Difference between full frame and half frame

Good day everyone:
I saw a big difference in colours and sharpness between D-7000 and D-800 or D-4.
is this due to the time difference (later version and better sensor) or due to the difference between FF and half frame.
I have an example to mention:
will I see this difference in colour and sharpness between D-3300 and D-800 since they are both newly released?
thank you in advance.

In your first example the difference is due to both. The D700 and D800 have essentially the same sized pixels but the D800 is a generation newer. The D800 has very good dynamic range and color rendition. According to some tests the best of any of the Nikon camera bodies.

In theory the D3300 should be capable of sharper images due to higher pixel density than the D800. But the D800 has better dynamic range and the larger pixels/photo sites on the sensor should render colors better.

All that said, color rendition in likely more a function of how the camera is set up and/or post processing than of the sensor capabilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mahfoudhhi

I saw a big difference in colours and sharpness between D-7000 and D-800 or D-4.
is this due to the time difference (later version and better sensor) or due to the difference between FF and half frame.

---

Probably a bit of both. Since the full-frame cameras are more recent models, they will have better electronics and higher-quality sensors. And, as you pointed out, they're more recent products with all the latest goodies. The D4's big pixels will be excellent for low-light work, while the D800's high pixel count will capture finer details.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mahfoudhhi

will I see this difference in colour and sharpness between D-3300 and D-800 since they are both newly released?

---

I think a bigger question is whether the cost of a D800 is worth it for you. Can you make use of 38MP images? Do you regularly make large prints? Sharpness differences are more likely to have their roots in one's technique than the camera.

Hafedh...

I suspect that a lot of sharpness related problems in many images result from lack of or improper sharpening procedures in post processing...

Hafedh - I have both the D90 (which was Nikon's top consumer camera prior to the introduction of the D7000) and the D800.

I will agree with both Lex and Dan; it is a bit of both, but unless you do large prints (which I do), the difference to the end user will be negligible. If you only view on a computer screen or post to the internet, then the advantages of FF are largely lost. I regularly print to 17" x 22" (approx. 43cm x56cm), and I can tell the difference between the two camera quite easily; the D800 just produces better colours and the amount of upsampling is less. That is not to say that the D90 produces poor quality images, it's just rather apparent when I display the images side-by-side.

While the D5300 has a smaller sensor pitch, the camera produces 12-bit RAW files, while the D800 does 14-bit, so that will give the D800 an advantage over the D5300. This is a theoretical advantage, more than a practical one.

If you want to compare, look at http://www.dxomark.com/

The D800 scores higher than the D5300 on all counts; colour depth, dynamic range and high ISO performance. Remember to maximize both colour depth and dynamic range, you should be shooting at base ISO.

I prefer the D800 for a number of reasons, but frankly that has more to do with my shooting style as I tend to go for very shallow DoF in much of my work, and the full-frame camera gives me an extra stop there. I also prefer the larger viewfinder and the professional features (I can change selections using controls on the camera, rather than using the menu system).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver

...unless you do large prints (which I do), the difference to the end user will be negligible....

---

Or "pixel peep". But pixel peeping doesn't make much sense unless one plans on enlarging and image for printing large. For typical snapshot sized prints, I doubt any of us can tell the output of one body from another.

Thank yo very much everyone for sharing your info. with me. I appreciate it.

Quote:

---

For typical snapshot sized prints, I doubt any of us can tell the output of one body from another.

---

Perhaps not...perhaps it entirely depends how anal retentive one's psyche.
http://photographylife.com/the-benef...olution-sensor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chauncey

Perhaps not...perhaps it entirely depends how anal retentive one's psyche.
http://photographylife.com/the-benef...olution-sensor

---

While I can’t disagree with what has been written, it is only part of the story. Taking the image that the camera produces in isolation give an incomplete view of the end-to-end process. Most of us end up doing something with the image that the camera has captured; most commonly viewing on a computer, uploading it to a website or physically printing it. Many of the members of this site also apply a bit of post-processing, rather than posting a straight out of the camera (SOOC) image.

