Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="nmccamy" data-source="post: 215921" data-attributes="member: 17094">I agree with Geoffc.  And his point is quite obvious.  I want to see if I can explain it differently so more people can understand it.  First of all, the argument is more about FX vs DX.If you were placed in a room where a  tripod was bolted to the floor, and the tripod head glued in place facing a flower, and you were given a D800, a D7100, and one 50mm lens, which camera\lens combination would provide better resolution or resolving power?Let's say when you looked through the D7100, the flower occupied the entire viewfinder (let's assume the viewfinder view is identical in both cameras).  This then implies that the flower covers the entire sensor.Now when you look through the D800, the flower does not fill the viewfinder, it appears smaller.  The D800 sensor is larger than the D7100 sensor.  What really is going on here is that the flower is occupying the same amount of sensor space on the D800 as it is on the D7100.  The extra sensor space around the D800 is completely wasted.So now you simply add up the number of pixel sensors the flower covers in each sensor.  Because the D7100 has more pixel sensors per square inch than the D800, there are more pixels providing detail than in the D800.  More pixel sensors ALWAYS means more resolving power, assuming everything else is equal, which is a HUGE assumption.  But, the quality of the image relies on a lot more than simply pixel sensor density.The sticky point is the fact that those pixel sensors are doing a lot more than simply receiving light.  And these pixel sensors MUST ALWAYS obey the laws of physics.  Packing pixel sensors tighter and tighter may have a profound NEGATIVE effect on resolving power and image quality.  If this were not the case, there would be nothing stopping camera makers from manufacturing trillion pixel cameras with astonishing resolution.The law of diminishing returns applies (at least with our current knowledge).  You cannot simply cram more and more pixel sensors together to create a great image.  Physics won't allow it.  There has to be a certain distance between these pixel sensors to avoid pixel neighbor interference, otherwise your image will quickly deteriorate.The D7100 has more pixel sensors per square inch than the D800.  That is NOT necessarily a good thing.  At the same time, the size of those pixel sensors in the D7100 is smaller than the D800, reducing their light capturing capabilities and possibly color rendition capabilities.Geoffc was ONLY addressing resolving power, not image quality.If now, you were given a D7100 and a D800 and any lens you wanted, and you had the shoot the exact same scene, then you will start seeing the differences between the two cameras when looking at the resulting images.  Some may prefer the "character" of the D7100.  It is subjective.My 50+ years of experience has taught me that you need to find the right camera\lens combinations that fit your style of photography.  You cannot count on a single camera and a couple of lenses to do everything.  Most professionals have several cameras and lenses and know which camera and lens to use for a particular situation.  I've known many who have several different brand cameras and prefer one brand over the other for a specific scenario.I highly suggest that every serious photographer should set aside money to use toward camera and lens rentals.  I have learned so much renting countless times over the years.  Don't rely on reviews, word-of-mouth, or anything else.  See for yourself!  Rent a lens or camera and design your own experiments based on your style of photography.  You will discover many surprises along the way!  And your opinion offerings will be a truly informed.</blockquote>

Verification