woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,685
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
IMO, yes and yes but there may be copy variation and I suppose it depends what you're used to plus of course a lot of the time you'll be at 400mm and not zooming anyway.
Wildlife - Canon 80D/Sigma 150-600mm vs Lumix G9/Leica 100-400mm
- Thread starter Crotal Bell
- Start date
IMO, yes and yes but there may be copy variation and I suppose it depends what you're used to plus of course a lot of the time you'll be at 400mm and not zooming anyway.
- Messages
- 2,160
- Name
- Steve, Coventry, England
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thanks.here ya go
Very nice.
Tells me I don't need FF, or anything more than M43
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,678
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I quit reading all of the replies somewhere on page 2...
The 80D does not really perform any better than the G9 when it comes to image noise/cleanliness and dynamic range. And the G9 is more ISO invariant. The 80D was a step in the right direction for Canon, but their sensors have been lagging behind in these aspects for quite a while now.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison
https://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR_Shadow
In terms of lenses I don't really see a clear winner either... at the long end the Sigma suffers a bit when wide open. I think the 100-400 does better, but then the G9 is more demanding (smaller pixels)... in the end it's a wash I think. Neither lens can resolve to the level of either sensor... so you shouldn't be thinking in terms of sensor resolution/MP's. E.g. a non-existent perfect lens can only resolve ~14MP average into M4/3 area at f/6.3... the same lens could resolve about 20MP average into APS sensor area at f/6.3; but I think the Sigma is even less ideal at 600/6.3, and the 80D has an AA filter (the G9 doesn't).
That doesn't mean there aren't other reasons to have a sensor with high resolution, and an actual 14MP of resolution recorded would be more than enough.
But IMO, none of that matters as much as your photography style... it seems to me you are looking to buy gear to solve a problem when the problem isn't the gear. From your description the photography is secondary, which means the gear is secondary, and the photographs are secondary. If you don't have the time, patience, motivation, etc required to get images other than what you happen upon while wandering, then you will seldom have the opportunity to take better pictures; regardless of the kit you are carrying. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, but it is the reality.
The 80D does not really perform any better than the G9 when it comes to image noise/cleanliness and dynamic range. And the G9 is more ISO invariant. The 80D was a step in the right direction for Canon, but their sensors have been lagging behind in these aspects for quite a while now.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison
https://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR_Shadow
In terms of lenses I don't really see a clear winner either... at the long end the Sigma suffers a bit when wide open. I think the 100-400 does better, but then the G9 is more demanding (smaller pixels)... in the end it's a wash I think. Neither lens can resolve to the level of either sensor... so you shouldn't be thinking in terms of sensor resolution/MP's. E.g. a non-existent perfect lens can only resolve ~14MP average into M4/3 area at f/6.3... the same lens could resolve about 20MP average into APS sensor area at f/6.3; but I think the Sigma is even less ideal at 600/6.3, and the 80D has an AA filter (the G9 doesn't).
That doesn't mean there aren't other reasons to have a sensor with high resolution, and an actual 14MP of resolution recorded would be more than enough.
But IMO, none of that matters as much as your photography style... it seems to me you are looking to buy gear to solve a problem when the problem isn't the gear. From your description the photography is secondary, which means the gear is secondary, and the photographs are secondary. If you don't have the time, patience, motivation, etc required to get images other than what you happen upon while wandering, then you will seldom have the opportunity to take better pictures; regardless of the kit you are carrying. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, but it is the reality.
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 2,514
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Valid point but not looking to buy gear to solve a problem, just to improve potential results with the way I like to do photography.
I thought the extra pixels on the 80D may help when cropping some images, maybe not so much given all the info you have provided.
- Messages
- 2,160
- Name
- Steve, Coventry, England
- Edit My Images
- Yes
There is not an earth shattering difference between the G80+100-300 and a G9+100-400.
There is a difference, but I'm wondering if it is less than you are hoping for?
And I think the difference between what you have and what you are looking at may be less that you are hoping for or expecting especially considering the outlay.
Yes, upgrading will improve potentials, but not make things much easier.
I took a couple of test shots of the lamp post about 140m away earlier today, and in the relatively dull light, you can see the difference more than when the light is good, but it is still not really make or break.
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,678
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Actually, the 80D is of lower resolution in terms of pixels/image area. If you can get/use a shorter/faster/sharper lens on the G9 it would have a clear advantage... and faster is important because at f/2.8 middle wavelengths already resolve larger than the size of a pixel on a G9, and at f/5.6 they resolve over 2x as large (cover 4 pixels/diffraction limited).
The way to understand this all is that everything we do is just some form of cropping. Every lens receives the same light; the same as your eyes do. The lens crops that light/scene down to it's FOV, the sensor then crops that down to it's recorded area, and then we crop/compose in post... nothing has an inherent advantage in this scheme given the same basic technology/design/generation.
Similarly, it's a matter of matching dots. A lens projects dots (airy disks), which are recorded by dots (pixels), which are then reproduced with dots (pixels/ink)... whichever stage has the least dots is what you get. If a lens is only projecting 8MP worth of dots, you're not going to get/record any more regardless of how many pixels the sensor has.
IMO, your best choice is probably an Olympus 300/4 for your G80. That theoretical max of 14MP at f/6.3 is 33MP at f/4... the 300/4 isn't a perfect lens and isn't going to reach that theoretical limit, but it will probably meet/exceed the resolution of the G80... it exceeds what the 150-600C lens can resolve on FF (at 600mm). Plus, it collects more light... more light = stronger signal = less noise, and noise buries detail/resolution. Finding one in your budget will probably be difficult, but may be possible (?).
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 2,514
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thanks, to be honest some of that is a bit over my head.
All I know is that more zoom and extra pixels is considered better for getting close and for cropping, that's what I keep hearing.
I'm not expecting to make things "easy" I've already learnt that it isn't, but more range in a better rig will surely help capture a few wildlife subects that I can't reach right now and edit into good images.
@Sangoma
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,678
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
More FL is better if the lens is also sharper (same MTF capability).
Extra pixels are better if the lens resolves more than the sensor.
... otherwise, not so much.
To some small degree more pixels always increases recorded resolution due to oversampling; but that gain is much smaller than the MP numbers would indicate.
Here's a typical example of what happens in a lens limited scenario. Upgrading to the D850 and 22MP more sensor resolution results in a mere 3MP more actual recorded resolution.
The main mistake most make is that they do not take cropping in post as an exposure consideration. If you are going to crop in post you need to start with a sharper image with more DOF to end up in the same place... just like when using a crop sensor.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,062
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
@Crotal Bell are you sure you've exhausted all the potential of your current setup? Can you rank the specific shortcomings you are bumping into to guide your choice? Autofocus tracking for BIF? high ISO performance to freeze the action in poor light? Reach if it's physcially impossible to get closer to the subjects? Sorry if this has been covered already.
- Messages
- 2,160
- Name
- Steve, Coventry, England
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes, it will, but reading back through the posts, I wonder how many more usable shots you are hoping to get? Especially as it is going to involve +-£1200 of investment.
Yesterday I too four shots of the signs/post/wall about 140m away. The were 16/300 (MP/fl), 16/400. 20/300 and 20/400, then cropped them to the exact same two points, so they all contained the "same" image.
Going from 16/300 to 16/400 made a small difference. Going from 16/300 to 20/300 made a slightly larger small difference. Going from 20/300 to 20/400 made a similar slightly larger small difference. Comparing the 16/300 with the 20/400 was a bit easier to see the difference, but it was still not as mush as might be expected.
The results follow a consistent pattern no matter what settings I use. All were JPEG and not processed. In-camera sharpening and noise reduction was turned right down on both cameras.
I saw a bigger improvement when I took the UV filter off the 100-300 lens
Would I have go better results if I had manually set the cameras to the same settings and used a tripod? Probably, but I'm sure the same trend would have been followed. (from the many times I have done similar before)
Is it a scientific method and does it prove anything? No, it only shows what I have consistently found using the cameras like I do in everyday use.
Would I buy both the G9 and the 100-400 again? Yes, however I sold other equipment to buy them.
Could I buy something else better? Yes, but I would have to mortgage the house and employ an assistant
I have never owned a Canon 7D MkII, but looking at it it does seem to address some of the "problems" I found with using Canon (notice I said with using Canon, not saying the Canon itself)
The best results I got with a Canon on the "signs/post/wall" test were with a Tamron 70-300 and 2X converter, but they were not consistent, and needed a tripod for any sense of consistency, and they didn't often approach the results I get easily with the 100-300 and G80 handheld.
