NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: Steven Paulsen on February 22, 2017, 22:57:29
-
This is only my personal opinion.
I loved the D300. It was a 2009 purchase, & I'm certainly not an early adopter. When the hype for the D300's replacement was the D7100 I balked & ended buying one afer the D7200 was released.
IMO.....what a piece of crap. (edit if needed) I had to learn proper sensor cleaning right after opening the box. Image quality......My photos look like a 10 megapixel image interpolated into 24. (100% crops are smears with no defining detail.)
I only have a couple $1k+ lenses. (a 70-200/2.8VR/V1 & an 85PC-D.) I must admit, some images from the zoom are acceptable, but closeup's w/the 85pc, (buds & blooms of flowers,) all seem to lack the detail I expected from a 24mp sensor. See again, the above sentence(s) in bold.
OTOH, I have a D5200 which seems to be a somewhat better performer, especially with the old 18-70 Nikkor. I don't care about a focus motor. (Put an Ai metering ring/tab on a cheap, low life camera body.)
In protest, I went backwards to a D700, (build quality/ISO performance) Also, a local pro retired & I go his FF 13.5mp Kodak. I have no honest complaints on either. (But they were made in 2004 & 2008.)
The cost of a refurbished DF is well...."kinda' high. Is the DF's 16mp/FF the magic combination, or just another point of future complaint? For $2k, in my neck of the woods can buy a semi-reliable automobile.
I tried the "new 24mp half frame, Nikon's DX flagship" & it failed, miserably.
Do I need to learn...once more...."Newer is not always better?"
-
I went from a D300 to a D800, 12 to 36 mp
On the D800 I often found the images were not sharp
I had to be extra careful with camera motion blur and precise focus, when everything is right it is much better IQ than the D300, but if I get sloppy it is not forgiving
Perhaps something similar may have happened to you, but then you mention you find the D5200 better ... perhaps the 7100 has a problem ?
-
If you happen to find the Df sensor to be inferior to the sensor of the D300, then your screen name fits.
-
My Df killed the NAS. I had a D700 before, and still own the D800 that the Df overshadowed. I am currently on holidays in Portugal ugh sais Df, plus Nikkors 50/2, 105/2.5 AI, and the Tamron 45/1.8 for sPecial purposes.
-
"the NAS" ???
-
Sound strange, but I have not used any of the 4 digit Nikons, but used D700 and D300s without problems, on my new D500 (20MP) I have not seen any problems like the ones you have, even my newly acquired D800 works fine. I have not experienced the focus problems often reported by others, and it works fine with very old Nikkors, with is a surprise to me as it seems to do better than the D700 in that respect. The D700 is a nice workhorse.
Must be the D7100 that have a problem?
-
You need high shutter speed and/or flash or a tripod with high mega pixel count cameras especially DX - otherwise you will have smeared images,,,
-
If the camera is functioning properly, the shutter/mirror shock of D7100 might be the culprit. The shutter/mirror response of D5X00 and D3X00 cameras are slower than D7X00 series, and thus the former are less prone to cause the motion blur on the camera.
-
If one is pixel peeping a 36MP image it's like looking a small mural close up. That going to be very unforgiving. At that magnification there is very little DoF. Camera and or subject motion will degrade the image. It's not the fault of 36MP. It's just very high magnification. It's like looking at a very high resolution film at 80x (not an exact figure, just from the top of my head). A film like Tech Pan had extremely high resolution and some slide films were brutally Frank about one's technique.
If the film prints well at the size you want ultimate sharpness and 100% pixels isn't that important. A lens with VR can help but even a rock solid tripod doesn't help with subject motion. Try to sharpen up one's skills and move forward.
I've never used a 24MP DX camera but the pixel density is pretty high so I'd expect it to be something like dealing with a 36MP FX camera.
Don't over stress at 100% pixels. If one can make the image you want (print or web) from an NEF it's all good.
Dave Hartman
...who is suffering with an acute case of NAS but has no money.
[Am I the only one or do other peoples smart phones change words on them?]
-
I've learned the single point AF on the D7100 is nothing but trouble & use "dynamic or 3D," for viewfinder distance shots. (I'm also well aware of locking a camera to a pod/mirror up/timer countdown or remote click.)
My remark about the D5200/better was because, the only "wow" shot between the two camera bodies was a very low light shot of a blue heron using the D5200. Out of 100's to 1000's of shots between the two, I'm very much under impressed.
With the severely outdated bodies, I get what I expect, & sometimes more.
Yes...feel free to joke on my login handle, & I realize that some of my opinion may step on a few toes. Laugh away. :)
Broadly stated..... Flora pistils, pollen....it seems that 24mp only adds muck, not more detail. My Micro collection only includes.
1. Nikkor 60/2.8D (never use)
2. Nikkor 85/2.8PC-D
3 Vivitar 100/3.5 (yes, it is "plastic fantastic.)
4. Nikkor 105/F4/AI
5. Nikkor 200/F4 Micro/AI (w/reversed 4t)
6. Series One 90-180/F4.5/Ai (yes, it' worth it's weight...2.2lbs)
If there is a problem with my D7100, Melville, NY is a nightmare. A local pro told me similar problems about her D7100. Now it's problems with her D610.
I'm both hopeful & somewhat doubtful about a DF.
-
I wouldn't come to conclusions too soon regarding the D7200 vs D300. The sensor is a couple of generations newer than that found in the D300 - it has higher resolution, better dynamic range, better high ISO performance, and is still considered state of art even a few years after it was introduced. I'd take a careful look at what you are doing especially with macro, there are a lot of things which could affect sharpness besides sensor performance:
- How you are supporting your lens and camera - use a good quality tripod with remote release, or flash or high shutter speed to elimimate camera shake. Due to the high resolution of the D7200 sensor, flaws in your technique will show up that are not apparent on lower resolution cameras. If shutter shock is the culprit, try setting the camera to "Q" quiet mode, the shutter seems to be less violent in this mode so seems to reduce shake (I use the same with my D600)
- What aperture do you you shoot at? If you generally stop down to f11 or smaller, diffraction will start to show and is more noticeable on the D7200 sensor, again due to the higher resolution. Note that the 105/4 micro at 1:2 looses one stop at 1:2, and two stops at 1:1, so even if the aperture ring is at f11, the actual aperture will be f22 - you may be getting diffraction when you thought you were safe. AF Nikkors report the correct aperture to the camera, as they take into account light lost due to extension.
- Check the performance of your lenses. Lenses which are perform well on low resolution cameras may not be able to match high res sensors - softness and CA might show which was not apparent before. Not sure about the Vivitar 100, the AI 200/4 micro is not well corrected for CA, the 90-180 might be struggling on high resolution cameras? The others should perform well though, if your technique is good
Hope that helps...
-
I cannot help you by talking you out of your NAS re: Df. Still may favourite Nikon. I recently almost bought a second one used but still mint.
The D7100 is my least favourite Nikon. I bought it about the same time as the D610. Even though the D610 only had the 39 pts , it out shot the D7100. Since I shoot mostly birds I most often use center point. Single point was just not good on the D7100 so always used 9 pt. I really like the way the Toshiba sensor handled white birds in bright sun . I sold the D610 to buy the D750. I've since killed the D750, sad story. Thought about buying another one (Nikon offered me a deal) but will wait and see what Nikon does next. I was just offered a D810 (7K clicks) at a very good price.
I still shoot the gripped D300 (2007) and gripped D300s(2009) but sold the D700(2008) recently. If I were shooting what you shoot the D810 might be on the cards but I also have the 42MP Sony a7rii so....
So far my new D500 is proving to be a very good camera for what I shoot. The upper usable ISO is about all I normally need. Back to the Df, that 16MP sensor is just so good.
-
I don't think you want to be talked out of it.
I have a refurbished Df which I think is a great camera for me. Plenty of dynamic range and low light sensitivity. I don't use autofocus so that is not an issue for me. In general I just set the shutter speed and aperture where I want and let autoiso do the rest - dailing in some exposure compensation as needed.
For what I photograph there are plenty of megapixels.
-
It's a free world. If you loved the D300 and nothing after, buy another D300 and forget about everything that 's newer. Buy a semi-reliable automobile instead and be happy with the D300. There are plenty of people who are happy with their D200s, D300s and D700s.
-
I would go very like along with PeterN's conclusion.
With regard to sensors; herunder a PDR vs ISO setting comparison between the D300 and D7200. Conclusion: a lot has changed over time...
-
One thing is numbers - another thing is how they work in real life! Shooting images.
