# Question to those who moved from crop sensor to full frame camera-low light Perf



## goodguy (Aug 2, 2014)

How big of a jump was it in low light performance ?
If your crop sensor camera was the latest generation and you moved to a full frame did you see a BIG jump in low light performance ?

I was complitly sold on the idea of moving to full frame but lately I am starting to question it a bit.
I love my D7100, awesome camera and my only wish (except having a bit of a bigger buffer) is that it will have better low light performance.
The D7100 low light performance are impressive for a crop sensor camera but what can I say I want more MUCH MORE LOL
So if the jump in low light performance when moving to full frame isnt so big maybe staying with crop sensor might still be the preffered option for me.


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 2, 2014)

I just ran a test in a semi-dark room.
using the same 50mm f/1.8 AF-D lens

My nikon d7000
f/4
ISO 100
for proper exposure --> 30 seconds

My Nikon d600
f/4
ISO 100
for proper exposure --> 15 second

pics looks about the same, except the longer exposure is a bit more blurry becz I wasn't expecting to hold it still for so long.


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 2, 2014)

Straight Out Of Camera

d600 - 15 seconds



d7000 - 30 seconds


yeah, I'm not good at hand holding for so long while breathing and laying on my stomach.
photo taken from the same position. FOV variance.


----------



## KmH (Aug 2, 2014)

15 seconds to 30 seconds is 1 stop (1 EV).
The following comparison shows about a 1.3 stop improvement in ISO performance.
Nikon D810 versus Nikon D610 versus Nikon D7100 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark
Going FX also yields a bit of gain in dynamic range and color depth.

Some of the ISO gain with the D810 and D610 is from programming in Nikon's EXPEED image processing chip.


----------



## ruifo (Aug 2, 2014)

With the right technique and gear, you will always be able to reproduce the same image with both formats (DX and FX). 

The thing is that the FX sensor will give you much better flexibility, usually in those more challenging situations where you need more light, more speed, and less ISO, to get the right shot. The FX gives you better control, once you usually gain from 1 to 2 stops of advantage (more or less) in comparison the DX (if not more, depending what camera bodies you are comparing).

However, depending on your shooting style and subject, you may miss the DX format if/when you need extra reach, light weight, extra DoF, and more MPix for cropping purposes (especially when talking about the Nikon 24Mpix DX sensors, that are amazing sensors). 

So, there's always some kind of trade off. If you're focusing on better low light shooting conditions, the D6x0 family can give you around 1 extra stop of advantage (of less ISO, of more speed, or of wider aperture), the D8x0 family something between 1 and 1.5 extra stop, and the Df/D4s families between 1 and 2 extra stops, given or taken... The newer Expeed 4 processor also plays a role here, and not only the sensor size itself. So, a lot more flexibility, just like tested and shown above.

But as said, if you're only comparing the final result picture quality, between DX and FX, instead of the flexibility gains during the shooting process itself, you will always be able to reproduce the same image with both formats (DX and FX), given you have the right technique, the right gear, and the patience.

My recommendation is for you to rent a FX body for the weekend and test it for yourself. So you can have the taste and the feel in your hands. Try to reproduce the same shot with both formats, and see what it takes you. And don't forget, you also need to multiply the aperture by the 1.5 crop factor as well, and not only the focal length, to be able to reproduce the same final result between FX and DX.


----------



## jaomul (Aug 2, 2014)

There is no question that ff do better in low light but at the cost of a bigger system and expence. The better crop sensors now are really very good. I kind of find it amusing when I see a review of newer cams and it praises the camera for good 3200 performance but ultimately say it's poor at high iso like 6400 or 12800. At 100 iso 30 secs on a tripod any crop or ff will do well with a little noise reduction.

To OP, your Flickr page shows mostly bright scenes for your shots. I think you are right to reconsider going fullframe.  Not sure higher iso performance would add to your shooting style.


----------



## JustJazzie (Aug 2, 2014)

Hmmm, I am going through the photos I took from the week with my d7100, I can't seem to find one that went above 6,400. I can't do a side by side test with my DF. I have a few test shots of my umbrella plant from when I had the camera, though it was taken with a different lens. (70-200 vs my 50) Anyways, the lighting on that plant doesn't change much during the day, due to its location.

when comparing the files from the df and d7100 side by side at 100% crops, The d7100 file at 6,400 and the the DF files taken at 6,400, 12,800 and 25,600. To me, the two files that look closest noise wise are the 6,400 from the d7100 and the shot at 12,800. This is extremely unscientific, but at least you gave me something to do this morning over coffee! :Giggle: Because this IS such an unfair comparison, I decided not to post the shots. But if you want me too, let me know and I will.


