WALL

Ansel Adams and many like him used view cameras. The lens used could vary in it coverage of the film. The cameras would take various sizes of film. I still have my 4x5.
I don't remember endless talk of the topic.
If the manufactures had dropped the in favor of a simpler system we could put this topic to rest.
It is not rocket science.

nikonbrain Loc: Crystal River Florida

i do not know what calculator you are using but your info is wrong a 1.5 crop on a 36 megapixle camera is 15.3 megapixle. 1.5 is 50% of...thats 15.3 not 54 megapixels...you are confusing megapixels with focal length . when you shoot a d810 in crop mode the FOCAL length is an apparent focal lenth of 50% more 300mm=450mm.A d750 in crop is 9 mega. A d7100 is 15.5 ....thats it period..Thats from Nikon.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

A D7100 is 24.1mp. A D810 in crop mode will actually have less mp than a D7100. Check the specs on the D810.

chapjohn Loc: Tigard, Oregon

The sensor itself is not capable of extending the focal length of a camera. The size of the sensor is about field of view. The smaller the sensor means your field of view is smaller. You get more reach with longer lenses and teleconverters.

nikonbrain Loc: Crystal River Florida

no kidding I was only Arguging the fact that it is not 54
One thing that seems to get forgotten in a lot of discussions is the difference an AA filter makes (the D750 has one, the D810 does not). Put simplistically, at the pixel peeping level the AA filter is going to mask noise a bit at the expense of a slight loss in edge acuity, while removing it does the opposite. This, too, comes into play when you set the camera in DX crop mode (9mp anti-aliased just doesn’t look as good as 15mp not filtered). this is from Thom hogan .I will choose tobelieve him over you ,sorry, And I did say apparent focal length not acual should have been field of view. I only was pointing out math... I know the field of view on My d7100 with a 35mm lens ,looks close to My 58mm 1.2 nikkor,on my f36 Nikon film camera Full frame ,and My 75 mm lens on My 645 med. format camera.. It all has to do with sensor coverage..

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

This couldn't be simpler to compare...

Set your D810 to DX (1.5X) mode and shoot with that.

In DX mode, the D810 becomes a 15MP DX camera, instead of 36MP FX.

In comparison, D7200 is 24MP DX, so it's bound to have some advantage for long telephoto work and would be a better choice (unless you have tons of money for a very high quality, powerful telephoto.... plus a sturdy tripod to put the big heavy lens on).

Of course it's not really as simple as that. Assuming the same lens is being used on both cameras, the greater magnification of the DX camera will demand better resolution from the lens... Or, another way of looking at it, the DX crop camera will show any flaws or weaknesses of the lens more clearly. On the other, most lenses are at their best in the center and have weaker image qualities at the edges and corners, which the DX camera "crops away" and doesn't "see" at all. But, on the other hand, the larger pixel sites and less crowded sensor of an FX camera can be expected to be better at higher ISOs, to capture a little more fine detail, and to require a weaker anti-alias filter... all of which make the difference less apparent.

It's possible to do similar comparison with the 50MP Canon 5DS/5DS-R.... the first Canon FF models to offer crop modes (1.3X and 1.6X). That camera in in APS-C mode produces a 19MP image... only slightly more than the original 7D, but slightly less than the 20MP 70D and 7DII. But 5DS models also use a couple generation newer sensor, which have seen some improvements. But, whether a FF camera has crop modes or not doesn't really matter. Cropping the FF image in post-processing is exactly the same as cropping it in-camera.

We ran a test serveral years ago comparing a Canon 7D (18MP, 1.6X APS-C crop) against a Canon 5D Mark II (21MP, full frame), relatively concurrent cameras.... using the same lens on both, shooting the same subject from the same distance, and then cropping the FF image down to match the smaller format ...

The difference was greater in that case. Cropping the 21MP FF image down left only around 8MP, significantly less than the 18MP the APS-C camera was capturing. On the other hand, the APS-C 7D uses a fairly strong AA filter, requiring more sharpening in post-processing.

But even so, in our testing the result was still obvious.... For telephoto work, the crop sensor camera was the better choice. Same size print made from each, the crop camera retained more fine detail than cropping down from a FF camera.

Pinenuts Loc: Genoa, NV

I have a D600 and a D7100. Shooting with the same lens, I definitely get better results cropping the full frame image from the D600.

SwedeUSA2

If you're aware of this, why don't you use the "search" function to get answers to questions?

Revet Loc: Fairview Park, Ohio

[quote=SteveR]You have to read what is being said. If you were to be able to fill the full sensors with the subject, then yes, you'd go with the D810. However, if you're shooting a subject that is in the center portion of the sensors only, then the D7100 will have greater resolution.[/quote

My response was a poor attempt at a joke!

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

This is just what I would expect to be the case but, has not been my experience when comparing the 7100 to the 810......so far.

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

You and OP are on the same page as 1.5x1.5 is 1.5^2

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

I haven't finished reading this thread or even considered whether to chime in, but I will correct your thinking on this part:

A larger sensor DOES NOT NECESSARILY have larger pixels. There is usually a correlation, but not always. Consider a Canon 5Ds that has a full frame sensor (24x36mm) with 50.6 million pixels jammed onto it. Now compare that with a Sony a7s, which also has a full-frame sensor of similar size, but has just 12.2 million pixels. There is some allowance for space between pixels, but it's safe to say that the Sony's pixels are at least twice as big as those on the Canon. You can take this further, and compare the Canon to a Sony a77 that has 24.3 million pixels on a crop sensor. The Canon sensor is 1.6 times bigger, but has more than 2 times the pixels, so obviously they are smaller.

Bottom line is you have to consider both the number of pixels and the sensor size. Typically, a larger pixel will perform better, collecting more light with less noise, and more pixels will give you more detail, so a balance must be found. A good explanation of all this can be found here: http://www.zdnet.com/article/can-the-canon-7ds-aps-c-sensor-match-the-5d-mark-ii-full-frame-sensor/

RedAdmiral Loc: Humboldt County, California

Sigma makes a teleconverter which is compatible with that lens. that will give you more reach. I like your photos, but IMHO it is not always necessary to completely illuminate all the shadows. I stop when it starts looking artificial to me. You might consider that those images are something on one will ever see with their own eyes. They will never get that close, and the lighting would never be from below, so the underside of the wings would, in nature, never be illuminated.

duck72 Loc: Laurel Ridge, PA

All comments aside- go ahead and *get* the D7200 "less-than-full frame" camera. You will like it. Even in JPG. What do you have to lose? (no offense to 810-ers; the D7200 has some features you don't have) Megapixels/shmegapixels. Unless you plan on having your images blown up a *lot* for printing, you will enjoy D7200-land. It can "reach-out and capture. Plus, you can find some <$1,000 good lenses.

DavidM Loc: New Orleans, LA

Watch the two following videos and it will help you understand perceptual megapixels and how full frame lenses with aps-c cameras affect your pictures:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyOmgArU0MA

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YDbUIfB5YUc