Many users have over time reported that the high MP Nikon, D7000, D7100 where very difficult to shoot, some have even given up using them,,,
-
I have (amongst others) both a D7100 and DF
IMO they can't be compared
First and foremost there simply is a huge difference in IQ, that of a top FX (D4, even if the D5 sensor is even newer/better) sensor, and a already somewhat outdated (by the D7200 and D500) DX sensor.
Also, the full frame DF a much better high ISO (easily up to ISO 12800) then the D7100 ('only' IS0 3200 at best) .
That said, IMO the D7100 has a better IQ then, although a similarly 'limited' high ISO to the D300 (have owned one), while on the other hand the AF and buffer (and built quality) of the D300 are better.
The D7100 still can do a decent job nevertheless, although I agree with the observation that getting a sharp image is just as, if even not more, dependent on proper shooting shooting technique (simple holding the camera in a balanced way) and correct AF settings (automated everything AF may seem convenient, but will always be a compromise as it may not focus on what you wanted it to focus on)
And of course don't forget that its higher MP is less forgiving on low quality lenses then the D300, e.g. my kit DX 18-55mm zoom which was my 'go to' lens on my D300 really wasn't up to it on the D7100 (had a similar experience with some of my FX lenses when I went from a D3 to a D800)
Used the D7100 successfully for shooting catwalk (which considering the subject matter - fast moving subject under often not ideal light - is quite challenging) though, so stills etc really should not be a problem.
In my experience it compared to FX just needs a bit more work in post to get the IQ up to an acceptable level (and I'm not a pixel peeper)
Between the DF and D7100, I find the AF quite on par, just like the built quality, while the DF has a better buffer (although, if you select 12 bit fixed compressed RAW without Jpg, you can up the D7100 buffer from 5 shots to around 10 shots)
That said, the price (both MSRP and 2nd hand) of the DF is a bit, arguably much too high, considering Nikon has alternatives with basically a, apart from IQ and high ISO, in many respects quite similar (D610) and even superior (D750) performance, which have a for 'daily' use much more conventional /better UI (having in the past shot bodies like a F2 and FE for a long time, I personally don't mind the DF 'knob and dial' set up)
I personally bought a DF as I wanted a smaller, lighter, digital body that was better balanced with my old manual Ai lenses (which even on a D800 feel too small, let alone on a D3 or gripped D800) and for me it really is the best Nikon DSLR for use with manual lenses, e.g. also used it with Petzval lens
http://m3.i.pbase.com/g9/20/670620/3/156857543.BpZnCiEN.jpg
(DF 2.2/85mm Petzval ISO 100 f2.2 1/360th)
Got the D7100 (2nd hand) as an upgrade for my D70S (great little camera, but UI and IQ were starting to really feel outdated when used next to my FX bodies) and D2X (basically broken due to a bent lens mount, repair of which was considering its age, and high ISO, for me not economically feasible)
But for me it's just my 'tag along' camera, for the occasions I want to be able to shoot a better picture then with my phone, but don't want to take my more expensive (and bigger/heavier) FX bodies with me
-
Many users have over time reported that the high MP Nikon, D7000, D7100 where very difficult to shoot, some have even given up using them,,,
I was one of those who gave up on the D7000. I was getting mostly poor results. "You might need to get your body and lenses calibrated" was the answer from the camera dealer. Then the gear was calibrated by Nikon service - they reported everything was fine. However I still got mostly poor results. I decided to return and buy another D7000 body. Same issues. I argued that my old D40 was fine with the lenses and was then told "shooting with a 16mp camera probably requires better shooting technique". Sounds reasonable I thought..
I then slowly realised that most shots taken via LV ("live view") was fine - however I was mostly using the OVF. The D7000 was my first camera with LV and the lesson I learned was that LV uses contrast detection AF and focusing via OVF uses phase detection AF. By comparing shots taken via LV and OVF I could reproduce the issues.
I then decided, for fun, to try a Fuji X-E1 instead. No mirror-slap and only contrast detect AF. Same sensor size and resolution as the D7000 but I got sharp, well focused images from day one and I still use the Fuji.
-
The cost of a refurbished DF is well...."kinda' high. Is the DF's 16mp/FF the magic combination
You will find a lot of Df fans here including myself. I went from the D300 to the Df and have never looked back. There is some quality to my images that I love but can't tell you what that is. The usability point that sometimes comes up is the relatively shallow grip. I am not a fan but have gotten used to it, but for others it is exactly what they want. The low light AF is not strong for me, but the resulting low light images are amazing. Be sure to rent or borrow one for a few days before pulling the trigger.
