Have I got this wrong (warning --- geeky subject)?

Started Oct 13, 2012 | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
astralux
Regular MemberPosts: 187
Like?
Have I got this wrong (warning --- geeky subject)?
Oct 13, 2012

I watched a pro shooting some cricket images for a large international photo agency. He was shooting from the boundry rope with a D3S and a 400 mm lens. I was shooting from the stands about 15m behind him with a Nikon 70-200 VR II that has been very finely tuned to my D7000 (and THAT is another story!). I looked at my results and were very impressed with what I got, given that the batsman was only 20% of the height of the frame in landscape orientation.

Just for fun I went and calculated the pixel density of some Nikon cameras and wondered which camera would have been the best to use given the circumstances mentioned above.

Here is what I got (from DPR data)

D3s 119 pix/mm

D7000 209 pix/mm

D800 205 pix/mm

D3200 260 pix/mm

Given that I was using far less that half of the vertical CCD size, it would seem to me that  I would have been much better off using a D3200 than a D800 (given that the AA filters are the same and that there was a lot of light available). Is this correct or am I missing something? Given that the sideline pro was getting about 50% or less of his frame filled with the subject, was he getting much less detail that I with the D7000, and more interestingly, would he have been better off with the much cheaper D3200? The D3200 does have a big problem in that it does not support lens calibration.

Nikon D3200 Nikon D3S Nikon D7000 Nikon D800
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow