D610 vs D7100

[Chris E]

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.

At the same ISO?

 

[WayneF]

At the same ISO?

Yes, I am assuming at the same ISO. If you change ISO, the exposure changes.

 

[Chris E]

Yes, I am assuming at the same ISO. If you change ISO, the exposure changes.

OK, this is what is throwing me and the basis of my original post.

I always read about how FF is better in low light situations. I concluded this must mean that you can use a lower ISO at the same shutter speed and F stop for FF vs the DX. That is why I wrote that you would need to have a slower shutter speed for the same exposure in the DX, assuming same ISO.

Does it actually mean that for a certain ISO in FF and DX, the FF will just have less noise?

 

[WayneF]

OK, this is what is throwing me and the basis of my original post.

I always read about how FF is better in low light situations. I concluded this must mean that you can use a lower ISO at the same shutter speed and F stop for FF vs the DX. That is why I wrote that you would need to have a slower shutter speed for the same exposure in the DX, assuming same ISO.

Does it actually mean that for a certain ISO in FF and DX, the FF will just have less noise?

OK, sorry I misunderstood. Yes, ISO and noise sensitivity is a different thing, affected by pixel size. It is not NECESSARILY DX and FX, I guess you could compare a 6mp DX sensor and a 36mp FX sensor. However, 6 mp would be old technology, and I doubt it would win on noise. This is what the DxO tests are trying to show.


What I had read and addressed said:

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?

​

And I did not see ISO or noise in there.

 

[Chris E]

OK, sorry I misunderstood. Yes, ISO and noise sensitivity is a different thing, affected by pixel size. It is not NECESSARILY DX and FX, I guess you could compare a 6mp DX sensor and a 36mp FX sensor. However, 6 mp would be old technology, and I doubt it would win on noise. This is what the DxO tests are trying to show.
.

Yes, I understand all of that but I caused the misunderstanding. But, I did write "exposure" in my original post, which is affected by shutter speed, F stop, and ISO. As I wrote above, when I hear FF is better in low light I always assumed that meant you could use a lower ISO in FF for the same shutter speed and F stop. I must be wrong.

To clear up any more confusion on my part, as an example:

D7100 - 1/100 sec, ISO 100, F/8
D610 - same setting.

This is the same exposure for both cameras?

I assume your answer is yes. So, that being the case, the reason that FF is better in low light is because it has less noise at higher ISO's, right? 6400 on FF has less noise than 6400 in DX?

 

[WayneF]

D7100 - 1/100 sec, ISO 100, F/8
D610 - same setting.

This is the same exposure for both cameras?

Yes, that was my original response. f/8 is f/8, 1/100 second is 1/100 second, and ISO 100 is ISO 100. DX or FX sensor does not affect those parameters.

The general answer might also include "nor camera shake on a tripod", but the DX image is in fact smaller, and has to be enlarged more, which would slightly magnify the blur, if any.

I assume your answer is yes. So, that being the case, the reason that FF is better in low light is because it has less noise at higher ISO's, right? 6400 on FF has less noise than 6400 in DX?

Yes, because FX is a larger sensor, which if assuming similar megapixel counts, then generally implying more space for larger pixel buckets to collect photons, which is a higher signal to noise ratio, which is less noise.

But it depends on how many actual pixels are present in the area of that sensor, and so what is the actual size of the pixels? You could make a DX sensor with fewer but larger pixels than FX. I doubt it is done that way in our cameras (in the same technology era), but large pixels are extremely important to telescope astronomers (for low noise). Generally they cool their CCD sensors in use, to reduce noise.

 

[Mark F]

I have purchased the d3300 and mounted my d610 24-85 kit lens to it. I've compared sharpness and quality of print between it and other shots I took with my 610. Guess what? The d3300 looks cleaner and more eye appealing. I will do a more controlled shot comparison later this week or next depending. I was just comparing shots taken last month to what I took today, which I know won't be acceptable as a test comparison due to ISO and time of day etc. etc. etc.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mark F]

You are always talking about having to enlarge a dx photo. I've never had to enlarge even from a d40 camera to print. Maybe a film negative being put in an enlarger, but I've never physically had to enlarge the size of a raw or jpg file to print How large are you printing?
Now at 24mp... I don't understand why you keep saying you need to enlarge?
Billboards, maybe.
To me, it's all about what the print looks like on paper and under a frame. Not left on a disk or computer to play around with.

