Help with crop vs full frame please
Apr 19, 2016 17:49:19 #
brucewells wrote:
The article 'linked' at the beginning of this post is rather good, and it's from a knowledgeable source. As he points out in the article, there are tons and tons of misunderstanding about this subject.
Despite its length, it's a great read.
Despite its length, it's a great read.
I agree, anyone who wants to use the word "Reach" in a post should be required to read this article before posting.
Apr 19, 2016 20:49:18 #
[quote=Revet][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![/quote]
Hey, I'd make that swap, too!! I'd love to have an 810, even though I have an 800. I just took the opportunity to expound on when the D7100 could be the better choice to use than the D810.
My response was a poor attempt at a joke![/quote]
Hey, I'd make that swap, too!! I'd love to have an 810, even though I have an 800. I just took the opportunity to expound on when the D7100 could be the better choice to use than the D810.
Apr 19, 2016 22:30:04 #
ecobin wrote:
The crop factor is the ratio of the diagonals (full frame diag to the APS-C diag). However, the equivalent number of pixels is based on the ratio of the areas of the sensors. The ratio of the area of the full frame sensor to that of the APS-C is 2.3. So the 24MP D7200 is equivalent to roughly a 55MP full frame (24mp x 2.3 = 55MP).
Its equivalent to the pixel density of a full frame. I'm sure you meant to say that.
May 6, 2016 08:43:42 #
May 6, 2016 11:37:05 #
WALL wrote:
It seems you had to go back a ways to revive this post, Dr. Frankenstein :|Like a movie monster this subject will not die.
May 7, 2016 10:08:03 #
May 7, 2016 11:09:19 #
Ponz wrote:
......Someone over at Fred Miranda said you must 24 x 1.5 x 1.5 = 54mp
I just don't get it. Who knows the answer??
I just don't get it. Who knows the answer??
If you double the sides of a rectangle, you end up with four times the area because
Area = Width x Height
Note that you're doubling both the width AND the height.
So whatever factor you increase the sides by, the area will increase by a factor that is the square of the increase in side size.
If you increase the size of the sides by a factor of 1.5, the area of the rectangle increases by a factor of 1.5 squared, which is 2.25.
The D7200 has a sensor with a denser concentration of pixels (good for resolution), but the pixels are slightly smaller (not so good for low noise or dynamic range). However, if you keep the ISO low, and if you keep your exposure on the bright side without blowing the highlights (difficult when shooting against the sky), the disadvantage of the smaller pixels will be largely (or possibly completely) negated.
The dynamic range of the D7200 sensor suggests that you'd have a fair bit of leeway when it came to pushing the exposure.
May 7, 2016 13:30:58 #
I agree. Be concerned about the final image, not the pixel density, full or crop body, etc.
May 7, 2016 14:04:07 #
Ponz wrote:
You are correct Bruce. Unfortunately, the Sig 150-600 Sport will have to do unless I hit the lottery.
Ponz
Ponz
My Eagles are just about the same distance as yours. If you feel the images are too small to do much with ... get closer or get a bigger lens. If you have to save for a longer Nikon lens, start saving ... it's worth it. BTW, if getting closer gets the bird's attention, back up.
May 7, 2016 14:06:24 #
I'm sooo confused!!!!!!
I bought the 7200 and have had it out twice so far shooting distant eagles. If there is a difference, it's awfully hard to tell. I'm 'leaning' toward returning it at picking up the Sigma 1.4 tele for that extra reach.
Dazed and confused,
Ponz
I bought the 7200 and have had it out twice so far shooting distant eagles. If there is a difference, it's awfully hard to tell. I'm 'leaning' toward returning it at picking up the Sigma 1.4 tele for that extra reach.
Dazed and confused,
Ponz
May 7, 2016 14:29:04 #
Ponz wrote:
I'm sooo confused!!!!!!
I bought the 7200 and have had it out twice so far shooting distant eagles. If there is a difference, it's awfully hard to tell. I'm 'leaning' toward returning it at picking up the Sigma 1.4 tele for that extra reach.Dazed and confused,
Ponz
I bought the 7200 and have had it out twice so far shooting distant eagles. If there is a difference, it's awfully hard to tell. I'm 'leaning' toward returning it at picking up the Sigma 1.4 tele for that extra reach.Dazed and confused,
Ponz
What lens are you using now?
May 7, 2016 14:32:16 #
May 7, 2016 14:33:50 #
Ponz wrote:
.......If there is a difference, it's awfully hard to tell.......
That says a lot about the IQ of the D7200. You're comparing it to one of the best cameras you can get, and it's DX v FF.
May 7, 2016 14:53:13 #
Ponz wrote:
Well you've got a long lens. My advise w/o seeing much in the way you use the lens ... I think you are expecting too much from the lens. If your thinking is this .... "It's a 600mm, I should be able to photograph anything I can see" , you're wrong. When the bird's image is about the size of one of the focusing squares; you're too far away; end of story. The Sigma has limit and I think you're bumping into it with those Eagles at 100 yards. Those shots are fine, don't try for 200 yards, you'll be disappointed. I use a Nikon 500 f4 with a D7100 body and I don't try for anything beyond 150 yards, and that's pushing it some. An Eagle at 150 yards is a small target.Sigma 150-600 Sport
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.