"Reach" 1D3 vs 30D vs 40D vs 50D

Messages
6,526
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
No
#1
I thought that as a change from the usual complaints about the noise problems with the 50D I'd like to illustrate an example of its strengths. As I've said before, its main strength lies in pulling out detail from a well illuminated subject with relatively little movement from subject or camera. As light levels drop or movement increases dramatically the 50D's advantages do disappear, either because noise does take its toll on IQ, thus harming fine details, or because blur/shake take their toll in absolute sharpness, thus negating the resolution advantage.

I shot the same subject in the same lighting with the same lens and settings and at the same distance with my 1D3, 30D, 40D and 50D. While we can all do the maths on which offers more "reach", I think these 100% crops make the advantages the 50D offers all the more tangible. While I love my 1D3 for shooting fast action and in poor light, given good light, a stable platform and a sedentary subject the 50D walks all over it.

The point about all this is that no one camera is best for everything. Each has its strengths and weaknesses.

50D - great for pulling out the maximum detail at low ISOs if you have good control of subject movement and camera shake. It has the strongest feature set to maximise sharpness and detail. If you need high ISO and low noise then shoot in sraw1 and you will still have slightly higher pixel density than the 1D3.
1D3 - great for tracking high speed action, capturing the perfect moment and keeping noise low at high ISOs. The larger pixels will help conceal effects of misfocus or shake/blur. The sacrifice is a significant loss of detail/reach.
40D - a very nice compromise between the two extremes above.

So, very simply, pick the camera that is best for your needs and pocket. I like shooting with the 1D3 and 50D as a combo. The 50D is great for the tripod and static shooting. The 1D3 is great for tracking BIF. Of course, the 50D can do BIF well, also, but it is best reserved for use in good light. I prefer to go no higher than 400 ISO for birds that are small in the frame. If I can fill the frame then higher ISOs are absolutely fine.

The sequence below is 1D3, 30D, 40D, 50D.

 
OP
OP
tdodd
Messages
6,526
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
No
#3
Nice comparison.
What did you do? Superglue the bird' feet to the pole?
Hah! No. They seem to be quite happy just sitting around in early morning sunshine. I took a gamble that this fellow would stay put while I faffed about and the gamble paid off. As for superglue, not at this height....

 
Messages
980
Name
Dylan
Edit My Images
Yes
#4
Its clear to see that the extra megapixels really help out wit the crops, however i expected the FF to be much sharper.
 
OP
OP
tdodd
Messages
6,526
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
No
#6
The 1D3 is 10MP and thus has a much lower pixel density than the 50D. That is why its 100% crop has the subject looking so much smaller - there just aren't many pixels covering the subject. It would need 24MP to match the pixel density of the 50D. Even a 21MP 1Ds3 or 5D2 only has a pixel density equal to the 30D, so a 100% crop from either of those would look no bigger, and probably no better than the crop from the 30D, not at 100 ISO.

Be careful not to confuse sharpness with detail. The 1D3 image looks sharp - it is surely not soft or blurred - but all the details are smaller and merged together so you just can't see them so easily.

I actually ran a further test, to highlight difference in the resolved detail more clearly and to tighten up on the control of the test conditions. For this subsequent test I used text in a Word document of ever diminishing size to see at what point size it became impossible to read accurately. Here is a screen print of the test document....



JPEG artefacts have spoiled the IQ but you can easily see that the detail is there to be picked up by the cameras.

Here's what the whole test scene looks like as shot by the 50D....



Here are the 100% crops from the 1D3, 40D and 50D respectively. I did not bother with the 30D....



The smallest text in the centre goes from point sizes 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. At the top of the screen the point size is 14. To my eyes the 1D3 can only resolve text legibly from the 14 point line and larger. The 40D can manage 12 point size and the 50D is legible at 10 point size. Maybe your eyes will tell a different story but I am quite satisfied that the resolution advantage the 50D gives is real, given low ISO and a stable shooting platform.
 