Yes, that was my original response. f/8 is f/8, 1/100 second is 1/100 second, and ISO 100 is ISO 100. DX or FX sensor does not affect those parameters.

The general answer might also include "nor camera shake on a tripod", but the DX image is in fact smaller, and has to be enlarged more, which would slightly magnify the blur, if any.



Yes, because FX is a larger sensor, which if assuming similar megapixel counts, then generally implying more space for larger pixel buckets to collect photons, which is a higher signal to noise ratio, which is less noise.

But it depends on how many actual pixels are present in the area of that sensor, and so what is the actual size of the pixels? You could make a DX sensor with fewer but larger pixels than FX. I doubt it is done that way in our cameras (in the same technology era), but large pixels are extremely important to telescope astronomers (for low noise). Generally they cool their CCD sensors in use, to reduce noise.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WayneF]

You are always talking about having to enlarge a dx photo. I've never had to enlarge even from a d40 camera to print. How large are you printing?
Now at 24mp... I don't understand why you keep saying you need to enlarge?
Billboards, maybe.
To me, it's all about what the print looks like on paper and under a frame. Not left on a disk or computer to play around with.

No, it is much simpler than that. Say we want to print a 6x4 inch photo. That is pretty small right? No heroic enlargement.

But the starting point for DX is 24x16mm (0.94 x 0.67 inches), and for FX 36x24mm (1.42 x 0.94 inches).

24mm DX to 6 inches is 6/0.94 = 6.38x enlargement (of the fine detail projected by the lens onto the sensor).
36mm FX to 6 inches is 6/1.42 = 4.22x enlargement (of the fine detail projected by the lens onto the sensor).

That much is clearly obvious, 50% greater enlargement (of the fine detail projected by the lens onto the sensor).

The example suffers, because we would naturally resample both of them smaller first for this, but it is not really about the pixels.
The pixels merely hope to reproduce that original image as well as they can do it.
The original image is the image we hope to reproduce.

If you only work with 6x4 prints, or with 2 megapixel video images, you may never realize this.

If you work with bigger stuff, you might. There obviously is a difference (a few differences actually).

 

[Mark F]

I guess I don't notice it since I print 13x19 and 8 1/2 x 11s and I can view 12 mp d300s files full screen on my 27 in mac.

No, it is much simpler than that. Say we want to print a 6x4 inch photo. That is pretty small right? No heroic enlargement.

But the starting point for DX is 24x16mm (0.94 x 0.67 inches), and for FX 36x24mm (1.42 x 0.94 inches).

24mm DX to 6 inches is 6/0.94 = 6.38x enlargement (of the fine detail projected by the lens onto the sensor).
36mm FX to 6 inches is 6/1.42 = 4.22x enlargement (of the fine detail projected by the lens onto the sensor).

That much is clearly obvious, 50% greater enlargement (of the fine detail projected by the lens onto the sensor).

The example suffers, because we would naturally resample both of them smaller first for this, but it is not really about the pixels.
The pixels merely hope to reproduce that original image as well as they can do it.
The original image is the image we hope to reproduce.

If you only work with 6x4 prints, or with 2 megapixel video images, you may never realize this.

If you work with bigger stuff, you might. There obviously is a difference (a few differences actually).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WayneF]

I guess I don't notice it since I print 13x19 and 8 1/2 x 11s and I can view 12 mp d300s files full screen on my 27 in mac.

Well, 13x19 would be 13/0.67 = 19.4x DX enlargement, or 13/0.94 = 13.8x FX enlargement. That's getting on up there. It seems to just depend on if we want to pay or not.

Edited: Corrected numeric blunder.

