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY
 
DaveyDitzer wrote:
I am trying to enter this experiment with no or as little bias as I can muster. Question: when I run the next test with only the 50 mm FF lens on both bodies can I post the highest resolution jpeg or is it possible to post RAW on this site? Thanks again for you constructive suggestions so far.


This site accepts JPEG, not raw.

Reply
Dec 7, 2017 06:22:41   #
jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY
 
Kmgw9v wrote:
...but I will never concede that the 5300 is a better body than my Df.


That's a given.

It's the same with my D750. It's the best there is. That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.

Reply
Dec 7, 2017 06:34:56   #
billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
 
DaveyDitzer wrote:
Tried some lens and body tests today. Bright day, 3PM afternoon, steady rest, identical ISO, Aperture (f8) and shutter speeds between 500 and 1000 shot from a rest. Two lenses: Nikon 16-80 f2.8/4 ED VR DX and a Nikon 50 mm D f1.4. Test shots on the variable crop lens at both 35mm and 50mm on the crop body. Shot flower close ups and distance shots (brick buildings) across the river at maybe half mile +/-. All shots on the crop body (D5300, 24mp) were sharper and crisper when magnified than those from the Df (16mp FF). This regardless of which lens was used on either body. Am I seeing the difference in mp of the sensor or am I not conducting my tests correctly. I examined jpegs on my 27" monitor side by side. I have RAW but have convert these. The differences were apparent on the jpeg files. Need some direction from you folks with more experience. Where next? I like the whole feel and controls on the Df, but expected it to stand out compared to my D5300, hence my kita feelings.
Tried some lens and body tests today. Bright day, ... (show quote)


Here is proof positive of yet another internet expert that can prove that the 5300 is better than the Df. Don't you just love the expert tests available here for free. Isn't life grand.

Reply
 
 
Dec 7, 2017 07:07:34   #
yorkiebyte Loc: Scottsdale, AZ/Bandon by the Sea, OR
 
jerryc41 wrote:
You're not supposed to put something like this in print. We all know that cheap cameras can give results that are as good as, or better than, a more expensive camera. That's not the point. We want new stuff and stuff with lots of features. We want something that will impress other photographers and make them wish they had the gear we have. Any camera can take good pictures these days.

As for the test, I've seen lots of comparison tests on UHH, and they all prove one thing: leave testing to the pros. It sounds like you shot in NEF and then converted. I suspect the converting is responsible for some of the difference. It might be better to shoot in JPEG and see what each camera produces, rather than using a processing program. Most people shoot in JPEG. Even on UHH, relatively few people shoot raw exclusively.

I'm not familiar with "kita."
You're not supposed to put something like this in ... (show quote)



Reply
Dec 7, 2017 07:25:13   #
Boris Ekner Loc: From Sweden, living in Guatemala
 
DaveyDitzer wrote:
Tried some lens and body tests today. Bright day, 3PM afternoon, steady rest, identical ISO, Aperture (f8) and shutter speeds between 500 and 1000 shot from a rest. Two lenses: Nikon 16-80 f2.8/4 ED VR DX and a Nikon 50 mm D f1.4. Test shots on the variable crop lens at both 35mm and 50mm on the crop body. Shot flower close ups and distance shots (brick buildings) across the river at maybe half mile +/-. All shots on the crop body (D5300, 24mp) were sharper and crisper when magnified than those from the Df (16mp FF). This regardless of which lens was used on either body. Am I seeing the difference in mp of the sensor or am I not conducting my tests correctly. I examined jpegs on my 27" monitor side by side. I have RAW but have convert these. The differences were apparent on the jpeg files. Need some direction from you folks with more experience. Where next? I like the whole feel and controls on the Df, but expected it to stand out compared to my D5300, hence my kita feelings.
Tried some lens and body tests today. Bright day, ... (show quote)


I am not familiar with your 16MP Df camera. However, what no one mention in their replies is pixel density. A higher pixel density will produce sharper and more detailed photos, this means that the MP number itself is not the only variable.

A second variable to consider is DX or FF lenses and their effect on image quality. In general a FF lens on a DX sensor will produce sharper photos than a DX lens on the same DX body.

More on this here:
https://www.slrlounge.com/the-truth-behind-the-megapixel-myth/

Comparing DX vs FX photos:
https://youtu.be/XFncHWMuWX0

Here are two different, refreshing, views on the topic from two professional photographers. Both arguing that it’s not about sensor size, but all about pixel density.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=PHYidejT3KY

https://youtu.be/B9be2mrOOJg

Reply
Dec 7, 2017 07:29:09   #
Boris Ekner Loc: From Sweden, living in Guatemala
 
jerryc41 wrote:
You're not supposed to put something like this in print. We all know that cheap cameras can give results that are as good as, or better than, a more expensive camera. That's not the point. We want new stuff and stuff with lots of features. We want something that will impress other photographers and make them wish they had the gear we have. Any camera can take good pictures these days.

