Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Dposcorp, SpotTheCat
churin wrote:Based on the replies so far, my understanding is as follows:
For a given number of pixels, larger the sensor size larger the individual light sensing pixel size. If this is correct the pixel size of D7100 is smaller than that of D7000, which means D7100 is inferior to D7000 in this respect.
Is the above correct?
chµck wrote:churin wrote:Based on the replies so far, my understanding is as follows:
For a given number of pixels, larger the sensor size larger the individual light sensing pixel size. If this is correct the pixel size of D7100 is smaller than that of D7000, which means D7100 is inferior to D7000 in this respect.
Is the above correct?
That's mostly the idea.
When it comes to pixel size, generally, the larger the better, since it can detect light better.
This is why cheap cameras and phones have terrible low light and noise performance.
Their pixel sizes are 1.4µm or 1.1µm for backside illuminated sensors.
Compare that to the ~4-5µm for larger DSLRs
This also explains why smartphone sensors can cram 8MP into their 1/3.2" sensors as opposed to DSLRs that have sensors larger than 1".
churin wrote:One of the spec changes from D7000 to D7100 is the pixel size: It got smaller for D7100 which is negative factor, and as a result total pixel counts went greater which is positive factor. Did Nikon do this because the change is net positive?
Firestarter wrote:So, all else being equal, a sensor with the same size but more pixels (more sample points) will produce images of equal or higher quality.
churin wrote:Thank all responding my question.
I own D7000 and am planning to upgrade it to D610. A friend of mine interested in buying my D7000 who does not know about DSLR. I let him know about an alternative model of D7100 but he did not understand what the pixel counts difference between D7000 and D7100 means. It appeared to me that there is pro and con since the sensor size is the same.
Thanks again. I myself learned a lot about DSLR through this thread.
Voldenuit wrote:If you're new to photography, think very hard before jumping onto full frame and all it entails. Do you already have an assortment of full frame lenses? What are your photographic needs? Have you tried carrying around a full frame kit on your typical photo shoots and are you comfortable with the weight and bulk? What exactly are you after by going full frame? More dynamic range? Less depth of field? Better low light performance? Weather sealing? Pro lenses?
Airmantharp wrote:Voldenuit wrote:If you're new to photography, think very hard before jumping onto full frame and all it entails. Do you already have an assortment of full frame lenses? What are your photographic needs? Have you tried carrying around a full frame kit on your typical photo shoots and are you comfortable with the weight and bulk? What exactly are you after by going full frame? More dynamic range? Less depth of field? Better low light performance? Weather sealing? Pro lenses?
Note that the FF camera in question is about the same size and weight as the semi-pro D7000- same for the Canon side with the 6D vs. 60D/70D. And with respect to lenses, the biggest difference is in zooms given that there are very few primes designed only for the crop cameras.
Voldenuit wrote:I'm actually curious as to what application the OP is finding his D7000 inadequate, because that's already "a lotta camera".
End User wrote:Voldenuit wrote:I'm actually curious as to what application the OP is finding his D7000 inadequate, because that's already "a lotta camera".
I'm also interested in which lenses the OP is using on the D7000.
churin wrote:Presently, I am considering 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S.
Airmantharp wrote:For your listed subjects, I'd get the D610 kit with the 24-85, then add a Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 14/2.8 lens if you really need wider for landscapes, and add a 100mm+ macro lens for portrait isolation and close-ups.
Airmantharp wrote:I meant to try to keep the budget under control, not spend more on a standard zoom than the camera .
churin wrote:I take pictures of portraits, people, flowers, landscape, etc.
Why I want to replace D7000 with D610? Because I want to see how much better picture I can take using D610.
End User wrote:churin wrote:I take pictures of portraits, people, flowers, landscape, etc.
Why I want to replace D7000 with D610? Because I want to see how much better picture I can take using D610.
Based upon your subject matter I really don't think you'll see a drastic difference. I'd rent a D610 before buying one.
Voldenuit wrote:churin wrote:Presently, I am considering 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S.
No. Dear God, just... no.
Please don't spend a lot of money (even though the D610 is fairly inexpensive for a FF body) on a camera body just to put a **** lens in front of it.
For portraits: Nikkor AF-S 85mm f/1.8 G
For macros:
AF-S Micro-NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8G ED or
AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED
These would also be good for portraits, depending on the look you're after and the working distance you have available. If you already have the 50/1.4, you may consider getting the 105/2.8 and skipping the 85/1.8 as the 105 can double nicely as a portrait lens.
For landscapes:
Nikkor AF-S 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 G ED or
Tokina AF 17-35mm f/4 AT-X Pro FX
Note that you'll have to stop down to get acceptable corner sharpness on both these lenses. See below.
General walk-around lens:
Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED
Bear in mind that the corners will be slightly soft wide open with this lens. This is one of the tradeoffs of moving to full frame.
churin wrote:That bad? It is 5 star rated by 96 reviwers at Nikon website.
churin wrote:What is wrong with AF-S 50mm f/1.4G I own for portrait?
churin wrote:What lens could be the best compromise?