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: 329094" data-attributes="member: 12496"><p><strong>Re: 610 vs 7100</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Are you intentionally ignoring my point? <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> I am not ignoring yours, I am merely working beyond it. I'm saying there is obviously more to it than just focal length or pixels. If comparing DX and FX, that is not all we are varying. </p><p></p><p>You're dwelling on the pixels sampled from the images, which are just sort of an artifact or intermediate tool which can only reduce accuracy and quality. But I'm thinking of the analog images (out of lens, and into eye) that we are actually trying to reproduce and compare (FX and DX at same size, either in print or on video screen).</p><p></p><p> Equivalent lenses can produce the same field of view, which we can recognize as the same image. It is a good starting point, but of course, it's not exactly the same image. Because the DX image is 2/3 the size of the FX image (cropped size), and thus DX needs more enlargement to compare them. I am not speaking of pixel size. The very best pixel situation only strives to match and reproduce the original image out of the lens. We hope the pixel situation does well enough to reproduce the original images adequately. But that original image (captured from lens) is simply smaller for DX, and needs 50% more enlargement to compare them, which can be a shortcoming.</p><p></p><p>As mentioned before about three obvious differences in the image sizes:</p><p></p><p>1. 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.<p style="text-align: left"><span style="color: #000000"></span></p> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="color: #000000">2. 24x16 mm, vs 36x24 mm</span></p> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="color: #000000"></span></p> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="color: #000000">3. The sensor size is why CoC used in DOF formulas is 1.5x larger for FX than DX<p style="text-align: left"><span style="color: #000000"></span></p></span></p><p style="text-align: left"><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #000000"></span></p></span></p><p style="text-align: left"><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #000000">Dx is simply smaller, and requires greater enlargement. This certainly is a difference. We can enlarge it more so it appears the same, but enlargement is not free of effect.</span></p></span></p><p style="text-align: left"><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #000000"></span></p></span></p><p style="text-align: left"><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #000000"></span></p></span></p><p style="text-align: left"><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #000000"></span></p></p> <p style="text-align: left"></span></p> <p style="text-align: left"></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 329094, member: 12496"] [b]Re: 610 vs 7100[/b] Are you intentionally ignoring my point? :) I am not ignoring yours, I am merely working beyond it. I'm saying there is obviously more to it than just focal length or pixels. If comparing DX and FX, that is not all we are varying. You're dwelling on the pixels sampled from the images, which are just sort of an artifact or intermediate tool which can only reduce accuracy and quality. But I'm thinking of the analog images (out of lens, and into eye) that we are actually trying to reproduce and compare (FX and DX at same size, either in print or on video screen). Equivalent lenses can produce the same field of view, which we can recognize as the same image. It is a good starting point, but of course, it's not exactly the same image. Because the DX image is 2/3 the size of the FX image (cropped size), and thus DX needs more enlargement to compare them. I am not speaking of pixel size. The very best pixel situation only strives to match and reproduce the original image out of the lens. We hope the pixel situation does well enough to reproduce the original images adequately. But that original image (captured from lens) is simply smaller for DX, and needs 50% more enlargement to compare them, which can be a shortcoming. As mentioned before about three obvious differences in the image sizes: 1. 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.[LEFT][COLOR=#000000] 2. 24x16 mm, vs 36x24 mm 3. The sensor size is why CoC used in DOF formulas is 1.5x larger for FX than DX[LEFT][COLOR=#000000] Dx is simply smaller, and requires greater enlargement. This certainly is a difference. We can enlarge it more so it appears the same, but enlargement is not free of effect. [/COLOR][/LEFT] [/COLOR] [/LEFT] [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
D600/D610
D610 vs D7100
Top