Messages
23,089
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
#7
Interesting Tim (y)

But I wouldn't have said that the 50D image looked 50% better than the 40D, despite it's 50% more pixels. What lens/aperture did you use? Do you think you have possibly run out of lens definition there and that maybe one of Canon's super-primes would show the 50D to be even better?

Cheers for the tests :)
 
OP
OP
tdodd
Messages
6,526
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
No
#9
For the pictures of the bird I used my 100-400, stopped down to f/8, which in theory should just start edging into a level of diffraction which the 50D can pick up. For the pictures of the text I used my 85/1.8 prime, stopped down to f/7.1, which ought to be pretty sharp, unless I have a crap copy, which I doubt.

I don't see why you would expect the 50D images to look 50% "better" than the 40D. Why should they and what does 50% better even mean? The lens only projected the same amount of light onto the same area of sensor in each case. There were only so many photons to play with and each camera got the same share of photons dumped onto its sensor. The 50D simply divided the light into smaller chunks. Does a cake chopped up into 8 slices taste twice as satisfying as a cake chopped up into four? No. Does it have twice as many calories? No. I see no reason for the IQ of a 50D file to soar by 50% just because it has smaller pixels. There is still only so much light to spread around. If the 50D file looks as good as the 40D file when enlarged 22% more then that in itself is a worthy achievement. The enlargement factor for the 50D compared to the 1D3 is 55% greater. To achieve comparable IQ at an enlargement so much greater is a massive success.

The next question to ask is at exactly which ISO setting is the reach advantage outweighed by the problem of noise. Is it 200 ISO, 400 ISO, 800 ISO? I don't know the answer without further testing. My gut tells me that at 400 ISO there it will be touch and go and at 800 ISO the reach advantage will have disappeared. The caveat here is that this is for subjects and scenes with fine detail to be preserved. For things with large, smooth surfaces, like cars, there is little (no) fine detail to be preserved and a liberal dose of NR can easily take care of the noise.

Even when noise has nullified any advantage in reach, does there come a point where, at equivalent levels of magnification (100% is not equivalent across all bodies. You need to view the same portion of each image at the same physical size in inches/cm), the 50D files look worse? In my testing the simple answer is "No.". I have results from such testing in an album here - http://picasaweb.google.com/EezyTiger/1D340D50DISOTest#

To try and summarise this, the 50D is a superb camera for resolving fine detail and allowing greater image enlargement, when used with good lighting at low ISOs. It does offer more "reach". As the ISO increases the reach advantage begins to disappear as increasing noise limits the degree of enlargement you can apply while maintaining sufficient IQ.
 
Messages
5,463
Name
Andy Jones
Edit My Images
Yes
#10
Is pixel peeping the best way to compare? What about 10x8 prints from each - I suspect that would level the field out a bit, including the exaggerated noise issues of the 50D :thinking:

edit to add: by exaggerated noise issues I mean that the problem is exaggerated not the noise ;)
 
OP
OP
tdodd
Messages
6,526
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
No
#11
Is pixel peeping the best way to compare? What about 10x8 prints from each - I suspect that would level the field out a bit, including the exaggerated noise issues of the 50D :thinking:

edit to add: by exaggerated noise issues I mean that the problem is exaggerated not the noise ;)
Well, pixel peeping is where you tend to end up when you are struggling for "reach". Plenty of people seem to rely on 100% crops, or close to it, in order to get an image of adeqaute size, gven their limitation of focal length or distance to subject. Nobody is suggesting that that approach is a good one, but it serves some people. Also, if you do want to produce huge prints then checking IQ on screen at 100% may have some validity. You do need to enlarge, a lot, to see whether or not your "reach" advantage is real or pointless.

The album I linked to in my previous post is the best example I can think of for sharing images online where the comparison is as close to comparing a 10x8 print from each camera as possible. If all you want is 10x8 prints from each camera, without cropping, then the discussion does not appear to be one that tests "reach". That would be some other sort of test. Since even a 30D would have sufficient pixels to produce a 10x8 (10x6.7, more accurately) at 350 PPI that would prove very little, I think. Perhaps printing at 30x20 would be more telling.

