Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Stoshowicz" data-source="post: 633557" data-attributes="member: 31397">I get the logic , there however is a different logic I would like to satisfy , which is rooted in the particulars of a different photographic scenario. Landscape isn't like portrait , Bifs are not like weddings ,etc,  In various respects, some yes , others not so much , Right? you know things differ.  Last night in my googling I read some things on DP preview , comparing the 7100 to the 750 , they claimed the 750 was softer. Comparing the 7100 to the d500 they only gave a slight edge in sharpness to the 500 .. which brought together,  either suggests that in terms of sharpness , (whether it has to do with the OLPF I am not certain) I would in fact be losing sharpness by going from 7100 to the 750 , and losing the DX reach factor as well. By going from the 7100 to the 500, I wouldn't be gaining much in sharpness , (and with both not having the olpf) , I wouldn't be eliminating the graininess that one sees at almost any ISO image out of the 7100. ( I am told the 'base level ' graininess is due to 'folding over' of the high pass noise ,, most of which can be blocked out digitally by applying a 15-20 value luminance reduction in LR .. going higher makes the feathers smudgy ,  turn off the detail -sharpness entirely )What all that is I am getting at, is that in order for the purchase to be a wise one , I should gain something in sharpness , and lower noise level. At least I shouldn't lose anything for 2000 bucks. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> The contortions made to ' even the field ' , I feel , have the effect of minimizing the advantage of going to the DX , which does, in practice ,use less of the edge of the lens, does make it easier to see your target . And if the clarities of the lenses , or efficiencies of the sensors renders a darker unmodified result , ( which one has to correct for with higher ISO ),, thats all stuff I would like to get a visual of. The differences are all being massaged away to make the images look the same., and I have to make unnecessary assumptions - that the lenses are similar enough that in the scenario they are negligible. Without all the corrections , Whats the difference in the result   changing out JUST the camera? is what I would like to see, presented by someone who has no reason to bias me.  ( that would be You in this case )   <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> One shot of each taken raw , processed in LR any way you like , so that the second ones settings adjustments are exactly the same as the previous (by using that button they provide to do it) . </blockquote>

Verification