If the Df is too much there are many options for you including the D750. You will find different strengths and weaknesses between D750 and Df.
BTW, your posts are fine... no one here has thin skin, but they will tell you what's on their mind!! :) :)
Rob.
-
Another looser on D7000. I loved the image character (black was rendered beautifully and the color was rich), but it was very difficult to suppress the blur when handheld. AF wasn't impressive, even though both the camera and lens was calibrated. I wasn't impressed by the AF of D610 that shared essentially the same AF module with D7000. It was easier to handhold, though.
D750 finally mitigated these two of my major problems.
-
First & foremost, "Thank you."
I got a chuckle with Erik's reply about being a "numbers" game. I am just seeking insight & finding a sweet spot. (I wasn't aware there were others with similar issues regarding the D7xxx, series.) My D5200/18-70, (back lid closed,) is a decent, toss in the car, tool. The D7100 is a bit of confusion.
I use it mostly for macro, live view, magnified. I'm leaning toward the opinion that 24mp on a half frame (DX,) is too much/many. I actually would have less complaints if it had the same build quality & similar functions as the D300. The D500......no...to little, too much... too late.
I have quite a few Nikon mount lenses already, and am pretty much, fine. I am just curious about the performance of the 16-24mp sensor(s) on 35mm frame size, camera bodies. Except for NYC, there are no,"hands on" camera stores, anymore. I wasn't impressed with the build of a D800, but that's just MHO.
A Nikon DF, D750, D610 experience is an, "Ah.....wait for the truck/shucks,..... send it back," credit card, ransom game.
The DF reminds me of my pile of Nikkormats, F1, F3, FM camera bodies.
I only wish to all, (Me included) that photography is fun, fulfilling & "If it pays your bills," you get a bonus round.
Thanks again,
Steve
:D
-
LV is good for focusing on D7xxx but the shutter mirror makes the came shake.
So you need to switch to Mirror up during exposure.
LV in later D810 is much better implemented,,,
-
LV is good for focusing on D7xxx but the shutter mirror makes the came shake.
The mirror stays up in live mode on the D7x00 and does not go down between shots unless you exit live view. However there is no EFCS on these cameras so the shutter may create some vibration.
-
One thing I could add would be that the additional battery grip mitigates the blur caused by the shutter/mirror shock noticeably. But mounting the camera directly on the tripod head feels a bit awkward.
-
A Nikon DF, D750, D610 experience is an, "Ah.....wait for the truck/shucks,..... send it back," credit card, ransom game.
The DF reminds me of my pile of Nikkormats, F1, F3, FM camera bodies.
I only wish to all, (Me included) that photography is fun, fulfilling & "If it pays your bills," you get a bonus round.
Thanks again,
Steve
:D
In my experience, the Df has been fun. I've enjoyed it.
-
Steve,
As with Airy, Tommie, and Rob, I love my Df. I bought one on its debut in 2013 to replace my long-term D200, and was really impressed with its higher IQ.
Fwiw, I dithered for ages on whether to opt for a D810 prior to the Df rumours. So my choice was the D810's 36 MP sensor or the Df 's retro-style & controls + D4 sensor.
Good luck deciding.
-
I also love my Df although with a little mixed feelings. The camera brings fun into photography and for that I'm eternally grateful. However, it is constructed less robustly than one would expect from its appearance so really needs to be handled with care. My humble D40x takes more abuse than the Df :(
-
On Feb. 23, 2017, In Southern Pennsylvania, USA the outdoor temperature hit 74 degrees, however there isn't anything blooming..... thus the fuss of preparing my gear sack.
Next week, I may have a royal dump, snow storm. I spent a lot of time today, playing with the D7100's focus modes. While I've found that dynamic & 3D focus mode works better than single or multiple points......manual focus is pretty much gold on this critter.
I have a CF explorer tripod, & usually end up with an angled center post. Configured properly, it's plenty stable... even with my slr/N & 85pc. I use a cable release on one, remote trigger....mirror flap, up.
(I started macro long before I had a micro lens.) Try shooting bugs & blooms with a reversed 24mm.
Diffraction? I tried a few shots with my Kodak/85pc & cranked it down to F45. (They had to put it there for a reason.) IQ was fine.
Gotta quit complaining. The Kodak & 85 is a joy to use. No live view. Horrible low rez screen & dirty knees, damp butt, peeping trough the VF.
:) :) :) :) :) :)
-
One thing is numbers - another thing is how they work in real life! Shooting images.
