Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Upgrade: So here is the question....  (Read 5103 times)

martin archer-shee

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 147
Upgrade: So here is the question....
« on: June 02, 2015, 07:54:53 pm »

I have been a photographer , of one sort or the other , for many years, through a Topcon R, various  OM's and finally via Sony R1 to my faithful Nikon D300. Now to change after 7-8 years? Do I want a "full size" (what ever that means..) full "35" frame digital like the D750 or how about the DX D7200 DX? Both are" 24Mmp". So what are the pluses and minuses other than actual sensor size and $$. The DX has better "reach" but at the cost of doing this on a smaller "site". A FX could do this same shot and then cut back on the frame???? So... given a given lens, say a theoretical 200mm at say f4.5 what are the arguments..?

Am I better to go with a DX and save money and still get a great shot but be expecting more problem with low light?  $$.? How about the FX, with the same "pixels (all be it larger). What if I shoot my DX and crop back to the equivalent DX.... where do I stand?

In short what are the gains/losses? Should I wait for the upcoming 50MP sensors... and then what?

I think there is no answer to this thread but would love to hear your views.

Meanwhile I am looking for a D750 (maybe).

Martin   ???
Logged

scooby70

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 489
Re: Upgrade: So here is the question....
« Reply #1 on: June 02, 2015, 09:21:35 pm »

My view is that the first things to think about are what do you want to take pictures of, how are you going to do it and how you are going to look at the pictures.

If you want to take pictures of black cats chasing each other through the forest at midnight and produce exhibition quality prints 2m wide then you're going to need some cutting edge kit.

If you aren't going to be pushing the envelope of what the kit can do quite so much and will be viewing your images on screen or maybe printing whole images up to A3 and viewing then normally then maybe anything from Micro Four Thirds and upwards may be good enough.

I've given up on DSLR's and have sort of settled on a Sony A7 for maximum quality in a smallish package and within a reasonable budget and also for old manual lens use and Micro Four Thirds for a small and light AF interchangeable lens system for when I want something small that isn't going to attract too much attention but that's just me and there's a lot of choice now.
Logged

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7393
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: Upgrade: So here is the question....
« Reply #2 on: June 02, 2015, 10:42:11 pm »

Indeed the choices are  numerous... I have shot with Canon EOS for more than 20 years (not professionally, this is a hobby for me), today I use the Sony A7 platform. Smaller, good ergonomics, and no compromise in quality. I shoot landscapes, travel, and people.

I would go to a good photo store and try mirrorless, the EVFs are fantastic these days, AF is good and fast, so there are not many reasons left to still shoot a SLR. Mind you, there is nothing wrong with SLRs.

BobShaw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2218
    • Aspiration Images
Re: Upgrade: So here is the question....
« Reply #3 on: June 03, 2015, 02:39:30 am »

The simple answer to every photography question is "if you don't know that you need it, then you don't need it".
Be critical of your images and the needs become apparent.
If you need full frame or medium format or 50MP or whatever, then it will be obvious.
Logged
Website - http://AspirationImages.com
Studio and Commercial Photography

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Upgrade: So here is the question....
« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2015, 05:19:32 am »

In short what are the gains/losses? Should I wait for the upcoming 50MP sensors... and then what?

I think there is no answer to this thread but would love to hear your views.

Hi Martin,

As the others have suggested, it depends.

In general, a physically larger sensor requires a longer focal length for an adequate size image circle, and for a field of view that corresponds to the smaller outfit. With that longer focal length comes more image magnification, which helps to maintain better (micro-)contrast for later processing. Longer lenses are also somewhat easier to design, so lens quality will usually be no issue, although lenses will be larger and can be heavier, in general. The higher magnification will also reduce DOF, in particular at closer focus distances.

Some sensors are more forgiving for high dynamic range scene content, others need more accurate exposure or bracketing for the best output quality.

Another issue is the number of pixels that a sensor delivers. More pixels usually means that you can enlarge more or produce higher resolution, so you'd choose that as a function of your requirements.

Then the camera that holds the sensor can also make a difference. Some are better for fast focusing, others have better menu layouts or features that may be important for some, less for others. Handling also differs between camera bodies, some fit larger hands, some smaller ones. Some are better for those wearing spectacles others not.

So if you know you image quality requirements, and type of images to shoot (e.g. shallow or deep DOF, action or studio/landscape, required weatherproofing, etc.), and based the sensor size/type on that, then things get a lot more subjective. If you already own a series of lenses that are usable with (i.e. designed for) digital cameras, it makes sense to start with that brand for the camera body, since sytsem integration (AF / VR or IS / tethering / accessories) will likely be better.

