BIG camera va (small) camera
Dec 28, 2016, 11:36 am
#31
Suspended
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bay Area
Programs: DL SM, UA MP.
Posts: 12,729
Don't regret it one bit.
Gear is heavier but not as heavy as if I went all the way to D810.
I like the additional resolution compared to the 7000 as well and better focusing.
Beware though, I would imagine next year Nikon will put out new full frame DSLRs.
Gear is heavier but not as heavy as if I went all the way to D810.
I like the additional resolution compared to the 7000 as well and better focusing.
Beware though, I would imagine next year Nikon will put out new full frame DSLRs.
Dec 28, 2016, 5:35 pm
#32
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: MP
Posts: 224
Now I've even moved on to D810A since I do astrophotography a lot. Been having quite a blast.
Traveling has never been the same though with all the gears I have...
Dec 28, 2016, 10:59 pm
#33
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: GRR, USA
Posts: 3,298
Dec 28, 2016, 11:41 pm
#34
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Indianapolis
Programs: Hilton-Diamond Lifetime Platinum AA UA, WN-CP, SPG Gold.
Posts: 7,377
Big camera, little camera..
The glass makes the difference, along with the one behind the glass, with the light.
The shot is in the mind, not in the camera..
The glass makes the difference, along with the one behind the glass, with the light.
The shot is in the mind, not in the camera..
Dec 29, 2016, 12:11 am
#35
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: CHA
Programs: DL-DM (1.75MM), Bonvoy LifeTi, Hertz-PC
Posts: 618
SOOOOO true!
Cameras will be upgraded every 18 months (Moore's law), but it's the glass and the user that MAKE the photo.
I love it when so many ppl HAVE to upgrade to the latest body...then I get a great (used) camera for pennies on the dollar!
Dec 29, 2016, 5:33 am
#36
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Peoria
Programs: Southwest, Best Western Gold, La Quinta, Dollar
Posts: 819
I also have a D7000 and D750. I use them for different shooting subjects and styles, so I haven't done any side-by-side comparison. The D750 does all my night shooting (long exposures, like 2-4 minutes) and/or short exposures at high ISO. I've done almost nothing with it in daylight! It really excells in night photography.
I imagine I'll sell the D7000 eventually.
I've handled a few D800/810s. That camera is a beast!
I imagine I'll sell the D7000 eventually.
I've handled a few D800/810s. That camera is a beast!
Dec 29, 2016, 8:28 am
#38
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 552
Modern sensors have lower noise, and full frame sensors have lower noise than an equal APS-C.
Like @pon18n, I also do astrophotography, but with the Canon 6d. But the glass is an important factor: the 70-300L has tad sharp images to the corner even at full aperture.
Dec 29, 2016, 3:49 pm
#39
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: MP
Posts: 224
Not completely true.
Modern sensors have lower noise, and full frame sensors have lower noise than an equal APS-C.
Like @pon18n, I also do astrophotography, but with the Canon 6d. But the glass is an important factor: the 70-300L has tad sharp images to the corner even at full aperture.
Modern sensors have lower noise, and full frame sensors have lower noise than an equal APS-C.
Like @pon18n, I also do astrophotography, but with the Canon 6d. But the glass is an important factor: the 70-300L has tad sharp images to the corner even at full aperture.
Dec 29, 2016, 11:42 pm
#40
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: CHA
Programs: DL-DM (1.75MM), Bonvoy LifeTi, Hertz-PC
Posts: 618
Previous 4 posts....
True - every newer generation of camera has better ISO capabilities. But lenses...good ones...are timeless. I have two 200/1.8 lenses that were designed in the 80s - by far the sharpest lenses I've used over the years of borrowing from CPS.
On the Nikon D750 - any full frame body with larger sensor pixels will have a better dynamic singal to noise ratio and be great for dark scenes/noise. The higher the Mpixel, the worse the high ISO performance...but again, changes/gets better with newer sensors and DIGICs every year!
Speaking of 6D and astrophotography: rented a 6D and Zeiss 15mm/2.8 Distagon for trip to northwest and put together over 100 images taken at f/2.8, ISO6400, 15secs each to capture the Milky Way and Persied meteor at Lewis and Clark State Park in Washington this past August:
[IMG]
[/IMG]
True - every newer generation of camera has better ISO capabilities. But lenses...good ones...are timeless. I have two 200/1.8 lenses that were designed in the 80s - by far the sharpest lenses I've used over the years of borrowing from CPS.
On the Nikon D750 - any full frame body with larger sensor pixels will have a better dynamic singal to noise ratio and be great for dark scenes/noise. The higher the Mpixel, the worse the high ISO performance...but again, changes/gets better with newer sensors and DIGICs every year!
Speaking of 6D and astrophotography: rented a 6D and Zeiss 15mm/2.8 Distagon for trip to northwest and put together over 100 images taken at f/2.8, ISO6400, 15secs each to capture the Milky Way and Persied meteor at Lewis and Clark State Park in Washington this past August:
[IMG]
[/IMG]
Dec 30, 2016, 4:45 am
#41
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 552
Nice discussion the last 4 posts.
I have taken sky shots when in full flight. The problem is that longer exposure has the risk of even the slightest motion blurs the image. It needs a blanket (provided on most long haul flights, even in Y) wrapped over the camera which covers all the window but the part in which the lens is, otherwise ghosting and glare of cabin lighting occurs. The inner and outer windows are several centimeters apart. Keeping the camera steady, preferably pushing it against the window is required and there should not be any turbulence.
A Gopro is useless, as the sensor is too small to capture enough light without generating very grainy noise.
I have done this several times. The one below is on a DXB-CPT (EK771) flight 1 hour after takeoff. Alpha and Beta Centauri are over the wing of an EK 77W. I exposed only 4 seconds at ISO 6400 with the 24-105L.
Here some more pictures.
http://skysurfer.eu/extremeastro.php
On Youtube I saw some nice timelapses, but some individual frames are exposed too long and / or taken during turbulence.
A nice idea, I have booked a AMS-DXB-AKL flight which is partly during night and I want to try this on that flight. It is an A380 which has a larger spacing between inner and outer window which might have an adverse effect on preventing cabin light glare.
I have taken sky shots when in full flight. The problem is that longer exposure has the risk of even the slightest motion blurs the image. It needs a blanket (provided on most long haul flights, even in Y) wrapped over the camera which covers all the window but the part in which the lens is, otherwise ghosting and glare of cabin lighting occurs. The inner and outer windows are several centimeters apart. Keeping the camera steady, preferably pushing it against the window is required and there should not be any turbulence.
A Gopro is useless, as the sensor is too small to capture enough light without generating very grainy noise.
I have done this several times. The one below is on a DXB-CPT (EK771) flight 1 hour after takeoff. Alpha and Beta Centauri are over the wing of an EK 77W. I exposed only 4 seconds at ISO 6400 with the 24-105L.
Here some more pictures.
http://skysurfer.eu/extremeastro.php
On Youtube I saw some nice timelapses, but some individual frames are exposed too long and / or taken during turbulence.
A nice idea, I have booked a AMS-DXB-AKL flight which is partly during night and I want to try this on that flight. It is an A380 which has a larger spacing between inner and outer window which might have an adverse effect on preventing cabin light glare.
Dec 30, 2016, 8:04 am
#42
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: MP
Posts: 224
On the Nikon D750 - any full frame body with larger sensor pixels will have a better dynamic singal to noise ratio and be great for dark scenes/noise. The higher the Mpixel, the worse the high ISO performance...but again, changes/gets better with newer sensors and DIGICs every year!
Even with smaller pixel size, I don't feel like the D800 series suffer any significance drop in dynamic range though. If anything I feel like they have surprisingly good dynamic range.
Dec 30, 2016, 9:48 am
#43
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: CHA
Programs: DL-DM (1.75MM), Bonvoy LifeTi, Hertz-PC
Posts: 618
Not always the case. I have done a shot by shot comparison between D750 and D810A to test the high ISO performance. I would say D810A win by a small margin. I don't have D810 to test, but from what I have read it should be slightly worse than D750, but not by a wide margin.
Even with smaller pixel size, I don't feel like the D800 series suffer any significance drop in dynamic range though. If anything I feel like they have surprisingly good dynamic range.
