Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Sunday 3rd September 2017, 15:43   #1
Mick50
Registered User

 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 9
Full frame camera question

I'm an enthusiast photographer who primarily enjoys bird photography but also take some classes and shoot other subjects as well.

I'm using a Canon 60D with a 300mm f/4 L IS lens and a 1.4 extender. I'm very satisfied with the results, but of course wish for a longer lens to get closer to the subject and do less cropping.

My question is- what would be more effective for doing this, saving up for a longer lens, or saving up for an upgrade to a full frame camera?

Which would be more effective in getting improved results?

Thanks!

Budget: $2k and under
Mick50 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 3rd September 2017, 16:26   #2
Colin Blues
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 4
Hi Mick,

If you need to crop a lot with APSC sensor, changing to FF will not be much help imho. If you can find a fast telephoto within your budget, that will get you "closer".

Best wishes

Colin
Colin Blues is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 3rd September 2017, 17:37   #3
nikonmike
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: grimsby uk
Posts: 435
You could easy find a full frame made things worse.
__________________
Nikon D500 and Sigma 100-400
nikonmike is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 3rd September 2017, 19:17   #4
Jim M.
Choose Civility

 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikonmike View Post
You could easy find a full frame made things worse.
Agreed. You may actually want to consider going the opposite direction--to a smaller sensor such as a four thirds sensor and the Micro Four-thirds format. That way you have a built-in 2x crop factor and a 400mm lens becomes an 800mm equivalent.
Jim M. is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 3rd September 2017, 19:26   #5
johnf3f
johnf3f

 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: South Wales UK
Posts: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikonmike View Post
You could easy find a full frame made things worse.
How?

I use both FF and Crop cameras (with roughly the same pixel count) and at the longest focal lengths currently available yet I invariably reach for my FF camera due to the better IQ.

Certainly under absolutely ideal conditions my crop cameras has a small reach advantage - but for the other 90% of the time my FF camera is far better.

There is, however, a catch (there always is!) A top performing FF camera is expensive!
johnf3f is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 3rd September 2017, 21:34   #6
fugl
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 12,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnf3f View Post
How?

I use both FF and Crop cameras (with roughly the same pixel count) and at the longest focal lengths currently available yet I invariably reach for my FF camera due to the better IQ.

Certainly under absolutely ideal conditions my crop cameras has a small reach advantage - but for the other 90% of the time my FF camera is far better.

There is, however, a catch (there always is!) A top performing FF camera is expensive!
Agreed. the only real disadvantage of FF for bird photography is cost and weight. In all other respects FF is superior. For non-bird photography, particularly at short focal lengths, it's far superior.

That said, for those who shoot exclusively in jpeg and do little or no post-processing, one of the smaller formats is probably the way to go.
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 3rd September 2017, 22:40   #7
Jim M.
Choose Civility

 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick50 View Post
I'm very satisfied with the results, but of course wish for a longer lens to get closer to the subject and do less cropping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnf3f View Post
How?
I use both FF and Crop cameras (with roughly the same pixel count) and at the longest focal lengths currently available yet I invariably reach for my FF camera due to the better IQ.
John,

Think we are focusing on different parts of the post. The OP's complaint I and nikonmike (probably) are focusing on is that he was doing too much cropping and wasn't getting close enough. That will be made worse by switching to a full frame camera--he'll have no crop factor, so he'll have a greater need to get close than before (assuming the same lens) and will have to do more cropping in post.

You are probably focusing on whether he'll get better image quality with a full frame. That's a different question.