I'd suggest to compile a list of features that are important for you and rank them in order of importance. Then score a number of cameras on each of those features, giving more weight to the things that are important for you. Add the weighted scores for all features per model (and toss a coin for the final outcome ;) ), and there you have it.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Herbc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 387
Re: Upgrade: So here is the question....
« Reply #5 on: June 03, 2015, 11:39:36 am »

If you plan on making big prints, full frame is nice, and not too $$.
But whatever you do, stay with the format you decide on.  Changing from DX to FX just causes confusion in your skills.
Logged

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Upgrade: So here is the question....
« Reply #6 on: June 03, 2015, 12:52:58 pm »

What subjects are you shooting? What limitations of the current kit do you find bothersome? When I add to my photo kit, I want to be solving a specific problem that isn't well handled by currently owned items.

I shoot both APS-C and full frame, and use the two cameras (60D and 6D) for different subjects and situations. 60D APS-C is my birding (reach with 400mm f/5.6 lens) and one-lens-solution (EF-S 15-85) versatile travel and fast hiking camera. 6D is my night, astro, landscape, macro, thin depth-of-field  camera, and it is kitted out with prime lenses. I frequently go out with one to three primes and a tripod, and I am aiming for highest image quality (relative to the APS-C and 15-85 lens, which is a darn good slow zoom but certainly no competition for the primes). The FF enables me to shoot at much higher ISOs than was practicable withe the APS-C, basically a 2 stop improvement in noise. Even the base ISO files are much nicer than those of the APS-C in terms of color rendition. I don't make ginormous prints, and when I make 2' x 3' prints, I am not viewing them from inches away, so 18 to 20 MP is sufficient for what I do. My skills and artistry haven't reached professional level yet, and I don't sell prints or advert images, so I don't really need the 50 MP in a FF or medium format camera.
Logged

martin archer-shee

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 147
Re: Upgrade: So here is the question....
« Reply #7 on: June 05, 2015, 09:24:15 pm »

Hi

Many thanks to all for the comments. Very useful.

However I need to apologise because I did not explain myself adequately at the start of this thread. i am not looking for justification for my NAS (Nikon Acquisition Syndrome) but rather to get a better handle on the physics and optics.

I have a D300 am have been very pleased with it, From day one I wished for better resolution. I guess that means "full frame" 35mm,,,,, When I bought the D300 (probably one of the first sold in Canada, as I left on a three month trip to New Zealand within two days of it arriving) "full frame" was monetarily out of the question at that time.

So, what am I after...? Basically the relationship between pixels, pixel size, number of pixels, declared ( actual) focal length and benefits for the image.

In my view a lens focal length is fixed(not counting zooms) So a 200mm focal length is the same for a crop frame, a 4/3 crop, a "full frame" and anything else. The lens focuses at the same point. What does change is the area that the lens covers and this is a matter of physical sizing.. So if we take the 35mm (full frame as the standard) all other film/sensor sizes are  either "crops" or plus by definition.References are often made to focal lengths of crop frames etc. but they are the equivalent  of what the angular measurement would be on a full frame.

So where does that leave us? It would appear that the greater the number of pixels will lead to better resolution (all things being equal) and that larger pixels will allow for better noise reduction. Result, a high pixel count with large pixels allows for great ime resolution and also clarity in decreasing light.

Enter the cell phone with its minuscule  lens and sensor size. and they are good for the purpose. 17x24... I don't think so, but great for many peoples needs.  Now to the crux. Take a crop sensor, say the one on a d7200 which is claimed as 24 mp and at the same time a D750 has 24 mp, but at a larger size. If you use a crop lens on the D750 it shows in the viewfinder the portion being captured as a "crop"  and would be a theoretical Focal length higher than our 200mm lens we are actually working with. 
So what advantage/disadvantage  is there to be discussed? The picture we are taking on the D750 with the lens showing the crop area is a reduced number of pixels (all be it larger). Now consider the camera with the same pixel count as the D750, but being of a crop frame, such as the  d7200. Its regular picture will be the same as that taken on the d750 in the crop area but at a full pixel count at a smaller (noisier site)

There are a lot of other factors to use in choosing the "new" camera but the pixel count and size still remains a starting point.

Love to hear your views/discussion/optical theory  on this mater of sensors.

thank you,,, I will now go look for my D750 or... maybe my D7200.  Did they say a 50 mb is coming... on what size??? Oh dear, more confusion.


