Jackinthebox Loc: travel the world

I like many remember the intro of the 3-1/2 " disk. A whopping 1.2 mB.
Get one and you will never run out of space. And the along comes the 5MB hard disk to keep all your programs and all your data on one drive and never ever run out of space. yadi yah, on and on it goes.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

It's doing the math.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

I'll take that first comment as a tongue in cheek statement.

I upgraded to the D-810 primarily for the quiet shutter, and I have not been disappointed. Had my D-800 modified for IR only.

Quality wise, I believe the images from the D-810 compare very favorably to my H5D Hassy. As a consequence, I'm afraid that the Hassy in on the way out the door (that plus my aching back).

I do like the DR of the D-810. I am not at all proficient with HDR and I prefer not to rely on it (Personal decision only. I have seen far too much bad HDR work).

So far the 810 is serving me very well.

And I realize the DxO Mark is a test bench result. But all else equal DR of the sensor does count. Of course, we all have the capability to screw up even a 'perfect' exposure with post processing decisions. :?

machia Loc: NJ

Ok, I'm open minded. I guess then, Canon has a revolutionary camera on their hands then, great ! Hey, some technology is ground breaking, and in this conversation it seems like this new Canon is setting the bar very high . Good luck and good shooting to all who buys one !

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

The 7dmkll already has a bar up there high enough to be poking the D4s in the arse!! :lol:
The new 7200 barely has a leg over the 7l, and in fps, it doesn't. :lol: :lol:
SS

Haydon

No Steve, it's the photographer but you obviously have forgotten that!

machia Loc: NJ

I've seen your posts, and it is apparent that you understand digital photography very well. Im a film guy who just recently went digital, and would like to know if my Canon T 5i can be set up to give me images that replicate the look of the old Kodachrome 25 & 64 ASA , with the red and yellow saturations. Thank you.

CO

Check out this article about diffraction:
http://www.aguntherphotography.com/tutorial/diffraction-limits-of-resolution.html

Yes, diffraction is caused by light passing by the edges of the blades of the aperture. Smaller pixels are affected by that diffraction before larger pixels when stopping down the aperture due to the Airy's disc formed by the diffraction. A sensor with a pixel pitch of 2 microns will start showing the effects of diffraction by f/3.5 because of the diameter of the Airy's disc. A camera like the Nikon D3s has a pixel pitch of 8.2 microns and will start showing the effects of diffraction around f/15. I've used the formula supplied in the article. There's a good illustration of diffraction and pixel size in this link:

http://www.lonestardigital.com/aperture_diffraction_limits.htm

Peekayoh Loc: UK

You're still missing the point and clearly fail to understand what's going on.

The larger pixels simply don't have the resolution necessary to resolve the small detail affected by diffraction. If the large pixels can't resolve the detail it can't see the diffraction either.

The smaller pixels can resolve much finer detail so it's also possible to see the diffraction coming in at wider apertures, however the image still has better detail resolution than that drawn with the larger pixels, after all the larger pixels failed to resolve any detail at all. Basically, if the large pixels fail to resolve a particular size of detail, diffraction that is affecting that detail can't be seen either, it doesn't mean the diffraction is not there, it obviously is.

Take the hypothetical case of Large Pixel Sensor coupled to a lens that is on the cusp of becoming diffraction affected at f/11. If you switch in a Small Pixel Sensor, it will still resolve more detail even if diffraction is starting to affect that detail. Even if diffraction totally destroyed the detail (it won't), the image would still be no worse than that with the larger pixels.

I don't know how to make it any clearer for you than that.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

contact the folks at zeiss - they'll be able to assist you in your quest. of course it is gong to cost a little bit...

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Machia, hey, thanks for asking.
I doubt you can set up the camera to shoot with an old film look,but if you always shoot in RAW, you can Teo a lot of old effects using filters in PP.
The slightly yellow look, or sepia is one of the most popular looks especially when converting to B&W.
I'm not actually a big PP guy, especially the use of filters but I'll bet if you ask that question in the PP section you will get lots of help with differ older classic looks. Good luck with that!! ;-)
SS

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Haydon, I don't quite understand your comment. A Nikon crop sensor, however, is 24x16mm. A full frame sensor is 36x24mm. If you do the math, that makes the area of a full frame sensor 2.25 times as large as a Nikon crop sensor. So, the 24.2 mp of the D7200 would become 54.45 mp if the sensor of the D7200 were to be made into a full frame sensor. That's all Canon is doing....increasing the area of a 24 mb sensor 2.25 x, and rounding up to 55mb. In fact the increase in area with Canons may even be larger than with Nikons. I believe their crop sensors are smaller.

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

I believe this is correct or very close. Nikon's 24mp APS-C has the same resolution as the 50mp FF. So the gain is only in a larger sensor.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

If anybody is interested, the area of a Nikon crop sensor (is that APS-C?) is 384 sq. mm. The area of a full frame sensor is 864 sq. mm.

countryman60951 Loc: Bourbonnais, Il

Maybe Sony will manufacture that sensor just like it does for D800