7100 as full frame?

Started Sep 3, 2014 | Discussions thread
jkjond
jkjond Veteran Member • Posts: 8,421
Re: A step back

Mako2011 wrote:

jkjond wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

jkjond wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

jkjond wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

jkjond wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

billfreedom wrote:

I cant quite figure out why the full frame cameras are so much more $$ than the DX versions.

For example, if you took the 7100 and simply swapped out the sensor and replaced with a full frame sensor and processor and mechanics, how much more $$ would the camera cost to make?

A bit more...relative term, IMO. You would need a bigger mirror box, a bigger mirror, a different/bigger AF unit (more a dimension issue), A bigger OVF assembly, A bigger file handling architecture for the bigger file size, bigger battery maybe, and the bigger sensor....and a bigger body to house it all. You might need a bigger price tag to keep it profitable as well. I suspect, it's just not as simple as you might think.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Bigger file size?

Isn't the 610 pretty much a full frame 7100?

If that were true, then the D610 would have a 54mp sensor (same pixel density). Note the D7000 is 16mp and the D800 (same sensor technology as D7K) is 36mp

naaaaa, I simply mean a similar feature set and equal pixel count giving the same file sizes but just a bigger sensor and bigger bits to go along with that, such as the veiwfinder as already pointed out by Alan.

Then you're talking about not up-scaling the sensor but a different sensor design in the FF vs APS-c. In that case...file handling may not upscale like it would if we use the exact same gen sensor tech in APS-C (24mp) vs FF (54mp). In the case of 24mp in both...it's actually a little more apples to oranges vs the case of the D7000 vs D800

Eh, comparing a 24mp DX to 24mp FX is apples to oranges?

Yes, as in that case it's a completely different sensor tech (different pixel size, different pixel density, different sensor QE...completely different sensor)

But in terms of the output, it would take a cart load of geeks to say which was which, unlike the difference between oranges and apples which can be differentiated by unicellular life forms.

Ummm...OK

Comparing 16mp dx to 36mp is absolutely bananas.

No, the sensor tech is the same in that case. Same manufacture, same pixel density, same QE, and same pixel size. A true FF sensor made from the same tech as APS-C. Cut the D810 sensor (magic sensor scissors ) to APS-c size and you have a D7000 sensor, basically That's why you get the same image when cropping a D800 using DX crop mode as you do when you shoot D7100 normal. Crop a D610 with DX crop mode and you get a much different image than the D7100 normal image. Use those magic sensor scissors to cut the D610 to D7100 size...and you have a much different sensor than that found in the D7100. The resulting image made from a D610 in DX crop mode will be way different than the normal D7100 image. Not the case with D800 crop mode vs D7000 (resulting images are near identical) .

And in terms of output and amateur pixel peeper would spot the difference a mile off.

The op was wondering why the two formats are so different in price, so to my tiny mind it makes sense to compare comparable products,

Then compare the D7000 (16mp) to The D800 (36mp) sense it has been done (exact same sensor tech in both DX and FX) and we don't yet have a FF body with the same sensor tech found in the D7100 yet.

not introduce some crazy 54mp alternative so that the ooooh so important pixel pitch is equal. Any guesses at what a 54mp ff d6 would cost if it were launched tomorrow?

About the same as the the D800 did when it first came out (with an increase for inflation).

The 800 was certainly a whole lot cheaper than anyone would have guessed for a 36mp camera at the time, so maybe. I'd be guessing 54mp would be about 30% up on that cost.

The D7100 sensor being 24mp is why we have some suggesting the next big leap in FF will be 54mp...just as we saw the D7000 lead to the D800. After all....isn't the 24mp FX camera a step backwards from the D800 in some ways? The D600/610 was meant to be "entry" level FF...so it kind of makes some sense the senor wouldn't have the D800 tech.

I'm in the camp that sees some desirability in 36mp for some work, but as a practical all round camera 24mp works very well. They're going to have to put a very fat pipeline in there to get 54mp to function at any acceptable speed for anything other than still life, landscape or static studio.

Personally, I'm more likely to go in the opposite direction and get something smaller and lighter and 16mp would be perfectly adequate. I like the sony approach with pretty much the same body having different sensors, but I find the all round attraction of fuji's latest offerings the most appealing. Not appealing enough to jump ship just yet, but one to watch.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

-- hide signature --

Wedding and fine art photographer based in the Lake District, UK

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow