Good strong comment. For more completeness, I'll add that a FF lens on a crop camera uses the best regions of the FF lens, as often (not always (example: 60mm Nikkor micro), and depending on the aperture) the image is better nearer the center.

Photography is full of unfortunate vocabulary. But then, which discipline is not? Anyway, to your questions about the D7000 and D750:

considering the sensor size differences, the "Megapixel Density" are identical

The short answer is that the two cameras are not necessarily identical in pixel density. And even if that were the case, it's apples and oranges.

The sensor size of D7000 and D750 are each well-known. The photo-site sizes are different, being 4.78 micrometers for the D7000 and 5.97 for the D750.

A photo site (pixel) is partially covered by a photo diode that picks up light. The sites have properties that may differ from camera to camera – size (correlated with types of noise), fill factor, depth, shape (square, rectangle, other)

1. Photo-site density and photo-site size are variables in camera architecture; architecture choices are shaped by properties as above, by subsequent processing possibilities, by capabilities of new signal processors, and so forth.
2. Photo-site density and photo-site size are necessarily independent of each other
3. Photo-site density and photo-site size are independent of sensor size
4. Photo-site density and photo-site size are tradeoffs but in the long run, other factors help relax the trades, for example, faster processing of the sensor data. Faster processing allows offloading more data from the sensor sooner and more extensive treatment of larger amounts of sensor data

Density and size are design decisions that satisfy marketing requirements, like the need to differentiate a product range and like the need to take advantage of new algorithms for processing sensor data.

.... The wife is calling me to scrub the steam room, so that's all I have time to contribute. Also could not responsibly read others' responses to avoid overlap -- same reason. ;>)

I'm something of a photonewbie and a (serious) donor because I want to partly repay the useful knowledge he has delivered to me, esp. lenses. I flag your attention to the learning opportunity in the comments that go with the vids. He is on a lighting kick for 2016.

Nice edges on the vase. Very nice edges.

I have my doubts about the photog, as the headlight is in focus...

Was also curious about fellow hogs using the word, toque. I learned the word in Quebec as "tuque." There is a town in that province, La Tuque. Anyway, I looked it up and the Europeans say, "toque" while the Quebecois say, "tuque."

Nice use of rule of thirds in your photo. A good example of Wright's later concept of integrating the structure into the landscape. Who is the audience?

I'd bet 90% of the locals have never been up the hill to see this monument and they might truly appreciate the detail of your composition.

Not being a local myself, I'd want to see this photo in context. I've seen it but cannot recognize this view on its own.

Attached is a composition for all comers, that tells the story of this "batisse," the dominant symbol of Marseilles. What story? The story of the Napoleon-era, saint celebrated by the statue, who restored Christianity to the region and engaged the community to develop this monument.

The story in my attachment came my way on an airplane headed for the Riviera. A nun seated next to me finished reading "Petite Vie de Eugene de Mazenod," closed this book, and then I asked her about her book. She gave this book to me but made me promise her I'd read it; very good -- if obscure -- history of a persecuted man of stunning integrity, pursuing a selfless mission, nearly autobiographical, making use of his papers.

Reinforcing this comment, if you are smart enough to zoom you are smart enough to focus manually. MF is so easy for a static subject! So what? Being willing to manual focus opens a fascinating world of older manual-focus lenses, for those of us not rolling in dough.

I started to make a similar comment but since this is not metal, I let it go. This is a comment you are very unlikely to find elsewhere and could be key for you (and me).

Anyway, you can find film for the light source online. Mine has been ordered.

Fil Hunter et al (the gods of light) discuss filtering the light source. They sound a slight negative note about effort needed, but it can't be that bad.

goodnight.us is defunct.

I am studying these to learn about layering light and more.
I notice #1 is composed with serious conformance to the rule of thirds.