As for the test, I've seen lots of comparison tests on UHH, and they all prove one thing: leave testing to the pros. It sounds like you shot in NEF and then converted. I suspect the converting is responsible for some of the difference. It might be better to shoot in JPEG and see what each camera produces, rather than using a processing program. Most people shoot in JPEG. Even on UHH, relatively few people shoot raw exclusively.

I'm not familiar with "kita."
You're not supposed to put something like this in ... (show quote)



Reply
Dec 7, 2017 08:35:10   #
Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.
 
DaveyDitzer wrote:
Tried some lens and body tests today. Bright day, 3PM afternoon, steady rest, identical ISO, Aperture (f8) and shutter speeds between 500 and 1000 shot from a rest. Two lenses: Nikon 16-80 f2.8/4 ED VR DX and a Nikon 50 mm D f1.4. Test shots on the variable crop lens at both 35mm and 50mm on the crop body. Shot flower close ups and distance shots (brick buildings) across the river at maybe half mile +/-. All shots on the crop body (D5300, 24mp) were sharper and crisper when magnified than those from the Df (16mp FF). This regardless of which lens was used on either body. Am I seeing the difference in mp of the sensor or am I not conducting my tests correctly. I examined jpegs on my 27" monitor side by side. I have RAW but have convert these. The differences were apparent on the jpeg files. Need some direction from you folks with more experience. Where next? I like the whole feel and controls on the Df, but expected it to stand out compared to my D5300, hence my kita feelings.
Tried some lens and body tests today. Bright day, ... (show quote)


If you are happy with you D5300, that's great. Have fun. You will never convince me that it is better than my Df, but that is not important, what's important is that you like yours.

Reply
 
 
Dec 7, 2017 08:37:49   #
BebuLamar
 
Mac wrote:
If you are happy with you D5300, that's great. Have fun. You will never convince me that it is better than my Df, but that is not important, what's important is that you like yours.


Save a lot of money too! I love the Df but that's because I know less is really more

Reply
Dec 7, 2017 08:38:26   #
Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida
 
BebuLamar wrote:
Save a lot of money too! I love the Df but that's because I know less is really more



Reply
Dec 7, 2017 09:09:20   #
lamontcranston
 
jerryc41 wrote:
You're not supposed to put something like this in print. We all know that cheap cameras can give results that are as good as, or better than, a more expensive camera. That's not the point. We want new stuff and stuff with lots of features. We want something that will impress other photographers and make them wish they had the gear we have. Any camera can take good pictures these days.

As for the test, I've seen lots of comparison tests on UHH, and they all prove one thing: leave testing to the pros. It sounds like you shot in NEF and then converted. I suspect the converting is responsible for some of the difference. It might be better to shoot in JPEG and see what each camera produces, rather than using a processing program. Most people shoot in JPEG. Even on UHH, relatively few people shoot raw exclusively.

I'm not familiar with "kita."
You're not supposed to put something like this in ... (show quote)


How true. The big camera companies must cringe when they read a post like that. I suspect many won't accept the truth of your statements.

kita="kick in the a$$"

Reply
Dec 7, 2017 10:16:38   #
Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.
 
BebuLamar wrote:
Save a lot of money too! I love the Df but that's because I know less is really more



Reply
 
 
Dec 7, 2017 11:11:44   #
Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA
 
So where are the test pictures?

Reply
Dec 7, 2017 12:16:27   #
DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA
 
jerryc41 wrote:
You're not supposed to put something like this in print. We all know that cheap cameras can give results that are as good as, or better than, a more expensive camera. That's not the point. We want new stuff and stuff with lots of features. We want something that will impress other photographers and make them wish they had the gear we have. Any camera can take good pictures these days.

As for the test, I've seen lots of comparison tests on UHH, and they all prove one thing: leave testing to the pros. It sounds like you shot in NEF and then converted. I suspect the converting is responsible for some of the difference. It might be better to shoot in JPEG and see what each camera produces, rather than using a processing program. Most people shoot in JPEG. Even on UHH, relatively few people shoot raw exclusively.

I'm not familiar with "kita."
You're not supposed to put something like this in ... (show quote)


kick in the a$$! an expression of unpleasant surprise.

Reply
Dec 7, 2017 12:19:28   #
DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA
 
Bobspez wrote:
So where are the test pictures?


first set was shot yesterday. Today's lighting is overcast so I haven't run the second set yet. Waiting for an improvement in the light. Back later with the second set.

Reply
Dec 7, 2017 12:23:47   #
DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA
 
PS. I am not posing as an "expert" or a pro. My experimental design expertise is in other fields, not digital cameras. I was simply curious to find a source for what I was observing in my pictures. I am certainly not an electronics or computer expert so once I wandered away from film, I became a beginner again. I am looking for helpful suggestions which usually come from a lot of "hoggers' and I appreciate your willingness to help.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.