Even with smaller pixel size, I don't feel like the D800 series suffer any significance drop in dynamic range though. If anything I feel like they have surprisingly good dynamic range.
The 810A came out 5 months after the 750 and was designed for astrophotography with its specialized IR sensor.
This report shows the 810A being nearly a full stop better than the original 810... a testament to time and additional programming or optimization.
But generally speaking, the larger the pixel size, the better the signal to noise ratio and therefore lower noise before processing. Compare any 810 images at high ISO to any D4 and the D4 wins. And with larger pixels, is the reason the D4 has 3 more stops of ISO performance over the 810 and the D5 now has 6 more stops of 'capable' ISO over the 810A.
It's the reason why very high end professional sensors use binning to increase their s/n
Dec 30, 2016, 10:26 am
#44
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: MP
Posts: 224
Agreed: "...but again, changes/gets better with newer sensors and DIGICs every year!"
The 810A came out 5 months after the 750 and was designed for astrophotography with its specialized IR sensor.
This report shows the 810A being nearly a full stop better than the original 810... a testament to time and additional programming or optimization.
But generally speaking, the larger the pixel size, the better the signal to noise ratio and therefore lower noise before processing. Compare any 810 images at high ISO to any D4 and the D4 wins. And with larger pixels, is the reason the D4 has 3 more stops of ISO performance over the 810 and the D5 now has 6 more stops of 'capable' ISO over the 810A.
It's the reason why very high end professional sensors use binning to increase their s/n
The 810A came out 5 months after the 750 and was designed for astrophotography with its specialized IR sensor.
This report shows the 810A being nearly a full stop better than the original 810... a testament to time and additional programming or optimization.
But generally speaking, the larger the pixel size, the better the signal to noise ratio and therefore lower noise before processing. Compare any 810 images at high ISO to any D4 and the D4 wins. And with larger pixels, is the reason the D4 has 3 more stops of ISO performance over the 810 and the D5 now has 6 more stops of 'capable' ISO over the 810A.
It's the reason why very high end professional sensors use binning to increase their s/n
Also, let's say you have one camera with pixel 4x larger and thus expected to have "smoother" noise than smaller ones. Well when you average over the 4 smaller pixels then it can recover almost all the effect of a one larger pixel. Usually the hardware and software supporting the CCD matters more than the pixel size though, as evident by D750 vs D810/810A.
Again, I'm not saying larger pixels are ........, because theoretically they make a difference. But in practice you never have identical cameras with different pixel size (unless you're comparing 5D vs 5DS), and some smaller pixel size can have much higher dynamic range.
For the record, D7200 and D810 have exactly same pixel size, but performance differ greatly.
What matters a lot with larger pixel though, is that they can retain maximum sharpness at higher f-number. While smaller pixel gets diffraction limited at, say, f/8, larger pixels can go all the way to f/9 before getting diffraction limited. Medium format camera can go all the way to f/11 due to their pixel size. (These are all theoretical limit, btw)
Dec 30, 2016, 10:58 am
#45
Suspended
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bay Area
Programs: DL SM, UA MP.
Posts: 12,729
BTW, if you want to see some gorgeous travel photography, check out some of the 4K and 4K HDR demos that run on 4K TVs.
I was at Costco for about an hour and saw some beautiful images on 65 an 75 inch TVs. Great dynamic range and very sharp. I figured these were HDR panos, cropped to 16:9 or made from medium format.
Then I saw the same images, mostly from Europe, in time lapse on other Samsung 4K HDR TVs. They probably hired some of the same people who put together those very sharp time lapse sequences for movies and TV shows.
I wonder if they even use DSLRs or use larger format. Or pro video gear like the Red cameras which may have still shot modes.
I was at Costco for about an hour and saw some beautiful images on 65 an 75 inch TVs. Great dynamic range and very sharp. I figured these were HDR panos, cropped to 16:9 or made from medium format.
Then I saw the same images, mostly from Europe, in time lapse on other Samsung 4K HDR TVs. They probably hired some of the same people who put together those very sharp time lapse sequences for movies and TV shows.
I wonder if they even use DSLRs or use larger format. Or pro video gear like the Red cameras which may have still shot modes.