I think it is the features of the G9 that help me most, the near/far focus preference I use often, its very fast focus, the way it feels in the hand, the viewfinder, customisation etc etc that help me more or at least as much as the resolution or extra lens length.
I also think my decision was easier because I had already decided that M43 was the way I was going to be able to and afford to enjoy the hobby again, and I would do the best I could with it and its limitations, so I did not have the alternative of a different format to consider.
- Messages
- 15,377
- Name
- Jeff
- Edit My Images
- No
This is fast becoming a lens discussion , where in reality that’s part but only a part of the issue , if Keith is already using mirrorless going back to a DSLR will be the wrong move especially if shooting wildlife on walkabout , yes one factor is weight , while another important often used item is burst speed can you cope with 7 or 8 fps when used to 15fps and also have to wait for the buffer to clear constantly it’s akin to going back to a Nissan micra after driving a Tesla ?? Will a clacking mirror/ shutter scare wildlife when total silent mode is available on M/L even mechanical shutter on olympus is quiet compared to a DSLR . When I changed over friends used to ask me when sat in a hide why I hadn’t taken any shots when in fact I probably had 30 good ones to there 1 or 3
- Messages
- 2,160
- Name
- Steve, Coventry, England
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The last time I used a Canon dSLR for anything that mattered was my daughter's graduation in 2019. I had it on continuous (A whole 7 frames a second ! ) and it sounded like I had stood up in the Cathedral and let loose with a machine gun
I was one of the few parents not using a phone.I also agree there is more to it than the lens, hence my comments above, it's the sum of all, including the user!
OP
- Messages
- 2,514
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Right, think I'm getting the point now. Thanks for taking the time to do this it's really appreciated.
Even without this knowledge from the start, it seems to back up the thought in my mind.
Moving from 16MP and 600mm reach on MFT to 20MP and 800mm reach on MFT probably won't see a big difference for the amount of money needed.
But moving from 18MP and 600mm MFT to 24MP and 950mm APSC is a significant jump, even if the Canon sensors are not the most highly regarded of that camera generation.
I have noticed the Nikon sensors of that era are considered better for low light/HDR, they have no AA filter, and the mid range cameras come with 2 card slots.
- Messages
- 494
- Name
- Derek
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The last time I used a Canon dSLR for anything that mattered was my daughter's graduation in 2019. I had it on continuous (A whole 7 frames a second ! ) and it sounded like I had stood up in the Cathedral and let loose with a machine gun
I bought a very old D700 a couple of years ago to (a) see what all the fuss was about this camera - which was/is many people's favourite camera of all time and (b) to experience full frame. I can understand why it's a favourite camera for many people - it's wonderful, and I love the stripped down back to basics approach. But yes, I led down in the garden, focussing on a pair of big black crows that were wandering the lawn, just above them blue tits were feeding on the feeder, a robin was perched on a nearby branch, and wood pigeons were gorging themselves on the bird table (or rather, on food on the bird table). Then... one gentle press on the shutter and kaboom! Every single bird shot up into the sky and didn't come back until the morrow.
OP
- Messages
- 2,514
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That's a good point - what are the priorities we're taking about here.
First of all, I do love what the G80 and 100-300mm lens can do, and I can walk all day and not even feel the slightest discomfort or fatigue related to the photography.
Whilst I do watch the weather forecast, and try to take advantage of better days to plan photo trips, I will walk with a camera regardless, when I have the free time to go and do it. My 2 main issues are that many shots have the subject a wee bit too far away and my gear can't allow for a lot of cropping in if needed. Second, sharpness and low light performance on our British dull days. When it comes to BIF, I like to do it, but it's behind other factors in the priority list (I catch a few nice BIFs with the G80 anyway, it catches a few nice shots)
Take yesterday at Woburn, I was able to get close to Deer but their position and that of the paths meant the light wasn't the best for me. Just as we were leaving, a group of Deer crossed a path and I was able to get where the low light was over my shoulder and onto them. They were just a little too far away to get a nice sharp shot that my current gear can edit into a nice close up capture. Another 350mm would have made a big difference.