But that in itself does raise another point - who actually prints larger than 12x8? From an uncropped 50D file that would be a print at 396 PPI. How many amongst us need a 15MP camera for regular photography? For many people, the only useful value the 50D brings is the ability to crop more and still print at 300 PPI. Other than that I think the value of 15MP is very questionable. It's really far more data than many of us need, or want. That is why sraw1 or even sraw2 is an attractive proposition for some types of shooting. Indeed, as wonderful as full frame might be, who needs 21MP, most of the time? I understand there are plenty of 5D2 shooters who are happy to shoot in sraw1 at 10MP. It's all they need.
 
OP
OP
tdodd
Messages
6,526
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
No
#12
Of course, if we forget about "reach" for a moment, and think about resolved detail, I can think of other examples where the 50D can push ahead of the pack....

Suppose you shoot landscapes, in good light, and can comfortably shoot at 100 ISO. So long as your glass and your DOF provide the necessary sharpness the 50D will capture just a little more definition in the surface of rocks, grains of sand and dirt, blades of grass or leaves on trees, allowing the potential for greater print sizes with more clarity.

How about you take a shot of a scene - perhaps a group of people - and see within that scene a nice capture of just one or two people. With sufficient resolution and IQ there is no reason not to crop in tight and get a second print from that one scene. Here's an example....

Full scene....


Crop to alternative composition....


Now, this was taken with my 1D3, which means I only ended up with 1715x1143 pixels after cropping. That means this might be good for a nice 6x4 print at almost 300 PPI, but it won't really go much larger. Had I shot this with my 50D, and kept the same composition for the original shot, the crop would have given me something like 2700x1800 pixels, good for a print up to 9x6, at 300 PPI, which would be far more impressive.
 
Messages
5,463
Name
Andy Jones
Edit My Images
Yes
#13
Now, this was taken with my 1D3, which means I only ended up with 1715x1143 pixels after cropping. That means this might be good for a nice 6x4 print at almost 300 PPI, but it won't really go much larger. Had I shot this with my 50D, and kept the same composition for the original shot, the crop would have given me something like 2700x1800 pixels, good for a print up to 9x6, at 300 PPI, which would be far more impressive.
Hmm, not sure about the maths there.

mk3 image width = 3888
50D image width = 4752

4752/3888 = 1.2222

If the image was composed the same then the 50D would have 1715 * 1.2222 = 2096 pixels for the print, about 7" @ 300dpi

If you include the crop factor then you can multiply by another 1.23 bringing it up to 2578 which is as near to 9" as makes no difference - but that's extra reach from the crop, not the pixel count.

I do see what you're saying about the 50D's capabilities but in real world terms I suspect 99% of people when presented with prints from each camera wouldn't see any difference in quality, they'd think they were all equally fantastic (y)
 
OP
OP
tdodd
Messages
6,526
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
No
#16
pxl8 - yep, you've caught me. My maths was based on using the same focal length and subject distance, even though I mentioned retaining the same framing, so my bad. :(

You are right - the multiplication factor should be 1.22X. However, if you are focal length limited then the multiplier goes up to 1.55X or so because the fewer pixels of the 1D3 are also spread over a much larger area of sensor. I see you addressed that point as well. :) You'd actually need 24MP on a 1D3 to match the pixel density of the 50D. On a full frame camera you'd need ~39MP to match the pixel density.

I do see what you're saying about the 50D's capabilities but in real world terms I suspect 99% of people when presented with prints from each camera wouldn't see any difference in quality, they'd think they were all equally fantastic (y)
Yes, for many people you are right, and for many people they simply do not need 15MP, or even 10MP, and quite honestly it seems stupid to me to end up with image files with grossly inlated sizes, wasting card space and disk space and taking longer to open, edit and process, only to see all that precious detail disappear as you convert to small prints or tiddly images for the web. Having shot weddings with all four cameras I can tell you now that, while the 1D3 is by far the best tool for that job, the 40D is the next best choice, at least for the indoor and evening segments when shooting at 1600 or 3200 ISO.