----------



## EIngerson (Aug 2, 2014)

I went from the Canon 7D to the 5D MK III and the performance increase was incredible.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 2, 2014)

I went from a pair of cameras I had had for six and five years, the Nikon D2x and the Canon 5d classic, to the Nikon D3x in the spring of 2012, and the performance increase in dynamic range and shadow recovery and highlight holding and color depth between those two and the D3x was **incredible**. In one simple purchase, I gained about 3 EV more dynamic range, and just better resolution, and my LENSES became what they were designed to be on the Nikon: the 50 was once again a 50, the 85 was useful indoors once again, the 70-200 became MUCH better for close-in work on people, and the 300mm was just perfect for what it HAD BEEN designed to be for the prior 40 years, and so on.

However, the D7100 is a much newer and better sensor than the older ones I had used: I think its image quality is better than the Canon 5D classic's was, at all ISO levels, and the dynamic range and color depth of the new D7100's sensor is, well, I think it is the best crop-frame sensor and camera on the market, bar none. I trialled the EOS 5D Mark III and the Nikon D4, but ended up buying the D3x for a better price than either of those three, but you know, to me the issue is NOT about the High ISO capabilities: it is what each lens "does" and "where I have to stand at" to make pictures, in the real world, in places like back yards, and living rooms, and at school events, and so on. With APS-C, the "good lenses" are few in number. Nikon really is biased, lens-wise, to a full range of optics designed for FX sized cameras. The DX lenses are mostly consumer or entry-level, and the FX lenses, which are the vasty majority, are not of the optimal lengths for DX sensors!

If I had to buy a DX camera today, I would go for the D7100 and probably locate a 50-135 or 50-150 type zoom lens option, and go with the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 as my go-to daily user zoom for high-speed, or the 16-85 DX for my utility zoom. FX will always be ahead of DX at high ISO levels, but the D7100 and that generation of sensors has reallllly closed the gap that used to be big; I see D7100 images now that kick ass. All the time.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 2, 2014)

Let's just say I have yet to do an HDR with images taken with my D600.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 2, 2014)

480sparky said:


> Let's just say I have yet to do an HDR with images taken with my D600.



Is that because of the simply amazing dynamic range performance, and the incredible shadow/highlight recovery tools we now have in today's software? Or is it something else do ya' think?


----------



## coastalconn (Aug 2, 2014)

You may have seen my thread last week, because I was teetering on the edge of buying a D800.  The general consensus for how I shoot and what I shoot(birds) was there was not a huge advantage for me to go FF since I'm always cropping.  My biggest problem is all the comparisons show the comparisons with different focal lengths.  Shooting at 600mm is 600mm so I would always be cropping the D800 so much that the noise difference wouldn't be huge.  For the most part with careful noise reduction, I can still do OK at ISO 6400 and still get use-able 8x10 prints or maybe slightly bigger.  This was what I could produce at 6400 on the D7100...  But it isn't always so good, you really have to nail exposure...


Typical George 7_15 by krisinct- Thanks for 2! Million + views!, on Flickr

VS this on a D600 at 6400.. which I didn't even have enough DOF to get the whole head in focus..  


Juvi Red Tail Hawk 5_29 4 by krisinct- Thanks for 2! Million + views!, on Flickr


----------



## Derrel (Aug 2, 2014)

Just wanted to point out something for coastal.conn and others: Thom Hogan now has a D810, and this week he posted an impressions overview. One thing: the sensor in the D810 is NOT the same, exact performer as the D800 was. As he points out, Nikon is now "doing something differently" with the sensor gain, beginning at ISO 3200. Sony is apparently doing something different too with how their camera handles high-ISO gain, with their new D7s, the 12MP FF camera designed as an ULTRA-high ISO (over 400,000 ISO!) video camera capable of 4k video. So...the old arguments, which we saw here like a week ago, about how gain works in d-slr sensors is not really the full truth any more; Nikon, and Sony, are changing the way their high-MP sensors handle HIGH-ISO sensor performance by way of different gain-handle routines than were done before. It'll be interesting to see some test results and some actual photos, but it seems like the D810 is going to be better than the earlier D800/D800e at higher ISO values, due to the way the new EXPEED 4 engine and associated electronics handle the original image data when the ISO is cranked way high.