I don't expect a bigger zoom to make things easier or solve all the problems etc, it's just part of the puzzle, but it would help sometimes.
I suppose the big things is, with a heavier rig, would I have walked so far and for so long, and still been there when the Deer was in the right place at the end of the day.
D
Deleted member 95743
Guest
Photography is a compromise. Regardless of whatever camera/lens combination you use, you cannot photograph everything. Learn to use the equipment that you already have.
- Messages
- 2,160
- Name
- Steve, Coventry, England
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And would you have needed to carry a tripod as well, and if so could you have got it set up in time?
Most of these things only you can answer.
There will be shots you have to miss at times with any setup, becomes a question of which setup you might lose less with.
Guess I'm lucky, I don't worry about it, get what I can and not think about what I can't.
OP
- Messages
- 2,514
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I understand that, but I have already learnt that I would like a little more than what I have now.
I realise there will always be things I can't photograph, I'm not expecting to completely transform my trips out, just keep a few shots that I have to bin at the moment, when my current gear is pushed a little too far.
OP
- Messages
- 2,514
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes these are very good points, and yesterday there were many scenarios where I knew there was no point attempting to capture something, like the Red Kite over the land to the left of me, the missus pointed it out and said "get some shots of that" I explained it was too far away, and it would still have been too far with a bigger rig. I realise you have to be realistic, and sometimes you're lucky and sometimes not etc.
The image of the BIF in the ones I posted last night - I heard the commotion behind me and turned and hurriedly started shooting as they flew towards me slightly to the right. I had about 7 frames and 6 were blurred or contained a wing or a head, or nothing. Right in the middle of the frames was the one I posted. Some you win some you lose. That was a lucky one.
- Messages
- 23,527
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
Don't forget the old truism about the more you practice the luckier you get. With something like bird photos they need lots of practice to develop skills tracking a rapidly moving object through the sky.
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,678
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The main reason I got the Z9 is the silent shutter for wildlife. But IDT that is an issue in this case where trying to find a way to compensate for not being able to get close.
- Messages
- 992
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Keith
Just a thought and my tuppence worth.
I don't know your location but just wondering if any of the members of the TP forum would live close by that may have that setup?
Maybe if a meet up would be possible this might also help with dilemma.
David
Just a thought and my tuppence worth.
I don't know your location but just wondering if any of the members of the TP forum would live close by that may have that setup?
Maybe if a meet up would be possible this might also help with dilemma.
David
OP
- Messages
- 2,514
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes it's sound advice David, from seeing many images of the 80D and Sigma 150-600mm there is no doubt it can capture cracking wildlife photos, but that's irrelevant if I end up feeling pooped long before the day should be over.
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,678
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If the sensor is less sharp (larger pixels/AA filter) and the lens is less (equally) sharp there may be no gain, or even a net loss.
There's a lot that can be confusing in these charts... or misinterpreted... but they are the best comparables I could find for these lenses.
First thing to know is that a lens has to resolve to 2x the level on M4/3 to equal the same recorded detail on a FF sensor of the same resolution (MP). The 300/4 reaches 2x when compared to the 150-600C on the 5DIII. Note that the 300/4 is also getting 1.3 stops more light at max aperture (ISO 1250 instead of 3200). And the 150-600 would have to record 50% higher on APS, IDT it would/could do that. Then compared to the proposed 100-400 the 300/4 is also approaching 2x more resolution with the same camera/sensor.
Plus this comparison isn't quite fair/direct; the E-PL1 is a 12MP 4/3 sensor, and the lens is very near the limit of the sensor... increasing the resolution of the sensor will generate even higher numbers... it's never 1:1 or 100%, even in a perfect scenario; but I'm quite certain it would be a significantly higher % than the previous example I showed with the Nikon 80-400.
What these results mean is that the Olympus 300/4 is recording more actual resolution/detail on a 12MP 4/3 sensor than the 150-600C lens can on a 22MP FF sensor; and far more than the 100-400 can.
Now, you could switch to a Nikon APS and a 150-600S or similar to get similar results that the 300/4 will get you on your current G80. But then you are into two systems, two different menu/logic/layouts, different controls, larger size, more weight... etc, etc.
