Reading mode: Light Dark

get a different body to go with my 200-500?

Go to last post
wildfoto

wildfoto

Leading Member
Messages
909
Reaction score
589
Location
NT, AU
I'd really like to get a D7200 to go with my pre-ordered 200-500... but I suspect it won't be much better quality than an image cropped to 24MP from my D800E and that will give me a similar apparent magnification?

Mainly for water birds...

Am I right in saying that it would be slightly better than the D800E as in pixels per feathers ratio but not enough to warrant the cost of the new body? And the D800E might have slightly better noise and dynamic range?






A shot with my D800E - can't remember the lens.. perhaps my old 300/4.
 

Attachments

  • 2883705.jpg
    2883705.jpg
    143.1 KB · Views: 0
KnightPhoto2 said:
When you start cropping an FX camera you LOSE the ISO advantage. I.e. a D800E cropped has the same dynamic range as a D7100 and D7200.
Click to expand...
I am 100% unconvinced.

If you crop an image post processing the recorded signal does not change.

If you print an image and place it in a smaller frame you external crop it with the smaller frame but the dynamic range and noise of the exposed part of the print does not change because an external frame has been added.

Does LOW ISO noise vary between DX and FX?

Digressing to depth of field, if you use a 50mm lens on FX at a wide aperture where hyperfocal distance is 20 inches, the depth of field is 1/21th of 20 inches in front and 1/19th behind. Mathematically there is a difference between 1/19 and 1/21 but for practicable photographic purposes the difference is negligible. This is why dof in close up is always treated as equal both sides of the focus point.

Back to DX v FX dynamic range and noise. At low ISO's same technology the performance is so close to 100% with both formats that differences are photographically insignificant in a typical finished print or viewing at a normal size on a monitor. This is why many have learned (since the D3/300 era) for practical purposes the difference at 100 ISO between DX and FX same technology is insignificant.

The D800e is not current Nikon FX technology and the D7200 is. This helps close the gap at higher ISO's.
 
Leonard Shepherd said:
KnightPhoto2 said:
When you start cropping an FX camera you LOSE the ISO advantage. I.e. a D800E cropped has the same dynamic range as a D7100 and D7200.
Click to expand...
I am 100% unconvinced.

If you crop an image post processing the recorded signal does not change.

If you print an image and place it in a smaller frame you external crop it with the smaller frame but the dynamic range and noise of the exposed part of the print does not change because an external frame has been added.

Does LOW ISO noise vary between DX and FX?

Digressing to depth of field, if you use a 50mm lens on FX at a wide aperture where hyperfocal distance is 20 inches, the depth of field is 1/21th of 20 inches in front and 1/19th behind. Mathematically there is a difference between 1/19 and 1/21 but for practicable photographic purposes the difference is negligible. This is why dof in close up is always treated as equal both sides of the focus point.

Back to DX v FX dynamic range and noise. At low ISO's same technology the performance is so close to 100% with both formats that differences are photographically insignificant in a typical finished print or viewing at a normal size on a monitor. This is why many have learned (since the D3/300 era) for practical purposes the difference at 100 ISO between DX and FX same technology is insignificant.

The D800e is not current Nikon FX technology and the D7200 is. This helps close the gap at higher ISO's.
Click to expand...
 
Got to quite massive cropping a high pixel sensor and then blowing it up to 100% on a computer screen. It may look like a lot of noise on the screen, but I have found with my printing most images won't look bad. Yes, I agree there are penalties for massive cropping, nothing takes the place of being close to your subject or using a longer lens to put plenty of pixels on the subject. Better detail, lower noise and better isolation.

Larry
 
KnightPhoto2 said:
KnightPhoto2 said:
If you crop an image post processing the recorded signal does not change.

If you print an image and place it in a smaller frame you external crop it with the smaller frame but the dynamic range and noise of the exposed part of the print does not change because an external frame has been added.
Click to expand...
Anyhow the point is still valid, crop the *crap* out of your FX photos and lo and behold, you get DX level of noise performance.
Click to expand...
I do not believe the source you quote, or your comment.

For the reasons above it is highly unlikely to be right.

My experience is cropping FX does nothing other than reducing resolution.
 
Leonard Shepherd said:
KnightPhoto2 said:
Leonard Shepherd said:
If you crop an image post processing the recorded signal does not change.

If you print an image and place it in a smaller frame you external crop it with the smaller frame but the dynamic range and noise of the exposed part of the print does not change because an external frame has been added.
Click to expand...
Anyhow the point is still valid, crop the *crap* out of your FX photos and lo and behold, you get DX level of noise performance.
Click to expand...
I do not believe the source you quote, or your comment.

