What's the diff?
Jun 23, 2015 05:42:14 #
farnsworth52 wrote:
While we are on this subject. Can someone answer this with experience in their knowledge. If I shoot with a FF camera at 16megapixs and shoot the same pic with a crop camera at 24 megapix and enlarge so both are 16X20 identical images,will their be that much difference in the final images
Lets put this into a real world example. Shoot with a 16 MP Nikon D4S, and then with a 24 MP Nikon D3200. Interesting because those cameras fit your requirements, and also happen to be at the top end and low end of the Nikon DSLR line.
The Nikon D4S has a 36.0x23.9mm sensor and produces a 4928x3280 pixel image. The vertical resolution is (3280 / 23.9 / 2) = 69 lp/mm.
The Nikon D3200 has a 23.2x15.4mm sensor and produces a 6016x4000 pixel image. The vertical resolution is (4000 / 15.4 / 2) = 130 lp/mm.
The measured (by Bill Claff) "Photographic Dynamic Range" in fstops for the D4S and the D3200 compare per the following chart at the indicated ISO values:
ISO D4S D3200
100 10.2 9.9
1600 8.1 7.3
3200 7.1 5.5
12800 5.2 3.5
The question is, for a 16x20 print, what differences will there be?
If both cameras are used to shoot a scene in good light, using an ISO from 100 to 1600 and printed at 16x20... two things will happen (if and only if no cropping is done and no tone mapping is done). First, because the dynamic range is higher than a JPEG or a print can produce (about 7 fstops), the noise in the shadows on both prints will be the same.
The second key is that at 16 inches height with a pixel dimension of 3,280 the print will have 205 original pixels per inch for a D4S, and with 4000 pixels the D3200 will have 250. That produces a just barely detectable difference. It probably can't be seen at all on matte paper, but might be (on very close inspection) with high quality glossy photo paper.
But, if the above conditions are not met, the print from the D3200 deteriorates faster than that from the D4. If the image is cropped, fewer than 200 original pixels per inch starts being significant. And if either the ISO has to be higher than 1600 or if any kind of tone mapping (pulling up shadows, etc) is done, the noise in the D3200 image will be become increasingly obvious.
The resolution of the D3200 is significantly greater, and in a 16x20 print that will be very obvious when the scene contains much high frequency detail. The higher dynamic range (lower noise) of the D4S image will be significant for any editing.
For ease of use features, swap the D3200 with a D7200. Then throw in a D810 for further comparison. It's a tough choice because all three cameras do better at something compared to the others. Ideally, buy one of each...
Jun 23, 2015 09:50:24 #
To All
Thanks for a great discussion of FF vs crop IQ. I'm just a newbie at this and started with an SL1 and a used 24-70 L lens, tried an a6000-didn't feel comfortable with it, but may still replace my crop with it
Got an RX 100m3 for "travel' and love it but my big hands have some issues-will see how it works on the Danube trip this fall.
As to whether crop or FF is best, I think the "capturer" is the key to a great capture
Thanks again
Thanks for a great discussion of FF vs crop IQ. I'm just a newbie at this and started with an SL1 and a used 24-70 L lens, tried an a6000-didn't feel comfortable with it, but may still replace my crop with it
Got an RX 100m3 for "travel' and love it but my big hands have some issues-will see how it works on the Danube trip this fall.
As to whether crop or FF is best, I think the "capturer" is the key to a great capture
Thanks again
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.