And there are ways to do significantly better (potentially)... there's a reason I carry a Z9/D850 and a 400/2.8 (~7kg and a lot of money). The other way to do significantly better is to just put in more time/effort and get closer...
Or just be happy with what you've got...
Now, if AF acquisition/tracking is a major issue, and skill technique can't be improved, then maybe a different body (4/3 or otherwise) might be a significant improvement.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 494
- Name
- Derek
- Edit My Images
- Yes
@sk66 Steven, these are great posts, but alas my brain is simply too old / slow / befuddled to get it. But I'm really keen to understand this relationship between lenses and sensors.
At a basic level, am I correct in thinking that if we imagine a sensor to be made up of receptacles each of which are, say (for the sake of argument) 1 micron apart, and we also imagine our lens is only capable of resolving detail 1 micron apart, then we have a pretty good match - the lens and the sensor resolve nicely. Now, if we buy an improved sensor that has more receptacles and those receptacles are now just 0.5 microns apart - but we continue to use the same lens (the one that can only resolve data to 1 micron) - then there's no benefit to image quality despite us forking out for the newer sensor with more receptacles? In this latter case, the lens is still only sending details that are 1 micron apart, so that super new sensor is receiving nothing more detailed than the older sensor did?
I read somewhere - it may well have been in this thread - that the Nikon D850 sensor is so good that there are only very few lenses that can resolve fine enough detail to make full use of it. i.e. unless you have those specific lenses you're not making best use of that sensor.
I appreciate that it's way more complicated than this, with lenses performing better at some apertures and focal lengths, than others; and there being different sized sensors, too. But if this basic premise is correct, where does one find out what the resolving capable of sensors and lenses is? In easy to understand form, ideally
Keith, apologies for hijacking your thread.
Cheers
Derek
At a basic level, am I correct in thinking that if we imagine a sensor to be made up of receptacles each of which are, say (for the sake of argument) 1 micron apart, and we also imagine our lens is only capable of resolving detail 1 micron apart, then we have a pretty good match - the lens and the sensor resolve nicely. Now, if we buy an improved sensor that has more receptacles and those receptacles are now just 0.5 microns apart - but we continue to use the same lens (the one that can only resolve data to 1 micron) - then there's no benefit to image quality despite us forking out for the newer sensor with more receptacles? In this latter case, the lens is still only sending details that are 1 micron apart, so that super new sensor is receiving nothing more detailed than the older sensor did?
I read somewhere - it may well have been in this thread - that the Nikon D850 sensor is so good that there are only very few lenses that can resolve fine enough detail to make full use of it. i.e. unless you have those specific lenses you're not making best use of that sensor.
I appreciate that it's way more complicated than this, with lenses performing better at some apertures and focal lengths, than others; and there being different sized sensors, too. But if this basic premise is correct, where does one find out what the resolving capable of sensors and lenses is? In easy to understand form, ideally
Keith, apologies for hijacking your thread.
Cheers
Derek
OP
- Messages
- 2,514
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Don't apologise, it's very interesting. Reviewers are always talking about new cameras on systems that have plenty of lens choice, no-one talks about whether the old lenses gat the best from the newer sensors. Not that I've seen anyway.@sk66 Steven, these are great posts, but alas my brain is simply too old / slow / befuddled to get it. But I'm really keen to understand this relationship between lenses and sensors.
At a basic level, am I correct in thinking that if we imagine a sensor to be made up of receptacles each of which are, say (for the sake of argument) 1 micron apart, and we also imagine our lens is only capable of resolving detail 1 micron apart, then we have a pretty good match - the lens and the sensor resolve nicely. Now, if we buy an improved sensor that has more receptacles and those receptacles are now just 0.5 microns apart - but we continue to use the same lens (the one that can only resolve data to 1 micron) - then there's no benefit to image quality despite us forking out for the newer sensor with more receptacles? In this latter case, the lens is still only sending details that are 1 micron apart, so that super new sensor is receiving nothing more detailed than the older sensor did?
I read somewhere - it may well have been in this thread - that the Nikon D850 sensor is so good that there are only very few lenses that can resolve fine enough detail to make full use of it. i.e. unless you have those specific lenses you're not making best use of that sensor.
