D610 vs D7100

[Mark F]

Re: 610 vs 7100

See. This is what happens all over the net with a subject like this.
Simple comparison question between one camera and the next requiring a simple comparison answer. I don't care what the pixels do in the camera... Analog or digital. How the size matters or what.
I wanted to know... Once you printed an image at 13x19 300dpi to the naked human eye... What difference can you see between the two shots.
Let's just close the thread before a war starts. It may cause someone to lose all the fun that photography should be



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WayneF]

Re: 610 vs 7100

I wanted to know... Once you printed an image at 13x19 300dpi to the naked human eye... What difference can you see between the two shots.

I'm not aware of anyone showing that exact comparison, with that goal. It could be carefully done, and highly detailed 100% crop images should almost show it.

Because, in this specific case, both D7100 and D600 create images about 6000x4000 pixels, 24 mp. People imagine that must make them same, but they're not the same source.

19x13 inches at 300 dpi is 5700x3900 pixels, essentially the same size as 6000x4000. So images of that size cannot be compared without scrolling a HD monitor a few times, but two 100% crop images would also represent that size, and could be compared side by side in the way that you seek.

It would be showing the same images that you would print, but video is different than printing, in that the monitor only has maybe 100 dpi resolution (but 100% would be showing pixels one for one), but it has much greater color depth than ink dots can achieve, certainly inkjets. So it shows 3x larger, and probably looks better and brighter. Resampling to 1/3 size so the video shows more near actual printed size cannot show your actual pixels, it would lose 89% of the detail (no longer representative of 19x13). So the 100% crop is better, but it does not quite answer for actually printing them. And while 50% enlargement is not extreme, regardless, I'd expect to find differences if the scene is good, which proves the point (of not the same).

I know everyone wants to think that the 6000x4000 pixel images are obviously the same, if the numbers are the same, the results obviously must be the same... but that is too simple minded. The obvious fact does remain, DX image size is 2/3 the size of FX, and thus must be enlarged 50% more to compare at the same size. The 24 megapixels are the same and are not enlarged differently, but the original lens image on the DX sensor was a smaller size.

All the factors show this has to be true.... the so called DX crop telephoto effect due to greater enlargement, the DOF reduced CoC size due to greater enlargement (requiring DX image to be sharper to have the same apparent DOF blur), the simple dimensions in mm of the their sensors, etc.

 

[Mark F]

610 vs 7100

I'm not aware of anyone showing that exact comparison, with that goal. It could be carefully done, and highly detailed 100% crop images should almost show

Hence the reason for the question. Like I said, every thread I read about this subject always end up in quantum scientific physics that make no sense to anyone except PhDs in mathematics.
I shoot a shot... Post process it from raw and up the contrast and sharpness. Print it, frame it, hang it on a wall somewhere. Quality of how the image looks is my goal. All the rest is gooblygarbage to me. What I see is what I got.
So, I am keeping the 610 for now. I like the advantages of FX. I like the high ISO for night shots, I like what I see for indoor, architecture shots, and for candid people shots. I just don't see the difference in landscapes.
I am getting a d3300 and comparing. It will be a nice light weight kit. Bells and whistles aren't really necessary. I can control shutter speed, ISO, aperture, white balance. All else is convenient and nice to have for speed, but I'm in no hurry. If I like what I see, I'll think about getting the 7100 or 7200 which ever... And go from there.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WayneF]

Re: 610 vs 7100

Realizing that no one cares, but just hoping the concept is clear, two fast points:

See the image in top right here: Image sensor format - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Smallest two there are compact cameras.

CX is Nikon 1 mirrorless

DX and FX sizes are shown.

There is a difference.

Down in the text there, at Image sensor format - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

it says: "Moreover, to maintain the same absolute amount of information in an image (which can be measured as the space bandwidth product) the lens for a smaller sensor requires a greater resolving power."

That should be a strong hint. It has to be enlarged more. But in the case of cameras, smaller sensors are not known for their better sharper lenses. It is about price, and typically they are instead rather inexpensive lenses, less capable, plus the smaller sensor too.

