- Messages
- 310
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hello all,
First post so please excuse any 'doh!' moments...
I have a Nikon D3200 with a Sigma 150-500mm lens, and while it's OK I recently had the chance to attach a D5100 to the lens. It seems to me the 5100 captures a lot more detail and generally produces a better image. I've tried to show this in a comparison shot.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5159779/D3200.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5159779/D5100.JPG
Obviously not very scientific, not least because the 5100 is set to vivid and the 3200 to standard (argh!) but the same thing seems to happen quite generally. Do people agree there is more detail in the 5100, and if so would this be because of the settings (I know vivid increases the sharpness a bit, and maybe different brightness and contrast might bring out more detail I supose) or because the 5100 has better processing? Or am I seeing things that aren't there?
The 5100 clearly works better in low light and takes longer to ramp up ISOs as shown here, and that by itself may be worth upgrading for. I use the camera mainly for birding so this is important. So is croppability, but the pixel count seems much less significant to the result. Would people agree?
Thanks for any comments.
First post so please excuse any 'doh!' moments...
I have a Nikon D3200 with a Sigma 150-500mm lens, and while it's OK I recently had the chance to attach a D5100 to the lens. It seems to me the 5100 captures a lot more detail and generally produces a better image. I've tried to show this in a comparison shot.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5159779/D3200.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5159779/D5100.JPG
Obviously not very scientific, not least because the 5100 is set to vivid and the 3200 to standard (argh!) but the same thing seems to happen quite generally. Do people agree there is more detail in the 5100, and if so would this be because of the settings (I know vivid increases the sharpness a bit, and maybe different brightness and contrast might bring out more detail I supose) or because the 5100 has better processing? Or am I seeing things that aren't there?
The 5100 clearly works better in low light and takes longer to ramp up ISOs as shown here, and that by itself may be worth upgrading for. I use the camera mainly for birding so this is important. So is croppability, but the pixel count seems much less significant to the result. Would people agree?
Thanks for any comments.
Last edited: