D500

[htid]

I think what Bill is trying to convey, with bird photography you are nearly always cropping the images. As an example, when cropping down to 2500 x 1500 or whatever, the images are cleaner form a FX camera than a DX camera. It's what I have also found from switching from the D7000, D7100 to D750. It's bit harder for me to tell on my current D810 as I am using a different lens to the 300mm f4 AFS lens I had on D7100 and D750.

Sure, I agree, if you're cropping down to the same size. But you would never be cropping to the same size because you already have to crop 35% (if my maths is right, which it's probably not) of the image to even get the same size as the d7200 starts with. Then you have to crop further if neither D7200 or D750 have the birds full frame. So say you had to crop the d7200 image 50%, you'd have a bird made up of 2000px high. On the d750 you'd have a bird made up of 1312px high. As I've said, whether or not there's more noise on a 2000px image from DX vs a 1312px image from FX, only testing will tell. As Bill has tested and says he prefers his d750, that's fine

 

[snerkler]

I think what Bill is trying to convey, with bird photography you are nearly always cropping the images. As an example, when cropping down to 2500 x 1500 or whatever, the images are cleaner form a FX camera than a DX camera. It's what I have also found from switching from the D7000, D7100 to D750. It's bit harder for me to tell on my current D810 as I am using a different lens to the 300mm f4 AFS lens I had on D7100 and D750.

IME FF crops better than APS-C if you're cropping each by the same amount ending up with the same framing. For example if you have a bird that fills half the frame on each camera and you crop by 50% the crop from the FX camera will look better than the DX (all settings the same with the same lighting, and assuming the same MP sensors).

However, what the discussion has been is that if you stand in the same spot the DX camera gives the effect of more reach from the outset and so the bird/subject will be larger in the frame. So for example on FX if the bird filled half the frame on the DX it'll fill approximately 3/4 of the frame, and so the bird is 'made up' of more pixels on the DX sensor than FX, therefore one would expect the DX to look better cropped compared to the FX. So if you want the bird to fill the frame you would have to crop the FX far more than the DX so won't look as good (in theory )

 

[Swanseajack]

Forget about the DX focal length and the maths, what I was trying to say and I think Bill possibly, if I'm reading him right.. If you're cropping from a 6000 x 4000 image which both the D750 & D7200 approx untouched. If you then crop down to 2500 x 1500 the D750 photo would look cleaner.

 

[Swanseajack]

IME FF crops better than APS-C if you're cropping each by the same amount ending up with the same framing. For example if you have a bird that fills half the frame on each camera and you crop by 50% the crop from the FX camera will look better than the DX (all settings the same with the same lighting, and assuming the same MP sensors).

However, what the discussion has been is that if you stand in the same spot the DX camera gives the effect of more reach from the outset and so the bird/subject will be larger in the frame. So for example on FX if the bird filled half the frame on the DX it'll fill approximately 3/4 of the frame, and so the bird is 'made up' of more pixels on the DX sensor than FX, therefore one would expect the DX to look better cropped compared to the FX. So if you want the bird to fill the frame you would have to crop the FX far more than the DX so won't look as good (in theory )

I know what has been discussed, I was trying to convey what I thought Bill was saying and my experiences.

 

[snerkler]

I know what has been discussed, I was trying to convey what I thought Bill was saying and my experiences.

I know

But Bill stated somewhere about filling the frame with one format and cropping another Detail and noise 'should' be better on an uncropped image vs a relatively heavy cropped one (in normal situations and decent light), but of course it might not work out like this in reality I might try this with my G7x and D750 one day just out of curiosity

I actually think we're all in agreement just things have got lost in translation

 

[Swanseajack]

I know

But Bill stated somewhere about filling the frame with one format and cropping another Detail and noise 'should' be better on an uncropped image vs a relatively heavy cropped one (in normal situations and decent light), but of course it might not work out like this in reality I might try this with my G7x and D750 one day just out of curiosity

I actually think we're all in agreement just things have got lost in translation

I have just had a look through my Flickr feed to try and find some close(ish) size photos from the D750 and D7100 but theirs nothing close enough. I took this photo yesterday and not the best detailed image from the D810 as it was shot through glass handheld and I'm still finding the lens too heavy after surgery. The size of the file is 1124 x 1108. I haven't used the D7200, but my D7100 which was also 24mp would never have produced an image as good at that size of cropping.

Goldfinch with D810 by Swansea Jack, on Flickr

 

[snerkler]

I have just had a look through my Flickr feed to try and find some close(ish) size photos from the D750 and D7100 but theirs nothing close enough. I took this photo yesterday and not the best detailed image from the D810 as it was shot through glass handheld and I'm still finding the lens too heavy after surgery. The size of the file is 1124 x 1108. I haven't used the D7200, but my D7100 which was also 24mp would never have produced an image as good at that size of cropping.

Goldfinch with D810 by Swansea Jack, on Flickr

Agreed, as I said from my experience cropped FX images look a lot better than DX images cropped by the same amount.

Great image that btw

 

[htid]

I know what has been discussed, I was trying to convey what I thought Bill was saying and my experiences.

Sure, and nobody would deny that at the same size a d750 image would look better which is why fx bodies cost more than DX But I'm not sure that's what Bill meant and it's not the reality of the situation. In your example, cropping both to 2500x1500 would make the bird smaller in the frame on the d750 image. In a real life situation that would mean you'd have to walk whatever metres closer to the bird to get your example to work (I wonder what the real distance is...how much cloeer would you have to walk to make the distance between 300mm and 450mm the same...interesting)

 

[BillN_33]

Page 118 of the manual shows that DX mode is 3936 x 2624 which is 10.3MP.



Distance doesn't come into it, with a FF camera to crop FX to DX size you reduce each side by (approximately) 1.5 so 6016 x 4016 becomes 3936 x 2624 regardless of whether you are 1m away or 100m away, and it's the same whether you do this in camera (ie using DX mode) or crop to DX frame in post.

No I didn't, which link was that?

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/d7200-for-sale-bought-hdew-dec-2015-sold.620275/

 

[gramps]

D7200 crops well enough for my purposes


Wren by Roger, on Flickr

 

[mark richards]

D7200 crops well enough for my purposes


Wren by Roger, on Flickr

great stuff, you won't get any better than that..

 

[BillN_33]

I can posted quite a few images of "good" cropped D7200 images .... anyone can if you are selective

I started off by saying three things

1). The D500 - for me it depends on the noise over ISO1200
2). DX does not give you anymore reach - that is an illusion
3). DX does not turn your 300mm into a 450mm

and, at the distances I shoot, and from experience, the D750 is better cropped and much more consistant than any DX camera that I have had - from the D90, D300, D7000, D7100 and D7200

D7200 cropped images - (and you cannot get near a Snake bird)

(all spent time in pp reducing the noise)

 

[gramps]

Well there you go then ... DX as in D7200 crops well and produces great results.
I know I wouldn't have got the quality of the Wren with the same cropped size on an FX D4S/D4/D3S/D3 or older.

 

[sk66]

you would have to do the maths - pixels on an image - a Nikon 1 with the image filling the frame, versus a cropped DX and a cropped FX - from the same distance and cropped to the same size

but then you have to consider the IQ and noise

http://photographic-academy.com/camera-basics/84-camera-basics/141-mp-s-detail-contrast

 

[htid]

@BillN_33 If you're happy with the d750 then no problem Personally, I'll take the extra 'reach (you may say it's not reach but it means I don't have to be as close as you do to the subject so it's reach to me), each to their own. You'll hopefully see some shots from me when I get the d500 to show how good or otherwise the d500 is.

 

[snerkler]

I can posted quite a few images of "good" cropped D7200 images .... anyone can if you are selective

I started off by saying three things

1). The D500 - for me it depends on the noise over ISO1200
2). DX does not give you anymore reach - that is an illusion
3). DX does not turn your 300mm into a 450mm

and, at the distances I shoot, and from experience, the D750 is better cropped and much more consistant than any DX camera that I have had - from the D90, D300, D7000, D7100 and D7200

D7200 cropped images - (and you cannot get near a Snake bird)

(all spent time in pp reducing the noise)

I'm interested to know why you keep saying the 'extra reach' thing is an illusion? An illusion is something that is not real or misleading, whereas the effect of a crop body is very much real. We don't imagine an image that looks more 'zoomed in', this is what is recorded and what we see. The physics behind it are also pretty simple

 

[sk66]

A smaller sensor of the same resolution simply means you get more smaller pixels on the subject. That's neither good nor bad, it's a tradeoff that sometimes works well, and other times doesn't.

I honestly think that a lot of our struggles are just to record an "actual resolution" of 12-14MP... regardless of the sensor resolution. To actually record 20MP DX you would need to be shooting at ~ f/4 or wider with a *very* sharp lens.

 

[gramps]

To actually record 20MP DX you would need to be shooting at ~ f/4 or wider with a *very* sharp lens.

Please explain.

 

[snerkler]

@BillN_33 If you're happy with the d750 then no problem Personally, I'll take the extra 'reach (you may say it's not reach but it means I don't have to be as close as you do to the subject so it's reach to me), each to their own. You'll hopefully see some shots from me when I get the d500 to show how good or otherwise the d500 is.

I agree, for wildlife photography reach is everything a lot of the time which is why we add teleconverters etc to our already long lenses. How many times shooting birds I've wanted more than 600mm. Crop bodies give you the same result as a 1.5x longer lens meaning that my 600mm lens on a crop body would give me the same image as a 900mm on FX so certainly is appealing.

It would be interesting to know, if stood in the same place which would give the better end result, an FX camera with 600mm and 1.4xTC or a DX camera with just the 600mm on.

 

[sk66]

I'm interested to know why you keep saying the 'extra reach' thing is an illusion? An illusion is something that is not real or misleading, whereas the effect of a crop body is very much real. We don't imagine an image that looks more 'zoomed in', this is what is recorded and what we see. The physics behind it are also pretty simple

You're fixating on the "digital" aspect of screen display. If you photograph a 12x12 piece of paper, what size is it? It's 12x12 regardless of what sensor is used. And when it comes to 1:1 display, the larger sensor area (actual/remaining) will always have higher IQ.

The significant difference between crop factor and getting closer, using a longer lens, or using a TC is that all of those other methods actually make the details larger to be recorded by the sensor. Crop factor does *not* make the details larger, it just puts more/smaller pixels on the same details. Actually making the details larger actually brings out more details. Putting more pixels on smaller details only works in certain situations.

 

[snerkler]

You're fixating on the "digital" aspect of screen display. If you photograph a 12x12 piece of paper, what size is it? It's 12x12 regardless of what sensor is used. And when it comes to 1:1 display, the larger sensor area (actual/remaining) will always have higher IQ.

The significant difference between crop factor and getting closer, using a longer lens, or using a TC is that all of those other methods actually make the details larger to be recorded by the sensor. Crop factor does *not* make the details larger, it just puts more/smaller pixels on the same details. Actually making the details larger actually brings out more details. Putting more pixels on smaller details only works in certain situations.

I'm not fixating on anything, all I said is that it's not an illusion. The final image is the final image and on a DX the final image will look closer to the subject than the FX if stood in the same spot using the same (stated) focal length lens.

 

[sk66]

Please explain.

Aperture determines the size of a point of light projected onto the sensor... The size of these dots determines how many will fit on the sensor, and these dots get larger as the aperture gets smaller.

THIS CHART shows the maximum theoretical (using a non-existent perfect lens) at different apertures. The columns are for blue, green, red wavelengths, with green being the most important to digital photography.

Linked from THIS ARTICLE

 

[BillN_33]

basically that DX does not give you extra reach, or get you nearer, that's the illusion

 

[gramps]

Aperture determines the size of a point of light projected onto the sensor... The size of these dots determines how many will fit on the sensor, and these dots get larger as the aperture gets smaller.

This chart shows the maximum theoretical (using a non-existent perfect lens) at different apertures. The columns are for blue, green, red wavelengths, with green being the most important to digital photography.

Linked from THIS ARTICLE

See I think that's where the 'technical' argument breaks out of reality ... a mass of figures disguises the fact that with a D7200 DX body and my 500 f4 I can photograph things that would need a TC 1.7 (for example) attached on an FX body (except perhaps a D8xx) ... it's a case of figures and pixels verses real experience in the field

 

[sk66]

I'm not fixating on anything, all I said is that it's not an illusion. The final image is the final image and on a DX the final image will look closer to the subject than the FX if stood in the same spot using the same (stated) focal length lens.

It only looks "closer" in that there is less displayed... It is only a crop... and it only looks "larger" in a pixel display (on a monitor).

 

[BillN_33]

... it's a case of figures and pixels verses real experience in the field

that's my point Roger ... but with reverse reasoning

 

[BillN_33]

It only looks "closer" in that there is less displayed... It is only a crop... and it only looks "larger" in a pixel display (on a monitor).

that's why I use the word "illusion"

 

[gramps]

I know what works for me, it's horses for courses

 

[htid]

Aperture determines the size of a point of light projected onto the sensor... The size of these dots determines how many will fit on the sensor, and these dots get larger as the aperture gets smaller.

THIS CHART shows the maximum theoretical (using a non-existent perfect lens) at different apertures. The columns are for blue, green, red wavelengths, with green being the most important to digital photography.

Linked from THIS ARTICLE

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't believe that. My d7200 is 24mp. If I take a shot into Photoshop, the photo is 6000x4000px. That = 24million pixels on my page. How can anybody argue that? The article is too complicated for me to understand from the quick skim read I've done, but I don't see how anybody can say that my 6000x4000 image on screen is anything other than 24mp.

 

[sk66]

See I think that's where the 'technical' argument breaks out of reality ... a mass of figures disguises the fact that with a D7200 DX body and my 500 f4 I can photograph things that would need a TC 1.7 (for example) attached on an FX body (except perhaps a D8xx) ... it's a case of figures and pixels verses real experience in the field

I use a Nikon1, a D810, and a D4... The Nikon1 and D810 do not necessarily allow me to record things I cannot record w/ the D4. First, the detail has to actually be present in the scene, and then the lens/aperture has to be able to resolve to that level, and then the ISO has to be lower, and even then the smaller sensor will have lower contrast/MTF...

That doesn't even bring in the considerations of SS/motion blur which are much more demanding w/ smaller pixels...

 

[sk66]

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't believe that. My d7200 is 24mp. If I take a shot into Photoshop, the photo is 6000x4000px. That = 24million pixels on my page. How can anybody argue that? The article is too complicated for me to understand from the quick skim read I've done, but I don't see how anybody can say that my 6000x4000 image on screen is anything other than 24mp.

It's 24MP resolving 16MP (or whatever) of actual detail/information.

Take a picture of a smooth white wall... you have 24MP displaying 1pixel of detail (i.e. if the sensor was only one giant pixel the image would look the same).

For the normal/standard viewing area (primary 45* FOV) the human eye can resolve no more than 14MP of detail...

 

[htid]

An interesting question (for me) then: The d750 is 24mp, the d7200 is 24mp. If we stood at the same distance from a bird and used the same lens and took a shot, then printed out our images SOOC without resizing, would the bird be the same size in cm if we measured it on the printout? I assume the two bodies have the same DPI when printing?

Also,in the same situation, looking through the viewfinder, would the bird look closer on the d7200? That has nothing to do with pixels as it's simply looking through glass. I imagine the bird would still look bigger on the d7200 but I may be wrong.

 

[gramps]

I use a Nikon1, a D810, and a D4... The Nikon1 and D810 do not necessarily allow me to record things I cannot record w/ the D4. First, the detail has to actually be present in the scene, and then the lens/aperture has to be able to resolve to that level, and then the ISO has to be lower, and even then the smaller sensor will have lower contrast/MTF...