 

[Mark F]

Wayne. Go over to the d3300 thread. Look at TedG and aroy.
These are entry level camera shots with the 18-55 lens.
I know you could do better with the fx camera... But really?
I wish people would stop making explanations so complicated and start looking at the end results! which is what photography is all about. Nef and jpg files don't stay in my camera... I keep the raw on my computer but They end up being printed and viewed... And that is where my artistic ambitions lie.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[aroy]

Another thing we forget is the perspective. If you shoot with say 50mm from 20m away, the perspective remains same in both the formats, but DX frame is smaller (cropped). Now use the same lense (assuming it has a large enough image circle) on a MF camera, the image frame is larger than FX.

When you want the same FOV in different sized sensors, you use an "equivalent" lense - approximately
. 35mm for DX
. 50mm for FX
. 80mm for MF
The moment you change the focal length, you are changing the perspective. So even if the fore ground or the main subject has the same FOV, due to change in perspective rest on the image is different. Try to shoot trees in a sparsely populated (with trees) forest and you will see the change in perspective shifts the trees ahead and behind those in focus. Two images simply do not overlap.

Where the effect of perspective is barely visible is in long telephotos (the difference in angle is very little) and in macros (the background is blurred due to shallow DOF).

Where the DX sensor gains is in the pixel density. For 24MP sensor the densities are
. DX : 250/mm
. FX : 166.6/mm
So if the image on the sensor is 10mm, it will have 2500 pixels in DX and 1667 in FX. You get more details in DX. A pretty good difference, which means the DX will do with less magnification to show the same detail.

 

[gqtuazon]

I think we've beaten the dead horse here over and over already.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Browncoat]

Re: 610 vs 7100

See. This is what happens all over the net with a subject like this.

When you put versus in the thread title, it's never going to end well.

 

[BackdoorArts]

My apologies for using words like 'nearly identical' in a thread that asked a simple question, but for which someone had great heaps of information to disseminate. I am bowing out of this "conversation" to answer the original question again to the OP since the point I was attempting to make has been co-opted, derailed and otherwise lost.

Mark, suffice it to say, I attempted to test this yesterday with a D600 and D7100. Given that I do not have 2 fixed length lenses that would be considered of equivalent focal length with the different body types I attempted to approximate it with a zoom lens. Alas, I was not able to exactly match the two photos even with the lens mounted to a tripod and the bodies swapped - either the lens moved slightly when swapping bodies or I was never able to dial in a perfect "105mm" on FX for the zoom's "70mm" on the DX. Suffice it to say, discounting the minor changes in orientation, I would be hard pressed to tell you which image came from which camera without looking at EXIF. File sizes were about 1% larger on the D600 (32.1MB vs. 32.3MB). No noticeable difference in sharpness, clarity or lighting. If you'd like to see the "almost matching" shots, PM me and I'll put them together for you (and only you). I will attempt to complete this comparison in the near future if only to be able to post files that will allow those who want to make the comparison to do so without having to wade through the deep waters here. I figure if they can play with files for themselves and form their own opinions then what better method, right?

So, ignoring the lessons on optics and answering your original question in the spirit in which I believe it was asked, I find nothing that would lead me to point you away from the D7100 for the uses you describe. You have a D610, and obviously appreciate the impact glass can have. So, if you're putting good glass on the front of it, landscapes should be of no issue for you. Yes, you might be able to pull some more light out of shadowy areas in difficult lighting with the D610, but at the same time I believe the absence of the OLPF on the D7100 may actually provide you with a touch more clarity on some shots as well, so there's a potential trade-off.

I must add that as an owner of both, were you to press me to cut down to one camera then I would choose the FX. While Wayne's dissertation has made it difficult to discuss the topic as I believe you intended, the details behind it point to the fact that the D600/610's sensor has distinct advantages in terms of its ability to resolve light. These may not be perceptible in all situations, and will likely not come into play in the large majority of your photos, but I suspect that there will be situations in which the D610 will give you something (more) usable that what you'll get out of the D7100. I'd put a percentage guess to how often, but I suspect it would be questioned.

 

[Marcel]

Thanks Jake. I guess this is what the original poster wanted to read.

We sometimes forget what the goal of photography is. As much as it is nice to have a sharper picture, when you don't have the subject or the light, the image can still be meaningless, as sharp as it can be. Cameras are just tools and, like with all tools, some people are better users than others.

 

[Rick M]

I have about 400 images printed for my show inventory. The larger sizes are 12x18 and 16x20,24. About 3/4's were shot with the D5100 the rest with the D600. These are of course my best shots. If I didn't know which was used i could not tell the difference. My customers can't either, since I sell a lot of Dx prints. I've had fun with this when photographers stop by and start talking gear. I've also printed and sold 11x14's taken with the Cx 1" sensor. There is so much more to worry about. I find my greatest challenge is opportunity, subject matter and light. If i have those 3 it wont matter if I'm shooting Fx, Dx or Cx. Now i have to try a larger Cx print!

 

[Mark F]

Thanks Jake, Rick...
I should have put compared instead of vs in the title huh
I thought my reason for the question was a simple one. I was at work (i was taking shots of a new exhibit that was opened up at the museum) and a wedding photographer came up to me and asked me how I like the d610. I noticed he had the d7100 so I asked him that question as well. Short conversation, he said he wanted the FX because he believed it shined for what he uses a camera for. I told him what I use mine for, but said I was limited in this camera because I couldn't afford the glass I thought it deserved. Hence it got me thinking about the differences in photo prints. He offered me a good deal ( from what I can gather ) in trade for his plus a couple excellent lenses, or cash and enough to where I could buy a new d7100 and pick which two lenses I wanted. Anyway... I said I'd get back with him and that I wanted to go home and think about it.. meaning I came here to ask the question and decide from what great comments I would get her.
Turns out, I waited to long and the guy decided to get a d800e. He said he is going to get the d810 when its available too. I am so envious
So, deal broken... all the technical comments that make no difference to me... I'm keeping what I have for now, but in the back of my mind I may move "backwards" so I can get glass in front of a tool to make better pictures.
People viewing prints don't give a rats butt what camera it came out of... they don't see the exif data. They don't care if you used a zoom or a prime. If they like what they see... then the photographer did his job.
I have sold a few prints, its not my main thing. I'm still an immature amateur at this. I've held a camera since the late 1960's. I've always inspired to be a pro one day, but I never had the opportunity or the funds and I didn't want pro status to affect how I enjoy the hobby.
That said, and very long winded, I want to thank everyone for their input in the quest for X vs ( compared to ) X thread.
Jake, Rick... thanks for the simple comparison... even though you are off a couple mm in your lens settings to do justice to a true and accurate comparison. I'm sure there is a mathematical reason behind what you did that was wrong... lol And Rick, thats what its all about... people viewing the photos in print and enjoying the eye candy.


Just to add something here. An old photographer once told me that all camera bodies are capable of doing the same thing. Some easier than others, some not so easy. but they all interpret what the glass in front of them is telling them... so instead of buying camera bodies thinking they will improve your photography, buy glass. If you can't afford good glass, get a cheaper body to put the glass on.
That is what my thinking here was all about. The offer I had, gave me the opportunity to put the better glass on the body resulting in what I hoped to be better quality prints.

 

[Blade Canyon]

Maybe this will help, though your deal has already fallen through. I have this book:

Amazon.com: The Digital SLR Expert Landscapes (9780715329405): Various: Books

One of the professional landscape photographers who wrote this lamented how he had to ditch decades of accumulated Nikon gear and switch to Canon because Canon was the only one offering a full-frame sensor at that time (pre-2005). He considered it critical to go full frame for his work.

 

[Mark F]

Maybe this will help, though your deal has already fallen through. I have this book:

Amazon.com: The Digital SLR Expert Landscapes (9780715329405): Various: Books

One of the professional landscape photographers who wrote this lamented how he had to ditch decades of accumulated Nikon gear and switch to Canon because Canon was the only one offering a full-frame sensor at that time (pre-2005). He considered it critical to go full frame for his work.

It was pre 2005. Sensors were not what they are now. Wonder what he would think today. But the word for today is "good glass". I'd keep my full frame forever if I had $$$$ for the lenses that will
make a difference on full frame. It's not the body.
That is where people get turned around or get obsessed with. The body... Like that is the make or break thing to buy. Now, if that guy would say and showed me that putting cheap affordable to me lenses on that body even made the difference for him to jump ship, I'd be all ears. But, he wrote a book to make money, and gave what people wanted to see. He's a great photographer, but I'm questioning just how much his choice of equipment has helped. I'm not going to pay for the book to find out though

I like nikon, but I have seen jaw dropping prints from nikon, canon, Fuji, Sony, Leica, etc... So I don't think it's the branding either.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hark]

I don't know what your budget is for glass, but both Sigma and Tamron make a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens. The new Tamron version even has vibration reduction which the Nikon lacks. The Sigma doesn't have quite the creamy bokeh of the Nikon; however, if you have Photoshop Elements or PCC, backgrounds can be blurred more via the software. Either of these lenses is a less expensive alternative than the Nikon and should allow you to progress with FX. I think BackdoorHippie even has his Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 up for sale if you are interested.

 

[Mark F]

I don't know what your budget is for glass, but both Sigma and Tamron make a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens. The new Tamron version even has vibration reduction which the Nikon lacks. The Sigma doesn't have quite the creamy bokeh of the Nikon; however, if you have Photoshop Elements or PCC, backgrounds can be blurred more via the software. Either of these lenses is a less expensive alternative than the Nikon and should allow you to progress with FX. I think BackdoorHippie even has his Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 up for sale if you are interested.

May be interested. I'll think about it and see if I can find it listed in the marketplace.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chris E]

Good thread. I am having this same debate in my head right now....I have a 7100 but when I bought it I talked myself out of FF because of the cost, pluse I already had some DX lenses.Don't mean to hijack this thread but it looks like it has run its course so here goes something else.A question I have is what about long exposures? Does sharpness suffer the longer the exposure, with tripod and still conditions? For the same light conditions the FF would only need the shutter to be open less than half the time as the DX. Is this a big deal?

 

[WayneF]

Good thread. I am having this same debate in my head right now....I have a 7100 but when I bought it I talked myself out of FF because of the cost, pluse I already had some DX lenses.Don't mean to hijack this thread but it looks like it has run its course so here goes something else.A question I have is what about long exposures? Does sharpness suffer the longer the exposure, with tripod and still conditions? For the same light conditions the FF would only need the shutter to be open less than half the time as the DX. Is this a big deal?

No, DX/FX would not change anything about sharpness or exposure. Both DX and FX give the same exposure at a metered f/8. That is the meaning of f/stop, defined to be a way to equalize the exposure of different lenses, which would include different bodies. f/8 is f/8.

The same lens on both DX and FX is of course be exactly the same lens. Assuming same subject distance, nothing whatsoever changes, except the DX field of view is cropped smaller.

 

[BackdoorArts]

Depends if you're going low(er) ISO for cityscapes and night scenes, or high ISO for stars and whatnot. The larger pixel sizes on the full frame will have an advantage with the high ISO Milky Way type shots as they're likely to grab more light with less noise. How much more is arguable, but between the two cameras mentions I'd say the difference would be slight, but visible. With the low ISO stuff you're likely not going to see a difference - at least no more than you would on normal light shots.

As mentioned, sharpness doesn't come into play.

 

[WayneF]

I had not paid much attention, but the talk lately is that the new DX sensors are performing about as well as FX sensors. I was even believing it.

However, this D7100 / D610 comparison at DxO says the classic rules have NOT been suspended:

Nikon D610 versus Nikon D7100 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark

However, if looking at Lenses Tested, and selecting the 14-24mm lens for both, DX sharpness tests 13P and FX tests 17P (perceptual megapixels)

The DX sensor is smaller.