gabriel foto: I was struck by the difference in the two 100% crops - just about as evident, or subtle, depending on how you look at them, as differences between a good FX and a good DX camera, or a 16 Mp camera compared to a 12 Mp. I wouldn't just say the differences are minor.
The most striking difference may not be the amount of detail, but the acuteness of the details, the sharp outlining, or the 'microcontrast' if you prefer that term.
Seems like a brilliant move to remove the OPLF in the D7100.
Then again, the ultimate capacity of this sensor may not be visible in each and every photograph. Focus may be off a little, you may have reason to use a very wide or a very small aperture. Or you may be using a lens which doesn't resolve the ultimate details, for good reason other than resolution.
Ultimately, photography is all about the picture, isn't it? But there is nothing wrong with a stunning sensor like this one!
Gabriel / nikonsystem.blogspot.se
Great pictures, keepreal!I am geting back into photography for personal and business use (HS photography classes 20+ years ago). It might be ambitious for me to do so, but I am looking at the mid-range/prosumer level cameras. Many samples pictures are 'tack sharp' with good coloring but somehow look so flat. The pictures that (I think) have most consistent realistic 'depth' seem to from pentax so I have been leaning that way. DXO says that the K-5 II has one of the best Dynamic Ranges of the crops (beating D5200 & D7000) had me guessing this is why. Then, checking out dpreview, it says otherwise (D7000 & a57 are better). That led me to being curious about the D7100 and finding your posts/pics and discovering amazing realistic 3Dish pics that the D300 can generate.
Based on your real-world experience, is the realism coming from the camera choice or the lens? (I am sure that photographic skills too) Are there any brands out there that are better for this realism?