A modern DSLR is capable of capturing a lot more data than any medium is capable of reproducing; both from a colour depth and dynamic range standpoint. If I remember correctly, a print can handle some 5 stops of dynamic range and a computer screen is roughly double that. A regular run-of-the mill screen handles (at best) 24-bit colour (8 bits per channel), a high gamut screen is in the order of 30-bit (10 bits per channel) colour and a higher end camera is in the 42-bit range (14-bits per channel). A photo printer is going to give you in the range of 350,000 – 525,000 distinct colours (equivalent of 6 to 7 bits per channel).

The other variable is that most of our computer screens are natively displaying around 2 – 2.5MB image (1920 x 1280 or 1920 x1080), regardless of the screen size. Some affordable 4MB screens have just started to roll out in the past few months, but again, these are a tiny fraction of the 24MB – 36MB images that modern DSLRs capture; so any time we display an image, it is down-sampled.

Printers on the other hand, once you get into larger images have to up-sample to fill the image. Canon and HP printers have a printing resolution of 300ppi (pixels per inch), and Epson printers are 360ppi. My D90, with its 4288 x 2848 (12MP) resolution printed on my Epson 3880 printer has a native size of 11.9” x 7.9” (30cm x 20cm); any larger prints means up-sampling. My D800, with its 7360 x 4912 resolution, at 360 ppi gives me a 20.4” x 13.6” (52cm x 52cm) before the image has to be up-sampled. So, while a print has a relatively limited number of distinct colours, the resolution is far, far higher than a computer screen.

Hafedh,

There is no difference in colour or sharpness between a D7000, D800 or D4. The only difference is in what lens is used, what in camera settings are used and the ability of the photographer to produce sharp colourful images with the tool in his/her hands.

This is a straight out of camera Jpeg image – can you tell what camera it was shot with? (Without looking at the EXIF.)

http://i59.tinypic.com/2ns887p.jpg

No Hafedh, You can get crap from a D4 and a D800 and you can get excellent images from a D40.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mahfoudhhi

Good day everyone:
I saw a big difference in colours and sharpness between D-7000 and D-800 or D-4.
is this due to the time difference (later version and better sensor) or due to the difference between FF and half frame.
I have an example to mention:
will I see this difference in colour and sharpness between D-3300 and D-800 since they are both newly released?
thank you in advance.

---

To get any comment from me on that you would have to post enlarged crops of 100% resolution shots that convinced me that each was correctly focused and tell me what lenses were used. And any form of post processing that had been done on them. The lighting conditions would need to be very similar between shots as well.

Might sound extreme but I have posted a shot on here of a D7000 being as sharp as it possibly could because clean sharp pixels are making up the shapes. I could equally well post a shot taken with another lens where fuzzy pixels would make up the shape. I could then put the better lens on a camera with a higher pixel density and the shape might then be made up of fuzzy rather than clean pixels but there would be more of them. There are more pixels so by the time they get onto a pc screen via software that is designed to extract most detail there is more detail after a fashion but this isn't the same thing as sharpness or resolution. The whole thing could be done again using different colours. All a bit pointless really as at typical viewing sizes and even considerably bigger the effects shouldn't be visible anyway but a lot depends on the lens.

Colour is an entirely different matter. I have had awful problems with a D7000. All comes down to the processing software used to get from raw. JPG's are fine but show Nikon colouring plus the fact that colour accuracy of cameras isn't that good anyway. I would probably have the same problem with any Nikon camera because of the software I use.

john
-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AB26

...There is no difference in colour or sharpness between a D7000, D800 or D4....

---

Would you like to qualify this statement or do you mean this in absolute terms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AB26

Hafedh,

There is no difference in colour or sharpness between a D7000, D800 or D4. The only difference is in what lens is used, what in camera settings are used and the ability of the photographer to produce sharp colourful images with the tool in his/her hands.

This is a straight out of camera Jpeg image – can you tell what camera it was shot with? (Without looking at the EXIF.)



No Hafedh, You can get crap from a D4 and a D800 and you can get excellent images from a D40.

---

While I agree with the good / crap comment; that goes for any camera.

Each of the cameras you list have different strengths and weaknesses.

If I were a macro / wildlife photographer, I would opt for the D7000 as the crop frame would have advantages for those genres;

If I were a sports or low light photographer or rich wildlife or bird photographer; the D4 would be my choice.

For landscapes and portraits, the D800.

While all cameras can be used for a lot of different types of photography; they all have areas they are more suited for than others.


The differences in performance of all three cameras can be compared at:


http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compa...___792_767_680

Thank you all again.
Andre: I can tell the difference if it were a portrait, but now it is difficult for me.

Hafedh,

I cannot tell if an image was shot with a Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony or any other camera by looking at the image. :o

As Manfred said, cameras are horses for courses – each has it’s own unique features. Using a D800 to shoot a wedding you will find a massive additional workload. Shooting the same wedding with a D7000 will dramatically reduce the workload but not necessarily render worse images than the D800. Shoot high speed sporting action with a D3100 and you miss 80% of the shots, get a D4s and you will not miss a single shot.

You have to be careful with comparisons of different cameras. These comparisons can be very bias towards the one or the other. It is better to leave the pixel peeping to those whom prefer shooting charts and rulers.
You will not be able to see the difference in colour and sharpness between a D3300 and D800 unless you pixel peep.

Any case, if you plan on shooting posters for advertising, get yourself a Hasselblad or Leica S2. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AB26

Using a D800 to shoot a wedding you will find a massive additional workload.

---

I'm not sure why you say that Andre; wedding photography is one of the genres that Nikon designed the D800 for. Extra work? How?

I know a number of wedding photographers that have moved to the D800. The D7000 is a crop frame and is probably not the best choice for wedding work; it is clearly an amateur camera.

Manfred...I'm one of the many waiting...and waiting, for Canon to come out with a big MP sensor. I do realize that it will involve a different mindset and a gear upgrade to handle the large images.
It is also my firm belief that downsizing, not cropping, in your case, a 36 MP image to a 25MP image will impart a better IQ than you would have had with the basic 25 MP image. Assuming that all factors are the same/equal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chauncey

Manfred...I'm one of the many waiting...and waiting, for Canon to come out with a big MP sensor. I do realize that it will involve a different mindset and a gear upgrade to handle the large images.
It is also my firm belief that downsizing, not cropping, in your case, a 36 MP image to a 25MP image will impart a better IQ than you would have had with the basic 25 MP image. Assuming that all factors are the same/equal.

---

Chauncey - it depends on what you shoot, how you shoot, how you output and of course personal preferences.

As a long-time 35mm film shooter, I am more in my comfort zone with the that format; frankly the small viewfinder and the deeper DoF were two things I never liked about my crop-frame camera, and after a couple of years of shooting, I had pretty well decided that I would move to a full-frame.

As I primarily shoot people, landscapes, buildings, etc.(nicely said, things that are relatively stationary) in decent light often using a tripod, the body I chose works out well for me.

The other key aspect is that I do a fair number of large prints, so again, all the pixels I shoot are generally put to good use. If I were primarily someone sticks to the internet or computer display, I would possibly have chosen a different body.

In theory, I can't agree with your example of a cropped 36MP image being better than a 25MP (assuming both use the same size of sensor). In practice, the 25MP sensor would be giving you a more accurate representation of the image, because the 36MP cropped to 25MP would be "throwing away" 11MP of data and then upsampling for the same framing. In practice, there likely won't be a lot of difference, unless one is enlarging to a 2ft x 3ft (60cm x 90cm) print and then pixel peeping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver

Extra work? How?

---

Manfred,

The massive file size makes it less attractive for wedding photography. Running 1000 x 50Mb files trough batch processing will take how long?

The high resolution demands spot on focus in every shot taken. A camera more suited for tripod photography, using the best of glass only.