The D4 isn't a patch on the D810 when it comes to resolution (or ability to crop), neither is the D4S ... the D4 series excels but in other areas.

 

[BillN_33]

An interesting question (for me) then: The d750 is 24mp, the d7200 is 24mp. If we stood at the same distance from a bird and used the same lens and took a shot, then printed out our images SOOC without resizing, would the bird be the same size in cm if we measured it on the printout? I assume the two bodies have the same DPI when printing?

Also,in the same situation, looking through the viewfinder, would the bird look closer on the d7200? That has nothing to do with pixels as it's simply looking through glass. I imagine the bird would still look bigger on the d7200 but I may be wrong.

Don't understand this Chris - what's the size of the bird got to do with it

it is the quality of the image etc., when they are cropped to the same detailed size that I want - and I am saying that I get this more consistently from the D750 than the D7200 - and they both have 24MP sensors

 

[sk66]

An interesting question (for me) then: The d750 is 24mp, the d7200 is 24mp. If we stood at the same distance from a bird and used the same lens and took a shot, then printed out our images SOOC without resizing, would the bird be the same size in cm if we measured it on the printout? I assume the two bodies have the same DPI when printing?

Also,in the same situation, looking through the viewfinder, would the bird look closer on the d7200? That has nothing to do with pixels as it's simply looking through glass. I imagine the bird would still look bigger on the d7200 but I may be wrong.

In both of those scenarios, the bird will appear larger on the D7200... but this is the hard part... that doesn't matter one bit.

What does matter is the "enlargement" of the actual sensor area (not pixels). That's why smaller sensors have a more demanding COC (sharpness) and wider minimum aperture requirements. If you could make a contact print of both, the bird would be the same size. It's the actual enlargement that determines overall IQ and that's why MF/LF will always win.

If I take an image w/ a D7000 and compare it to a DX crop from a D800, the images and the results will be essentially identical.

 

[sk66]

The D4 isn't a patch on the D810 when it comes to resolution (or ability to crop), neither is the D4S ... the D4 series excels but in other areas.

Again, too many variables to make that statement IMO. In ideal conditions where the D810 can be used at low(er) ISO and with a sharp enough lens at a wide enough aperture, the D810 wins. Otherwise, the D4 may win in final image IQ.

 

[gramps]

Again, too many variables to make that statement. In ideal conditions where the D810 can be used at low ISO and with a sharp enough lens at a wide enough aperture, the D810 wins. Otherwise, the D4 may win in final image IQ.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, I've had D4/D4S and (for my use) wouldn't trade back from the D810 ... for that matter (for my use) I wouldn't trade back from my D7200 but I may well chose a D500 if the AF improvements are as good as they are hyped up to be.

 

[htid]

Don't understand this Chris - what's the size of the bird got to do with it

it is the quality of the image etc., when they are cropped to the same detailed size that I want - and I am saying that I get this more consistently from the D750 than the D7200 - and they both have 24MP sensors

Yeah I know, my question was just out of curiosity, not linked to this

 

[sk66]

We'll just have to agree to disagree, I've had D4/D4S and (for my use) wouldn't trade back from the D810 ... for that matter (for my use) I wouldn't trade back from my D7200 but I may well chose a D500 if the AF improvements are as good as they are hyped up to be.

Ok, at what ISO does noise become an issue for you (800 for me)? And at what aperture does the sensor become diffraction limited (above f/5.6).

Compare that to my ISO limit of 3200 and diffraction limiting above f/11 for the D4.

 

[BillN_33]

Yeah I know, my question was just out of curiosity, not linked to this

Chris - I only know what I see, (and process), in all this and that is what I have said - (for me if the D500 (sensor) can improve the noise situation over the D7200, I'll give one a go, maybe next year)

I do not understand this technical stuff, (I'll leave that to Steven who knows his stuff), but I think photographylife.com did an article of this ............. but I cannot find it