Cropping Confusion.

Dale.

Dale.

Bo Derek
Moderator
Messages
11,983
Name
Dale.
Edit My Images
Yes
Just some thoughts on cropping, as I don't really know any better, certainly when it comes to the Canon 5DS.

I have a 5Div, 31 megapixels of joy, I love it. There's a but though. This may be me asking too much and probably is but I've been working with some kingfishers lately and have managed to get within about 25 feet of 2 of them regularly. This is me using the 'perches' that the KFs use naturally, I've not intoduced any yet, so it's up to me to get as close as I can without spooking the birds. I will be introducing perches closer which will help. You can imagine though, a kingfisher, at upto 50 feet or so away at times, is going to be pretty small in the frame, even at 25 feet, on a 30MP full frame camera, maybe 10% of the frame at best, I'm guessing a lot less. Here's the but and in honesty, just a thought at the moment. I've wanted a back up to my 5D for sometime now, I've been tempted by the M series but decided against that and now I'm thinking a DSLR, maybe the 90D but I cant help think about the 5DS.

My confusion comes with this, whilst the 5Div gives very detailed iamges, it still has it's limits. Could I really expect to crop more out of the 5DS?

The best plan is to get closer to the kingfisher of course, or now actually to get the kingfisher closer to me by introducing perches rather than a hide. The kingfisher will get used to new perches quicker than a hide, possibly immediately to perches.

A silly plan maybe but I do need a back up, especially for hide use, it's not a question of GAS but the question is worth the ask, is it feasable to crop more out of a 50 megapixel image than a 30 megapixel image at any given distance?

TIA.
 
Yes
 
Based on my experience with the 5DSLR, any increased 'cropability' is going to depend on the lens, the level of stability and very definitely the iso setting.

There are very few lenses that can get close to the required resolution to allow you to benefit from perceived increase in 'cropability' (31/51).
Stability becomes everything unless your shutter speed is in the gods.
'Cropability' is inversely affected by iso and I suspect that you'd need to be down at 400 or even 200 if you're not going to suffer from noise correction softening.

Bob
 
admirable said:
Yes
Click to expand...

Thank you. (y)


Canon Bob said:
Based on my experience with the 5DSLR, any increased 'cropability' is going to depend on the lens, the level of stability and very definitely the iso setting.

There are very few lenses that can get close to the required resolution to allow you to benefit from perceived increase in 'cropability' (31/51).
Stability becomes everything unless your shutter speed is in the gods.
'Cropability' is inversely affected by iso and I suspect that you'd need to be down at 400 or even 200 if you're not going to suffer from noise correction softening.

Bob
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree about the light. I was at ISO 3200 at times with the KF last time and still maxing at 1/400sec, the light was pretty poor. That said, the 5Div was very clean at that ISO. I did also notice, despite being on a gimballed tripod and nailing the focus, there was still movement when I pressed the shutter. In the end, I switched to a 2 second timer and the KF did oblige, even for that.

So anything above 400 iso is going to introduce some 'mush' to the subject?

:)
 
Don't want to start a brand was here but 5DSR isn't the greatest at high ISOs. Cropping will make the issue worst.
If high res body is what you are after I suggest wait for the next high res body or go for something from another brand.
 
nandbytes said:
Don't want to start a brand was here but 5DSR isn't the greatest at high ISOs. Cropping will make the issue worst.
If high res body is what you are after I suggest wait for the next high res body or go for something from another brand.
Click to expand...


Thanks.

I'd heard the DS (and the DSR) can be noisy, so that's a consideration for sure. Rumours are stating that Canon will be bringing out a high res, ff mirrorless body soon, I'd read possibly 80meg o_O, so it may be worth waiting for. When, if and how much spring to mind though.

I have no brand preference, I just happen to be Canon as I have a lot invested in Canon glass. I would say, I don't fancy trading it all in.
 
Canon Bob said:
If you were shooting cars, planes or buildings then you'd not be too troubled but feather detail is a whole different level to preserve.
Click to expand...