For the reasons above it is highly unlikely to be right.

My experience is cropping FX does nothing other than reducing resolution.
Click to expand...
 
Found a very interesting link.

Loading…

www.clarkvision.com

See the section on "Different Size Pixel in the same size sensor"

Basically, the pixel photosites size changes significantly from different generation of sensors. I am referring to the size of each pixel that detects light.

For example, Canon 5D2 has a 6.5 micron pixel pitch and Canon 7D has a 4.5 micron pixel pitch.

Larger pixel pitch. More photon (light signal) can be received.

Pixel pitch is determined by sensor size, pixel density and sensor generation. For example, Sony's BSI/stacked sensor will have larger pixel pitch because there is less real estate used up by processing circuit. Most of the process circuit is now on a layer behind the sensor.

So need more information to settle this argument.

Signal to noise improvement should be fairly closed btw these three cameras since they are all within 3 yrs of each other. Most likely within 0.2 Stop of each other. Newer camera tends to be better.

Need pixel pitch from D800 and D7100/D7200. If pixel pitch is significantly larger on D800, then it's more likely to have better ISO performance on the pixel-by-pixel basis.
 
Found more information:

D800 pixel size is 4.9um - 36MP on FF sensor

-> Pixel area 24 um^2

D7100/7200 pixel size is 3.9um - 24MP on 1.5x crop sensor

-> Pixel area 15.2 um^2

D800 pixel can receive 57% more light. So about 1/2 stop of improvement based signal received. Not as big as I had hoped but indeed D800 should be slightly better even cropped down on the pixel by pixel basis.
 
EJLiu said:
Found more information:

D800 pixel size is 4.9um - 36MP on FF sensor

-> Pixel area 24 um^2

D7100/7200 pixel size is 3.9um - 24MP on 1.5x crop sensor

-> Pixel area 15.2 um^2

D800 pixel can receive 57% more light. So about 1/2 stop of improvement based signal received. Not as big as I had hoped but indeed D800 should be slightly better even cropped down on the pixel by pixel basis.
Click to expand...
Ahh but the D7100 gets you more pixels on the subject, so what happens then ;-)

(BTW my comments for you are in the context of being reach limited such as in Wildlife photography where we can only get so close. If you get close enough to your subject that you get the same framing in FX that you did in DX, then yes FX will be better. If you can't get the same framing then a more dense DX sensor will be better).
 
Leonard Shepherd said:
KnightPhoto2 said:
Leonard Shepherd said:
If you crop an image post processing the recorded signal does not change.

If you print an image and place it in a smaller frame you external crop it with the smaller frame but the dynamic range and noise of the exposed part of the print does not change because an external frame has been added.
Click to expand...
Anyhow the point is still valid, crop the *crap* out of your FX photos and lo and behold, you get DX level of noise performance.
Click to expand...
I do not believe the source you quote, or your comment.

For the reasons above it is highly unlikely to be right.

My experience is cropping FX does nothing other than reducing resolution.
Click to expand...
I think you guys aren't speaking the same language, but you're saying the same things. Noise and resolution go hand and hand, because of the size of the noise (and its relative appearance). I think what's being discussed here is the GRAIN of the noise.

The D810 is quite noisy at higher ISOs (or at least, it could be less noisy, it gets noisy fast). But because its 36MP, it looks like a "very fine grain" at worst, and therefore, its actually quite pleasant, not bad at all.

But as soon as you crop large chunks of the image away, and blow up the image to fit the gap (whether printed or on screen), the grain is suddenly quite noticeable. The increase in the size of the grain makes its noise relatively more apparent, and "noisier." Obviously if you crop modestly it won't have much effect. But if you are "digitally zooming" by multiple factors, YEAH you are going to notice for sure!

That being said, strictly speaking, it doesn't get noisier; its the appearance of the noise. The grain on the D810 is actually quite pleasant (relative to other cameras) on its 36MP.

--
Sincerely,
GlobalGuy
 
Last edited:
EJLiu said:
Basically, the pixel photosites size changes significantly from different generation of sensors. I am referring to the size of each pixel that detects light.
Click to expand...
There is more to it than pixel size.

The increased size of the micro-lens above each well, the reduction of the depth of each well, and the smaller wiring to each site leads to some better resolution, far less noise and greater dynamic range than say 7 years ago. This translates into better all round performance than used to be possible.

It also translates into the gap between FX and DX, or DX and 4/3 being much lower than it used to be, particularly at lower ISO's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top