I read the posts yesterday with some interest. I've seen discussions on the web with quick, clean approaches to controlling CA in post. Other approaches require considerable effort, down to exquisitely painstaking. No matter, the presupposition seems to be that all CA from any lens is created equal.

So why so many methods to fix CA in post processing? Could it be that different lenses edit the light differently so that numerous fix methods are needed? Well, we know that lenses handle light differently. There is reason to be wary here.

An analogy from the software world would be sorting data into alphabetic order. Depending on how your data ends up before you sort it, any one of half a dozen algorithms could deliver the most efficient sort. So for software excellence, you had better have an inkling of the state of your data and know which method to use.

So I am wondering if CA in lens output and its correction in post are different depending on the lens and on the scene.

Am I to believe that the path of light for various frequencies in glass is the same for long telephoto primes with 5 or 6 lens elements and for short zooms, all regardless of lens design and focal length? No way. For example, CA gets worse around 180mm and beyond in primes.

You used a 24-70 here, can't see which one. Could be pertinent to how CA is overcome in post. The recent Nikon 24-70 lens designs are very very different, and even more different in their uses of their three low-dispersion glass elements.

Still, if your lens is either of the most recent Nikon 24-70 lenses, the CA in your post arose along one of two different paths and in spite of three extra-low dispersion lens elements designed to manage CA.

Wrt prevention, the CA becomes more apparent in telophoto, around, say, 200mm -- all things equal, which they never ever are.

A useful list. There are a couple of points from this list that are fun and useful to explore.

Elements and Groups
The number of elements is truly problematic, considering Nikon uses 200 kinds of glass, often formulated for each lens element. And I won't even mention the customization of coating formulas and the count of coating layers for each lens element.

For example, wrt the number of elements, last month I bought one variant of a Nikkor telephoto lens. My variant has one less element than a later ED variant and fewer glass-air interfaces. However, my variant has one element that is thicker than any lens element I've ever seen and so unfortunately it may have more glass. I speculated that my variant would be as good after correcting any CA in post and perhaps deliver a better image due to element count.

In any case, element count is only a rough proxy for total mass of the lens elements plus the count of air-glass interfaces plus the formulas for each lens element and its coatings plus the element count and more.

The number of elements is even more mysterious in a zoom, with its larger element counts. If you ask Nikon, the inferiority of the zoom to the prime has not been a real issue since the original 43-86mm, but I'm not on that page yet.

Plastic mounts and Plastic in Build
The first Nikon use of plastic was in the EL camera build and in the builds of the contemporaneous Series E lenses. W-H-Y-?-? These innovations were to reduce weight in these products for women and children! Nikon set up a QA capability at the time to ensure no quality compromises came from the use of plastic. There is more to the story, like cost reductions, but we see everywhere an ahistorical understanding of plastic in camera equipment as always a problem.

In any case, it would be inviting ridicule to put a plastic mount on a lens so heavy that it needs a collar to manage torsion. On a shorter light-weight lens, with a light-weight camera, there is less room to object.

In any case, plastic mounts for Nikkors seem to be limited to entry-level lenses, though I have not done a survey of all Nikkor and Series E lenses.

Anyway, what is so bad about plastic, as if plastic cannot be stronger and more wear-resistant than some metal alloys? Would titanium be what we should want for the threads on the fronts of our lenses?? And hey! How 'bout them low-mass carbon-fiber shutters in the D810? Or its use to reinforce the D5?

Watch Nikon's site for refurbished and also for on sale.

I got my first pro camera and first pro lens this way last year. Both products seemed as if new. I know they were tested with the latest firmware. Both have a pedigree and proper boxing materials -- for sure they are not gray market. No regrets.

I learned the hard way that these less-costly items may be snapped up quickly. Missing a few cycles gave me more time to save my pennies.

Plenty of stuff to learn and explore in your post.

I have seen a number of wishful remarks to have a histogram based on RAW. Seems like camera makers could offer an option to include that among the image-playback screens. There is time to do the math when the JPEG histogram is made.