Awesome, thank you.

I did notice the same thing with some short eared owls last year.
 
That's a fair point. Since you mention kingfishers they are one of the hardest birds I have found to shoot in terms of getting and preserving the feather details.

Few examples here and if you scroll a little below you can see another post from me as a reference to see how much I have cropped!
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...-else-welcome-mega-thread.511885/post-8533556

All those are between ISO3200-6400! Cleans up nicely :)

Edit:
Point is having a high res body is definitely of great help but unless you have really fast glass like a 600mm f4 with 1.4x you will need good ISO performance too.
 
Last edited:
Dale. said:
You can imagine though, a kingfisher, at upto 50 feet or so away at times, is going to be pretty small in the frame, even at 25 feet, on a 30MP full frame camera, maybe 10% of the frame at best, I'm guessing a lot less.
Click to expand...
How much of the frame it fills is dependant on focal length, for small birds at a moderate distance you need long telephotos.
My longest 'lens' would probably fill the frame with a kingfisher at 50' -it's optical quality isn't good & it's horribly slow (f/64 at full zoom) so the results would be unusable.
Even on a 6MP body I soon found cropping with this lens was no worse than zooming in (even zoomed right out at 1000mm it's f/16 so seeing the effects of diffraction).

If the lens is producing a sharp enough image you can crop a 50MP image more than a 30MP one, but if you've only got a budget lens your body may well be out resolving the lens already.
 
I have found, no matter what brand of body/lenses I have had, unless the subject fills the frame by at least 50%, you are going to be struggling. Also, noise has a big negative effect when cropping.
 
nandbytes said:
That's a fair point. Since you mention kingfishers they are one of the hardest birds I have found to shoot in terms of getting and preserving the feather details.

Few examples here and if you scroll a little below you can see another post from me as a reference to see how much I have cropped!
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...-else-welcome-mega-thread.511885/post-8533556

All those are between ISO3200-6400! Cleans up nicely :)

Edit:
Point is having a high res body is definitely of great help but unless you have really fast glass like a 600mm f4 with 1.4x you will need good ISO performance too.
Click to expand...
Petrochemist said:
How much of the frame it fills is dependant on focal length, for small birds at a moderate distance you need long telephotos.
My longest 'lens' would probably fill the frame with a kingfisher at 50' -it's optical quality isn't good & it's horribly slow (f/64 at full zoom) so the results would be unusable.
Even on a 6MP body I soon found cropping with this lens was no worse than zooming in (even zoomed right out at 1000mm it's f/16 so seeing the effects of diffraction).

If the lens is producing a sharp enough image you can crop a 50MP image more than a 30MP one, but if you've only got a budget lens your body may well be out resolving the lens already.
Click to expand...
swanseamale47 said:
The 5d4 is better at high iso than the 5ds.
Click to expand...
Jelster said:
I have found, no matter what brand of body/lenses I have had, unless the subject fills the frame by at least 50%, you are going to be struggling. Also, noise has a big negative effect when cropping.
Click to expand...


Thanks. (y)

I'm nowhere near 50% of the frame currently but I am working on that.
 
I've always cropped when it gives me the picture I want. Technical quality is unimportant next to showing what I want to show. Some really tight crops that I like...

Sony HX90 8GB H06 DSC00169.JPG

Sony HX90 8GB 01 DSC01381.JPG

Panasonic G9 8GB 06 P1010829.JPG
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I've always cropped when it gives me the picture I want. Technical quality is unimportant next to showing what I want to show. Some really tight crops that I like...
Click to expand...