********

As a reminder, I started this thread to illustrate where the 50D can shine, just as a counter to all the whingeing naysayers (not necessarily in this forum) who can find nothing better to do than moan about the 50D's noisey pixels. But what we are looking at here is extremes of useage patterns and which cameras are best suited to those extremes. For high ISO performance the 1D3 wins hands down (from the four cameras tested here). For detail, given the right conditions, the 50D wins hands down. For more middle of the road needs, which most people probably have, any of these cameras will turn in an excellent result. All in all there is no such thing as a free lunch. You can have detail at low ISO and pay the price with noise at high ISO (50D), you can have low noise at high ISO, with relatively low detail at all ISOs (1D3), or you can make a compromise that achieves a balance between the two extremes, failing to be excellent at either extreme but being really rather good all round(40D).
 
Messages
3,759
Name
urrrm.... Matt
Edit My Images
Yes
#17
interesting reading
nice to see them compared with quality glass. otherwise it becomes quite moot I think.

soem food for thought here. I'd like to see them all run at 1600ISO and then the top of the laptop star wars esp words cropped in. however, computer screens are a bit weird for this I feel
 
Messages
2,231
Edit My Images
Yes
#18
soem food for thought here. I'd like to see them all run at 1600ISO and then the top of the laptop star wars esp words cropped in.
Yes, that would be an interesting test. Probably takes a while for the OP to set this up proper though.

Thanks to the OP for the tests so far.
 
OP
OP
tdodd
Messages
6,526
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
No
#20
interesting reading
nice to see them compared with quality glass. otherwise it becomes quite moot I think.

soem food for thought here. I'd like to see them all run at 1600ISO and then the top of the laptop star wars esp words cropped in. however, computer screens are a bit weird for this I feel
Yes, that would be an interesting test. Probably takes a while for the OP to set this up proper though.

Thanks to the OP for the tests so far.
I don't really want to turn this thread into a discussion about high ISO performance. I'm sure there are plenty enough threads on that topic already. If you look at the album I linked to earlier, you will see examples from the 1D3, 40D and 50D at all full stop ISO settings from 100 to 3200 ISO.

If you really, really, really want to see 100% crops from each then I can provide those, but I don't think it will teach us much that we don't already know - the 50D has noisier pixels than the 40D, which in turn has noisier pixels than the 1D3. At 1600 ISO you will not get good results from 100% crops. You can, however, get very good prints, if you frame your subject well (not a microscopic dot). The album above shows exactly how the cameras compare on a like for like basis for that sort of scenario.

You may get a better handle on the relative quality by viewing the album as a slideshow (removes the cluuter around the edges of the screen) and pressing F11 (opens the browser as a full screen window, maximising space to show the images). Here is the slideshow link - http://picasaweb.google.com/EezyTiger/1D340D50DISOTest#slideshow/5366817286003226034 - remember to press F11 to get into full screen mode and F11 again to return to a normal window.
 
Messages
3,759
Name
urrrm.... Matt
Edit My Images
Yes
#21
cheers
my main need with my 40D is low light, 1600ISO fast moving targets so I'm happy with it so far. a D700 would be nice but nevermind :p
I'm interested in the 60D/7D rumourmil, but it's very vague so far. I've been really impressed with the 50D results though in decent light with L glass...makes me itch for better glass for my kit :)
 
OP
OP
tdodd
Messages
6,526
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
No
#23
As a little treat for the pixel peepers I've uploaded full resolution JPEGs from three different ISO/noise/detail tests that I've performed since getting my 50D, and later my 1D3. All in all there are 68 image files representing various ISOs from 100-3200 and covering most raw and sraw formats from all four cameras. It's a lot to wade through, but if you are interested you can download the whole lot (285MB) from here....

http://rapidshare.de/files/48162004/tdodd.zip.html

Everything was shot raw and processed in DPP. WB was set for the prevailing lighting (either cloud, shade or tungsten for the samples included). Picture Style was set to Standard and Sharpening was set to 3. Noise reduction was left at DPP defaults, which means that NR was increased as the ISOs went up but the real test is to see how/whether the detail suffered as a result.
 