I appreciate that it's way more complicated than this, with lenses performing better at some apertures and focal lengths, than others; and there being different sized sensors, too. But if this basic premise is correct, where does one find out what the resolving capable of sensors and lenses is? In easy to understand form, ideally
Keith, apologies for hijacking your thread.
Cheers
Derek
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,678
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes, basically. But it is more complex and there is an advantage of having more pixels than scene/lens resolution. A simple analogy...
In theory it would only require 64 pixels to record the 64 squares on a chess board. But for that to happen the lens projected squares would have to fall exactly on each sensor pixel, and that is extremely unlikely to happen.
And if the patterns are (nearly) the same size misalignment results in aliasing (moire), like shown in this drawing. Sensors of lower resolution are equipped with an AA filter to help prevent this (by slight defocus)... where sensors of high resolution make it very unlikely that a scene/lens will resolve down to the pixel size, and therefore can omit the AA filter. This is what is known as oversampling... more samples (pixels) for more accurate results.
And increased oversampling is why a higher resolution sensor almost always generates somewhat better recorded resolution; of those scene details that were previously just out of alignment. But the increase is really only significant if the original sampling (pixel pitch/sensor resolution) was inadequate/barely adequate; the law of diminishing returns.
Similarly, if the squares of the chessboard were in color, then in order to get the most accurate color information you would want each square to be sampled by at least one RGBG pixel quad. If instead a color square (magenta) was only sampled by a single pixel (R,G, or B) then it's actual color, and luminance, has to be guessed based on surrounding information/pixels.
So the question is "full capability of utilizing the D850 sensor in what capacity?" But in just terms of "matching dots" and recorded resolution, there are few lenses that can; and the ones that can can only do it at a very wide aperture setting (due to diffraction).
Interestingly, in the circle of "cropping the scene" a larger sensor of the same resolution (MP) is less demanding because it has larger pixels. But it is simultaneously equally more demanding because it requires a lens of greater magnification to record the same composition... and that causes increased diffraction/CA/etc. After a certain point, making a longer lens that is equally as sharp is extremely difficult to do. As I said before... no version/form/stage of cropping has a definitive advantage.
I like DXO's reports... it is easy because it allows you to compare different lenses on the same body, or different bodies on the same lens. And that is important if you want to directly compare results without a lot of additional information/math. And it converts a measured MTF (lines per mm recorded) into the MP's required to record those lines (matching dots; "perceptual MP's"). And while they measure recorded resolution a bit differently than others (i.e. it's not a simple MTF 50), it is empirical and consistent.But if this basic premise is correct, where does one find out what the resolving capable of sensors and lenses is? In easy to understand form, ideally
DXO almost always says a lens is "best at" its max aperture because diffraction is such a big factor with modern sensors. But in strictly MTF terms (sharpness at a given contrast level) it's usually at least a little better stopped down some.
But it also helps to know that a human cannot even see more than ~14MP in an image when viewed normally (as a whole image)... just as you cannot see the dots that make up the image on your screen. And that when an image looks obviously lacking in IQ it probably has less than ~ 6MP of actual resolution recorded. Hell, most images are posted/viewed at less than 4MP resolution (1024-2048 long edge). That's why DXO sharpness graphs look the way they do (color coding, stops at 12MP).
In other words, in a lot of (most) cases chasing these technical details/advances/differences makes very little difference relative to the actual need and benefit.
A simple example is that it is often more beneficial to stop down in order to record a greater number of larger details more acceptably in focus (increased DOF), even though that actually means a lower total resolution is recorded (loss of smaller details due to increased diffraction).
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 2,514
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
A lot of that is going over my head, but I think I can get a few pointers from it.
More pixels does not always mean you can crop tighter on your photos and Canon use AA filters because their sensors are poorer quality?
OP
- Messages
- 2,514
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I would disagree with that Alan buddy, I find myself always zooming back to find subjects then zooming in again to get close, so easy movable zoom function is important to me.
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,678
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes and no....
Yes, more pixels doesn't always (usually) mean you can crop more.
No, using an AA filter doesn't mean a sensor is inferior... it just means there is a different standard for expected lens/scene resolution. Even the D850/Z9/etc will result in moire in some situations; and in those situations they would benefit from having an AA filter.
