High ISO performance D7100 v D610

D

Doog

Messages
1,812
Name
Dougie
Edit My Images
Yes
Yes I know they're two different animals but having read about the D7100's very good results I'm curious about which will deliver best results? Your thoughts welcomed
 
Full frame usually wins out.........................
 
Not exactly what you're after but I have a D700 and a D3200 (which is more or less the same as the D7100) and I much prefer the high ISO results from the D700.
 
Nawty said:
Not exactly what you're after but I have a D700 and a D3200 (which is more or less the same as the D7100) and I much prefer the high ISO results from the D700.
Click to expand...

I do know what you mean. And I'm sure in a direct ISO 6400 comparison the 610 would best the 7100 (to refer to OP's original post). However, the thing about full-frame is the depth of field is much shallower, so *for identical depth of field*, on full-frame one needs to stop down the lens. Leading to the ISO going up. Leading to more noise. So for a photo *identical in DOF and exposure*, I'm not sure there's as much in it between APS-C and full frame as one is commonly led to believe.

Incidentally, I have the same cameras as Nawty above. And although I would always use the D700 for low light work, for various reasons, interestingly enough the D3200 beats the D700 by one point on the DXO rankings, perhaps because of the extra pixels. So if you downsample the D3200 to 12MP, the race is a lot closer. Particularly if you expose for consistent DOF.
 
martsharm said:
I do know what you mean. And I'm sure in a direct ISO 6400 comparison the 610 would best the 7100 (to refer to OP's original post). However, the thing about full-frame is the depth of field is much shallower, so *for identical depth of field*, on full-frame one needs to stop down the lens. Leading to the ISO going up. Leading to more noise. So for a photo *identical in DOF and exposure*, I'm not sure there's as much in it between APS-C and full frame as one is commonly led to believe.

Incidentally, I have the same cameras as Nawty above. And although I would always use the D700 for low light work, for various reasons, interestingly enough the D3200 beats the D700 by one point on the DXO rankings, perhaps because of the extra pixels. So if you downsample the D3200 to 12MP, the race is a lot closer. Particularly if you expose for consistent DOF.
Click to expand...

Prime example of why you shouldn't pay too much attention to DXO
 
no doubt D610 will perform a LOT better on higher ISO. I have 2x D600's (used to have 2x D7000's) and performance difference is amazing.
 
Comparing Sony a77 and a99, and ff gives a stop to 1 1/2 less dof? Then there about the same, but apart from a few lenses u don't get faster apsc equivalent.

A ff might be better due to larger sensor area beyond theory crafting of course.
 
D610

/thread.
 
All things being equal, ie similar generation sensor and processing engine, full frame will always beat APS-C in terms of noise and dynamic range, simply because it's bigger and captures more light/photons.

FF has more than twice the total sensor area of APS-C (difference is the crop factor squared, ie 1.5x1.5=2.25) so that's just over one stop better ISO performance. Dynamic range is slightly improved in the shadows by the same amount, as FF has twice as many photons to start with.

Depth of field is also reduced on FF compared to APS-C at same apertures, and the difference there is f/number x crop factor, ie f/4 x 1.5 = f/6, a smidge over one stop.

And sharpness is improved on FF because the bigger sensor needs less enlargement for a given size output/print. Therefore less resolution is required from the lens, therefore image contrast goes up and the picture looks sharper (regardless of pixel count, within reason).
 
^this

/thread.
 
Thanks for the replies. Interesting. I hadn't thought about DOF coming into it.
 
HoppyUK said:
All things being equal, ie similar generation sensor and processing engine, full frame will always beat APS-C in terms of noise and dynamic range, simply because it's bigger and captures more light/photons.

FF has more than twice the total sensor area of APS-C (difference is the crop factor squared, ie 1.5x1.5=2.25) so that's just over one stop better ISO performance. Dynamic range is slightly improved in the shadows by the same amount, as FF has twice as many photons to start with.

Depth of field is also reduced on FF compared to APS-C at same apertures, and the difference there is f/number x crop factor, ie f/4 x 1.5 = f/6, a smidge over one stop.

And sharpness is improved on FF because the bigger sensor needs less enlargement for a given size output/print. Therefore less resolution is required from the lens, therefore image contrast goes up and the picture looks sharper (regardless of pixel count, within reason).
Click to expand...

I think you may have just sold me on a FF. Are you a salesperson by any chance. lol :naughty::LOL:
 
Regarding what Hoppy said about sensor size.... you may want to take a look at the stuff I've put in this thread....

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/d700-upgrade-to-d800.523523/#post-6022304

If that doesn't convince you that a full size 35mm sensor is a worthwhile upgrade nothing will.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with smaller sensor cameras, but as you are trying to choose between a DX camera and a FX camera... what I put in that thread will finally convince you.
 
Doog said:
I think you may have just sold me on a FF. Are you a salesperson by any chance. lol :naughty::LOL:
Click to expand...

FF cameras also tend to be larger, heavier, and more expensive. FF lenses are certainly all three.

I'm a rubbish salesperson :D
 
A D610 is no heavier than the D7100... Well, not by much anyway. It's not really much bigger either.
 
I said 'tend' to be bigger and heavier. There's actually very little reason why FF cameras should be bigger than APS-C, but FF often comes in a higher spec and meatier camera body.

It's the lenses that are substantially bigger/heavier on FF, at equivalent focal lengths, eg
- Canon EF-S 55-250/4-5.6 is 108mm long and weighs 390g, price £210
- Canon 100-400/4.5-4.6 is 189mm long and weighs 1380g, price £1300
 
HoppyUK said:
I said 'tend' to be bigger and heavier. There's actually very little reason why FF cameras should be bigger than APS-C, but FF often comes in a higher spec and meatier camera body.

It's the lenses that are substantially bigger/heavier on FF, at equivalent focal lengths, eg
- Canon EF-S 55-250/4-5.6 is 108mm long and weighs 390g, price £210
- Canon 100-400/4.5-4.6 is 189mm long and weighs 1380g, price £1300
Click to expand...

Yes, my 70-200, 105 micro and 24-70 are not the lightest optics around. ;) I'd better get saving for that full frame then. Got a little ways to go yet.
 
I think a ff sensor and bits must be worth over 1000 by themselves?, while apsc be under 100?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top