As Hogan mentioned, he has noted over 50 changes between the D800 and the new D810.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 2, 2014)

Derrel said:


> ...........Is that because of the simply amazing dynamic range performance, and the incredible shadow/highlight recovery tools we now have in today's software? ........




Yeah, dat's purdy much it.

ETA:  Plus, I'm having to re-train myself not to default to ISO 100.  Having shot Kodachrome 25 for years, it's hard to get my noodle to accept the fact that shooting ASA 400-1600 is juuuuuuuuuust fine.  Oops.  Sorry....... *ISO* 400-1600.


----------



## ruifo (Aug 2, 2014)

With time passing, many more people are getting to the conclusion that the D810 is a bigger upgrade from the D800/E than originally though/perceived. The new sensor, the new Expeed 4, the new 64 native ISO, and the new buffer are doing a lot of improvements.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 2, 2014)

Yesterday I reviewed my very last two month's worth of Canon 5D classic landscapes I shot back with Majeed on several 2012 shooting outings, and then went right into the first of my D3x outings. The difference in scene dynamic range was immediate. I actually kind of cringed when I reviewed some of the shoots done with the 5D under wide-DR outdoor conditions. It was really an eye-opener. I was just simply able to "extract more" from the Nikon raw files than from the Canon files, using the same version of Lightroom. Going wayyyy back to my early 2000's images from the D1 and D1h and Fuji S2 Pro, I was shocked at how "small" and low-resolution the files actually were. Been doing a major retrospective highlight archive of the last 13 years, and it has been interesting to me to see how FAR we have come with d-slr image quality since the D1 at 2.7MP on DX.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 2, 2014)

ruifo said:


> With time passing, many more people are getting to the conclusion that the D810 is a bigger upgrade from the D800/E than originally though/perceived. The new sensor, the new Expeed 4, the new 64 native ISO, and the new buffer are doing a lot of improvements.



LOW ISO capability is actually a good feature for flash in daylight, and for studio flash. I have a lot of older studio flash gear that is very powerful, so I find myself using Low 0.5 or Low 0.7 and even Low 1.0 a lot on the D2x for just casual set-ups using 150 Watt-seconds and an old Speedotron Brown Line that does not go down very low with just a single flash head attached to the power pack. When we used to shoot ISO 25 or 64 slide film a 1600 or 2400 Watt-second pack made sense: when Nikon d-slr went to a base ISO level of 200, that stuff became a PITA to use. Now that "overpowering the sun" with flash outdoors is popular technique, the lowering of the ISO capability is a welcome addition for many fashionista/editorial/lifestyle types. It also allows for 2/3, 1/2 and 0.0 bracketing by ISO with flash on critical set-ups.

One of the big problems for flash shooters is that many 200- and 300- and 400-Watt-second monolights are "too powerful" when the ISO is at 100 or 200. And at close rnage, even a 150 W-s monolight at full power can be too much. Kodak's 14n full-framer used to offer an ISO with a lowest value of 6. As in ISO "six". Not a lot of need for heavy neutral density filtering when the camera can crawl down to ISO 6.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 2, 2014)

Derrel said:


> ........ Kodak's 14n full-framer used to offer an ISO with a lowest value of 6. As in ISO "six". Not a lot of need for heavy neutral density filtering when the camera can crawl down to ISO 6.



I'd give my left........ um......... 'family jewel'........ for a D8x0-class DSLR with that capability.


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 2, 2014)

a couple more quick tests - using a tripod this time.
SOOC

f/4
shutter = 1/200
auto ISO = Hi-2



f/4
auto Shutter = 1/20
auto ISO = Hi-2


============
d7000
f/4
Shutter = 1/200
Auto ISO = Hi-2


f/4
Auto Shutter = 1/15
Auto ISO = Hi-2


----------



## goodguy (Aug 2, 2014)

Thank you all for the informative replies, after I got my D7100 I saw how a good camera should work and I didnt feel the need to upgrade the body, I did though upgraded all my lenses and today I have lenses I feel very happy with so for the short while I am happy.
For me flexebility is important, most my shots done hand held thus I need to keep a minimum shutter speed to prevent camera shake, just came back few days ago from a family trip in Israel (yes I know perfect timing ha ? LOL) and many of my pictures were taken in 6400iso, the noise is not very high but the moment I crop the picture or do some adjustments on the RAW file the noise just jumps right into my face so I do very limited adjustment to keep the noise level to minimum possible, I really would love to get a camera that can give me better low light performance but I am not sure if one stop would really be so much, not really enough for me to let my beloved D7100 go. 1.5 too 2 stops would be a deal breaker, for that I would run to the next camera.
D810 is curently out of my range and the D610 isnt a whole lot better then the D7100 and in other things (like AF system) its actually behind so that not an option for me BUT when the D610 will be replaced I will definitly be checking that camera very, very careful for a potential upgrade.
I know it will not happened anytime soon but thats ok, I have my trusted D7100 with me for now


----------



## slackercruster (Aug 2, 2014)

From my crop Fuji X to a Leica M240 was nothing for me. Really I prefer the Fuji sensor. But the Leica has great manual controls which I prefer to Fuji.