 

[Mark F]

Yeah, well that's where I cut my involvement in this thread since I have had paying customers for some of my prints without the hassle of enlargement. Don't even really know how to do that actually but Obviously I am not a pro, so my knowledge isn't as up there as some. I don't make a living at it even though I'v wanted to and have been shooting and printing since the late 60s early 70s. I'm not a great photographer either, that I'll admit, I still have lots to learn about art and composition. I want to have fun with it and keep it simple too.
But, I'd rather be out shooting than reading threads about mathematical equations from someone I've never publically heard about. Sorry.
I asked a simple question and only a couple people here gave me simple answers to that question so my question here has been answered.
I'm keeping the d610 because I know it's a great camera, although focus points are not all that compared to the d7100... And I purchased a d3300 that will use my elcheapo 600.00 and less fx lenses and make pretty nice prints out of them on a DX sensor. If I like what I see, I'll go with the d7100 or d7200 camera later on.

If I am out of line here... please let the forum ops know and we will go from there.
The turn of this thread was one of the reasons I left Nikonians over a year ago. There were so many people on the forum who loved to talk technical crap and get things stirred up yet never went out and actually shot a camera. Not saying thats the case here... but.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WayneF]

I'm sorry to be of no help to you Mark.

One last statement, without actual numbers.
There is no doubt the recent DX cameras are pretty awesome, and well capable of many awesome feats. They are breathtaking compared to several years ago.
But if you're looking for a little extra margin, there is no doubt recent FX can provide that. It's pretty much the entire point.
I suspect you must already know that.

But you seem to be looking for a little less margin, and you asked "I primarily do landscape shots. Will I lose a noticeable lot if I switch to the d7100?"

I don't know what you might notice, but as I mentioned earlier, here is what one set of tests noticed:

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

and they show DX with about 25% less "perceptual" resolution with the same lens (I looked at the 14-24mm, which is a good one).
​

So I can't imagine anyone can tell you what you want to hear.


P.S. I can add this link to DxO perceptual resolution

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Look...r-DxOMark-s-Perceptual-Megapixel-can-help-you

Down at the bottom, it says things like:

What are the key lessons for the photographic community?

The Perceptual MPix measure confirms certain rules of thumb such as “a 12 MPix full-format camera is sharper than an 18 MPix APS,”


The fewer pixels cannot make it sharper, but the larger image can. I may have mentioned enlargement.


​

 

[Mark F]

One last response. Yes, fx is more capable than dx camera bodies. But what you and most people forget is the lens in front of that body.
A mediocre fx lens on a dx body is going to produce a little better image that that mediocre lens on the fx body. I can say that from firsthand experience. I can only afford mediocre fx lenses. Put a pro quality fx lens on an fx body... Nothing better than that... But 2000.00+ lens isn't in my budget. People on this forum have steered me to a couple other lenses for the d610. I'm going to check them out. As it stands, the lenses I was using ( which is what I could afford... I'd have to sell things to get any more lenses ) wasn't producing the images I wanted. Those lenses on a dx body did. Hence my inquiry here. I will keep the d610 and hopefully be in a position later on to get a decent lens for it. But the d3300 with the 18-55 and the fx lens 24-85 are awesome on that camera body.
When I shoot and can look at the picture and say, oh wow, instead of, well hopefully I can fix it in photoshop...that's all the documented proof I need.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nathan Lanni]

Re: 610 vs 7100

It's funny, but I've been thinking about going the other direction.

I currently have a d7100 and want to transition to full frame. Hope I don't repeat what other have said, but here's my take.

I'm a bit concerned about 3 things with the d610: slower flash synch (200 vs 250), slower max shutter speed (4000 vs 8000) and the autofocus system. Like, you I do landscapes/architecture so I'm hoping they won't have much of an impact. On the other hand the Image Quality and low light capability of the d610 are better than the d7100. People say ISO 1600 is the max with the d7100 but I find my starts to crap out at 800. So the d610 would be a step up for me.

