I got a new camera the other day.
Sep 22, 2018 06:59:29 #
bmike101
Loc: Gainesville, Florida
I thought my d3200 was sharp and took offence when told otherwise. Then I got an a7r2 with GM lenses. All I can say is, WOW.
Sep 22, 2018 07:01:04 #
Sep 22, 2018 07:11:16 #
Sep 22, 2018 07:50:50 #
Sep 22, 2018 08:08:45 #
bmike101
Loc: Gainesville, Florida
I wonder if I had gotten high end lenses for the d3200 would have resulted in sharp images.
Sep 22, 2018 08:24:29 #
bmike101
Loc: Gainesville, Florida
as for images I have to direct you to another page (they won' let me download images off of it <I don't have access to the images>).
https://youpic.com/image/13913135/the-view-from-my-front-door-by-michaelhavensphotography
https://youpic.com/image/13913135/the-spires-by-michaelhavensphotography
https://youpic.com/image/13913135/the-view-from-my-front-door-by-michaelhavensphotography
https://youpic.com/image/13913135/the-spires-by-michaelhavensphotography
Sep 22, 2018 08:57:50 #
bmike101 wrote:
I wonder if I had gotten high end lenses for the d3200 would have resulted in sharp images.
There are a few relevant technical differences:
D3200
sensor size - 23.2 mm × 15.4 mm (cropped full-frame)
resolution 6,016 × 4,000 (24.2 effective megapixels)
a7RII
sensor size - 35.9 × 24 mm (full frame type)
resolution - 7974 × 5316 (42 megapixels)
The Sony provides nearly twice the resolution (detail) for the images captured using a hypothetical lens that could be used on both bodies. To this question in the overall thread, you should have found the D3200 performed differently if different quality lenses had been used.
Sep 22, 2018 15:10:41 #
therwol
Loc: USA
CHG_CANON wrote:
There are a few relevant technical differences: br... (show quote)
Comparing an apple and an orange. If you're pixel peeping, then you'll see the difference between 24 and 42 megapixels. The lenses used can also be a factor in what you are seeing. Bottom line, you're pleased. Enjoy.
Sep 23, 2018 07:48:49 #
Sep 23, 2018 09:12:48 #
NCMtnMan
Loc: N. Fork New River, Ashe Co., NC
bmike101 wrote:
I wonder if I had gotten high end lenses for the d3200 would have resulted in sharp images.
It's all about the glass!
Sep 23, 2018 10:20:09 #
bmike101 wrote:
I wonder if I had gotten high end lenses for the d3200 would have resulted in sharp images.
I had a D70s with a DX lens. It was OK. But when I traded up to a D300 I dumped the lens and since then bought only FX Pro glass or Nikkor AF glass. Image quality was great and when I moved up to a FF body, I already had lenses.
Sep 23, 2018 10:56:19 #
I have been told over the years, That the time to buy a new replacement for a piece of equipment is when you know everything there is to know about the piece now in your possession...O have a Nikon D5100 and I will have it for a long time. I am still being schooled on several screens there. Just a thought......
Sep 23, 2018 11:38:57 #
Sep 23, 2018 12:35:01 #
bmike101 wrote:
I wonder if I had gotten high end lenses for the
d3200 would have resulted in sharp images.
I wonder if I had gotten high end lenses for the
d3200 would have resulted in sharp images.
Yes, if it allowed AF micro adjusting for each lens.
If not, you'd hafta focus in live view mode to get
trustworthy focus. Acoarst your new camera uses
live view full time, so no AF micro adjust needed.
`
Sep 23, 2018 12:45:16 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
There are a few relevant technical differences: br... (show quote)
42MP is not nearly twice the resolution of 24MP. It is
about 1.3X. The factor is image magnification, which
is a linear calculation. The Total MP is quadratic.
But IQ is not merely resolution. The larger sensor will
general produce less noise, so there IS some benefit
to sensor area. OTOH, at modest ISO levels, where
noise is no issue, 42MP remains a 1.3X improvement
over 24MP, despite any FF vs APSC size "advantage".
`
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.