----------



## greybeard (Aug 2, 2014)

I personally am waiting for a D7K with expeed - 4.


----------



## ruifo (Aug 2, 2014)

Or look for a D800/D800E, new or refurbshed.

Their price is starting to drop in the grey market, and that's a sign of opportunity, once there are still new, almost new, and refurbished cameras out there.

And have a look in the Nikon DF, the "cheapest" low light king of nowadays.


----------



## hamlet (Aug 3, 2014)

goodguy said:


> Thank you all for the informative replies, after I got my D7100 I saw how a good camera should work and I didnt feel the need to upgrade the body, I did though upgraded all my lenses and today I have lenses I feel very happy with so for the short while I am happy.
> For me flexebility is important, most my shots done hand held thus I need to keep a minimum shutter speed to prevent camera shake, just came back few days ago from a family trip in Israel (yes I know perfect timing ha ? LOL) and many of my pictures were taken in 6400iso, the noise is not very high but the moment I crop the picture or do some adjustments on the RAW file the noise just jumps right into my face so I do very limited adjustment to keep the noise level to minimum possible, I really would love to get a camera that can give me better low light performance but I am not sure if one stop would really be so much, not really enough for me to let my beloved D7100 go. 1.5 too 2 stops would be a deal breaker, for that I would run to the next camera.
> D810 is curently out of my range and the D610 isnt a whole lot better then the D7100 and in other things (like AF system) its actually behind so that not an option for me BUT when the D610 will be replaced I will definitly be checking that camera very, very careful for a potential upgrade.
> I know it will not happened anytime soon but thats ok, I have my trusted D7100 with me for now



Well the d800 handles low light incredibly well, why not get that?


----------



## goodguy (Aug 3, 2014)

hamlet said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > Well the d800 handles low light incredibly well, why not get that?
> ...


----------



## greybeard (Aug 3, 2014)

For the pure question of low light performance, from everything I have read from Dx0 etc.  The D610 and D800 are 1.2 stops better and the Df is at 1.4 stops faster.


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 3, 2014)

goodguy said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > goodguy said:
> ...


----------



## coastalconn (Aug 3, 2014)

I had the opportunity to shoot a D3S today.  Great camera, super fast and responsive with a great buffer, but it would not work for me.  The resolution is just too low..  
This is with the D3S.. Nearly 100% crop 3 MP


Osprey Comparison shot to D7100 by krisinct- Thanks for 2! Million + views!, on Flickr
This is with the D7100 About 50% crop 9 MP  The ISO was actually twice as high on the D7100 (1100 vs 560 on the D3S, I wasn't in the exact same spot)


Osprey comparison shot to D3S by krisinct- Thanks for 2! Million + views!, on Flickr

The speed was pretty sweet though..


Osprey Take-off 1 by krisinct- Thanks for 2! Million + views!, on Flickr



Osprey Take-off 2 by krisinct- Thanks for 2! Million + views!, on Flickr



Osprey Take-off 3 by krisinct- Thanks for 2! Million + views!, on Flickr

So for now it will be the D7100.  Hopefully next month will bring a new DX king...


----------



## jsecordphoto (Aug 3, 2014)

I switched from the 60D to the 6D, mostly for doing astrophotography. I noticed a HUGE difference.


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 3, 2014)

Just do it. It's worth it. I'm in love with FX already, and I've only had it for 4 days...


----------



## shadowlands (Aug 4, 2014)

D-B-J said:


> Just do it. It's worth it. I'm in love with FX already, and I've only had it for 4 days...



I hear ya!

Noise looks roughly the same on my D700 at ISO 6400 as my D300 does at ISO 1600.


----------



## MSnowy (Aug 4, 2014)

coastalconn said:


> I had the opportunity to shoot a D3S today. The speed was pretty sweet tFlickr
> 
> So for now it will be the D7100.  Hopefully next month will bring a new DX king...



