SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Oh come on Steve....., did you know that if a cell phone was made into a FF it would kick the arse of every dslr, ML and homeless person on this Tera Firma!!! And if you don't believe me....., just ask Apaflo because his arse would have already been whooped!!!
SS

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

In spite of any theoretical formulas and concepts expounded here in this thread, my real world experience will tell you to upgrade the BODY and crop - using well applied pixel enlargement techniques/software. AND, here are the advantages over a longer lens - and there are even greater advantages over using a TC !

It is, for the most part cheaper

For the most part, the smaller lens will have a faster maximum f-stop, so lower ISO's and better AF in lower light and it will be lighter and smaller and easier to manage and control.

Greater DOF, with the shorter lens

The pixel density of your sensor and the image quality of your lens will have an affect on your ultimate final outcome - as of course - your long lens stability and technique. The pixel enlargement software you use will have a relatively minor affect on the outcome.

I have been using Sony's Clear Image Zoom on an A77II ( 24MP APSc) for the past year almost. I have been using the Sigma 100-300 F4 with astounding results. I have also used the Canon 300 2.8 with the Sony A3000 ( 21 MP APSc) and CIZ with astounding results.

Tiger image at 1.8X CIZ, Sigma lens at 300mm and f4 for 540mm focal length using my bodypod, 1/500, ISO 320

(Download)

forjava Loc: Half Moon Bay, CA

Agree but I'd say live view has something to contribute to manual focus.

forjava Loc: Half Moon Bay, CA

Such a valuable discussion! As CatMarley points out. See also winterrose.

Add-on points:
1) Lens resolution (resolving power for reproducing detail) and camera-sensor resolution (megapixel count for detail, low-ISO, high dynamic range, and large images and maybe for cropping) are measured independently; display resolution likewise affects the resolution of a digital photo. So, this remark above, "...only the camera can improve the resolution..." needs to account for the two further influences on digital resolution. For more influences, see Mansurov, cited below.
2) Lens resolution depends on lens aperture and light-wave length. As I recall, the latter factor is expressed with a lambda in the system-resolution formula.
3) Every lens is its own special case, even when general numerical arguments are deployed to bounce some lens against some (future, present, past) sensor
4) Which camera? The successor to the D810 could have smaller pixel pitch and could host more receptors; accordingly, its sensor resolution would increase

Apaflo is taking a strong position in his opening sentence about a major current controversy ("...lenses today are as good as the best sensors..."). This controversy affects our spending. I agree with apaflo, after having studied the question. While there are endless public discussions about high megapixel sensors out-performing lenses and the possible need for reformulation of lenses to accommodate (catch up), two major vendors have spoken to the matter. Upleveling my findings from reading of Nikon and Canon publications I have found:

-Nikon clearly and succinctly says Nikon has/have always tried to approach theoretical lens resolution, though it has been overkill, to date, so the implication is: they have largely succeeded, so it is yesterday's war and so: No worries. Nikon lenses since the 55mm 3.5 appeared, if not before, generally have had resolution that supports denser emerging sensors (bill_de's question). In fact, resolution has long-since become such a cultural value at Nikon that Nikkor lens designers are focused today on natural 3D (See my remark last week on the linearity of DoF in the newest 58mm and 105mm; the realism of this enhanced linearity stands, I presume, in contrast to photographer interventions in DoF continuity with the Nikkor DC lenses.).

-Canon says they are reformulating their lenses to align lenses with sensors and so: Some worries. Canon's lens reformulation track is stated clearly but not succinctly. I derived my two-word Canon summary above from several published Canon remarks. Canon does explicitly say sensor resolution is today affecting their lens designs. Canon is pushing more resolution to more lenses at less cost, through better materials and manufacturing.

Just remembered, I have kept up a bibliography of the most useful sources I looked at. My references below support my remarks. Note that LenScore is not, IMO, helpful, though I had thought they would be.

