Nikon 70-200 f4 in DX mode
Jun 29, 2015 19:46:53 #
SteveR wrote:
Very possibly. However, even at 30 x 40, the 800 series will give you sharper resolution. You WOULD see the difference at that point and larger.
If I can take a 16x24 and make it into a 63x33(triplex i.e.3 21x33 ) and have no problem selling it for a really good price for this area,why would I really need to pay that kind of money for the extra (questionable,as I tried the full frame and wasn't impressed) sharpness that your say I would gain,when your can get the same thing in your processing program.
Not trying to be rude but to many people think that if you pay a lot for a camera ,they will give you a super image. They will if you put the time in to get it right,but most don't want to do the time.Everybody now want to fast track. Just read some of the questions posted everyday.EX. Waiting for the green truck.Delivering a D4.Help.What lens should I buy.? My way of thinking is if you are buying a D4 ,you should not need to ask for any help on anything.
Jun 29, 2015 19:58:17 #
tusketwedge wrote:
If I can take a 16x24 and make it into a 63x33(tri... (show quote)
You have to realize that to take advantage of the full frame, you'd need to fill the sensor with the image that you want to print.
Jun 29, 2015 20:17:12 #
SteveR wrote:
You have to realize that to take advantage of the full frame, you'd need to fill the sensor with the image that you want to print.
I went through your posts and didn't see anything there that would really make me change my mind of going full frame as far as sharpness. Sorry,hope you don't take it as a insult,JMHO.
Jun 29, 2015 20:44:53 #
tusketwedge wrote:
I went through your posts and didn't see anything there that would really make me change my mind of going full frame as far as sharpness. Sorry,hope you don't take it as a insult,JMHO.
tw....There is a difference in sharpness and resolution. Resolution is not really seen until a photo is either projected or printed. It only makes sense, however, that larger sensors would have more resolution, even if smaller sensors may be sharper. That's why medium format cameras can be used to produce more resolution than full frame cameras. It's why my father's beautiful portrait (portrait size) in his A.F. uniform was produced by a 5x7 film camera.
Jun 29, 2015 21:13:45 #
SteveR wrote:
tw....There is a difference in sharpness and resolution. Resolution is not really seen until a photo is either projected or printed. It only makes sense, however, that larger sensors would have more resolution, even if smaller sensors may be sharper. That's why medium format cameras can be used to produce more resolution than full frame cameras. It's why my father's beautiful portrait (portrait size) in his A.F. uniform was produced by a 5x7 film camera.
I am very aware what the difference is between sharpness and resolution,but why would your want a whole lot of resolution and have a blurry image. What I'm getting at,you can have the best ,highest resolution camera,most expensive lens,all the best filters ,tripods,best computer and monitors with all the top rated prossessing programs.If you don't know how to operate them your shots are still going to be SH--TY.Equipement is only as GOOD as the PERSON operating them.Case closed.
Jun 29, 2015 21:20:14 #
tusketwedge wrote:
I am very aware what the difference is between sharpness and resolution,but why would your want a whole lot of resolution and have a blurry image. What I'm getting at,you can have the best ,highest resolution camera,most expensive lens,all the best filters ,tripods,best computer and monitors with all the top rated prossessing programs.If you don't know how to operate them your shots are still going to be SH--TY.Equipement is only as GOOD as the PERSON operating them.Case closed.
Yep. As far as I'm concerned, too.
Jun 29, 2015 21:26:26 #
SteveR wrote:
Yep. As far as I'm concerned, too.
Forgot to mention that you posted in an earlier post something about the resolution being to low for anything except viewing on the computer.That was by design.I make them in a low rez for posting.The actual size is about 24 meg for the original.
Jun 29, 2015 22:00:12 #
tusketwedge wrote:
Forgot to mention that you posted in an earlier post something about the resolution being to low for anything except viewing on the computer.That was by design.I make them in a low rez for posting.The actual size is about 24 meg for the original.
That's not exactly what I said. Here's the post that you are referring to:
tusketwedge....At this size, the D7100 would be all that you would need. If you never take your images off the computer, it's probably more than you need. When you get into print, however, filling a full frame sensor like the 800 series with those same images will allow you more resolution when you make larger prints. At the size you've shown, however, the difference would be negligible.
Jul 11, 2015 23:06:03 #
Bram boy
Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada
joer wrote:
If shot at the same ISO I'd put my money on the 810 even though the file size would be smaller.
As the ISO went up definitely the 810.
As the ISO went up definitely the 810.
I think you would be degrading it twice in that case . Putting it in crop mode
Then cropping a crop on top of it all
Jul 11, 2015 23:09:16 #
Bram boy
Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada
SteveR wrote:
ONLY because the D7100 is sharper than the D810 is in dx mode. NOT because of the crop factor.
:thumbup:
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.