Wow those flight shots are nice. I see they were shot at iso 2800 which let you shot at 1/2000 f 7.1


----------



## djacobox372 (Aug 4, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> I just ran a test in a semi-dark room.
> using the same 50mm f/1.8 AF-D lens
> 
> My nikon d7000
> ...



This doesn't make any sense how in the heck can the pics look the same when one is a stop more exposed.


----------



## ruifo (Aug 4, 2014)

djacobox372 said:


> This doesn't make any sense how in the heck can the pics look the same when one is a stop more exposed.




The sensors have different size... That's why.
The full frame sensor collects more light than the crop sensor, and needed 1 stop less light to get the same exposure.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 4, 2014)

ruifo said:


> The sensors have different size... That's why.
> The full frame sensor collects more light than the crop sensor, and needed 1 stop less light to get the same exposure.



Huh?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





You mean full-frame users need to learn the _Sunny *11*_ rule?


----------



## ruifo (Aug 4, 2014)

No.
Sunny 16 for FF, as always.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 4, 2014)

ruifo said:


> No.
> Sunny 16 for FF, as always.



Then your statement about FF sensors collecting more light and need one less stop of exposure doesn't make sense.


----------



## ruifo (Aug 4, 2014)

480sparky said:


> ruifo said:
> 
> 
> > No.
> ...




Let's put it the other way to make it easier. Reversed thinking.

The FF 35mm is a long lasting size, since the film era. It always needed this specific light. Like the f/16 sunny rule. That size is today reproduced by the FF sensors.

With the popularization of croped sensors, with the digital era, the smallest sensors needed more light to reproduce the exact same scene of the full frame big brother, that all were used to with the 35mm film/sensor. So it is the crop sensor who needs more light, not the full frame brother.

The "sunny 11" you played with means one *more* stop of light to the full frame, not one stop less. One less would make it "sunny 22", and in a old school 35mm film, that would be the "snow/sand 22", if I may say so. Who needs more light is the croped smallest sensor, not the big FF one, that continues with th "sunny 16" as always.

And the sunny 16 thing is just a starting point, no more.

Got it?

But I have to admit that many people have different opnion about that debate, and I may be wrong. That was debated a lot right after the release of the first digital croped sensors. Not sure, but that's my feeling and experience so far. I'm happy to be convinced of the opposite.


----------



## coastalconn (Aug 4, 2014)

MSnowy said:


> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> > I had the opportunity to shoot a D3S today. The speed was pretty sweet tFlickr
> ...


Thanks Michael!  I shoot in Manual with Auto-ISO so I picked my SS and Aperture.  I was trying to get the ISO up there so I could see real life samples...


----------



## Derrel (Aug 4, 2014)

480sparky said:


> ruifo said:
> 
> 
> > The sensors have different size... That's why.
> ...



Companies often "fudge" the ISO ratings a bit, to earn betetr scores on DxO mark and other test sites, since NOISE is what the sites usually measure and report on, so if say, ISO 6400 is actually ISO 5,000, it makes the noise stats skewed a bit in favor of the camera. There's also some differences in how the data off the sensor is processed, and how the black point is set, and also maybe what type of curve has been applied to the raw data. The slightest change in the way the raw data is output can make the image look "brighter", by quite a lot. The SUnny 16 or Sunny 11 rule ONLY applies if the nominal ISO is in 100% accord with the ACTUAL ISO level, and looking at DxO mark, one can see--that is not usually the case at the higher ISO values. Also, not all "raw" files are truly "raw"...the black point can be set, and it makes the images look different. I've also seen a couple article mentioning that sensors do not respond quite linearly above f/2.8, and that wide-wide,wide apertures on d-slrs seem not to give the FULL, reciprocal exposure one woukd expect, and f/4 is just one stop below f/2.8, so even if the loss is say 1/3 stop due to wide aperture, or the way the sensor collects the light, and the ISO maybe being fudged by a bit, or the way the NEWER, BTETR FX sensor with much highee quantum efficiency handles light in longer exposures, YES, it's esily possible that in the real world, an 80-year old film "rule" no longer is always accurate in actual,practical application.

I have pulled out a couple of wheel-hubs-deep-stuck 250-horsepower V-8 pickup trucks down in the creek-side gravel with a 1949 John Deer Model M tractor with a 100 cubic inch 2-cylinder gas engine which produced a mere 18 drawbar horsepower when it was NEW...and this was 30 years later when it was tired... Statistics don't mean a lot sometimes...

