Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Are You Better Off With DX
Page <prev 2 of 5 next> last>>
May 14, 2016 15:55:08   #
Quixdraw Loc: x
 
Just seat of the pants. This morning I revisited some club photos of a guy who died young and unexpectedly and made a batch of 8 x 10s to help out with a gift remembrance picture for his family. There were only a couple where he was prominent -- in most he appeared in tiny areas. At extreme crop they were not beautiful, but were usable. I was never able to get decent blow ups of areas that small before full frame. Then again I only had 12 MP as opposed to 16.

Reply
May 14, 2016 16:25:41   #
joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois
 
Steve Perry wrote:
That's kind of the point. I wanted to demonstrate to the OP that you're better off with a D500 over a D810 in DX mode if you want to capture the maximum amount of detail at that crop level.

Comparing the images this way shows that it's better to capture with a dedicated DX body than to use a full frame body in DX crop mode. Now, if the next 8XX series is around 47MP, then the pixel density would be the same and so would the results in a test like this.

Think of it this way - if you were printing a 20x30, would you rather have taken the original image with a D500 or a DX cropped D810? Fair or not, I think everyone would choose the D500 in that scenario.

Of course, if you could shoot the image full frame with a D810, then that would be the better choice by far. Just gotta pick the right tools for the job.
That's kind of the point. I wanted to demonstrate ... (show quote)


I think what both examples show is that there is a cross over point between resolving power of each camera. Throw in the dynamic rage and I still put my money on the D810.

Reply
May 14, 2016 16:45:25   #
joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois
 
jethro779 wrote:
Or get some better glass.


What would you suggest? I already have Nikon's 300mm f2.8 and 500mm f4.

The 200mm f2 and 600mm f4 are too heavy for the focal lengths and the 400mm f2.8 is too expensive in addition to the weight.

Reply
 
 
May 14, 2016 16:56:48   #
Steve Perry Loc: Sylvania, Ohio
 
joer wrote:
I think what both examples show is that there is a cross over point between resolving power of each camera. Throw in the dynamic rage and I still put my money on the D810.


At really low ISO, the D810 will win in the DR dept., however, between ISO 400 and ISO 3200 they are actually less than 1/2 stop apart (and above that, it's still close). See attached.

Also, my very first night out with the D500 I had it set wrong and I really blew the exposure. The images aren't that great, but it shows what kind of real world dynamic range (and recovery) the D500 is capable of. The heron was ISO 1100 and it sure seems to have D810 dynamic range to me.


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Reply
May 14, 2016 22:08:16   #
Jim Bob
 
joer wrote:
I've been wrestling with the decision to buy a D500 based on image quality. I know it has some great features but are they worth $2K to me since I already have the D800E and D810.

No expert compares DX to a greater FX pixel count camera cropped; they just say DX is better for reach with no data or images to support it. I have trouble with that.

So I devised a method of comparison. I selected images posted at Imaging Resources at 100 ISO from the D500 and D810. I then reduced the D810 image to 5568x3712, an equivalent crop to match the D500 image size. Then enlarged both to the same size. The results posted here.

I know naysayers will find fault with this comparison, and I'm open to objective evidence to the contrary but spare me the unsupported opinions.

It definitely answers the question for me and I will be saving $2K. The image on the right is from the D810.
I've been wrestling with the decision to buy a D50... (show quote)


Come on. Why would you even want to spend 2 grand to downgrade unless you are clamoring to join the more money than sense crowd.

Reply
May 14, 2016 23:47:33   #
BebuLamar
 
joer wrote:
I've been wrestling with the decision to buy a D500 based on image quality. I know it has some great features but are they worth $2K to me since I already have the D800E and D810.

No expert compares DX to a greater FX pixel count camera cropped; they just say DX is better for reach with no data or images to support it. I have trouble with that.

So I devised a method of comparison. I selected images posted at Imaging Resources at 100 ISO from the D500 and D810. I then reduced the D810 image to 5568x3712, an equivalent crop to match the D500 image size. Then enlarged both to the same size. The results posted here.

I know naysayers will find fault with this comparison, and I'm open to objective evidence to the contrary but spare me the unsupported opinions.

It definitely answers the question for me and I will be saving $2K. The image on the right is from the D810.
I've been wrestling with the decision to buy a D50... (show quote)


I don't use a DX camera as I have no need for it but compared the D500 to others I think it's definitely worth the money.

Reply
May 15, 2016 06:59:13   #
WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio
 
Steve Perry wrote:
Just this quick one - make sure you download the image to really see the difference.

I took each shot at ISO 100 @ 1/50th sec. mirror up, EFC, tripod, cable release, F4 with a 50mm 1.8G lens. Both were RAW and just defaulted through lightroom. I shot the D500 full frame and used the DX crop on the D810. I then upsized the D810 file so it was the same size as the D500. I wish I had a more detailed target because the differences would be even more obvious, but even with this simple setup, you can see the D500 is smoother and has finer detail than the 810 in DX mode when you read the lettering on the can. Look especially at the "no cfc" logo towards the bottom right.

