• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Full frame camera question (1 Viewer)

Robert is of course right a 400mm lens is still 400mm on any body. BUT the in-camera cropping on a camera like the 7D2 (because it has a smaller sensor) means that to get the same FOV and number of pixels from a full frame Camera it would mean it needs around 51mp to begin with.
To put it another way if you crop an image from, say the 1Dx mkII to the same FOV as a 7D2 image then you are left with just 7.9 mp, so about 40% of the pixel density of the cropper. That is of course not the end of it because the 1Dx pixels are larger than those of the 7D2 so will give better IQ all thing considered (also high ISO noise levels are far better on the FF).
I have only got a 5D3 FF (22.3mp) but I do know that when you crop its images to the same FOV as the 7D2 you are left with around 8.7 mp and that does not yield the same fine detail as the 7D2's 20 mp. Actual IQ after the cropping of the FF image may well be as good as the un-cropped 7D2 images but it does not give the same amount of fine detail in my experience.
At the end of the day it all depends on your shooting style as to which option is best - If you shoot a 1.6 cropper and still have to crop the images a fair bit then you are better sticking to the 1.6 cropper IMHO. But if you are not range limited or do not have to crop heavily then the FF is obviously the best option. Another reason to opt for a full frame regardless is if you regularly shot in poor light and find the Noise levels on a crop camera too much for you.
There are many other reason's why a FF like the 1DX is a better Camera of course but that's why you pay so much more for.
 
Last edited:
Now that we have full frame camera bodies with a pixel density equal to or better than the smaller sensor bodies I think we can ditch this long held belief.

If you shoot a FF camera next to a crop camera that has the same pixel density (same size of the pixels), doesn't that mean that the iso advantage of the FF camera disappears?

Niels
 
FF/FX sensor will gather 125% (≈1 stop) more light compared to a APS-C/DX.
One might think that a 500mm/4 @ f4 + DX body and a 800mm/5.6 @ f5.6 + FX body (of same generation sensor and MP, D5 vs D500 for example) would give similar performance in low light, but I suspect the FX body will have a slight edge due to the larger pixel size.

Low light performance for the D5 (on DX) is 2938 and 2557 for the D500. The

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Char...on D5(DX),Nikon D500,Nikon D750,Nikon D750(DX)
 
Last edited:
One might think that a 500mm/4 @ f4 + DX body and a 800mm/5.6 @ f5.6 + FX body (of same generation sensor and MP, D5 vs D500 for example) would give similar performance in low light, but I suspect the FX body will have a slight edge due to the larger pixel size.

My question was based off on a previous post that I read to say "there are now FF cameras with a pixel count that makes the pixel size the same as we are used to in DX bodies". Under that assumption, there would be a considerably larger pixel count on the FF camera, but would there still be any iso advantage? I doubt so.

I am aware there would still be differences in dof etc.

Niels
 
My question was based off on a previous post that I read to say "there are now FF cameras with a pixel count that makes the pixel size the same as we are used to in DX bodies". Under that assumption, there would be a considerably larger pixel count on the FF camera, but would there still be any iso advantage? I doubt so.

I am aware there would still be differences in dof etc.

Niels

If you mean using the DX area on a FF camera, the difference will be small in low light if the pixel size is about the same (i.e. D500 vs D850).

If using the whole FF area, the per pixel noise will still be about the same*, but the noise will be lower in the printed FF image when enlarging to the same print size. A larger "negative" (sensor size) needs less magnification, so noise will be less visible.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon D500,Nikon D750,Nikon D850,Nikon D850(DX)

*Same generation of sensor/electronics
 
Vespo, this is a better comparison along the lines that Niels was referring to: http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm
[Select Nikon D500 and Nikon D850 (DX)]

And while it is true that the noise does get blown up, it is also true that the subject image size is smaller.

One point that Niels may like to consider is that often FF cameras are "tuned" (much like you would have a high rpm racing camshaft in a racecar engine) to the higher ISO ranges (eg, Nikon D5, Canon EOS 1DX, etc) - ie. some low ISO DR is sacrificed in order to get relatively even better high ISO performance.


Chosun :gh:
 
Last edited:
Vespo, this is a better comparison along the lines that Niels was referring to: http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm
[Select Nikon D500 and Nikon D850 (DX)]

And while it is true that the noise does get blown up, it is also true that the subject image size is smaller.

One point that Niels may like to consider is that often FF cameras are "tuned" (much like you would have a high rpm racing camshaft in a racecar engine) to the higher ISO ranges (eg, Nikon D5, Canon EOS 1DX, etc) - ie. some low ISO DR is sacrificed in order to get relatively even better high ISO performance.


Chosun :gh:

Or even better, with the cameras preselected. ;)
http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon D500,Nikon D850,Nikon D850(DX),Nikon Df

The () in the D850(DX) seem to break the link so added the Df last..

You might be right that they have to select between max DR at low ISO and optimal high ISO perf.
I guess it's the base ISO of the sensor that sets the limits.
 
Last edited:
Or even better, with the cameras preselected. ;)
http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon D500,Nikon D850,Nikon D850(DX),Nikon Df

The () in the D850(DX) seem to break the link so added the Df last..

You might be right that they have to select between max DR at low ISO and optimal high ISO perf.
I guess it's the base ISO of the sensor that sets the limits.
Haha, yeah :)

For some reason I could not do that on my phone - the link button on Bill's page wasn't cooperating for me ....