I think some people are fussier than others. Bird shots aren't my thing but I took some pictures of a robin a few months ago and had to crop to between 70-100% and I'm reasonably happy but as we're seen above some want to get the subject to fill 50% of the frame before they crop. That's a pretty high target for bird shots isn't it?
 
woof woof said:
That's a pretty high target for bird shots isn't it?
Click to expand...
I'd have thought so. The old time bird photographers like Eric Hosking were often limited to a standard lens on a plate camera. I'd be surprised if they didn't have the enlarger at the top of its column pretty much all of the time.
 
woof woof said:
I think some people are fussier than others. Bird shots aren't my thing but I took some pictures of a robin a few months ago and had to crop to between 70-100% and I'm reasonably happy but as we're seen above some want to get the subject to fill 50% of the frame before they crop. That's a pretty high target for bird shots isn't it?
Click to expand...
Really depends on the "frame" i.e. the number of pixels, density (sensor dependant) and quality of them (lens dependant)
 
And it'll depend on the lighting of course.

I still think filling 50% of the frame is maybe a bit hopeful.
 
im a nikon user and use the nikon 200-500 f5.6 with a 1.4tc brilliant combo on my nikon d500
 
I also have a Sigma 150-600C and I find it far better than my previous Sigma long telephoto lens. The Canon 500L and the 600L are no doubt better in every way including cropping but they cost considerably more. In decent conditions the Sigma is very good but probably not up to heavy cropping on high res cameras.
Bird photography is unfortunately at the high cost end of photography.
 
Last edited:
Dale, just a thought, can you get the camera physically closer on a tripod and then shoot remotely? It's something I want to try and do in the garden as I just can't get a decent shot of 3 birds that visit regularly (Wren, Coal Tit & LTT).

With Fuji, the app is great as I can see what the camera can see, but I'm not sure how long I will need to leave the set up in place before the birds are comfortable.
 
Brentor said:
I also have a Sigma 150-600C and I find it far better than my previous Sigma long telephoto lens. The Canon 500L and the 600L are no doubt better in ever way including cropping but they cost considerably more. In decent conditions the Sigma is very good but probably not up to heavy cropping on high res cameras.
Bird photography is unfortunately at the high cost end of photography.
Click to expand...

Exactly this, I would love to have the 600L, maybe one day.


Jelster said:
Dale, just a thought, can you get the camera physically closer on a tripod and then shoot remotely? It's something I want to try and do in the garden as I just can't get a decent shot of 3 birds that visit regularly (Wren, Coal Tit & LTT).

With Fuji, the app is great as I can see what the camera can see, but I'm not sure how long I will need to leave the set up in place before the birds are comfortable.
Click to expand...

I have considered this, the 5Div can be remotely controlled with an app too. I've done it with my Fuji previosuly, though not wildlife. (y)

Is 50% of the frame the given minimum figure? I'm nowhere near that, I'm guessing my kingfisher was about 8% of the frame at its closest. :snaphappy:

Could be another schoool day this.
 
nandbytes said:
I wouldn't take that too literally, as I mentioned above it depends on various factors :)
Click to expand...


I will work on getting closer though. It's still early days with this bird too but it seems quite comfortable with me being there, it knows. I must still be 20-25 feet away from it. With all this in mind now, and seeing some tiny camera movement through the viewfinder handlheld, I think I should be reaonably happy with the results I got after cropping.

I get the feeling now, that better glass would give better results than more MP.
 
Last edited:
I've dug this quote from one of my posts in 2007 and you might get some appreciation of the distance versus focal length that you're aiming for if you put your kingfisher's dimensions into the equation......

Going on a shoot and need to know what focal length is required?
How far away will you be from your subject....Distance
How wide is your subject (frame).................Width
What size is my sensor...............................Sensor

The focal length required will be obtained by using the following equation;
(Distance / Width) x sensor size = required focal length
********************************************************************************************
Example 1.....you're going to shoot motor sport. You expect to be 45 metres from the track and want to get close-ups of the cars.....a 5 metre frame width (car + a little bit of background)...and you're using a Canon crop body.

Your required lens would be....(45 / 5) x 22.5mm = 202.5mm
********************************************************************************************
Example 2.....you're out to catch a bluetit. You expect to be 4 metres from the birdie and want a 15cm frame width.
Your required focal length would be...(4 / 0.15) x 22.5 = 600mm

(If you're using a full frame camera then substitute 35.8mm in place of the 22.5mm in the above equations)

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
I've dug this quote from one of my posts in 2007 and you might get some appreciation of the distance versus focal length that you're aiming for if you put your kingfisher's dimensions into the equation......