Plus, the D500 is 10FPS, has an enormous buffer, and the AF is a step up from the D810 - so there's more to it than just superior image quality in DX. Of course, if you're not heavily cropping all the time and don't need the rest of what the D500 brings to the table, then the D810 is one of the best ever IMO. It's my go-to for landscapes and even some wildlife, so I'm not trying to disparage it, just pointing out the D500 has its place as well, especially if you're shooting in the DX area much of the time.
Just this quick one - make sure you download the i... (show quote)

Save your money, no difference.

Reply
 
 
May 15, 2016 07:09:11   #
jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY
 
This is a great site for comparing images from two cameras.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

Reply
May 15, 2016 07:23:51   #
rpavich Loc: West Virginia
 
OR....you could just shoot with what you have, not obsess about minutia and 100% crops and be happy. Any camera today is much more than capable of delivering good quality images with enough detail for what they are used for. I'd wager that 80% of the photos taken by hoggers never see paper and of those printed, none are so large that anyone should worry about how many mp are being produced.

Reply
May 15, 2016 07:38:29   #
mborn Loc: Massachusetts
 
I use my D500 for Wildlife and my D810 for landscapes and night sky photography and since they use the same batteries and lenses If I want to interchange it is easy to accomplish

Reply
May 15, 2016 08:25:31   #
BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD
 
According to Edmonds Optics which produces imaging equipment for scientific purposes - from mechanical mounts to the image capturing devices (cameras and lenses), the magnification of an object is a result of the sensor size and that of the angle of view of the lens used. The formula for PMAG (primary magnification) is the horizontal width of the angle of view divided by the horizontal width of the sensor. Given the DX sensor is not a wide as the FX sensor, its width as a divisor is smaller, thus the result of the division (the quotient) will be larger, resulting in a higher magnification, i.e.: a larger image.

Reply
 
 
May 15, 2016 08:38:37   #
traveler90712 Loc: Lake Worth, Fl.
 
BboH wrote:
Given the DX sensor is not a wide as the FX sensor, its width as a divisor is smaller, thus the result of the division (the quotient) will be larger, resulting in a higher magnification, i.e.: a larger image.

That is a heck of away to say the angle of view is different!

Reply
May 15, 2016 09:23:00   #
Architect1776 Loc: In my mind
 
joer wrote:
I've been wrestling with the decision to buy a D500 based on image quality. I know it has some great features but are they worth $2K to me since I already have the D800E and D810.

No expert compares DX to a greater FX pixel count camera cropped; they just say DX is better for reach with no data or images to support it. I have trouble with that.

So I devised a method of comparison. I selected images posted at Imaging Resources at 100 ISO from the D500 and D810. I then reduced the D810 image to 5568x3712, an equivalent crop to match the D500 image size. Then enlarged both to the same size. The results posted here.

I know naysayers will find fault with this comparison, and I'm open to objective evidence to the contrary but spare me the unsupported opinions.

It definitely answers the question for me and I will be saving $2K. The image on the right is from the D810.
I've been wrestling with the decision to buy a D50... (show quote)

What is wrong with the 2 current cameras you own? How many can you use at once? Have you fully mastered the cameras you own?
I understand the GAS syndrome and frequently have to ask that of myself. I have to say no and find an old manual Canon, Nikon body or lens or other much older working camera or at times not to preserve and teach scouts or others photo history.
But why another camera when from listening to this forum's opinions you have the best quality available.
Would not a new speciality lens allow a far greater exploration of photography? Do you have a lens baby? Or a tilt and shift? Or perhaps a very old Nikkor odd lens that has unique optical properties to create that one of a kind photo.

Reply
May 15, 2016 10:25:32   #
joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois
 
Architect1776 wrote:
What is wrong with the 2 current cameras you own? How many can you use at once? Have you fully mastered the cameras you own?
I understand the GAS syndrome and frequently have to ask that of myself. I have to say no and find an old manual Canon, Nikon body or lens or other much older working camera or at times not to preserve and teach scouts or others photo history.
But why another camera when from listening to this forum's opinions you have the best quality available.
Would not a new speciality lens allow a far greater exploration of photography? Do you have a lens baby? Or a tilt and shift? Or perhaps a very old Nikkor odd lens that has unique optical properties to create that one of a kind photo.
What is wrong with the 2 current cameras you own? ... (show quote)


Your point is well taken.

I said earlier in this tread the D500 is not for me. I was on the fence early on but remembered why I switched to FF.

My photographic interest is narrowly focused. I'm partial to bird photography and already have more lenses than needed or used. Adding more would be a waste.

A few years ago the 2X crop factor lured me into M4/3 cameras. After exploring several brands and models decided the small sensor was not conducive to cropping. Sold it all at a huge loss and switched to full frame and been there ever since. However I sorely miss the features of the mirror-less cameras.

My next camera undoubtedly will be another full frame Nikon since I am heavily invested in glass. Perhaps the D810 replacement or a full frame mirror-less, if Nikon ever decides to supply one (assuming my lenses will work).

Reply
May 15, 2016 10:36:25   #
RRS Loc: Not sure
 
jethro779 wrote:
Or get some better glass.


Or better yet, longer glass, 400mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4.0 or 600mm f/4.0.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 5 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.