As for smaller formats being suited mostly to jpeg shooters, that may have been true many years ago, but hasn't been close to being true for some time. Many professionals have switched to smaller formats because of the technological advances, e.g. in mirrorless cameras, and weight savings. Some links to just a few noted photographers, including bird photographers, using smaller formats such as micro 4/3:

2 links to Scott Bourne (the first discusses smaller formats):
https://spark.adobe.com/page/WuwmbVyXe6NLl/

http://scottbourne.com/

Others:

http://www.sulasula.com/en/olympus-f...he-rainforest/

http://www.intufisuri.ro/2017/07/oly...ew-or-how.html

https://www.jackkurtzphotography.com/index

Last edited by Jim M. : Sunday 3rd September 2017 at 23:19.
Jim M. is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 4th September 2017, 01:05   #8
fugl
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 12,998
Quality of all formats--from iPhone to full frame--has improved (and will doubtless continue to improve) across the board. But all else being equal it remains a truth universally acknowledged that a big sensor will always out-perform a small one. Cropping as such, in-camera or out, really doesn't come into it.

The question for bird photographers is whether modern smaller-than-FF-sensors are good enough for their purposes. My experience, from looking at the photographs of others, is that 4/3 isn't quite there yet whereas cropped 35mm, though still inferior to full-frame, is. Others may think otherwise, of course, as in all matters of taste and standards. . ..
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins

Last edited by fugl : Monday 4th September 2017 at 03:14.
fugl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 4th September 2017, 12:53   #9
Steve Gantlett
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Cley next the Sea
Posts: 102
It surely doesn't matter a hoot what size the sensor is per se. If the bird is miles away and a dot in the middle of the sensor, you'll want to crop off the vast majority of a 1.6 crop sensor and nearly all of a full frame sensor, and all that surrounding sensor will be effectively thrown away. All that really matters is the density of the pixels (how many pixels you can get on the bird) and the quality of those pixels. The rest of the sensor size is irrelevant as it's thrown away – or it is in 90% of my bird photography; the other 10%, when I can get the bird really big in the frame, is another matter, of course.
Steve Gantlett is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 4th September 2017, 14:33   #10
fugl
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 12,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Gantlett View Post
It surely doesn't matter a hoot what size the sensor is per se. If the bird is miles away and a dot in the middle of the sensor, you'll want to crop off the vast majority of a 1.6 crop sensor and nearly all of a full frame sensor, and all that surrounding sensor will be effectively thrown away. All that really matters is the density of the pixels (how many pixels you can get on the bird) and the quality of those pixels. The rest of the sensor size is irrelevant as it's thrown away – or it is in 90% of my bird photography; the other 10%, when I can get the bird really big in the frame, is another matter, of course.
All else being equal, the bigger the pixel, the better the IQ, and the denser the pixels, the better the resolution. So, big sensors with big pixels will out-perform small sensors with the same number of (necessarily) smaller pixels (all else being equal, of course).

http://reedhoffmann.com/size-matter-...y-with-pixels/
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 4th September 2017, 15:05   #11
njlarsen
Opus Editor
 
njlarsen's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Portsmouth, Dominica
Posts: 20,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by fugl View Post
All else being equal, the bigger the pixel, the better the IQ, and the denser the pixels, the better the resolution. So, big sensors with big pixels will out-perform small sensors with the same number of (necessarily) smaller pixels (all else being equal, of course).

http://reedhoffmann.com/size-matter-...y-with-pixels/
Which is why many of the smaller sensors have fewer pixels than the FF sensors.

For example, I have a 16 mpix m4/3 camera (pixel size 3.75 µm). I just looked at two larger size cameras:
Canon 5D is a 30 mpix FF camera. That means that the pixel size advantage is not 4x (sensor size ratio) but only 2x.
Nikon D850 is a 45.7 mpix fx camera with a crop factor of around 1.5 leading to pixel size of 4.35 microns.

So yes, there is a per pixel advantage in size for these larger size cameras, but not by as much as one should think. The disadvantage of the larger pixels is that for the same lens and distance, you have fewer pixels available that actually cover the bird. When looking at other threads here in BF, that leads most users of larger cameras to either have or pine for lenses so large that I would break my back if I tried carrying one around.

