Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 207520" data-attributes="member: 12496">&lt;sigh&gt;&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; &nbsp; You surely mistyped, and intended to say FX in your last sentence.&nbsp; It's little issue to fill up the small DX frame.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; But why shouldn't we filll both frames?You appear to be saying, for same megapixels, that because DX is smaller, then the same megapixels will sample more pixels across, say a tiny bug. Which is true as far as it goes, but the frames are small, which is useless if we cannot see it.&nbsp; We have to enlarge it to see it.&nbsp; And DX has to be enlarged 1.5x more to compare at same size -&nbsp; and if not comparing at same size (same subject size), then it is a garbage try.So, we CAN fill the FX frame with the bug.&nbsp; And by default, we have to divide the DX numbers by 1.5 to compare them to FX.&nbsp;&nbsp; If DX had more than&nbsp; 1.5x pixel dimensions than FX, then DX could win (except then noise and ISO would of course suffer, lower quality image).&nbsp;&nbsp; The D800 frame is 7360 pixels wide, and lets assume we fill it the same with the bug.&nbsp; No way DX can even imagine doing that (7360 pixels across the bug), in part because of FX size, and in part because of D800 36 megapixels.Like I said before, if you crave pixel density, you should get a compact point&amp;shoot. But, it turns out, the smaller sensor is counter productive (same as is smaller film size really).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 207520, member: 12496"] <sigh> :) You surely mistyped, and intended to say FX in your last sentence. It's little issue to fill up the small DX frame. :) But why shouldn't we filll both frames? You appear to be saying, for same megapixels, that because DX is smaller, then the same megapixels will sample more pixels across, say a tiny bug. Which is true as far as it goes, but the frames are small, which is useless if we cannot see it. We have to enlarge it to see it. And DX has to be enlarged 1.5x more to compare at same size - and if not comparing at same size (same subject size), then it is a garbage try. So, we CAN fill the FX frame with the bug. And by default, we have to divide the DX numbers by 1.5 to compare them to FX. If DX had more than 1.5x pixel dimensions than FX, then DX could win (except then noise and ISO would of course suffer, lower quality image). The D800 frame is 7360 pixels wide, and lets assume we fill it the same with the bug. No way DX can even imagine doing that (7360 pixels across the bug), in part because of FX size, and in part because of D800 36 megapixels. Like I said before, if you crave pixel density, you should get a compact point&shoot. But, it turns out, the smaller sensor is counter productive (same as is smaller film size really). [/QUOTE]

Verification