Sun 26-Feb-12 07:29 AM | edited Sun 26-Feb-12 07:33 AM by baseelo
I wanted to take the experts' opinion on this issue.
I use a D7000 at my pediatric office to take photos of lesions of skin, eye, etc. I mainly use my Nikkor 105 f 2.8 VRII and R1C1 lighting system. The reason for taking these photos is to publish them on my medical/educational website and possibly publish a book in the future, so high quality of the photos - including a lot of details - is a priority. So I keep an eye on tools that help in that regard, and that's why the introduction of D800e is interesting to me.
I have been doing some calculations and these are my conclusions, and please correct me if I'm wrong.
1) My D7000 is obviously a Dx camera so the area of its sensor is about 44% of the sensor of theD800. (The area of the Fx sensor is 864 mm2 and of the Fx 384mm2 approximately).
2) If I take only 44% of the pixels on the D800 (36mp) I get 15.8 megs (Please notice that I'm talking in approximate numbers just to simplify).
3) If my calculations are right, then -talking pixel per inch- the mighty new D800 is not superior to my humble D7000 that does a great job for me at the office. Please notice that since I mainly do close-ups of fairly small lesions, I don't have a need for a big sensor, as a matter of fact, most of the time I do cropping of my images . I use Capture NX2.
Now my questions are: 1) Are my numbers right or am I missing something?
2) If the resolution per area is almost the same in these two cameras, then is there any difference in the QUALITY of their images....like different quality of the pixel itself or a better dynamic range etc?
3) Does the fact that one of the two pass filters is removed from the D800e add to the quality/clarity of the image ?