Going on a shoot and need to know what focal length is required?
How far away will you be from your subject....Distance
How wide is your subject (frame).................Width
What size is my sensor...............................Sensor

The focal length required will be obtained by using the following equation;
(Distance / Width) x sensor size = required focal length
********************************************************************************************
Example 1.....you're going to shoot motor sport. You expect to be 45 metres from the track and want to get close-ups of the cars.....a 5 metre frame width (car + a little bit of background)...and you're using a Canon crop body.

Your required lens would be....(45 / 5) x 22.5mm = 202.5mm
********************************************************************************************
Example 2.....you're out to catch a bluetit. You expect to be 4 metres from the birdie and want a 15cm frame width.
Your required focal length would be...(4 / 0.15) x 22.5 = 600mm

(If you're using a full frame camera then substitute 35.8mm in place of the 22.5mm in the above equations)

Bob
Click to expand...


Awesome, thanks for that, very helpful. (y)
 
Dale. said:
I will work on getting closer though. It's still early days with this bird too but it seems quite comfortable with me being there, it knows. I must still be 20-25 feet away from it. With all this in mind now, and seeing some tiny camera movement through the viewfinder handlheld, I think I should be resonably happy with the results I got after cropping.

I get the feeling now, that better glass would give better results than more MP.
Click to expand...

Not a KF i know, but when I was shooting some fungi in the garden laying under the apple tree, I could hear the birds above me, both in the tree and on the feeders. It doesn't take too long for them to get used to you, as long as you're careful how you move. I am aware that KF's can be pretty nervous at times, but then I have had them sit on the end of a fishing rod before.
 
Jelster said:
Not a KF i know, but when I was shooting some fungi in the garden laying under the apple tree, I could hear the birds above me, both in the tree and on the feeders. It doesn't take too long for them to get used to you, as long as you're careful how you move. I am aware that KF's can be pretty nervous at times, but then I have had them sit on the end of a fishing rod before.
Click to expand...


I have quite a few kingfisher 'sites' now, some are more fruitful than others but 2 in particular have come good recently. The more time I spend with them, the more forgiving they get. Both mentioned KFs are currently about 20 feet or so from me, they watch me but carry on with their business as if I'm not there most of the time. I have to work on getting closer, I may break out the pop up hide this week.

Regarding lenses, I bought the Sigma last January, for the money, it has blown me away. I also have the 100-400L (mk1) which was my main wildlife lens until I got the Sigma. I really can't split the 2, they are good, for what they are. I also have a 300Lf4. Now if I had the 600, maybe I could decide. ;):LOL:
 
Last edited:
Dale. said:
I have quite a few kingfisher 'sites' now, some are more fruitful than others but 2 in particular have come good recently. The more time I spend with them, the more forgiving they get. Both mentioned KFs are currently about 20 feet or so from me, they watch me but carry on with their business as if I'm not there most of the time. I have to work on getting closer, I may break out the pop up hide this week.

Regarding lenses, I bought the Sigma last January, for the money, it has blown me away. I also have the 100-400L (mk1) which was my main wildlife lens until I got the Sigma. I really can't split the 2, they are good, for what they are. I also have a 300Lf4. Now if I had the 600, maybe I could decide. ;):LOL:
Click to expand...
Better to have one good lens than than two bad ones (not that the two you mentioned are bad but there are better ones).
I suggest selling/trading both to fund one 150-600mm 'S'.
 
nandbytes said:
Better to have one good lens than than two bad ones (not that the two you mentioned are bad but there are better ones).
I suggest selling/trading both to fund one 150-600mm 'S'.
Click to expand...

Is the S really that much better than the C? I'm not at all familiar with the S.

:)
 
Thanks for that.

I will work on getting closer for now but I wouldn't rule out a possible glass upgrade in the future as oppossed to a high res body purchase.

The 400 DO isn't scary money second hand either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top