CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

When you know you need a full-frame camera, you have the knowledge to succeed.

Dan Ausec

AnthonyBiss Loc: Toronto, Ontario

I bought a D3S to complement my D300S when I am travelling in Europe and visiting the interior of historic buildings in Paris, Portugal and Spain. I needed the low light capabilities using my 16mm-35mm Nike lens or 28-200mm. I shoot at F8/F11, ISO 400-640-800 based on internal lighting conditions for all shots, no noise to worry about, that cannot be cleared on post-processing. Also crop factor meets my needs for this full frame Nikon camera. Great work horse. Would not replace it with any of the current Nikon models.

chaim

Would you mind telling us what pocket camera you have. I have Canon pocket zoom camera but don't really use it because it does not have a viewfinder and can be difficult to see the LED screen on a sunny day.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

That’s a pretty crappy comparison. Clearly in the thumbnail the Z7 shot is far better, but aside from the subject matter there’s no real comparison. The exposure is different, no telling what the settings were for each and where the point of focus is for each one. There are no controls. And even assuming all else being equal, without a download you really can’t tell much. I shoot a Z7 and I love the images I get, and I’d expect better IQ, but this is not a good test.

AnthonyBiss Loc: Toronto, Ontario

My pocket back-up walk-about camera is a LUMIX DMC-LX-5. Then there is my Cell phone apple-XR. Always in my car is my Nik 7100 with an 18mm-200mm lens.

chaim

Thank you.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

If you're referring to what I posted you probably need more info. Read this post: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-665371-6.html#11589334

The photo shot with both cameras is the photo below. In the comparison I posted only a small crop from the center of each frame was used. In the time it took to change cameras on the tripod a small lighting change took place but it doesn't interfere with the goal of the test.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Admittedly, just to be nit-picky, I have a burning desire to point out that 35mm has multiple formats:

Size 135 perforated short roll film cameras can be found in:

> Various panorama formats (as in some 6x6 cm cameras with adjustable backs that accommodate size 135 film cassettes) https://petapixel.com/2020/02/20/a-look-at-35mm-pano-alternatives-to-the-3000-hasselblad-xpan/

> 24x36mm — Yes, this is what digital camera manufacturers call full frame.

> 24x18mm half frame (original Olympus Pen FT is an example)

Then there are/were many long roll school portrait cameras and long roll studio cameras from Camerz, Beattie, and others that used various proprietary UN-perforated 35mm film formats. Some even used 46mm unperforated film so that identification information could be printed by the camera on the side of a 35mm negative. Others were 35mm long roll (100' and 200') that came with or without a periscopic ID unit on the camera.

Then, of course, there are the various 35mm cinema formats, the most common of which is probably Super 35...

In the mid-1990s, when Kodak was modifying Nikons to make its DCS cameras, full frame was a dream. The first DCS I played with had a price tag of $30,000 and a 1.3MP sensor close to APS-C size. It cropped, but you could see the FULL 36x24mm frame in the finder, because modifications to the Nikon body were minimal, other than to stuff a sensor into the orifice of its body. They scribed a line on the finder screen to show the crop... It was quite primitive.

Sensor chip manufacturing had to mature a lot before cameras with 36x24mm sensors could become available. Since the early digital cameras were mostly based on modified Canons and Nikons, the term, "crop" sensor became an industry bad habit. Then, of course, the manufacturers made custom APS-C bodies and lenses, but allowed users to put their old 35mm lenses on them. Old time pros rejoiced when they could finally buy full frame bodies and forget the crop factor nonsense.

That said, here's an entertaining video from Zach Arias about formats:

https://youtu.be/PHYidejT3KY

cbtsam Loc: Monkton, MD

Whether a home run is worth more than two doubles is dependent on how many were one base. And how is this germane in any case?

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

The true test of a camera!

bwa

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Crop mode the pixels don’t change size, you just get less of them.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

But less sensor area will equal more noise. So when you switch a FF to crop mode the pixel size stays the same but the sensor size shrinks and that = more noise.

KankRat Loc: SW Chicago Suburbs

Right! Exactly my point. When changing from FX mode to dx in the same camera body, one has just made a smaller sensor with the exact same pixel density (pixels the same as the FX mode). So, that seems to contradict the theory that a larger sensor with equal pixel density to a smaller sensor will have less noise. I'm sure there is an explanation for that.

KankRat Loc: SW Chicago Suburbs

Unless I misread it earlier in this thread, you said they would be the same.