Messages
783
Edit My Images
Yes
#25
Great visual demonstration Tim :)

I have a 1D also but i've always used a 1.6 crop camera for subjects where it's not possible to get near enough to with the 1D. My findings have always been the same both "in the field" and direct tests.

Some people still refuse to believe this for some reason, though i think mainly the people who's type of photography doesn't put them in situations that calls for this.
 
Messages
23,089
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
#26
Thanks for taking the time Tim (y) I'm not sure about your slices of cake analogy, but no worries.

What would be really interesting would be to see how full frame would compare in there, bigger format but same-ish number of pixels, something like a 5D with a longer lens to compensate for reach. My guess is that it would come out top.

But I know that's another question entirely ;)
 
OP
OP
tdodd
Messages
6,526
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
No
#27
Hoppy, I think it's pretty straightforward. At 100 ISO the IQ from any of the cameras being discussed is excellent and, I think, not a deciding factor. So what it really boils down to, in terms of "reach", is how many pixels you can place on your subject. The pixel density of the 5D is incredibly low, compared to the rest of the bodies here. To match the 50D you'd not only need a focal length 1.6X longer but a little more than that to make up the pixel shortfall as well. You'd need a further factor of SQRT(15.1/12) = 1.122, so in all your lens would need to be 1.8X longer.

Since I was using a 400mm lens at f/8 you'd need a 720mm lens to match the pixel mapping count. Well, I guess you'd be looking at using something like a 500/4 and 1.4X teleconverter or perhaps a Sigmonster, or Sigma 800/5.6. So that's a bill of £5,260 for the Canon, £6,850 for the Sigmonster or £3,714 for a Sigma 800/5.6.

That's a steep bill to pay for broadly equivalent IQ, a slower framerate, no AF microadjustment, no Live View, no Live View AF etc. etc.. Then there's the small matter of bulk, weight and an adequate support system to consider. I'll stick with the 50D and 100-400 if I may ;)
 
Messages
23,089
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
#28
Hoppy, I think it's pretty straightforward... ...I'll stick with the 50D and 100-400 if I may ;)
LOL So would I! I decided some time ago that full frame makes no sense for me and what I like to do, pretty much regardless of cost.

But I would like to see how a money-no-object full frame outfit compared to the 50D with 400mm - say a Nikon D3 with 600mm f/4.

I'm thinking about a magazine review which compared the Sony A900 against a Canon 1Ds3 and a Mamiya medium format digital. The Sony and Canon were pretty similar, but the much bigger Mamiya sensor with roughly similar pixels frankly mugged them both on a detail crop - similar sharpness, but richer, smoother. Really much better.

It's largely academic I guess, but interesting ;)
 
OP
OP
tdodd
Messages
6,526
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
No
#29
But I would like to see how a money-no-object full frame outfit compared to the 50D with 400mm - say a Nikon D3 with 600mm f/4.
Sure, why not? But just to spice up the contest, let's agree that the kit must go through as carry-on luggage on a RyanAir flight and only handheld shooting is allowed when you get to your destination :nuts:
 
Messages
23,089
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
#30
Sure, why not? But just to spice up the contest, let's agree that the kit must go through as carry-on luggage on a RyanAir flight and only handheld shooting is allowed when you get to your destination :nuts:
That's it isn't it. People talk about upgrading to full frame, but the reality for long lens photography is just impossibly difficult. ID3's 1.3x crop is rather a good compromise in so many ways. Roll on the time when 1.6x crop has both the resolution and the noise/dynamic range of bigger pixels.
 
