Both D3100 AND D3200 have similar, almost identical, sensors. Which is going to give the best image quality if I set them both to, for example, 12MP? I also also placed the pixel sizes below.  D3100 - APS-C   23.1x15.4mm     25.1 µm²  D3200 - APS-C   23.2x15.4mm     14.8 µm²
13438
Does taking a picture with 8 megapixel resolution with my Canon IXUS with a 1/2.3" sensor and 12M max resolution provides the same or worse image quality (particular, noise) as if the picture was taken by another camera of the same sensor size and but with 8 megapixels maximum resolution?
113074
I have a D700 which I'm not planning to replace at this point in Nikon's product cycle.   I'll porbably buy the D800's successor.   Not because I don't like the D800 (especially its usability improvements around focus mode switching and Live View, which don't seem to have attracted much attention) but because I can't justify the cost when there are too few things the D800 does that the D700 doesn't.  Anyway, although I'm keeping the D700 for now, I'm planning to buy a wide-angle prime so that I end up with this in my bag:  D700, SB-800, 105mm micro, 50mm, wide-angle.  I need to choose a wide-angle lens.   The 14-24 is a great lens, but too big for me to routinely carry it.   So I'm going to buy a wide-angle prime.   However, I don't want to buy a prime now that turns out to be disappointing on the replacement body I eventually buy.  As for focal length, the 35mm is a lens I could like but it's too close to the 50mm for me to seriously consider buying it.   Hence I'm looking at the 20mm - 28mm focal length range.   Which Nikon primes have sufficient micro-contrast to work well with bodies with a finer pixel pitch at full frame (I'm going to assume for the sake of the discussion that that is what the D800 successor will be like: FX, high resolution)?  I'm going to assume that the 24mm f/1.4 is going to be among the suggestions, and in fact Nikon points it out in the technical guide for the D800 as being suitable for use with the D800E.   It's heavy and expensive so I worry that in practice I'd leave it behind with the 14-24.   So I'm interested in my other likely options.     Budget is important for recommending the right choice.   But I'm pretty flexible for a reason: new lenses will be launched between now and the launch of the D800's successor.  So maybe the right approach is to buy something less expensive now and upgrade later to some not-yet-existing lens. The principle I'm going to operate on is that I'm OK with buying a lens now, that's actually not suitable for the D800's successor at up to €400.   I'd just sell if that seems like the right thing to do, and not worry about losing some of its value on the re-sale.   On the other hand, if I'm going to spend more than €500 I don't want to plan to replace the lens.  My planned uses are principally travel photography, interior shots, architecture, some environmental portraits.  What do you say?
55321
When someone wants to compliment a 35mm sensor, he can say that it's [almost] as good as medium format. Medium format appears to be the gold standard where image quality is concerned.  But. I'm usually working with natural light using my lenses wide open, and the widest lenses that I've seen for Hasselblad or Leica S2 are f/2.8, which I consider very dark. Also, when I watch clips on youtube concerning medium format, people usually use those lenses with artificial lighting, which also confirms my impression that medium format cameras aren't as light sensitive as DLSR systems.  So my question is - let's say I'm working with 1D X and 85mm f1.2. Is there anything in medium format sector, that can beat that combination when working in low light conditions?
97533
I have been doing so much research on iso, and for awhile I've been going with the theory that low iso= less noise, so I've been shooting at iso 100 and then adjusting my flashlights and increasing exposure when the photo is coming out too dark. Will i get less noise with a higher iso and a lower exposure time? It's hard for me to tell as I do not shoot cityscapes at night, I create very dark scenes with lit objects. The outside perimeters of my photos are almost always black. Thank you so much. I guess after all the research I still am not sure.
5190
If I change the ISO settings on my camera, obviously the gain of the system is increased, amplifying the signal from the sensor. What's not clear to me is where the amplification takes place. I see several possibilities:   In the sensor, by increasing voltage or some other mechanism Via an analog amplifier outside of the sensor Digitally, after the signal has been digitized, but before storing data in the RAW file As a parameter applied solely in creating an image from RAW   If #4 is true, then you could take a 4-stop overexposed RAW picture at ISO 1600, and then in post processing produce a JPEG at ISO 100 that would be the same as if the original photo had been shot at ISO 100.  If #1 or #2 is true, then a RAW file shot at ISO 1600 would actually contain more information about shadows, and an ISO 100 RAW would contain more information about highlights.
