FULL FRAME 12.3MP VS NIKON D7100

architectfadi said:
Very interesting read. So if all things equal, with two cameras (full frame and a cropped sensor) same generation and same pixel size on sensor then we should get similar image quality?
Click to expand...

Well not really, depending on your definition of similar.

If you do that all-things-equal comparison, as fairly as it's possible, FF always wins.

The difference between the two however, varies from night and day to hardly noticeable, depending on different people's interpretation.
 
architectfadi said:
Very interesting read. So if all things equal, with two cameras (full frame and a cropped sensor) same generation and same pixel size on sensor then we should get similar image quality?
Click to expand...

I have to spend more time on smaller format images to get them up to the point at which they could hide amongst FF shots but after that for me FF "goodness" wins in the following situations...

Higher ISO shots.

Paper thin DoF shots (you can get thin DoF from smaller formats but the framing will very probably be different.)

FF also wins if you need to give the exposure or maybe just the shadows a hefty boost post capture or if you need to crop heavily and still produce a large image.
 
dalegt4 said:
Thats alright, thats the problem with type speak, it can be misinterpreted.

It did sound massively elitest though. haha :lol:
Click to expand...
Sorry if it came across that way, the point I am making is that good lens is much more important than high mega-pixel camera.

In fact, I estimate 80% of the time I shoot using APS-C sensor with a fantastic fixed lens. If anything, you can say I am elitist against high pixel density. 20-24 MP in full frame and 12-16 MP in APS-C is about right IMO (D7000 is a fantastic camera!). Any higher then you are asking way too much of the usual kit lenses that come with the camera.



with regard to OP's £500 budget. set a budget and stick to it, there is no end with budget creep, you can always add a tiny bit for that next level up. I set a budget for cheapest full frame and got my 5D2 second hand last year from someone upgrading to 5D3. I set a budget of £500 for a compact APS-C, and got x100. I could easily afford x100s or 5D3 but the price differences are much better spent on a holiday.
 
Internet rage is part and part of a forum lol.

Also, the irony is I am thinking of going full frame, but can't afford the 2.8 lenses to go with it. Saying that - some things take time.
 
I have assumed that the bigger pixel size we get with full frame sensors is the reason we get better quality images from a full frame sensor?
 
architectfadi said:
I have assumed that the bigger pixel size we get with full frame sensors is the reason we get better quality images from a full frame sensor?
Click to expand...

No, not for better sharpness - that's down to a) the larger physical area of FF and hence lower magnification required for same size output, ie it's a lens thing, and b) 'sufficient' pixels to record the image.

Pixel size has an effect on dynamic range and noise, though the question is kind of moot. It always used to be true that higher pixel density made for more noise, but modern sensors with more efficient photon/light collection and their improved processing engines seem to have largely overcome that. At the end of the day, for a given sensor area, the same amount of light falls on it regardless of how many pixels there are and that is the ultimate deciding factor as far as noise etc is concerned. Eg, Nikon D800 has roughly 3x the number of pixels compared to the D700 (both FF) yet both have excellent high ISO performance. The difference is, the D800's sensor/processor is much newer.
 
Mp means nothing why have full frame when you short sport or motorsport? Why have crop sensor when your all about wide angle? Fact is that the 7100 has no filter on the sensor makin it sharo as hell but do you need the reach or mp? When 12mp will do for printing a3?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top