Going from a dx to fx, it my understanding the d600/d610 39 focus points are fairly close together in the center of the screen, whereas the d7100 51 points cover more of the screen. But with landscapes/architecture subjects I don't think the AF system will be much of an issue either way because it's easy to focus and recompose. Don't know about you but I use AF-S or AF-C with a single point or maybe 9 if my subject is moving around. I've yet to use more than 9.

Not sure what you'r talking about with lenses. I tend to look at primes so the choices of lower budget lenses are a better fit for FX than dx. I am really tired of the crop conversion bit - I want a 35mm to be a 35mm. The other really big issue for me is just about any lens IQ is much better on Nikon's FX cameras.

This is what I mean: DXO rating for the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 28mm f/1.8G fitted to a d7100 is 21. THAT SAME LENS fitted to a d610 is rating at 32 by DXO.

I'm sure there's plenty of people here more intelligent than me who can explain or debunk why that's so, but I figure my IQ would jump dramatically by going full frame - for several reasons. I get the advantage of a wider image (e.g., sensor size) and my lenses provide a better angle of view, the sensor provide better image quality, better ISO, and on the d610 plus lenses I buy I get more bang for the buck.

Just my take, FWIW

Cheers

I hear ya. Every time a subject comes up about this, it's the same responses.
Pixels and size... Splitting hairs... Technical mathematical reasons for one thing over the other. Answers that fail to appear is lack of aa filter on the d7100. More focus points and spread out over the sensor... Etc. what I have seen is the shots between these cameras ( without going into zooming over 100% ) with the same focal point, same field of view represented, the 7100 looks sharper. Post can compensate for that but still.
I'm not saying this dx camera is better that my d610. What I am saying is that with the dx lenses available, I could produce almost the same quality shots for less money spent.
At this point, if going back to dx, I would buy new. I've been offered 1900.00 for the d610 with kit lens which would let me buy a d7100 and two good dx lenses for landscape and medium zoom.
It always gets me just how technical these threads turn into. I don't really care about the mathematics of each sensor and each pixel. I care about how the photo looks after it gets printed and is hanging on a wall.
I printed 13x19 prints at 300dpi from my d300s without having to enlarge the file first in Photoshop. They came out fine. What I have noticed with the 24 mp sensors and cameras is better color and the ability to crop a little and still get printed quality.
The comparison of these two cameras should be final print to final print and what the naked eye can see instead of do xxx amount of money spent, you can get more xx from each pixel that you won't be able to see until you print billboard size and stand 6 feet away.
I will keep my d610, but I will probably buy a 7100 or 7200 later on.
I'm purchasing a d3300 now for a light carry all and will see what happens with that. I'll look into that 18-35 lens which will work on both cameras at the area I do most of my shooting.
Sorry for the long thread .



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Browncoat]

 

[Mark F]

I forgot that tapatalk was still loaded on my phone or I would have thought this thread had been ended, deleted, or otherwise just gone.
I asked a simple question... It turned into one of those threads that's normal on a lot of forums these days. I've made my decision on what I'm using and what I'm getting for a lightweight kit and I don't need to hear about why I was wrong in my decision. I've kept the d610 with an afs 50mm 1.8 on it plus I bought a d3300 which I'll put a tokina 11-16 on along with keeping the kit lens and using the 70-300 on.
Until I can afford good lenses for my d610 aka 24-70 70-200 14-24... I won't be using it as much. There was the reason for the question... It wasn't about bodies exactly but more about affordable lenses on each. Anyway, I've decided to just go out shooting and forget about online forums from now on.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Blacktop]

I bought a d3300 which I'll put a tokina 11-16 on

Great choice on the lens. The Tokina 11-16 has 2 versions. One will only auto focus on your 610, the newer one will also AF on the D3300.

 

[Nathan Lanni]

Sometimes this forum can be tiresome.

One thinks they could participate casually - wrong!

If you're busy and not here everyday - in order to watch and avoid excessive posts on the same subject - then you get clowned.

Ask a fairly technical question and the well is typically dry.

Why do I even bother?

Browncoat, I promise not to bore you again.

View attachment 101764

 

[hrstrat57]

I found this thread pretty informative actually.....and appreciate the bump for further discussion as I look to migrate to digital full frame.