do you think i should buy the nikon d610?

heartyfisher

Can you tell us why you think the D3300 is not sharp enough.. for you? Is it just from looking at the DXO numbers ? Or do you have an application that needs more MP?

I have the D70, S5pro, D7000, D7200 and D610. and The V1 and J5(and others LOL). I have been very satisfied with the MP from all those cameras. 5 of which have less MP than the D3300. The Lowest MP of my set of cameras is the D70 which has 6MP with AA filter... And that has been more than enough. MP was not the reason I upgraded. Of course, if you do need more MP then well and good but from your Posts so far I am not certain that is the case. What is your primary interest/subject that you shoot? And how do you view your images. eg: do you intend to print large?

What I am suggesting is that, you may not need to spend money on a new camera and lense. Ie you may be able to save some money! Maybe all you need is a new lense? or maybe spend time learning techniques and having fun shooting on Photo trips with with Photographer friends.

PS: One more thing. The MP on the DXO Site(AKA PMP) is a MEASURE of sharpness, its not real MP. I like it a lot (some dont, its the nerd in me :-) ) but, its a mixture of several factors that is not only sensor size CX/DX/FX but also the lense and lense settings(Aperture/Focal length) and the ISO settings and quite a few other factors!. So eg: an image taken with My D70 can have heaps more PMP than an image taken with my D610, depending on the conditions and techniques I use. Just saying.

Pistnbroke

You cannot compare DX to FX directly on DXO .What I do is to multiply the MP figure for the DX lens by 1.5 to get parity with the FX . ( or an FX lens on a DX camera) You will find a lens stated as say 15MP when on FX is quoted as 10MP on a DX body.
You cannot in my world take a sharp FX lens and then put it on DX and say its not sharp ...of course it is over that DX sensor ..it does not know what camera it is on.
If you think changing to FX will make your images sharper you are wrong ...if that was true all my D7100 images mixed in with the D810 images would stand out as lower image quality.
Increasing the number of MP from 16 to 24 improves the quality as does removing the LPF or getting a better lens or adjusting the fine focus adjust or good PP.....
But with photography you do what makes you happy and fits your philosophy of life.
If you are happy with a Ford that's fine ,others are not and drive a BMW.

matanpollak

My Common sense is, the amount of light that comes out of any FX lens on DX sensor is partly because of the size of the opening of  FX lens that is larger than the DX Sensor, so not all the glass in the lens is used which causes a decrease in the quality of information.
i think that is why there a two type of lenses.
but i accept your words.

heartyfisher

@matanpollak "so not all the glass in the lens is used"
That is not a correct deduction. ALL of the glass surface of an FX lense is used for either FX or DX or CX sensor surface areas. In fact due to lense aberrations, the FX surface Image quality can, and often do, at the edges degrade. Thus, there is a saying that the DX cameras uses the "sweet spot" of the lense. There are several lenses that dont "perform" as well on FX compared to using it on DX. The same is true for using some DX lenses on CX cameras. Some DX lenses are known to be "ordinary" on DX but perform quite well on CX. The same can be said for FX lenses on DX. The first version of the 70-200 F2.8 is known to be such a lense.

@matanpollak I am still interested in "What is your primary interest/subject that you shoot? And how do you view your images. eg: do you intend to print large?" This information will help us respond more appropriately to your query and give you better answers.

Pistnbroke

The same amount of light falls on a 24x 15 area if that area is inside a DX or an FX camera.
If not all the glass was used then an f4 FX lens on a DX would be less than F4 ie 5.6 which is not true.
This camera decision stuff is not easy in the end you have to take a view and pay up the $$$ then live with it ....like the Ford

WestEndFoto

OK, not technically correct, but matanpollak is on to something. Due to diffraction, you can think of a lens as having a maximum resolution “by surface area”. Of course, this increases as f-stop increases – but is really the same thing as “surface area” increases as f-stop goes down. Surface area would be (focal length divide by f-stop) squared times pie times ¼.

Now an FX lens has about double or slightly more than double the surface area of a DX lens, so all things being equal, the resolution will increase by about double. And an FX sensor attached to a DX lens that is only using half the image circle will only have half the resolution.

That is why, regarding IQ, medium format is superior to FX (though I don’t think medium format manufacturers are pushing the engineering as much as Canon or Nikon so the “laws of physics” advantage is not fully exploited currently) and why an Iphone will never compete with even a DX system. One may argue that a new system will be invented that allows an Iphone to compete (say multiple lens attached to a supercomputer), but you could use the same technique in a full frame format, so that would benefit all formats equally, not close the gap.

matanpollak

@heartyfisher most of the stuff are stay in the computer but i am also print the photo. And i shoot urban stuff it can be everything on the street, and landscape and nature..

heartyfisher

@WestEndFoto Maths has not been My strong suite so it may be me.. but you lost me in the first paragraph.. LOL !

The second Paragraph.. "FX lens has about double or slightly more than double the surface area of a DX lens" ... Are you talking about the Image circle ? I cant see how Image circle has anything to do with resolution, FX or DX or CX. A magnifying glass has a a huge image circle. but can have very low/or high resolution depends if its made well or not.

WestEndFoto

I am talking about diffraction, which is a hard limit restrained by the laws of physics. Well made lenses can't get you past that. I am saying that no amount of engineering will get a IPhone lens to outperform a DX lens.

By area, I am talking about the area that you see if someone takes your picture.

Pistnbroke

If someone asks if they should do or use something they have usually already made up there mind and want confirmation. If they don't get that they defend there decision.
Just humane nature ...If its street scenes and landscapes then yes FX is better. There is no 10mm lens on DX IMHO that is as good as a 15mm designed for FX. Add to that the items in the image are bigger on the sensor with FX. For me the best lens for your $$ is the Samyang 14mm which if you read DXO uses 27 of the 36 MP on an 810. (19mp of the 24 on the 610)
A lot of your sharpness comes from the post processing or if you shoot jpeg you need to look at the Picture controls remembering that all Nikons come out the factory "soft"
Your D3300 has the disadvantage of no fine focus adjust so that will be a big + with any FX body

heartyfisher

@Pistnbroke What you say makes sense (as always.. ;-) ) but his first fx lense is going to be a 70-200. which contradicts the "Wide" angle you are approaching this... so I am still confused :-)

Still the D610 is the Nikon camera that is most due for an update. Although its a darn good kit !!