Many users have over time reported that the high MP Nikon, D7000, D7100 where very difficult to shoot, some have even given up using them,,,
The D7000 has 16 MP across the sensor. The Df has also has 16 MP but across a larger sensor. The difference in sensor size affects pixel pitch and performance but not overall resolution.
-
The D7000 has 16 MP across the sensor. The Df has also has 16 MP but across a larger sensor. The difference in sensor size affects pixel pitch and performance but not overall resolution.
A typical number comparison that doesn't make any sense IMHO. Not in any way or form does a D7000 and a Df produce a similar image.
-
The mirror stays up in live mode on the D7x00 and does not go down between shots unless you exit live view. However there is no EFCS on these cameras so the shutter may create some vibration.
Yes your right
-
A typical number comparison that doesn't make any sense IMHO. Not in any way or form does a D7000 and a Df produce a similar image.
I was correcting this clearly erroneous statement about resolution:
Many users have over time reported that the high MP Nikon, D7000, D7100 where very difficult to shoot, some have even given up using them,,,
My point clearly was that the D7000 is not a high MP camera compared to the Df. In no way did I state or imply any equivalency in image quality, and in fact I specifically mentioned a difference in performance:
The D7000 has 16 MP across the sensor. The Df has also has 16 MP but across a larger sensor. The difference in sensor size affects pixel pitch and performance but not overall resolution.
-
The essential point here is that D7000 is noticeably more unforgiving than Df in terms of camera blur. I haven't used Df, but I can tell because my current D750 with higher pixel density is not as unforgiving as D7000 that I used. I can be pretty sure, because I used D7000 mostly with 35/1.8 lenses and use D750 mostly with 50/1.8.
-
,,,,My point clearly was that the D7000 is not a high MP camera compared to the Df. ,,,,
My statement is not erroneous! Previous models of DX cameras had lower MP, so the D700 was higher MP
It is the "High MP" for a DX camera that is one of the basic culprits in the D7000 and D7100.
What I am arguing is that the D7000 is a high MP camera compared to a Df- Since it is a DX sized sensor vs. a FX, so;
Shooting the D7000 is comparable to shooting 36 MP FX camera of same vintage, very challenging! shooting a Df is like a walk in the park compared to it, it's actually difficult to make a bad image with a Df,,,
I have no doubt about my statement, if you feel my statement is erroneous fine with me ;D
-
There are three primary variables here...
1) the native camera vibration in various modes.
2) the Capture media resolution.
3) the photographer's knowledge and skill.
It's not the camera's fault if one is not happy with the results. It's the responsibility of the photographer to make the best use of the equipment that they own.
For example I am frequently pushing the limits of my D800. I'm bird sitting and photographing a friend's large gray cockatoo. I'm pushing the ISO too high and get subtle but annoying color morie. VR takes care of camera movement but even a HD tripod could not stop subject movement. Most of the shots are in focus but the bird's movement is frequently erratic. High ISO tends to fuzz out fine detail. DoF is at a primium.
I understand the limitations of the D800 and I'm pushing pretty hard. I don't want to blame myself as I'm doing quite well under the circumstances. I'm resolved what I shall do: I'll blame Nikon for not making a true replacement for the D700! ;)
Dave Hartman
-
Always blame the camera :o
-
oLnutJob,
Why should I take you out of NAS? I have to live with NAS and so should you. Buy the damned Df and be happy **for a while.
All The Best,
Dave Hartman
**A Nikon Df2 is surely coming soon.
-
oLnutJob,
Why should I take you out of NAS? I have to live with NAS and so should you. Buy the damned Df and be happy for a while.
All The Best,
Dave Hartman
+1 ;D
-
My statement is not erroneous! Previous models of DX cameras had lower MP, so the D700 was higher MP
It is the "High MP" for a DX camera that is one of the basic culprits in the D7000 and D7100.
What I am arguing is that the D7000 is a high MP camera compared to a Df- Since it is a DX sized sensor vs. a FX, so;
Shooting the D7000 is comparable to shooting 36 MP FX camera of same vintage, very challenging! shooting a Df is like a walk in the park compared to it, it's actually difficult to make a bad image with a Df,,,
I have no doubt about my statement, if you feel my statement is erroneous fine with me ;D
Hm, I'm always amazed by the statements that a high MP camera is so hard to shoot with, even if such a camera admittedly does put high demands on the lenses used
When I got a D800, my trusty 2.8/80-200 AF D 2nd generation push pull which had been my workhorse lens for close to 20 years was the first victim, as it was way too soft wide open for use on a D800, even if it it previously was well up for the job on my D2X and D3.
