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
D7100
D7100 vs D700 Shutter Speed
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: 383773" data-attributes="member: 12496"><p>The numbers you mention (1/180, 1/90) are half stop steps. There is really absolutely no reason not to set the camera exposure and ISO values to be third stop steps. This lets them be slightly closer to actual target goals of the metering. Smaller finer steps become available.</p><p></p><p>I suppose it is always possible that the cameras meter 1/2 stop differently (or maybe 1/3 if using third stops), but also (with same lens and distance), the FX camera also sees a view half again wider than DX. Saying the FX metering area is half again wider than DX, which could cause differences in what is seen to be metered. Such a test to compare readings needs to be done on a more careful scene, like an evenly lighted wider blank wall, etc. To rule out subject differences seen.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It is common that users do prefer the cropped DX for sports/wildlife, simply because the crop factor gives a psuedo telephoto effect, as if the lens was 1.5x longer than the same lens on FX. This telephoto effect is only because it is cropped smaller, and then enlarged more to view it same size. More at <a href="http://www.scantips.com/lights/cropfactor.html" target="_blank">FX - DX Lens Crop Factor</a></p><p></p><p>You can do the same crop anytime later in the photo editor on the FX (just zoom in on it, for example), and see the same telephoto effect due to the cropping, but then the result is far fewer pixels after that later crop. Cropping on the sensor still allows all the sensors pixels.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, see previous paragraph about cropping it any time later. Both cropped the same to show same view, just cropped at different times.</p><p></p><p>Then, yes, there is a little more. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>Imagine same lens at same distance on both the FX and DX camera. Everything the same except the sensor size (and the cropped view).</p><p></p><p>It is obviously the same image projected onto both sensors (same lens, same scene). The small DX sensor just crops it to see a more narrow view, which we then imagine is a telephoto effect (only because it gets enlarged more, to be viewed same size as FX).</p><p></p><p>Image quality is about the original lens image projected onto the sensor.</p><p></p><p>The digital sensor merely tries to reproduce that analog image digitally, with pixel sampling. Like a scanner, so to speak. The more pixels available, the better it can make that reproduction (much like finer grain film could do). But the digital image is always just a copy of the lens image. It can become a better copy with more pixels, but it can never become better than the original analog image from the lens. The best job the pixels could do would be to look just like the lens image.</p><p></p><p>My own notion is that we tend to get involved with discussing the pixels, and we forget all about the original image from the lens. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> But that original image also has a size (size of the sensor), which DX has to enlarge more to see it. So the "telephoto" effect also has this little disadvantage.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 383773, member: 12496"] The numbers you mention (1/180, 1/90) are half stop steps. There is really absolutely no reason not to set the camera exposure and ISO values to be third stop steps. This lets them be slightly closer to actual target goals of the metering. Smaller finer steps become available. I suppose it is always possible that the cameras meter 1/2 stop differently (or maybe 1/3 if using third stops), but also (with same lens and distance), the FX camera also sees a view half again wider than DX. Saying the FX metering area is half again wider than DX, which could cause differences in what is seen to be metered. Such a test to compare readings needs to be done on a more careful scene, like an evenly lighted wider blank wall, etc. To rule out subject differences seen. It is common that users do prefer the cropped DX for sports/wildlife, simply because the crop factor gives a psuedo telephoto effect, as if the lens was 1.5x longer than the same lens on FX. This telephoto effect is only because it is cropped smaller, and then enlarged more to view it same size. More at [URL="http://www.scantips.com/lights/cropfactor.html"]FX - DX Lens Crop Factor[/URL] You can do the same crop anytime later in the photo editor on the FX (just zoom in on it, for example), and see the same telephoto effect due to the cropping, but then the result is far fewer pixels after that later crop. Cropping on the sensor still allows all the sensors pixels. Yes, see previous paragraph about cropping it any time later. Both cropped the same to show same view, just cropped at different times. Then, yes, there is a little more. :) Imagine same lens at same distance on both the FX and DX camera. Everything the same except the sensor size (and the cropped view). It is obviously the same image projected onto both sensors (same lens, same scene). The small DX sensor just crops it to see a more narrow view, which we then imagine is a telephoto effect (only because it gets enlarged more, to be viewed same size as FX). Image quality is about the original lens image projected onto the sensor. The digital sensor merely tries to reproduce that analog image digitally, with pixel sampling. Like a scanner, so to speak. The more pixels available, the better it can make that reproduction (much like finer grain film could do). But the digital image is always just a copy of the lens image. It can become a better copy with more pixels, but it can never become better than the original analog image from the lens. The best job the pixels could do would be to look just like the lens image. My own notion is that we tend to get involved with discussing the pixels, and we forget all about the original image from the lens. :) But that original image also has a size (size of the sensor), which DX has to enlarge more to see it. So the "telephoto" effect also has this little disadvantage. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
D7100
D7100 vs D700 Shutter Speed
Top