It's not only the base ISO that sets the limits - but the 'slope' of the graph - The Nikon D5 and Sony A9 are a good case in point - biased toward high ISO performance ....


Chosun :gh:
 
Robert is of course right a 400mm lens is still 400mm on any body. BUT the in-camera cropping on a camera like the 7D2 (because it has a smaller sensor) means that to get the same FOV and number of pixels from a full frame Camera it would mean it needs around 51mp to begin with.

Which is more or less what we are looking at with the 5DS and DSr.

Not having a go at anybody in particular, nor am normally all that pedantic, but the whole smaller sensor giving better reach is an oft trotted out illusion in my opinion. Nobody ever says for example "I am swapping my 7d for a 7d mark 2 because it gives more reach", or a 5d3 for a 5d4, but the premise is the same, higher pixel density giving a larger image size, regardless of how much field of view of thje lens is used.

For the record my (now sold) 5DSr gave notably better detail than my 7d2 did, and the pixel density I believe was more or less the same. Adding a further point that there is more to life than pixel density. (and in my opinion the high noise was just as acceptable, if not slightly better)
 
Which is more or less what we are looking at with the 5DS and DSr.

Not having a go at anybody in particular, nor am normally all that pedantic, but the whole smaller sensor giving better reach is an oft trotted out illusion in my opinion. Nobody ever says for example "I am swapping my 7d for a 7d mark 2 because it gives more reach", or a 5d3 for a 5d4, but the premise is the same, higher pixel density giving a larger image size, regardless of how much field of view of thje lens is used.

For the record my (now sold) 5DSr gave notably better detail than my 7d2 did, and the pixel density I believe was more or less the same. Adding a further point that there is more to life than pixel density. (and in my opinion the high noise was just as acceptable, if not slightly better)
Your obviously did not really understand what I was trying to say, Not once did I say that higher pixel density gives a larger image size, that would be ridiculous. I was not referring to 'reach' but fine detail. As stated previously I can only directly compare the 7D2 v 5D3 - when cropping a 5D3 image to the same FOV as the 7D2 then the 5D3 images do not yield as much detail as the bare 7D2 shots.
 
I wasn't really taking issue with what you said Roy, just pointing as a general comment that the 7D2 having the same (more or less) pixel density as the 5DS/DSr in my opinion means now is the point at which we can stop mis-using the whole "smaller sensors give more reach" generalisation.
 
I wasn't really taking issue with what you said Roy, just pointing as a general comment that the 7D2 having the same (more or less) pixel density as the 5DS/DSr in my opinion means now is the point at which we can stop mis-using the whole "smaller sensors give more reach" generalisation.
That is certainly true for the 5DS/DSr Robert but from what I can tell very few bird photographers use these Camera, preferring the 1Dx or 5D3/4 for the full frame option.
On a side note I do not know why more Wildlife photographers do not go for the 5DS/DSr but guess it is to do with the AF system and high burst rate - are these Camera's really suited to wildlife/action shooting - as a previous user what are your experiences.
 
The Nikon D850 with it's high performance D5 AF system could solve that little conundrum - along the lines that Robert said. Either cropped, or in DX mode, it nearly has the resolution of the D500.

With the accessory battery grip and dedicated battery it will do 9fps, just 1 shy of the D500.

It is interesting that according to photonstophotos.net the higher resolving 24MP 'older sensor tech' D7200 has higher DR up to ~400 ISO than either of them in crop mode .... :cat:


Chosun :gh:
 
That is certainly true for the 5DS/DSr Robert but from what I can tell very few bird photographers use these Camera, preferring the 1Dx or 5D3/4 for the full frame option.
On a side note I do not know why more Wildlife photographers do not go for the 5DS/DSr but guess it is to do with the AF system and high burst rate - are these Camera's really suited to wildlife/action shooting - as a previous user what are your experiences.

Well there is one local (to me) photographer who prefers his 5D SR to his 1D4 for bird photography - so they obviously have potential!
 
That is certainly true for the 5DS/DSr Robert but from what I can tell very few bird photographers use these Camera, preferring the 1Dx or 5D3/4 for the full frame option.
On a side note I do not know why more Wildlife photographers do not go for the 5DS/DSr but guess it is to do with the AF system and high burst rate - are these Camera's really suited to wildlife/action shooting - as a previous user what are your experiences.

Roy I think the 5DS/r is eminently suitable for some styles of wildlife & bird photography, and it is beyond doubt in my mind that in the right conditions with the right optics, the 5DS/r can blow away anything else in the current Canon line-up in terms of detail captured. The limitations are well discussed, the relatively low fps, the slow buffer clearance, the not-1DX focusing system. Some say the high ISO performance is not great, I say I've used it in the Amazon and didn't find it any worse than the 1d4.

Sadly (and this is only from my point of view) at the moment in the Canon line up there is no perfect body for bird photography. The 1DX2 has good autofocus + FPS but relatively low pixel count and is madly expensive, the 5D4 is no better but is at least cheaper, the 5DSr is a bit cheaper, has acceptable AF and unbeatable resolution but isn't a fast action machine, the 7d2 is probably the best compromise IF you can find one which has consistently good AF. (that would be my 2nd choice after the 5DSr).

Maybe we are now within a generation or two of the perfect camera body, one with the resolution and portability of the 5DSr, the AF and processing power of the 1dx2 and the price less than that of a spare kidney. :)
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top