Go to the last paragraph:
Last edited:
- Messages
- 15,377
- Name
- Jeff
- Edit My Images
- No
Can I make a suggestion here as it’s all getting rather confusing .my advice would be for Keith to visit a RSPB reserve ,hopefully there will be someone there using a sigma 150-600 on a camera . The camera be it canon,Nikon ,Sony doesn’t come into it but the lens weight and BALANCE will be the same ..it’s then just a matter of asking if he could handle it for a few minutes and perhaps ask the owner how they feel about it .. rather than visiting a sales based camera shop ..
This whole thread has now actually shown why it’s NOT advisable to ask for advice on camera forums
This whole thread has now actually shown why it’s NOT advisable to ask for advice on camera forums
- Messages
- 3,839
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The other suggestion is to spend a bit of money up front and hire this equipment combo, or something close to it.
Hireacamera.com have the EOS 90D and 7D MkII available for hire, and the Sigma 150-600mm Sport lens. Now I know this lens is significantly heavier than the C version, but the OP would have to bear that in mind and come to his own conclusions.
Hireacamera.com have the EOS 90D and 7D MkII available for hire, and the Sigma 150-600mm Sport lens. Now I know this lens is significantly heavier than the C version, but the OP would have to bear that in mind and come to his own conclusions.
- Messages
- 494
- Name
- Derek
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Top advice!
At the end of the day I can't help but think of the number of truly amazing photographs I stumble across, often on this site, by great photographers and when I look at the gear it turns out to be micro four-thirds or sometimes Canon APS-C or occasionally Nikon full frame and now and again Canon or Nikon mirrorless and once in a while Sony and here and there it's Fuji or Pentax or a high-end bridge camera and even Leica... and the only common denominator is a very good and very patient photographer who's put the hours and learning in.
I know if I went up against Valentino Rossi, and I was on a MotoGP bike and he had a 20 year old 250 he'd most certainly lap me within a few minutes
Derek
OP
- Messages
- 2,514
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thanks Steven
OP
- Messages
- 2,514
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But, it has been very helpful to get peoples perspectives and thoughts, and I think you're right, try before you buy.
OP
- Messages
- 2,514
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Not a bad idea.
- Messages
- 9,247
- Edit My Images
- No
I've always found that more pixels do mean you have more headroom for cropping. Clearly, if you have 20MP to choose from there are more options than if you have 10MP.
If you mean that other factors, such as lens resolution or your intentions for the image, will affect how much of a given frame you can crop down to, that would be fair comment but as a bald statement it's somewhat misleading.
- Messages
- 15,377
- Name
- Jeff
- Edit My Images
- No
hmmmm but some of the best cameras I have owned and used were in the 10 to 12 mp range , and a few short years ago this was counted as optimum i.e the canon 1DMKiii , the nikon D300s , nikon D3S these were all sought after cameras in there day and I have no doubt whatsoever that if used today with up to date post processing methods then the results would exceed what the majority of forum members need or expect .
and thats it in a nutshell processing of raw files has progressed at probably twice or three times the speed of camera developments and is often left out of all discussions regarding camera /lens wants and needs .
if for instance I dragged some old files out of my back up drives and P/P them today using up to date L/R & P/S omitting the exif data I defy anyone to tell me what combo there from
P.S I dont use MFT by choice age and health dictates a more user friendly lifestyle otherwise I would probably be quite happy using any of the models listed above
Last edited:
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,685
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I had a play with my 100-400mm yesterday and it is the stiffest zoom lens I have and likely the stiffest I've ever had but I haven't had all that many, I'm mostly a prime guy. If it's stiffness would be an issue I don't know as it's something you can only judge for yourself. If you're interested in this lens you need to try one.
I don't tend to zoom in and out too much as I find even 400mm on MFT very often doesn't give enough reach but I can see how some would like to fine tune framing by zooming. On finding subjects I think practice is one thing that can help.
Overall Keith I think you're trying to improve in one of the most challenging and potentially gear wise costly subject areas and I think this will need a lot of careful thought and practice and honing with the gear. Good luck with it.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 9,183
- Edit My Images
- Yes
exactly this I’ve been going through old raw files and reprocessing them with DXO photolab some shots that I took a long time ago with my Canon 350D were transformed especially in relation to noise