ff or crop

RKC

Messages
4,335
Name
Bob
Edit My Images
Yes
I know crop sensor gives the extra reach, just curious how many of you use full frame camera for wildlife
 
Full frame for me Bob due to the IQ and the better high ISO output. Currently a Canon 1dx.

However............

I have recently got a Nikon D500 for underwater work, and have been very impressed with it - certainly no issues at web presentation size. Not used it at high ISO (3200 plus) but have some internet mates who have done so very successfully, making me seriously think about changing.

Never liked my old Canon 7d2 in tough situations, so as much as I hate Canon v Nikon v Olympus v Sony etc if I was going to go back to crop I'd avoid Canon for my style of shooting

When you get into the technical side of things, the 'extra reach' becomes less of an issue but it needs someone better educated than me to explain it - all I know is I didn't find the 'reach' to be anything like 1.6x in reality

Mike
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RKC
I know crop sensor gives the extra reach, just curious how many of you use full frame camera for wildlife

Depends on the FF sensor and crop sensor you are comparing really. The A7RIV gives as much or more digital reach than most crop bodies bar the 90D/M6ii.

I use FF for wildlife
 
  • Like
Reactions: RKC
Ahhh, the eternal question,

I switched from crop to FF just over 2 years ago, and I've not really missed the reach that much. If you're too far away, you're too far away. Even when shooting with a crop sensor, you have to be as near to wildlife subjects as makes no difference in my experience.

That said, a bit of extra reach isn't a bad thing. I have recently bought a 2x converter to make the most of my 300L f4 in the main but other lenses too.

It's swings and roundabouts really but the better image quality and better ISO performance of FF should give you more cropability but there are limits and it depends mainly on nailing the focus and exposing correctly to get the best out of a FF sensor. This apples to crop too of course but you're likely to be cropping less.

I say I've not missed the extra reach of a crop sensor because it has been offset by the extra image quality ( I switched from a noisy 7D to a 5Div, the difference is literally night and day) of the full frame sensor, which to me was the more important factor. I was pretty fed up with the 7D and maybe I was biased as a result but the leap in IQ was significant. You can't really compare a 7D (mk1) to a 5Div though, as they are different generations of sensor, processor etc. Modern day crop sensors are very good but IME, FF still has the edge when it comes to IQ, which for me is the governing factor.
 
I use a Nikon D500 and D850 and for what it's worth, I tend to reach (no pun itended) for the D500 most of the time. It just suits my personal needs for Wildlife/BIF, which is all I shoot. Both are great camera's, but the extra reach on the D500, just edges it for me.

I agree with Dale, that there is no substitute for getting close to your target, but that's not possible/practical, much of the time. The D500 comes in to its own in those circumstances and it also copes very well with high ISO...................and it costs a lot less!!


.
 
Thank you for the replies, I dont do nothing like the amount of nature I used too which is why I was thinking about moving to full frame, when I do nature these days it has become more about getting closer as there is no substitute but was curious about full frame when situations mean just cant get any closer, Curretly use 70d thenking seriously about 5div.
Sort of get the feeling it woulld be ok
 
Thank you for the replies, I dont do nothing like the amount of nature I used too which is why I was thinking about moving to full frame, when I do nature these days it has become more about getting closer as there is no substitute but was curious about full frame when situations mean just cant get any closer, Curretly use 70d thenking seriously about 5div.
Sort of get the feeling it woulld be ok

Well if you are not too heavily invested in glass one of the higher MP FF bodies from Nikon or Sony will give you the same reach as 70D with better IQ than 5D4. So you don't have to sacrifice reach for quality. These bodies also don't cost much more than 5D4 and in some cases they cost lot less.
 
Last edited:
Or you could go MFT and double your reach (y)
 
I use FF for low light capability (D5) and for large display/print capability (D850)... if you don't really need either of those things stick with a crop body; it's cheaper and more than adequate for most.
How does it give you “extra reach”?
It doesn't really, it just crops the image for you...
 
Last edited:
How does it give you “extra reach”?

Gives you extra digital reach i.e. more pixels or resolution.
This topic normally goes down a the lens resolution powers and all sorts of equivalence arguments so I try to avoid it lol
Then we'll have the "how many pixels is enough pixels" with someone claiming they printed a wall poster of a cheetah with from a 3.2mp cybershot.

In the end for best results for wildlife and birds it's best to work on getting close to them, followed by optical reach and then digital reach to help a little bit more.
 