9977
With the release of the Canon EOS R5/R6, there have been many saying that they prefer the 20MP R6 camera over the 45MP R5 camera, due to its lower price but also because of &quot;better low-light performance.&quot; In camera comparison sites, I've also seen the sentiment that bigger pixels (lower resolution) = better low light performance. However, is this a myth? Here is my reasoning for this. Let's say that there are two full-frame sensors, one 20MP sensor and a 80MP sensor. According to many people, the 80MP sensor would be terrible for low-light photography since the pixels are smaller. However, each 2x2 block in the 80MP sensor could be mapped, and in post averaged to a 1x1 pixel, effectively making the image into a 20MP image. This could also be done in-camera as an option. Would this image have just the same amount of usable information as the image from the 20MP sensor? In other terms, since both sensors are 35mm sensors (i.e. equal area), the amount of light falling onto the sensor is the same. So, at the end of the day, there will be no difference between a 20MP image and a 20MP image that has been downsampled from 80MP, right? So their low-light performance would be the same. You even get an advantage from having the option to get 80MP photos if you wanted. Why do people say that a lower-resolution camera has better low-light performance, when it should theoretically be the same as one with higher resolution (all other factors equal)? Note: this question is about sensors with the same size but with different pixel density. Hence, it is different from  asking about different sensor sizes. I am aware that a full-frame camera will have better low-light signal due to its bigger area than an APS-C sensor, but what about the similarly sized sensors?
114178
Is it something like the sensor captures a circular image and then what we get is the cropped version?  Something like this:    Or did I get it completely wrong?
5082
When should I use exposure compensation, rather than ISO, shutter speed or aperture?
121935
On the weekend I attended a wedding and took my camera along.  I was not the official photographer -- just a guest.    My camera is a Canon 5D Mark III, and I was using an EF 50mm f/1.4 USM lens.  At the evening reception, which was a dark room with disco lights etc, I was going round taking lots of photographs of all the party people and in order that I didn't have to worry about my camera settings, I shot in Aperture Priority mode, with auto-ISO, and f/number of mostly around f/2 - f/4.  I used AI Servo mode so that it would track people dancing etc.  Of course, I also shot in RAW.  It is a testament to the 5D Mark III that it was able to find focus in such challenging conditions!!  However in my stupidity, I didn't change the maximum auto-ISO setting, and most of the shots were taken at a whopping ISO 25,600 -- the camera seeming to prefer to increase the ISO rather than slow the shutter speed to get an exposure.  The shutter speed in most shots is probably faster than it really needed to be - around 1/125-1/250th...  For a 50mm lens I probably only really needed 1/80th-1/125th to freeze the action?  This has resulted in some incredibly noisy and grainy shots, lacking in the detail I'm used to.  Note that I don't think it's a focus issue - the focus is fine, and the shots aren't blurry either.  Just noisy.  I imported all the photos into Lightroom 4, and have been playing with the Noise Reduction and Sharpening sliders, but in order to really get the noise levels to a normal or acceptable level, I've had to push that NR slider all the way up to 80 (choke!!).  Normally I'd only apply at most about 40, even in a low-light photo!  This much NR has meant that the detail in peoples faces is overly softened, and skin tones are looking almost plasticky.    So my question is, what would you say is the best way to "recover" these photos and balance noise reduction against sharpening, or to reduce the noise in another way?  I do also have Photoshop Elements 11 at my disposal, though I'm not the best with it.  However, if there is another way in which I could use that to achieve the same thing, I'd also appreciate some pointers.
70851
I'm considering purchasing a DSLR for the first time here in the next couple of months. The two "big boys" seem to be Canon and Nikon. I've looked at both companies, and I can't really see significant differences between the two.  Are there any?  (Please don't go into a flame war here -- I'm looking for factual differences between the cameras, not "I enjoy X because of Y...")    Also see   for another important part of the story.