Similarly my 18-55 kitlens zoom was great on my D2X and D70S, but is really not usable for 'serious' shooting on my D7100.
But I have no qualms shooting my 2012 D800 hand held, and still manage to get sharp images despite of it, even when using a, as far as 'sharpness is concerned, flawed lens (that's at least the impression I get from all the raving reviews of the latest Sigma Art, Zeiss etc lenses) as the 1.4/58mm AFS nearly wide open
-
Always blame the camera :o
That's how to keep NAS! ;D
-
Hm, I'm always amazed by the statements that a high MP camera is so hard to shoot with, even if such a camera admittedly does put high demands on the lenses used
When I got a D800, my trusty 2.8/80-200 AF D 2nd generation push pull which had been my workhorse lens for close to 20 years was the first victim, as it was way too soft wide open for use on a D800, even if it it previously was well up for the job on my D2X and D3.
Similarly my 18-55 kitlens zoom was great on my D2X and D70S, but is really not usable for 'serious' shooting on my D7100.
But I have no qualms shooting my 2012 D800 hand held, and still manage to get sharp images despite of it, even when using a, as far as 'sharpness is concerned, flawed lens (that's at least the impression I get from all the raving reviews of the latest Sigma Art, Zeiss etc lenses) as the 1.4/58mm AFS nearly wide open
Well I can see what you are putting forward and I agree, I also can get sharp images hand held with the D810 I use the grip and the D5 battery, on the other hand I struggle to get sharp images with D7000 from time to time if I'm not careful enough,,,
But set up 'same camera and lens' D810 or D800 like your sample on a big Fluid or Burzynski head on top of a big stable tripod, Sachtler or Series 5 Gitzo,,, same shot will be sharper! Unless she blinks ;)
Very nice shot BTW!!!
-
A small, lightweight camera with high MPix is about the worst solution one can deal with. Hand-hold it or put it on an inadequate tripod, or forgo all required tripod technique, and results will be awful.
-
My assumption, or guess is that the small sensor, overcrowded with pixels is too sensitive for even for VR lenses to compensate, while hand holding. The vibrating elements of the inner lens throws incoming light in too far of a spread, to match pixel density.
I assume that is why this model is still plentiful, silver box, and at a modest price in the states.
Back to my actual use of the darned thing. Perched on legs, enlarged live view with an Ai/Ais, Macro lens, worthless for general use.
-
My statement is not erroneous! Previous models of DX cameras had lower MP, so the D700 was higher MP
It is the "High MP" for a DX camera that is one of the basic culprits in the D7000 and D7100.
What I am arguing is that the D7000 is a high MP camera compared to a Df- Since it is a DX sized sensor vs. a FX, so;
Shooting the D7000 is comparable to shooting 36 MP FX camera of same vintage, very challenging! shooting a Df is like a walk in the park compared to it, it's actually difficult to make a bad image with a Df,,,
I have no doubt about my statement, if you feel my statement is erroneous fine with me ;D
OK, I think I see the point you're making, Eric. Let's unpack this a bit.
The D7000 was 16 MP while the preceding D90 was 12.3 MP. That's not much of a bump up, only a 14% change in linear resolution. Also, in my experience the 24 MP DX cameras (D7100, D7200, etc.) are the ones usually called high resolution by current standards. So that was part of the reason for what I said.
But you're making an argument that size of sensor is also relevant here. This is a bit trickier because there are several obvious possible sources of blur that relate to resolution:
-Focus not being quite as good as it could be.
-Lens resolution being exceeded.
-Camera and lens movement caused by external movement (handheld, poor support, or poor technique imparting motion to the camera).
-Camera movement (perhaps with some help from lens leverage) caused by mirror or shutter slap.
The first two of these are obviously going to be worse with a smaller sensor used with an FX lens. On the other hand, with a lens native to a smaller sensor size I don't see this problem being worse as long as the MP are equal. So I think it depends.
I hadn't previously though about the third and fourth factors being affected by sensor size, so I'm going to spend a little time thinking about this and keep an open mind. There may not be a single answer that will cover all possible causes of motion. For instance, I'd think that when you're externally moving a handheld camera, what would matter would be the resolution across the actual field of view (given the same angle of view). On the other hand, if a long lens on a tripod is vibrating like a tuning fork then I can see a smaller sensor with a smaller pixel pitch being more strongly affected. Interesting question!