Martin
Logged

capital

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 222
    • Website
Re: Upgrade: So here is the question....
« Reply #8 on: June 06, 2015, 03:55:21 am »

Hi

So, what am I after...? Basically the relationship between pixels, pixel size, number of pixels, declared ( actual) focal length and benefits for the image.

thank you,,, ... Oh dear, more confusion.

Martin


This image quality goal post keeps moving so there will likely be no real answer. An aside response is, it wont matter anyways as these camera purchases are usually a matter of want, rather than need.

Logged

spidermike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 535
Re: Upgrade: So here is the question....
« Reply #9 on: June 06, 2015, 11:56:51 am »

I shoot Canon so am not going to advise on Nikon gear, but when looking for a new body I found a fair few reviews that compared the 5D (22MP full frame) and 7D (20MP APS-C) bodies. Both of them have almost identical resolution, with the higher quality pixels of the 5D offsetting the smaller, slightly noisier, but more plentiful pixels of the 7D.

Even several years ago, I think it was when when cameras were first taking the 12MP to 15MP jump, Michael Reichmann was pointing out that much of the resolution advantage of the increased pixels was minimal if you did not follow all the tenets of good technique: tripod, mirror lock-up, remote release etc. I suspect it is still very much the case now, probably even more so.

And 50MP is fine, but (as Scooby 70 points out) how useful is it if you only ever view your image on a computer screen?
Logged

Ken Bennett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1797
    • http://www.kenbennettphoto.com
Re: Upgrade: So here is the question....
« Reply #10 on: June 06, 2015, 12:16:03 pm »

Hi

Many thanks to all for the comments. Very useful.

However I need to apologise because I did not explain myself adequately at the start of this thread. i am not looking for justification for my NAS (Nikon Acquisition Syndrome) but rather to get a better handle on the physics and optics.


I think we still can't answer the question until we know what you like to shoot.

The physics and optics of image quality are important, sure, but if you are shooting street photography handheld, your needs will be very different from a landscape shooter using a heavy tripod with careful technique. Of course a larger sensor will provide "better" image quality, based solely on the physics - probably the best general purpose camera on the market right now is the D810. Lots of high quality pixels, amazing dynamic range. In order to get the advantage of all those great pixels, requires good technique and a tripod (and also the top quality lenses).

You ask about shooting DX and getting more reach but at the expense of low light images -- well, how much do you shoot in very low light? If that's a very important part of your life, and it's all hand held, then that suggests a different set of gear than bird photography or landscape or studio portraiture.

If it's all about getting the best quality pixels, regardless of what you shoot, dump the Nikon gear and get the Phase One, or, for less money, the Pentax. If your response is, yeah, but I can't shoot birds with that, then you see why I am asking what you like to shoot before making a recommendation. :)
Logged
Equipment: a camera and some lenses. https://www.instagram.com/wakeforestphoto/

Bernard ODonovan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 220
Re: Upgrade: So here is the question....
« Reply #11 on: June 06, 2015, 06:24:33 pm »

I have been a photographer , of one sort or the other , for many years, through a Topcon R, various  OM's and finally via Sony R1 to my faithful Nikon D300. Now to change after 7-8 years? Do I want a "full size" (what ever that means..) full "35" frame digital like the D750 or how about the DX D7200 DX? Both are" 24Mmp". So what are the pluses and minuses other than actual sensor size and $$. The DX has better "reach" but at the cost of doing this on a smaller "site". A FX could do this same shot and then cut back on the frame???? So... given a given lens, say a theoretical 200mm at say f4.5 what are the arguments..?

Am I better to go with a DX and save money and still get a great shot but be expecting more problem with low light?  $$.? How about the FX, with the same "pixels (all be it larger). What if I shoot my DX and crop back to the equivalent DX.... where do I stand?

In short what are the gains/losses? Should I wait for the upcoming 50MP sensors... and then what?

I think there is no answer to this thread but would love to hear your views.

Meanwhile I am looking for a D750 (maybe).

Martin   ???

In DX Crop mode on the D750 FX camera you will have approx 10.3 Mega Pixels of detail. Is that enough for you?

A rough average is a FX sensor will be about 3 stops better noise/picture quality for a given set of ISO's (more obvious at higher ISO's) for a given generation of sensor tech. However if you are cropping down on a FX sensor to end up with less pixels then that advantage is being lost as you would have more pixels on a DX camera like the D7200 to win back some of that noise/picture quality in post processing.

In general if you want the reach of a DX crop with a given size of lens focal length then you are better of with a DX camera.

A FX camera with 50 Mega pixels dose not loose so many pixels in DX crop mode but would still have less pixels than a D7200. The new, as of yet unannounced camera, would have to process way more data unless it ignored the outer FX regions in DX crop mode, so will probably be a slow camera compared to a DX camera in speed of use. A FX shutter is also bigger and not so sweet at high frames per second if that is what you also need.