103652
If I put a DX lens on a Nikon D700, it will reduce megapixels to 5.1.  I understand that FX pixels are about 2.5 times larger than DX pixels. Would I be correct to assume that, therefore, my FX image using 5.1 megapixels will produce quality equivalent to at least a 10 megapixel image on a DX camera, all other things being equal?
73703
What settings of my DSLR camera will emulate the scene exactly as I can see through my naked eyes?  I think it's not possible to get the contrast and colors exactly as my eyes can see, and it may vary from person to person. So, I am more interested in focal length of the lens. If anyone can give more insight beyond focal length, I will be glad to know.  For example, if I am standing on the seashore and want to capture the sunrise, what should be the focal length so that I can cover the angle of view which my eyes can see, and so the size of the objects in the photo will be precisely like my eyes perceive it?  My camera is an APS-C Canon EOS 1000D. I have 50mm 1.8 and 70-300mm Sigma , Can it be achieved through this equipment lens? Till now, I have not achieved or been satisfied with what I see and what I get.
107045
I see a lot of questions about low light, and one of them which stood out to me was   All my flash pictures tend to turn out great, but my shots in low light without flash are always terrible   blurry bad colors under exposed   My setup is: Nikon D3200 with a 35mm f/1.8 prime.  After reading the above question, it seemed that I should have gotten a good photo, but below is what I got in RAW. Settings: ISO 800, 35mm, f/1.8 1/15sec.     Can someone give me a suggestion of what my settings should have been, perhaps? (Remember that I don't want to use the flash, so I can capture the ambient). It's typically situations or candid portraits like this I would be taking. Also any advice on what quick adjustments I could make if I get a dim result like below?  I don't want to ask for the subject to stand still until I get a great shot, so if I get a poor result on my first trial, what settings should I immediately switch to in order to hopefully get my second shot closer to a likeable shot?  Note: getting another body or lens would be a last resort if I run out of options.
56510
I've been looking to upgrade the camera I use at my job. Thinking of getting the Sony a6000. We list things on ebay to sell, and quite frankly I just don't like the lightbox, nor the camera we currently have.  We're using a Nikon D3100, and I forgot the name of the Macro Lens.  Basically, I want to have my own personal camera, that's better than the D3100, but one I can use at the job as well for when we photograph our jewelry.  I do mainly macro photography in the lightbox, and I'm working on my own setup with better lighting and other things to improve our photos. I just ordered an external flash for the D3100 so I can over expose the background to get a nice white one with the pics when I finish my own setup as well, but I digress lol.  I need suggestions for what I should look for in a good macro lens to use when I photograph jewelry. I mainly work with rings, but I also do pictures of pendants/charms, necklaces, bracelets, watches, and other related items too.  Right now I'm considering the SEL30M35. But I haven't bought anything yet (Including the new camera)  To get a better idea of the type of photos that I'm producing with the Nikon, you can check these out: (I don't have the stats for the Aperture, Shutter Speed, ISO, etc)       You can see that when you're 100% zoomed in, things aren't that detailed. Don't get me wrong I've had some nice shots. But that ugly grey background usually says otherwise. I use different backdrops in the cases when the background looks too ugly. I take all my pics handheld, Manual Mode, the focusing is Auto Manual (focuses when I hold the shutter release halfway) and when I'm at the lightbox the rings are only about 5 - 8 inches away, unless I bring them closer to get detailed diamond shots. (Which, I might add, aren't too good.)  I want to get some photos as close to these as possible:       I'm still an amateur, and I'm still learning, but I really want to take better photos. I'd love for them to be sharp and really detailed on most parts of the subject. That and seeing the photos on an LCD screen with the a6000 before actually snapping them to have a look would save me a lot of time.  Merging some of the macro shots to get everything in focus (I think its called focus stacking), and to use focus peaking on the new camera would probably help me a lot more as well. That and a lot better lighting than the lightbox gives off.  Heck, maybe these photos are actually good and I'm just too picky lol, idk.  Anyway, what do you guys think? Would the SEL30M35 macro lens be a good lens for my needs with the jewelry photography I'm trying to do? I understand some lenses aren't compatible with the auto focus or something like that on the a6000 (maybe the E-mount?). How can I be sure they're compatible? Or if I need an adapter, can you suggest one as well?
