Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Gene,
I really learned something today. I never considered enlarging the DX image in PS to get an accurate comparison to the CX image. Because the CX image was larger, I could see more detail with my eyes, and so it appeared the CX image had more detail. But when I used PS to enlarge the DX crop to the same size as the CX crop, you were right, there was more fine detail in the enlarged DX crop than the CX crop. This is a bit of a game changer for me. I guess if ever get a D800 or D810, and an FX 300mm lens, I could expect to get better bird images than with my D7000 and the 55-300 AFS lens.

Bob

therwol Loc: USA

Pixel density of the D800 is lower than it is with the 24MP DX cameras. The larger pixels is actually one of the reasons why image quality is better. If you use the DX mode, you get 15MP. Can you live with that? It really limits cropping further. You can get the same effect by cropping your full frame pictures and giving the impression that you have a longer focal length lens on the camera. The only advantage I see in shooting with fewer pixels is file size.

ldhflyguy Loc: near Chicago

That a5 setting is some cool information.
Thank You.

mkaplan519

I left Canon crop cameras and went to Nikon with the D800 for the exact same reason as what you are asking about.
I love the crop sensor's seemingly better reach but wanted a FF camera for the better quality especially in high ISO. I also did not want to have 2 bodies and the D800 was the first DSLR that had a high enough resolution to give me what I wanted.
I got the camera and used it a couple of times in DX mode. Then I shot in FF and cropped in Photoshop. Exact same thing so I no longer used the DX mode except for when I want the little extra FPS rate that DX gives you (trying to get shots of a pitcher throwing the ball as an example).
It ends up though that I bought a D500 and now have 2 bodies. I'll go on a shoot (depending on where and what I am shooting) with a wider lens on the D810 and a higher telephoto zoom on the D500.
I just purchased the Nikon 200-500mm and am going to sell my Sigma 150-600mm C. All these lenses are great for the money and reach.

photon56 Loc: North America

Focal length doesn't change. You are losing part of the image. You can do the same thing by shooting in FX and crop it in post processing. It's up to you. I shoot the full FX format and then crop the image to get the subject I wanted.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Bob, you are 100% correct - I am glad you took the time to actually investigate this and not just take my word for it - or decide I was crazy, misinformed or adhering to "alternative facts."

The 55-300 is actually pretty good, especially when you can stay at F8. The same is true of the Sigma Sport 150-600. F8 provides nice images, like the ones I posted of the cardinals above. But when I use my 600mm F4, I get that image quality at F4. That lens is engineered to provide the best image quality at F4, and does not improve at all at smaller fstops, though you do get more depth of field. This is a shot of a painted bunting - a bird that totally got lost in a coastal storm in December 2015 - it normally lives in the Gulf states. but you can see the clarity and quality of that optic - well worth the price they get for it.

(Download)

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Thanks Gene. Amazing shot. How far away from the bird were you? Couldn't have been sharper if you were inches away.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Thanks!

I was about 25 ft away, but the painted bunting is really tiny, about the size of a warbler and slightly smaller than a black-capped chickadee.

This is the uncropped version.

(Download)

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Thanks for the info. You found a hole through the foliage. Great photography.

Leitz Loc: Solms

You're downright cruel to suggest that anyone do some thinking!!

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Thanks! This little guy likes to hang around on low brush, picking at berries. If he wasn't so flamboyantly colored, he'd be really hard to spot.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

After you figure out that you only get 15.3 mp then go and figure out how many pixels you need to print to 40"x60"

(Hint - it's not nearly as many as you think you need, and it's a lot less than for a 5x7 print).

Would you believe you can make an image that is 40x60 with only 2.5 mp (1920x1280 at 32ppi)?

So for the purpose of making large prints - 15 mp is a huge amount of resolution - and you can still crop.

This based on human visual limitations, print size and viewing distance.

http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_which_resolution_print_size_viewing_distance.htm

therwol Loc: USA

Just so you know, and you can call me an oddity, I pass many large prints from from the past, old street scenes, rallies from turn of the century, the insides of old stores etc. They seem to be all over the place. They were probably taken with large format cameras of some kind. The first thing I do when I pass one of the prints is put my nose up to it and try to look at detail. It isn't a test of the equipment used. I just want to take in as much historic detail as possible. I know what I'll see if I put my nose up to a 2.5MP 40x60 print. So do you.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Of course the detail is not there, but who cares. When you see an iPhone 6 billboard that looks perfectly sharp - well the point is made. When you go to the theater to see a movie in Sony 4K - are you going to be the guy that sits himself in front of the first row - to look at the detail on the screen - which is, by definition, 8.8 mp?

There is a perfectly justified reason for choosing a particular ppi for an image size it's to keep file size to a manageable size and not making reproduction equipment - struggle to produce image resolution that your eyes cannot see at a normal viewing distance anyway - and if there is any chance you will be showing up, I will make sure that I use my camera to take a 8 shot pano with my 36mp camera that will result in a 12000x18000 px image at 300ppi, for a 216 mp image - just in case you brought your loupe. When was the last time you edited a 216mp image on your computer - or printed a 40x60 to hang (and sell) in a gallery?

In all honesty, the lowest resolution image I have printed and sold copies of came from my D70S - which produced uncropped 2000x3000 px images - and NO ONE ever complained about the image not being sharp enough.

I have also done a 48"x160" mural panorama - at 72 ppi 3456x11520 px, or about 40 mp - and it too was well-received, and no complaints about softness.

I'm sorry, but your opinion, which you are absolutely entitled to, is poorly informed about what is standard in the print industry for large prints to mural sized prints, vehicle wraps, signage and other large-scale graphics. Next time you are at the movies - take a look at the many movie posters - take a guess what the resolution is on those -

therwol Loc: USA

Back in the day when we could only make analog prints using wet processing, I made a number of approximately 30x40 black and white prints in my darkroom from both 35mm and 4x5 negatives. I had to mount my Omega D2 on a table, turn the rail and head around, put heavy weights on the base to keep it from tipping over, and project onto the floor. The paper was taped to the floor with double sided sticky tape. The paper came in a roll. I processed in a tube in which I rolled up the paper with a plastic mesh between the layers, and poured chemicals in and out. (I didn't have trays that large.) My prints had all of the detail the negatives and equipment could provide. I gave them to family members and friends. I was never into selling anything. You could put your nose up to them and see everything. It was extremely satisfying. I understand the limitations involved in commercial printing, which isn't the same as making enlargements. But it doesn't produce the same product as an true enlargement in all of its glory.

By the way, I sit in the 3rd or 4th row when I can. My neck hurts when I'm looking straight up. I don't have a problem with 4K movies. 70mm film could be much better in many ways, but the drawbacks are enormous, poor projection equipment, jittery projection, damaged film etc. I'm not against digital video in any way. The trade off is worth it.