In general people who suit a move from DX to FX cameras are those who shoot wider lenses and or need high picture quality at a wider range of ISO’s. Or sports Pro’s who can afford and use much larger long glass and want the high end pro FX D4 type camera’s as Nikon has returned to FX in that area.

If your happy with the picture quality of the D7200 and it suits the shooting you do then think carefully before jumping to a D750.

As others have said it really depends what shooting your doing and there are other options if you are not stuck on Nikon

There are many other users who will still prefer FX for other reasons, since you’re asking it is unlikely that you fall into that group…

Logged

BradSmith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 772
Re: Upgrade: So here is the question....
« Reply #12 on: June 06, 2015, 07:26:08 pm »

I think that the first question in any discussion about full frame vs smaller sensor cameras is.......how do you output your images?   To a monitor only?  If printed, what is the largest size that you normally print?  And do you print to canvas or on paper?

I personally think that if you either just view or show your images on a monitor, or if you rarely print larger than 13" x 19", then, in fact a micro 4/3 sensor with excellent lens is all that is needed.  This could change if you do LOTS of low light photography or do lots and lots of images with huge dynamic ranges. 

And of course, money plays a significant role in this discussion for a lot of people. 
Brad Smith
Logged

pdp11

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
Re: Upgrade: So here is the question....
« Reply #13 on: June 08, 2015, 03:37:07 pm »

An used d700 (5-600€) and a good lens?
I still prefer the d700 over the d800.
You can use the d300 for the the tele end, but d700 is another league...  ;)
Logged

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: Upgrade: So here is the question....
« Reply #14 on: June 08, 2015, 09:03:09 pm »

I have been shooting Full Frame (D810) and DX (D7100) for about a year after only shooting DX since 2007.  There are times I prefer one to the other.  I recently sold the D7100 and am concerned how I will fare with only Full Frame available.  Until I put some time in Full Frame only, I can't really give you a call.  However, there are some differences between Full Frame versus APS-C.

As I see it, assuming all other functions you might need are the same such as frame rate, buffer, AF speed, etc.  Then there are a few fundamental differences

1. Obviously the crop of the APS-C makes it easier to on the long end.  A 200mm full frame equals 300mm so you get smaller lighter, cheaper long lens capability in APS-C.

2. Conversely APS-C makes going wide more difficult.  Something like an 18-35mm acts like 27mm at the short end.

3. Theoretically, the smaller pixel size on the similar MP APS-C sensor should give more detail assuming you are imaging the same total angle of view on the sensor (same crop).

4. The Larger size pixels of the Full Frame will give higher Signal to Noise and hence, will perform better at high ISO.

5.  DOF.  The smaller sensor makes larger DOF at same apertures as Full Frame.  This can be good for macro or landscapes.  But if you are trying to get portraits where you separate the subject from the background, that can be difficult to impossible with the smaller sensor and the larger DOF.
 
Logged

Dave Ellis

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 103
Re: Upgrade: So here is the question....
« Reply #15 on: June 09, 2015, 12:40:56 am »

Hi Martin

Just a couple of extra comments on resolution/sharpness.

If we compare the DX 7200 with the FX D750, both are 24MP cameras and the DX camera has smaller pixels (higher sampling frequency). This means that the pixel MTF of the D7200 should be higher than that of the D750 - a fancy way of saying the D7200 should have "more resolution". However there is a counter-balancing factor (that often seems to be overlooked) - viz the FX camera requires less optical reduction by the lens for the same field of view. This means that for a given frequency of detail in the subject, the lens will have to re-produce a finer level of detail on the DX sensor than on the FX sensor, ie it's resolution is more critical. This is the factor which leads to the LineWidth/Picture Ht concept when comparing resolution of two camera systems with different sensor sizes.

Another factor of interest is that with smaller pixels (higher sampling freq), the likelihood of Moire is reduced. As a result, Nikon has decided to remove the anti-aliasing filter on it's 24MP DX cameras. This also improves the sharpness/resolution. With the D610 (and I think the D750 is the same), the anti-aliasing filter is still there however it appears to only operate in the vertical direction. Jack Hogan published something on this and I have also done my own slanted edge measurements  on my D610 to verify it.

Dave
Logged

martin archer-shee

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 147
Re: Upgrade: So here is the question....
« Reply #16 on: June 09, 2015, 08:14:01 am »

thanks again to all. Dave Ellis seems to have hit the nail. It was more a question of the relationship between the sensors that what my specific shooting habits are.

Martin :D
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up