relmet454 Loc: Central Minnesota

Looking at the D750 full frame newly announced nikon vs a c-sized sensor like a D7100 so which is actually better?

My version of logic would be if I had the same number (24MP) in each of those sensors, then the smaller sensor would have the higher density of pixels and would yeild a more pixels per unit than the same number of pixels spread out to a full frame sensor? I am I missing a critical thing in this logic?

seeSAW Loc: Western Mass

Each receptor on the sensor would be larger on the full frame producing better IQ.

nicksr1125 Loc: Mesa, AZ

FX sensors tend to be better in low light situations. I agree with seeSAW on pixel size producing better IQ.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Don't use either, but less crowding of pixels seems to be a good idea - aren't full frame pixels bigger and able therefore to capture more light and detail (for those mile-size prints)?

nicksr1125 Loc: Mesa, AZ

That's part of the idea. I bought mine more for the low light shooting capabilities. Would like to see a valid test of the various sized sensors & the quality of prints that can be made from each.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

The full frame will give much better low light performance and somewhat better dynamic range.
The D610 is literally a D7100 with a full frame sensor inside the body. The D750's are the newest and mine all arrived today but I have yet to even un-box one to take a good look at it, but its pretty much just an upgrade to the D610.
All will give better results than sensors like the M4/3's because of lower pixel density.

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

MT,

I just read that you have "More glass than I can carry at once". Don't you have a pack horse?

Jim D

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

No.......I have a Jeep. ;-) ;-)

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

That should work. I have a Dodge 4wd crew cab and haven't filled it up yet, but am trying!

Jim D

rocketride Loc: Upstate NY

In general, all else being equal*, the larger sensor will exhibit lower noise than the smaller one. Each pixel on the larger chip is larger in area than its counterpart by a factor of 2.25 (1.5^2, since we're talking Nikons, here**) Which means that a pixel can hold about that many more electrons before saturating. Given that to take the equivalent photograph with the same angle of view and f# requires a lens that has a correspondingly larger area, the number of photons sampled (by dislodging electrons from the crystal lattice) is greater by that same factor. Most of the noise sources in a photographic system do not scale with pixel size, so the signal to noise ratio is just better with the larger chip.
You likely won't notice the difference in photos taken outside on a bright day at low ISO. But you definitely will once you take the cameras indoors and are trying to shoot with available light.

Hope this helps.

* Two cameras built at about the same time by the same manufacturer using chips from the same source, having the same pixel count, being used at the same ISO rating, etc.

** It's 2.56 (1.6^2):1 for Canons due to their smaller crop sensors.

Sensei

If all you are doing is comparing sensor size, full frame is always the better choice. But you might want to consider things, like the type of shooting you do, the price of the camera and how much it weighs, as well as the compatibility of any lens you now own.

amehta Loc: Boston

Yes, you are missing a critical thing: you can usually change something else, either the focal length or subject distance, to get the subject image the same relative size in both sensors. In that case, the full frame is unequivocally better. How much better depends on other factors. As an example, the DxOMark image quality ratings of the D7100 and D610 are 83 and 94. Whether that difference is significant to you depends on how you intend to use the camera and the images.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Your logic is valid as far as it goes, which isn't everywhere! :-)

The higher density of pixels equates directly to the ability to record higher resolution detail. However, it also means a lower Signal to Noise Ratio. The benefit is only available when there is lots of light and the ISO can be set low.

The lower density of pixels equates to larger individual pixels that have a higher SNR, and thus produce better image quality in low light conditions using a high ISO.

If you want the best of both of those worlds, skip both the D7100 and the D750, and buy a D810. High resolution and high SNR.

Of course that also means it produces huge files that take too long to process, hence the number of frames per second is low. Go for one of the others if you need a high frame rate!

There just is no one size fits all. Each has advantages and each has just as many disadvantages too. Take your pick and suffer the consequences. Or buy one of each...

amehta Loc: Boston

A file which is 1.5x larger than another is not suddenly "huge"!!! Please, you of all people know better than to repeat that tired meme.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

RAW files from 36MP full frame cameras are huge. They are huge enough that at present such cameras have slow continuous mode frame rates specifically because of the time required to process the data.

Any time the size of the data file is the limiting factor for a significant speed parameter, that is a huge file!

Time and technology march on though, and it won't be long before the compute power in a typical DSLR is multiple times what it is today, and the then available 72MP cameras will, even with their huge output files, be faster than the D810 is today because of the huge files it produces.