The preferred wedding photography cameras were (and still are) the D300/s and D700. (The wedding shooters are still anticipating the release of a D400 and/or replacement for the D700)

I would get a D800 if it is my intention to print really big and/or I need perfectly fine detail in my images.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AB26

Manfred,

The massive file size makes it less attractive for wedding photography. Running 1000 x 50Mb files trough batch processing will take how long?

The high resolution demands spot on focus in every shot taken. A camera more suited for tripod photography, using the best of glass only.

The preferred wedding photography cameras were (and still are) the D300/s and D700. (The wedding shooters are still anticipating the release of a D400 and/or replacement for the D700)

I would get a D800 if it is my intention to print really big and/or I need perfectly fine detail in my images.

---

All I can say is that the load time / processing time has been thoroughly debunked a long time ago and this quite a prevelant rumour that was running around after the D800 was announced . I've been shooting a D800 for almost 2 years (May 2012, and yes, while the load and process time it is a touch slower than with my old 12MP D90, the time difference is not that significant. A faster computer and hard drive more than make up for handling the larger files.

I know four different, higher end wedding photographers quite well and three years ago, the Nikon shooters were using the D700 and the Canon shooters were using the 5D Mk II. By the way, the D800 is the replacement for the D700, and as for another pro crop frame camera, that is not going to happen, the economics just aren't there for Canon and Nikon.

The same people are now using the D800 and 5D Mk III, but are essentially shooting the same glass as on their old bodies. in some cases it is that the lenses have not been upgraded by the manufuacturers and in other cases, the photographers saw no reason to switch to the newer glass. I know Grainne still shoots the Nikkor f/2.8 70-200 VR, and did not upgrade to the VR2.

I don't know anyone who still shoots crop frame cameras for weddings, although I do remember a couple of D300 camera being used about 4 years ago at my cousins wedding; but the photographers were part-timers. I guess things are different in South Africa than in Canada if weddings are still being shot using crop frame cameras.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AB26

Manfred,

The high resolution demands spot on focus in every shot taken. A camera more suited for tripod photography, using the best of glass only.

---

I would like to address this point that Manfred did not. You are not making an apples to apples comparison. It is true that accurate focus is needed to take full advantage of the sensor on the D800. But if one takes the identical picture with a D700 and a D800, with the same glass and exactly the same focus then prints the photos at the same size, the picture produced by the D800 will be a least as sharp (probably sharper) than the one produced by the D700. Having more pixels doesn't make for a worse picture.

John

There seems to be a consistent theme on internet forums that the people who point out all of the negative aspects of the D800 have never actually shot one. I think I'll turn over a new leaf and start speaking about all of the pluses and minuses of all of the Canon gear that I've never even handled. After all I can read reviews and others' opinions and then wax philosophical as well as the next guy :rolleyes:

I single out Canon because at one time or another I've owned most of the Nikon bodies therefore can't speak in purely theoretical terms about any of them. And speaking from a base of hands on experience would defeat the purpose :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhotomanJohn

Having more pixels doesn't make for a worse picture.

John

---

Why do you think the higher the resolution rendered by the camera, the worse the image will be?

If you wish to test a lens and see how good it is, fit it to a D800 body. If you want to see how good the photographer’s technique is, give him/her a D800.

The better the camera sensor is to resolve resolution the less forgiving it is for making any mistake.
A D800 with a Sigma lens on it will not produce as good an image as a D4 (16MP camera) with a Nikkor lens on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AB26

...A D800 with a Sigma lens on it will not produce as good an image as a D4 (16MP camera) with a Nikkor lens on it.

---

A generic statement like this is meaningless and has no basis in fact/reality. Are you saying that any Sigma lens is inferior to any Nikkor lens? What the heck do you mean and what is it based on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AB26

Why do you think the higher the resolution rendered by the camera, the worse the image will be?

---

Re-read the my statement you quoted. I am saying the opposite. You are the one that implied that the higher resolution camera would provide lower sharpness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AB26

A D800 with a Sigma lens on it will not produce as good an image as a D4 (16MP camera) with a Nikkor lens on it.

---

As Dan stated, this statement is only correct for some Sigma/Nikon comparisons and incorrect for others.

John