73436
This is my first question in /photography. I'm a very amateur photographer, doing things wrong and by eye with lots of trial-and-error all the time.  I currently own a reflex Nikon D70 my uncle gave us after he bought a better one. It has some nice settings, and he bought a a Nikkor 28-80mm F/3.5-5.6 zoom lens for it. It behaves nicely, but it's getting old (it has those old cartridges before SD cards existed) and every new charge takes longer than the last.  I'm planning to upgrade to a better camera, and there are some neat offers on a nearby superstore (MediaMarkt), this one catching my eye:  Sony DSC-H400 63x, Sensor Super HAD 1/2/3 CCD 20.1MP -> for less than 300€ taxes included  I don't have any type of extra information aside from that, all I can get from the official site is clinical data from other cameras that I suspect it's not 100% accurate, and there's no photography expert on the store to ask.  The common things I use my D70 for are: taking pictures of scenery (castles, towns, forests, waves hitting rocks, etc...), nearby (&lt;5m) persons and objects, and well, things where I want to save a memory in digital format, not for professional purposes at all.  Being that my objective is to have a decent, good-zooming (superzoom looks awesome), amateur (but with manual settings) camera, is this Sony a good replacement? Will I miss any features? Is there any better, similarly-priced alternative you know of?  Basically, I want to know whether I will get better quality photos than I currently do, given the examples, with any averagely-priced bridge camera similar to that Sony, and if it's worth it.  examples of current camera results  Full zoom-out of town at night, bad quality I know; notice the pink blur at the left.    Maximum zoom on that pink blur from almost the same spot:    Daylight, cloudy, modified with Adobe Lightroom, scenery:    Same day, same beach, different settings:    Same day, same beach, rocks:
31054
I recently received a Nikon D3100 as a gift. My main interest is capturing images of parts of my body for dental imagery, personal 'snaphots' (yes I know a bit unusual with an actual camera), human faces etc..   I have always been very displeased with passport photos as I could never see my facial expression when taken in a studio but this time I have an opportunity to choose what image i take. I have read that this camera can be 'live' controlled from a PC. This might be necessary to see the image i'm capturing.  What I'm mainly concerned about is the basic features that I would need to know to create an appropriate passport photo in terms of focus, lighting and quality.  NOTE: This question is regarding the basic aspects needed to take an appropriate close up photo of the face. The other thread (which is not mine anyway) purely discusses connecting the camera to a laptop display. Also that question was asked 4 years ago and I have just received my camera.
42791
I see a lot of questions comparing full frame (e.g EF for Canon, FX for Nikon) and crop lenses (e.g. EF-S for Canon, DX for Nikon) but I can't find the answer to what would be the differences between the photos taken with say a 50mm f/1.4 EF and EF-S lenses both used with   same APS-C sensor sized camera same ISO same f/1.4 f-stop same focal length same shutter speed   What would be the resulting differences in the photos? Which one would   be brighter than the other due the EF-S lens concentrating the light more? no that's wrong. Both put the same amount of light from the same FoV on the sensor. have greater depth-of-field? neither less problems towards the edges? generally the full frame more lens flare? generally the full frame lens unless there is, or you provide more shading anything else? not really, unless you start down the road of which one is typically of better build quality.   Edit: Added the answers from what seems to be the general consensus from the multiple answers and comments.  Results: My desire to buy a fast medium-high quality lens compatible with both full frame and crop camera's doesn't have to be hampered by the APS-C sensor size of my current camera.  This means I'm willing to part with more money to get a higher performance/quality lens as the performance/quality will be useful now and when I upgrade my camera.  Though reading reviews of some full frame lenses with short focal lengths, look out, as some are really only made to perform well on crop cameras even though they fit on a full frame camera and will give you a full frame picture, the edge quality is very bad.