OP
OP
tdodd
Messages
6,526
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
No
#31
Here's one from today with 50D + 100-400 + Kenko 1.4X at 560mm, 1/400, f/8 (wide open), 100 ISO.

Original frame ( 896mm equivalent angle of view)....


50% crop (2,661mm equivalent angle of view)....


100% crop (5,322mm equivalent angle of view - now that's some reach!)


It is unfortunate that my glass exhibits some halation when used in this way, so I think the camera would be capable of better results with some decent optics.
 
Messages
10,310
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
Yes
#32
Hoppy, I think it's pretty straightforward. At 100 ISO the IQ from any of the cameras being discussed is excellent and, I think, not a deciding factor. So what it really boils down to, in terms of "reach", is how many pixels you can place on your subject. The pixel density of the 5D is incredibly low, compared to the rest of the bodies here. To match the 50D you'd not only need a focal length 1.6X longer but a little more than that to make up the pixel shortfall as well. You'd need a further factor of SQRT(15.1/12) = 1.122, so in all your lens would need to be 1.8X longer.

Since I was using a 400mm lens at f/8 you'd need a 720mm lens to match the pixel mapping count. Well, I guess you'd be looking at using something like a 500/4 and 1.4X teleconverter or perhaps a Sigmonster, or Sigma 800/5.6. So that's a bill of £5,260 for the Canon, £6,850 for the Sigmonster or £3,714 for a Sigma 800/5.6.

That's a steep bill to pay for broadly equivalent IQ, a slower framerate, no AF microadjustment, no Live View, no Live View AF etc. etc.. Then there's the small matter of bulk, weight and an adequate support system to consider. I'll stick with the 50D and 100-400 if I may ;)
Or a few feet further forward - priceless! Literally!

Glass this, camera that... a little time spent getting to know your subject and therefore being able to get closer is much more fun and a damn sight cheaper! It should be about the results, and how you get them... forget the technology. Two good photos side by side... the one taken with faster AF, live view etc isn't going to wow me anymore than one taken with an old 300D.

For wildlife stuff anyway...

...sports etc, you are kinda limited, but the fact the pro's all use 1.3x crop/ff bodies says it isn't an issue!

Printing, well you won't be doing much of that larger than A4...maybe A3 on occasion unless you are a pro and then you will be using a 1D/D3 level camera anyway! 6mp is more than enough for this if you don't need to crop lots.

I think it's all this kind of talk that spurs on manufacturers to keep increasing pixel count, when truth be told, as photographers we would all prefer better dynamic range, faster focussing and so on.
 
OP
OP
tdodd
Messages
6,526
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
No
#33
It's all very well saying "Get closer." and of course that would be the best solution, if it was an option, which it often is not. When I shot that egret earlier today, at my local bird reserve, I was stuck in a hide - no possibility to move forward - and as patient as I am, I have more interesting things to do than wait for hours in the hope that a creature edges another few feet towards me. As it turns out it flew off rather than coming closer. Were it not for the hide, the next best option would have placed me around 80-100m from a similar bird, with barbed wire fencing and a water filled ditch preventing me getting closer. Sometimes you just have to work with the constraints you have, whether that's equipment or environment.

Pros shorting sports tend not to have subjects that are only a couple of feet tall, or less, and their prey are seldom wary and nervous of being photographed. It's also pretty easy for sports togs to find their targets. It is not a game of patience, stealth and cunning. You must be thinking of paparazzi :)
 
Messages
10,310
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
Yes
#34
It's all very well saying "Get closer." and of course that would be the best solution, if it was an option, which it often is not. When I shot that egret earlier today, at my local bird reserve, I was stuck in a hide - no possibility to move forward - and as patient as I am, I have more interesting things to do than wait for hours in the hope that a creature edges another few feet towards me. As it turns out it flew off rather than coming closer. Were it not for the hide, the next best option would have placed me around 80-100m from a similar bird, with barbed wire fencing and a water filled ditch preventing me getting closer. Sometimes you just have to work with the constraints you have, whether that's equipment or environment.