In the end, it looks like our disagreement was semantic. I was using resolution in the most common sense, total resolution across the sensor. You were using MP to mean resolution, but more in the sense of pixel pitch. Which type of resolution to consider will depend on the question being asked.
BTW, the overall issue we're discussing here does concern me personally. While I have a D7200 which tends to be limited to the tripod, I've long considered getting a used Df. That way I'd have a lower-resolution camera with 'enough' pixels for just walking around and manually focusing with older lenses, without the rigamarole of a tripod and live view focusing.
-
I agree, thank you.
-
Erik, thanks for the job you do as a moderator. That can't be easy at times.
-
Thank you on behalf of all the moderators here ;)
Thankfully there is not much to moderate currently 8)
-
I compared the D7100 and D810 with several telephoto lenses with and without EFCS a few years ago. I found that the D7100's shutter caused less vibration than the D810's mechanical shutter but with EFCS the D810 could surpass the D810 can avoid the problem. What I found was also that a large an heavy lens (200/2 II) was less prone to suffer loss of sharpness due to the shutter vibrations than a lightweight 70-200/4. I do not recall comparing vibrations but I would expect the smaller DX mirror to cause less of a vibration problem than an FX mirror, all other things equal. The D810 has a newer mirror mechanism which uses a motor instead of spring, reducing vibrations by implementing a slowing down of the movement before the end of travel. It would have been interesting to see if the improved mechanism to moving the mirror reduced FX mirror shake down to DX levels or less.
Given similar technology used for the shutter and mirror, I would expect a DX camera to have the advantage in resolving fine detail with a given lens if EFCS is not used. EFCS (and M-UP) should make the problem largely go away though the second curtain causes a tiny bit of shake which was noticeable with a 500mm lens (200-500), but it is much less of an issue than the effect of the first curtain.
The DX cameras have an additional advantage of relative quietness. I think DX is quite elegant for tele and macro work. I sold my D7100 because I was running into its buffer limits often and EFCS gave the D810 an edge in macro. However, today there is the D500 which also has EFCS. Alas, as it costs more.
I think for hand held shooting, the effects of mirror and shutter shake are best avoided by using a fast shutter speed. In mirrorless cameras, electronic shutter can also be used with viewfinder active so that is an important advantage for some types of work. I find I usually don't need such high resolution in my low light hand held indoor photography that I would be concerned about mirror and shutter shake; the print size isn't going to be huge and relevant content is usually human expressions which benefit from being frozen by a fast shutter speed. I think the sound of the camera is a bigger concern for me than shake for this type of photography.
-
The cost of a refurbished DF is well...."kinda' high. Is the DF's 16mp/FF the magic combination, or just another point of future complaint? For $2k, in my neck of the woods can buy a semi-reliable automobile. I tried the "new 24mp half frame, Nikon's DX flagship" & it failed, miserably.
I did not like the D100, D200 and D300 at all. I feel the D300 is still the best of the three but all have in common that the ground glass is very unreliable when it comes to manual focus. Plus the D300 / D300s are extremely slow with 14-Bit-NEFs.
I bought a D3 instead of the D300 which really hurt me financially at the time (April 2008) but paid off later.
I had a D7000 and my experience was similar to yours with the D7100. BUT: This may well have been trouble with the one I had. I should have had her serviced till she worked properly. I guess it was my fault to think it was my fault not a simple technical defect. I know people who got their D7xxx to work flawlessly even in semi pro or pro environments as a second body. Did not work for me.
The best Nikon camera currently when it comes to price/performance ratio a used D600. The IQ ist still out of this world and more of less the same as the IQ of the D810. At the third of the price and Nikon still exchanges the shutter unit fror free if you ask them. The ground glass is good for manual focus if you practice a bit.
On the same level but with speed in mind the D500 performs. She runs circles around the D3 in EVERY SINGLE RESPECT, except for some comfort functions like voice notes or dedicated lock button.
For me the combination of D500 anhd D600 as a two-body-system with a set of primes makes me really happy every day.
Wishes for the D600 replacement (D820?) would be a dedicated lock button, the D500 ground glass, the D500 body ergonomics, the D500 color consistency & White Balance, D500 speed and Auto Focus and --- please --- the same battery extension!!!