Pertinent references assembled by me:
1. Canon, Inc. (2016) “Lenses: Fluorite, aspherical and UD lenses,” http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/lenses/fluorite_aspherical_and_ud_lenses.do
2. Canon Inc. (2006) “Optical Terminology,” EF Lens Work III: The Eyes of EOS, eighth edition, http://software.canon-europe.com/files/documents/EF_Lens_Work_Book_10_EN.pdf.
3. Nikon (1979) Nikkor Lenses, Sales Manual.
4. Sato, Haruo and Koichi Ohshita (2016) “Nikkor Future Vision: Lens Design Concepts,” http://nikkor.com/technology/02.html.
5. LenScore (2016) “High resolution sensors: are lenses up to the task?” http://www.lenscore.org/.
6. Mansurov, N. (February 17, 2015) “Camera Resolution Explained,” https://photographylife.com/camera-resolution-explained.
7. Ssymeono (March 6, 2014) “So, it is not the lens, it is the sensor..,” http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-352738-3.html.
8. Dube, B. (May 30, 2015) “Aberrations Theory,” http://www.photozone.de/aberrationsTheory.
9. “Lens Quality: MTF, Resolution & Contrast,” http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/lens-quality-mtf-resolution.htm.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Here is what you need to know about large prints.

http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_which_resolution_print_size_viewing_distance.htm

Bottom line, as you increase viewing distance which is pretty typical for large prints, the ppi required diminishes. The eye cannot resolve the detail it sees in an 8x10 viewed at 18" even if it were present in the image at 40x60, if the image is viewed at an average, normal viewing distance. Only inexperienced photographers will argue they need 300 ppi for a sharp 24x36.

The 'I shot this with my iPhone 6 camera" (older billboards, 8mp) look pretty sharp.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

SharpShooter....Read the whole post. If you only use the center portion of the sensor.....use the D7200. However, if you can fill up the frame, go with the D810.

Bill_de Loc: US

Thank you.

--

zigipha Loc: north nj

I think the ops question us mire along the lines of "for a given object..will i get better resolution of detail of the object by optical magnification (f length) or smaller pixels (sensor).

I vote optical.

zigipha Loc: north nj

I followed all of it except for why the 20 x 30 favors 810. Can u elaborate?

Sinewsworn Loc: Port Orchard, WA

Incidental Learning.

dandi Loc: near Seattle, WA

WOW!!! Your image looks amazing!

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Lets say you are printing with an Epson pro model printer, at 360 PPI.

A D7200, with that 127 lp/mm maximum resolution, produces an image that is 6000 pixels per line. That means 6000/360, or 16-2/3" is the maximum width at which the image can be printed without having to be resampled to a larger pixel dimension.

A D810, with 102 lp/mm maximum resolution, produces an image that is 7360 pixels per line. That means 7360/360 or 20" is the maximum width at which the image can be printed without resampling to a larger dimension.

Resampling effectively reduces the resolution by the same ratio the image size is changed.

If the same image, from each camera, is printed at 20 inches wide, the D810 does not resample pixels and the entire 102 lp/mm resolution is available, but the D7200 image with resampling doesn't get 127 lp/mm anymore, it is getting about 106 lp/mm. So the two are almost the same resolution at that size, with a bit of an edge to the D7200. At 30 inches wide the D7200 is getting 71 lp/mm and the D810 is getting 82 lp/mm, with the clear advantage going to the D810 for best resolution, which gets better as the print size increases.

Sinewsworn Loc: Port Orchard, WA

Beautiful Imagemeister!
Where does this beauty reside?

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Thanks !.........Miami Zoo .......... Go to my Fine Art America link for more of the Tiger .( but no downloads )

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

Maybe I am being too simplistic, but the sensor of a 24MP camera creates an image 6000 x 4000 pixels. In printing, if every pixel is converted to an ink dot, at 240 dpi, the 24mp image can be printed at 6000/240 dpi registering every pixel - a print 25 inches wide. A 36mp sensor gives an image about 7350 pixels wide which at 240 dpi will give a print 30 inches wide. However the pixel definition will depend on other factors - the lens and whether there is a low pass filter on the sensor. The dot accuracy will depend on the printer's ink nozzle. There are too many variables here to say whether the camera or the lens will dominate the result.