Pros shorting sports tend not to have subjects that are only a couple of feet tall, or less, and their prey are seldom wary and nervous of being photographed. It's also pretty easy for sports togs to find their targets. It is not a game of patience, stealth and cunning. You must be thinking of paparazzi :)
People got wildlife images before 15mp, people got them with 4mp! So it entirely possbile. As I said in my post, time spent researching would be more productive than the time spent working in order to save up for those precious extra pixels! ;) Egrets don't just visit one reserve... that's why people travel the length and breadth of the country to photograph them! Just look an how much travelling IanC does!

-Note-
I've just read a post you said about people not always needed 15 or even 10mp... so please ignore my rant! I got the impression you were saying that lower pixel counts were pretty much defunct! My apologies :)
 
OP
OP
tdodd
Messages
6,526
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
No
#35
Driving the length and breadth of the country doesn't strike me as economical in time or money and is definitely unlikely to be environmentally sound. For enthusiasts the price may be worth paying. I'm an enthusiastic "photographer", but I'm not so dedicated to capturing some special species in some special location that I am willing to spend whole days dedicated to their pursuit. I also have commitments at home which mean I don't have the luxury of disappearing for long stretches at a time.

Other than the occasional professional engagement, I'd call myself an "opportunistic" photographer. I'll go somewhere, local, and I'll shoot whatever turns up if I think it makes a decent picture. Most of my "wildlife" photography is limited by having my dog with me, so sneaking around in the bushes to creep up on some unsuspecting pretty little thing is not realistic. In those situations I need any assistance I can get from my gear, if I am to achieve worthwhile results.

As for pixel count - as you have noted, I'm not screaming out for more pixels. I'm merely pointing out that, on occasion, there can be a genuine advntage to be realised from having more pixels available. More often than not, there is none. I'm very happy to use my 1D3, with its lowly 10MP count, spread over a large sensor area, when that is the right tool for the job. At other times, despite being only 1/3 the price, the 50D is actually the better tool.
 
Messages
10,310
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
Yes
#36
Driving the length and breadth of the country doesn't strike me as economical in time or money and is definitely unlikely to be environmentally sound. For enthusiasts the price may be worth paying. I'm an enthusiastic "photographer", but I'm not so dedicated to capturing some special species in some special location that I am willing to spend whole days dedicated to their pursuit. I also have commitments at home which mean I don't have the luxury of disappearing for long stretches at a time.

Other than the occasional professional engagement, I'd call myself an "opportunistic" photographer. I'll go somewhere, local, and I'll shoot whatever turns up if I think it makes a decent picture. Most of my "wildlife" photography is limited by having my dog with me, so sneaking around in the bushes to creep up on some unsuspecting pretty little thing is not realistic. In those situations I need any assistance I can get from my gear, if I am to achieve worthwhile results.

As for pixel count - as you have noted, I'm not screaming out for more pixels. I'm merely pointing out that, on occasion, there can be a genuine advntage to be realised from having more pixels available. More often than not, there is none. I'm very happy to use my 1D3, with its lowly 10MP count, spread over a large sensor area, when that is the right tool for the job. At other times, despite being only 1/3 the price, the 50D is actually the better tool.
Fair enough :)
 
Messages
23,089
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
#37
People got wildlife images before 15mp, people got them with 4mp! So it entirely possbile. As I said in my post, time spent researching would be more productive than the time spent working in order to save up for those precious extra pixels! ;) Egrets don't just visit one reserve... that's why people travel the length and breadth of the country to photograph them! Just look an how much travelling IanC does!

-Note-
I've just read a post you said about people not always needed 15 or even 10mp... so please ignore my rant! I got the impression you were saying that lower pixel counts were pretty much defunct! My apologies :)
Maybe I'm missing something here, but IanC travels with a 1D3, 50D, plus lenses up to 600mm f/4 plus an Extender.
 
Top