Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
D600/D610
D610 vs D7100
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 328957" data-attributes="member: 12496"><p><strong>Re: 610 vs 7100</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Simply not the correct or complete way to think of it. NOT identical in every way. Repeating and expanding:</p><p></p><p>That concept is only just about pixels. And pixels are only just about sampling of the analog image that was projected by the lens onto the sensor. More pixels might reproduce the lens image better, up to Nyquist's half, but of course, more pixels can never improve the original lens image. The analog lens image is the image we seek to reproduce, and the pixels are only a way to try to represent it digitally. We hope it does it well, but the pixels are NOT the end goal.</p><p></p><p>The fact remains, the DX sensor is a smaller image than FX, which has to be enlarged more than FX (which is not a plus). This is the cropped DX telephoto effect. Even from the same lens, DX simply has to enlarge the crop more, so we imagine a telephoto effect. DX is necessarily enlarged more.</p><p></p><p>The image projected from the lens is smaller on that cropped DX sensor. If the same lens were on both cameras, the image detail is the same of course, but that cropped view is not. But I'm instead speaking of the same the field of view, made to be the same image view. Field of view can be the same, but DX is a smaller copy of it (24x16 mm, vs 36x24 mm). DX is a smaller image that has to be enlarged more.</p><p> </p><p>The number of pixels could be the same number (like 24 megapixels), and if thought of that way, then printed at X dpi would seem to be the same thing. But that is only about the intermediate pixels, and is NOT about the image they attempt to reproduce. There is a bigger picture, so to speak. <img src="http://photocamel.com/forum/images/smilies/smiley.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> Saying, we don't look at pixels.</p><p> </p><p>The printed image is in fact to be a reproduction of the original lens image, and DX is simply a smaller image. If printed same size, DX is enlarged more than FX. </p><p></p><p>Circle Of Confusion (CoC) is considered to be the (arbitrary) diameter of a spot area still considered to appear as the smallest point source (in the standard viewing situation). The sensor size is why CoC used in DOF formulas is 1.5x larger for FX than DX. The larger FX is simply not enlarged as much. So FX could be allowed to be more blurred, so to speak - if not enlarged as much (harder to see the blur). </p><p></p><p>If a FX, and DX, and compact camera images were all 12 megapixels, which way are you going to bet? <img src="http://photocamel.com/forum/images/smilies/smiley.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> It is not only about the 12 megapixels. The pixels are just an intermediate tool we use.</p><p> </p><p>It's the same reason large film was used, like medium film for weddings, or sheet film for commercial work. Larger does not have to be enlarged as much. Analog, but considered a strong and obvious plus. But the original lens image, that we try to reproduce for our analog eyes to see, is analog. We hope our digital pixels are sufficient, but the topic is about the analog image projected on to the camera sensor. And DX is simply a smaller image as a starting point.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 328957, member: 12496"] [b]Re: 610 vs 7100[/b] Simply not the correct or complete way to think of it. NOT identical in every way. Repeating and expanding: That concept is only just about pixels. And pixels are only just about sampling of the analog image that was projected by the lens onto the sensor. More pixels might reproduce the lens image better, up to Nyquist's half, but of course, more pixels can never improve the original lens image. The analog lens image is the image we seek to reproduce, and the pixels are only a way to try to represent it digitally. We hope it does it well, but the pixels are NOT the end goal. The fact remains, the DX sensor is a smaller image than FX, which has to be enlarged more than FX (which is not a plus). This is the cropped DX telephoto effect. Even from the same lens, DX simply has to enlarge the crop more, so we imagine a telephoto effect. DX is necessarily enlarged more. The image projected from the lens is smaller on that cropped DX sensor. If the same lens were on both cameras, the image detail is the same of course, but that cropped view is not. But I'm instead speaking of the same the field of view, made to be the same image view. Field of view can be the same, but DX is a smaller copy of it (24x16 mm, vs 36x24 mm). DX is a smaller image that has to be enlarged more. The number of pixels could be the same number (like 24 megapixels), and if thought of that way, then printed at X dpi would seem to be the same thing. But that is only about the intermediate pixels, and is NOT about the image they attempt to reproduce. There is a bigger picture, so to speak. [IMG]http://photocamel.com/forum/images/smilies/smiley.gif[/IMG] Saying, we don't look at pixels. The printed image is in fact to be a reproduction of the original lens image, and DX is simply a smaller image. If printed same size, DX is enlarged more than FX. Circle Of Confusion (CoC) is considered to be the (arbitrary) diameter of a spot area still considered to appear as the smallest point source (in the standard viewing situation). The sensor size is why CoC used in DOF formulas is 1.5x larger for FX than DX. The larger FX is simply not enlarged as much. So FX could be allowed to be more blurred, so to speak - if not enlarged as much (harder to see the blur). If a FX, and DX, and compact camera images were all 12 megapixels, which way are you going to bet? [IMG]http://photocamel.com/forum/images/smilies/smiley.gif[/IMG] It is not only about the 12 megapixels. The pixels are just an intermediate tool we use. It's the same reason large film was used, like medium film for weddings, or sheet film for commercial work. Larger does not have to be enlarged as much. Analog, but considered a strong and obvious plus. But the original lens image, that we try to reproduce for our analog eyes to see, is analog. We hope our digital pixels are sufficient, but the topic is about the analog image projected on to the camera sensor. And DX is simply a smaller image as a starting point. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
D600/D610
D610 vs D7100
Top