fotolopithecus

Yes that's exactly what I've been trying to get at, but apparently haven't expressed myself in a way people can understand. So if your statement is correct, then I get it, and it makes sense to me.

Well, I think the example of the 50mm, and 33mm lenses giving the same view on the two different cameras gets me back to my original thought. So in this example the fact that the D810 has less pixel density than the D7200, doesn't prevent it from having better resolution? That's the part that's counter intuitive to my boggled brain. ;)

Well, I may be wrong but intuitively it seems like smaller pixels would render fine detail better, but I think you've answered the question which is it should be the same.

You move the camera positions until the framing is the same to answer the first question. You're complicating things beyond what I'm asking. Let's say everything is on the same plane, no AA filter involved, were talking all things being equal, it's the sensors I'm asking about, not lenses, or anything else, but what the sensors themselves are capable of when put under the same situation. Resolving fine detail like hair, or the lines that make up what appears to be solid black on the area around George Washington's head on the dollar bill etc.

Yes, framing being the same, and lens being the same, which I guess would make it a full frame lens. Assume the lens is perfectly the same on both cameras. I'm trying to get at what the sensors themselves can do irrespective of lenses.

Well no doubt everyone can see now why it's hard to get a clear understanding of this, and it seems to be because there's really not a consensus on it. Some seem to be saying the same things.... sort of. What we need is someone who designs camera sensors to explain this in a simple way. Here's a question I have. All things being equal, if you take a DX sensor of 16mps, and an FX sensor with 16mps (which I think would mean the FX sensor's 16mps would have to be larger) which sensor would a able to resolve more fine detail? Now my intuitive answer would be that the smaller pixels would be able to resolve fine detail better, but maybe not.

I remember it, and although Paul was very knowledgeable, and helpful, after a time I wondered if he had it right on this. Nonetheless, let's not go down that road again.

I take your point, but in my case I'm interested in both, because while I'm not taking pictures I like to be thinking, or talking about all things photographic. For an Audiophile it's pretty much just thinking about components, preamps, Amps, Speakers, Turntables, and in what arrangements of them to find the Holy grail of true musicality. No actual artistic input of your own there.

Here's the situation. We have two perfectly sensible explanations which don't agree. Add to that, that I think I remember a Tony Northrup video where he claims small pixels don't inherently produce more noise because the area occupied by one large pixel will gather the same light as two smaller one's in the same space.

You're probably right, I gave it the once over lightly.

You may be over thinking this, although there's probably a little truth to what you say. For me liking a comment merely means I appreciate your perspective, or that I agree, either of which seem harmless, if perhaps pointless. Laying your lack of interest in photography at the feet of "likes" might be a bit of a stretch. To me the difference between sucking at golf, and photography, is that with photography you're engaged in a creative pursuit with a final product. It's the reason I switched from being an audiophile to photographer many years ago. There's very little creative input in Audio beyond selecting components for a system.

Between pixel density, and resolution. I ask because I've been told that the greater the pixel density the greater the ability a sensor has to resolve fine detail. That would appear on it's face not to be true, since a Nikon D810 has more resolving power than a Nikon D7200, which has greater pixel density, and by a fair amount. If the D7200 for example were scaled up to a full frame, it would have roughly 50 mps density wise. We need this issue resolved once, and for all, because the effect of it appears to be that nobody knows nothing. ;)

I read somewhere they released the A7R3 to help take some of the wind out of the Nikon D850's sails, and that they actually did originally intend it the other way around.

Yeah, I think for most people, and situations it'll be plenty of camera. Jason Lanier is a Sony Artisan so he may not be completely objective although I've found him to be pretty honest. This camera is certainly light years ahead of the A7mk2 overall , and appears to be a fantastic value for what you get. It'll be interesting to see how the noise, and dynamic range test out on the various sites. I was actually waiting for this camera, but got impatient, and got the A7R3, although I'm glad I did at this point.

I use VSGO swabs and AERO-CLIPSE cleaning solution, and have found the combination very good. You need to put your sensor into it's locked down cleaning mode if you have ibis. If you haven't done this before you might like to go with what Ed suggested to start with because it may do the trick without a wet cleaning. In any event follow the camera makers instructions, and what comes with your cleaning fluid.

Yeah it is a little sad, because it's tough getting inspired by little figurines. I once had a fairly creative mind, but less so in recent years. The fact is I'd much prefer to be taking pictures of spring Landscapes, and Architecture because I hate winter scenes or anything related to winter.

To get outside, and start shooting with my new A7R3. This grey, dull, cold, weather is just so damn depressing I wonder if it will end. Ideally I should be creating little still life's which I've done in the past, but truth be told I'm fresh out of ideas, and little figurines to take pictures of. Anyone have some ideas?

I read somewhere that Sigma is coming out with some lenses for Sony E mount mirrorless. I wonder how well they'll work compared with the Sony glass.

I remember from my film days that over the course of a few years cameras would often have brass shining through in places wear took place. I kind of liked the look myself, but never got to the point with any of my cameras because I took good care care of them. Interior decorators seem very fond of old, or distressed wood as well, it's a thing. That got me to wondering what an older, and not so nicely treated A7RMK whatever might look like, and whether or not it will have the same charm. As I mentioned before, I'm unlikely to find out myself, but perhaps some of the more abusive among us might have some pictures of same. ;)

I would never agitate a dslr user as I was one myself, and know the limitations of human tolerance. ;)

Yeah you're right, but that's what happens with GAS. I truly hope this is the last of it for a while.

I don't know Nick, I've seen some pretty impressive prices on cameras without it. ;)

I agree Ed. I've always thought that digital had more of a you are there, hyperreal, appearance, whereas film was like an artistic interpretation of the actual time, person, or place, with a certain distance between the viewer, and subject. I like both equally for different reasons, but let's face it, digital is so much less hassle to deal with.

Thanks ilkka-nissila, that's interesting. Is having a backlit sensor something that can be turned to improved iso, or is it something they're all using to get faster reading?