I know crop sensor gives the extra reach, just curious how many of you use full frame camera for wildlife
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
I know crop sensor gives the extra reach, just curious how many of you use full frame camera for wildlife
It doesn't really, it just crops the image for you...How does it give you “extra reach”?
How does it give you “extra reach”?
Or you could go MFT and double your reach
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.
It does, but without reducing MP.It doesn't really, it just crops the image for 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.
MP's seldom matter... what matters is light/light per area, and actual recorded resolution.It does, but without reducing MP.
I always think of digital reach as digital zoom, a pointless function imo, but, thats not what a crop camera gives you.
Indeed I don't disagree. But crop sensors tend to (not always) give you more resolution as they are more pixel dense.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.
And that's exactly what I have.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”
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).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.