Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Geoffc" data-source="post: 329119" data-attributes="member: 8705">Re: 610 vs 7100Yes I'm with Jake on this one but I really can't be bothered to get into a lengthy debate on this point as I've not had to seriously think too much about Nyquist sampling rates and quantisation errors for a good few years<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite11" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /> I believe that Jake and I view a pixel as a pixel regardless of sensor size, in that once it's job of gathering some light levels and representing them as a binary value is achieved its job is done. Yes the pixels on a FX are larger than a DX most of the time but at the end of the day they both end up with an 8 or 16 bit binary value after being exposed to light. If you look at the D800 and D7000 the pixels are very similar in size so that further confuses that debate <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite5" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":confused:" />For both the 7100 and 610 we simply end up with a file containing 24,000,000 binary values. To say they are different sizes is like saying a 24mp image file stored on a very old 5 1/4" floppy disk must be natively larger and thus higher quality than one on an old 3 1/2" drive because each byte is stored over a larger surface area. The comparison is also made with film but it doesn't carry over. Film of the same type, has a given per square mm resolution so the smaller format film has less resolution for a like for like image and as such produces a lesser image when enlarged from 35mm to medium format for example. Wayne, if you disagree with my point that's ok I'll just carry on in ignorance.</blockquote>

Verification