Last edited:
Gives you extra digital reach i.e. more pixels or resolution.
This topic normally goes down a the lens resolution powers and all sorts of equivalence arguments so I try to avoid it lol
Then we'll have the "how many pixels is enough pixels" with someone claiming they printed a wall poster of a cheetah with from a 3.2mp cybershot.

In the end for best results for wildlife and birds it's best to work on getting close to them, followed by optical reach and then digital reach to help a little bit more.
I always think of digital reach as digital zoom, a pointless function imo, but, thats not what a crop camera gives you.
 
Gives you extra digital reach i.e. more pixels or resolution.
This topic normally goes down a the lens resolution powers and all sorts of equivalence arguments so I try to avoid it lol
Then we'll have the "how many pixels is enough pixels" with someone claiming they printed a wall poster of a cheetah with from a 3.2mp cybershot.

In the end for best results for wildlife and birds it's best to work on getting close to them, followed by optical reach and then digital reach to help a little bit more.

All using a crop sensor vs a FF sensor does (assuming the same focal length) is reduce the field of view.
 
I always think of digital reach as digital zoom, a pointless function imo, but, thats not what a crop camera gives you.

It's the same really.

The highest MP m43 is 20mp. The longest lens available is 100-400mm which gives 800mm equivalent FoV at 20mp resolution.

The 90D has 32mp sensor. A 100-400mm on this body give you 600mm equivalent FoV at 32mp. Crop it down to m43 equivalent i.e. 20mp and you get the 800mm equivalent FoV at 20mp resolution.

So what you have really saved on here is the size.

But on 90D you can also get 600mm lenses cheap enough. These give you 900mm equivalent FoV at 32mp or crop down to 1200mm FoV at 20mp i.e. current max resolution you can get on m43.

But not all pixels are made equal. The quality of them does depend on the glass used.
 
All using a crop sensor vs a FF sensor does (assuming the same focal length) is reduce the field of view.
Indeed I don't disagree. But crop sensors tend to (not always) give you more resolution as they are more pixel dense.
 
Indeed I don't disagree. But crop sensors tend to (not always) give you more resolution as they are more pixel dense.

Well, by my reckoning, you’ll need the Sony A7R IV to get a higher pixel density FF sensor than the current crop of APS-C sensors (which are about 24 MP) - assuming I’ve read the specs properly


“Nikon D7200 has a pixel density of 6.62 MP/cm²”
“Fujifilm X-T3 has a pixel density of 7.13 MP/cm²”

“Canon 5DS has a pixel density of 5.86 MP/cm²”
“Sony a7R IV has a pixel density of 7.18 MP/cm²”
 
Well, by my reckoning, you’ll need the Sony A7R IV to get a higher pixel density FF sensor than the current crop of APS-C sensors (which are about 24 MP) - assuming I’ve read the specs properly


“Nikon D7200 has a pixel density of 6.62 MP/cm²”
“Fujifilm X-T3 has a pixel density of 7.13 MP/cm²”

“Canon 5DS has a pixel density of 5.86 MP/cm²”
“Sony a7R IV has a pixel density of 7.18 MP/cm²”
And that's exactly what I have.

But as I said above nothing beats physically getting closer to your subject i.e. the wildlife followed by greater optical reach and better lenses.

I can see that my telezoom doesn't resolve 61mp as well as it did on the 42mp. So the net increase in details isn't as great as you'd think while there is still a nice bump. Of course buying the 400mm or 600mm tele-primes would change that but I can probably never afford those.
 
I can see that my telezoom doesn't resolve 61mp as well as it did on the 42mp. So the net increase in details isn't as great as you'd think while there is still a nice bump. Of course buying the 400mm or 600mm tele-primes would change that but I can probably never afford those.
If I compare the 21mp D5 to the 20MP D500 (Nikon's current best wildlife cameras) with the Nikon 500/4 G lens, the lens delivers 15MP on the D5 and 8MP on the D500... which is almost exactly the resolution of a D5 DX crop (~7MP resolution remaining from 15/16MP recorded on the full frame).
The Nikon 600/4 G delivers 16MP and 9MP respectively. So the D500 delivers ~ 1.5MP more than a D5 DX crop, which is negligible; especially when you consider those are bench test results, not field results... it is a lot harder to resolve to the smaller pixels in the field when things are not in your favor.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top