1949 Model M    http://johnnypopper.com/jdgifs/mseylar.jpg


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 4, 2014)

ruifo said:


> Let's put it the other way to make it easier. Reversed thinking.
> 
> ........So it is the crop sensor who needs more light, not the full frame brother.
> .......
> Got it?........



Nope. 

I cannot fathom why you think the size of the sensor has anything to do with exposure.

So do cell phones with their itty-bitty pencil - lead sized sensors need a radically different exposure than a medium format Hasselblad?


----------



## Derrel (Aug 4, 2014)

Sparky, I too have seen this "size of the sensor" determines the needed exposure level line of thinking. It seems very odd that people think this. I think it's much more likely that the way the various sensors and readout electronics and the way the differing camera makers and different models  have been actually programmed to output their sensor data is "cooking" the data somewhat. Even the slightest tweak to the tone curve can make the image appear "brighter", and if there's any fudging of the real sensitivity level and the stated level, that adds into the mix.


----------



## ruifo (Aug 4, 2014)

Interesting points, Derrel.
I never of that, this way.


----------



## Tailgunner (Aug 4, 2014)

coastalconn said:


> You may have seen my thread last week, because I was teetering on the edge of buying a D800.  The general consensus for how I shoot and what I shoot(birds) was there was not a huge advantage for me to go FF since I'm always cropping.  My biggest problem is all the comparisons show the comparisons with different focal lengths.  Shooting at 600mm is 600mm so I would always be cropping the D800 so much that the noise difference wouldn't be huge.  For the most part with careful noise reduction, I can still do OK at ISO 6400 and still get use-able 8x10 prints or maybe slightly bigger.  This was what I could produce at 6400 on the D7100...  But it isn't always so good, you really have to nail exposure...
> 
> 
> ;Typical George 7_15 by krisinct- Thanks for 2! Million + views!, on Flickr
> ...



Nice work, I knew if could fully test the D7100 it would be you. 

Anyhow, I really hate to suggest the D810 and it not work out. That is a lot of coin for a body but I'm starting to think it maybe a good fit. I mean cropping at 1.2x still gives you 18mp and from what I hear about the new Expeed 4 processor, it's supposed to be really quick...originally designed for the D4. Then may install a grip and bump the frame rate up to 6-7 fps. It could be a good deal. I would still probably rent one to see how it works first.


----------



## coastalconn (Aug 4, 2014)

Tailgunner said:


> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> > You may have seen my thread last week, because I was teetering on the edge of buying a D800.  The general consensus for how I shoot and what I shoot(birds) was there was not a huge advantage for me to go FF since I'm always cropping.  My biggest problem is all the comparisons show the comparisons with different focal lengths.  Shooting at 600mm is 600mm so I would always be cropping the D800 so much that the noise difference wouldn't be huge.  For the most part with careful noise reduction, I can still do OK at ISO 6400 and still get use-able 8x10 prints or maybe slightly bigger.
> ...


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 5, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Sparky, I too have seen this "size of the sensor" determines the needed exposure level line of thinking. It seems very odd that people think this....



Well, if sensor size _does_ affect exposure, I think we'd all better ditch our old-fashioned hand-held light meters and buy new ones that we can input the sensor size so we can obtain a correct exposure for it.

I guess this is my first exposure (pun intended) to this way of thinking.  I never noticed it back in my film days. ASA 100 was ASA 100 whether you were shooting 110 Instamatic, 35mm, 6x4.5, 6x7 or even 8x10.


----------



## WayneF (Aug 5, 2014)

ruifo said:


> djacobox372 said:
> 
> 
> > This doesn't make any sense how in the heck can the pics look the same when one is a stop more exposed.
> ...



You are making up absurd nonsense.   A hand held light meter like Sekonic DOES NOT ASK WHAT SIZE YOUR SENSOR IS.   

It could not care less, because it does not matter at all.   What matters to eposure is ISO, aperture, and shutter speed, and of course, how much light there is.


----------



## joebig101 (Aug 17, 2014)

I had a D7100 for a year now,it is amazing-but after 1600iso the noise is coming.I was loving it,amazing pics-even at 4000iso.then I won a D800 on ebay for $1600,
I have shoot maybe 200pics with it-game over.You can debate it all day-its better by a lot.Detail is amazing ,ISO 1600 wow .Files are huge but 6tg raids are under $500.32g mem card was 596pics on D7100,399 pics on D800.Get a D800 while everyone is upgrading.Im selling my D7100 if anyone is interested email me.


----------