Niels
__________________
Support bird conservation in the Caribbean: BirdCaribbean
njlarsen is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 4th September 2017, 16:09   #12
pbjosh
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Buenos Aires
Posts: 315
Something that often gets missed in this is how autofocus will perform depending on reach. For a perched bird that is not terribly distant your results are not too different in image quality after crop nor in autofocus performance.

Having a crop sensor extends your lens's reach, and effectively makes your autofocus array larger. If you are relying on autofocus, a crop sensor will outperform a FF in many cases assuming you have similar autofocus arrays.

Translating that to real world - a 7DII will outperform your 60D in basically every way possible. A 5DIV will as well. However there are situations where the 7DII will outperform the 5DIV due to the intersection of lens reach and autofocus grid size. Here's a link to an article with an instructive image showing the difference in coverage of AF area:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/c...omparison.aspx

The one strong advantage of FF cameras is for ultimate image quality and greater low light performance if you have a good enough / long enough lens and/or are close enough to your subject. For me, though, the weight and cost of a longer lens are just not worth it, I greatly prefer crop sensor and the extra reach without more weight.

In my opinion m4/3 cameras aren't there yet for autofocus performance for birds in flight. They are getting there, and I'm eagerly awaiting a year or two more development and hoping to replace my 7DII + 100-400 lens with a prosumer bridge camera. But not yet. For bird photography, I don't have any interest in a FF camera, and I wish I had a much lighter setup (ergo my desire for a bridge camera with better autofocus!).

From where you are at, kit wise, I would say the obvious upgrades are either a 100-400 mark II, or a 7DII. The lens will get your more reach and better IS. The 7DII will get your better low light performance, better autofocus, and better framerate. The 400/5.6 prime is a very sharp lens but having finally upgraded from that to the 100-400 mark II, I find the advantage of image stabilization so great that I would not recommend the 400/5.6 any longer unless you use a tripod a lot. Even in good light with very high shutter speeds, I get far more tack sharp photos from the 100-400 mark II.

Cheers,
Josh
pbjosh is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 4th September 2017, 18:42   #13
nikonmike
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: grimsby uk
Posts: 435
I was running a D7100 and moved onto a D750 everything was great until i went hunting small birds with a 600mm,some of the crops left nothing in the way of detail,i ended up moving back to DX with a D7200.

FF does have the edge but only in certain situations,the D850 may be different but i bet i couldn't hold it still enough,carry it or afford it.
__________________
Nikon D500 and Sigma 100-400
nikonmike is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th September 2017, 07:06   #14
Robert_Scanlon
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick50 View Post
I'm an enthusiast photographer who primarily enjoys bird photography but also take some classes and shoot other subjects as well.

I'm using a Canon 60D with a 300mm f/4 L IS lens and a 1.4 extender. I'm very satisfied with the results, but of course wish for a longer lens to get closer to the subject and do less cropping.

My question is- what would be more effective for doing this, saving up for a longer lens, or saving up for an upgrade to a full frame camera?

Which would be more effective in getting improved results?

Thanks!

Budget: $2k and under
A good quality longer lens every time.
Robert_Scanlon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 8th September 2017, 21:03   #15
johnf3f
johnf3f

 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: South Wales UK
Posts: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim M. View Post
John,

Think we are focusing on different parts of the post. The OP's complaint I and nikonmike (probably) are focusing on is that he was doing too much cropping and wasn't getting close enough. That will be made worse by switching to a full frame camera--he'll have no crop factor, so he'll have a greater need to get close than before (assuming the same lens) and will have to do more cropping in post.

You are probably focusing on whether he'll get better image quality with a full frame. That's a different question.
My experience is that FF cameras give better images when cropped under all but ideal conditions. When the light is just right a good crop camera will certainly out reach a good FF camera (with one or two exceptions).

My photography is very reach limited which is why I use the longest lenses currently produced (currently a Canon 800 F5.6 L IS) so any advantage in reach is eagerly welcomed! I wonder why my 1DX has 10 times the shutter actuations of my 7D2?

When the light is just right my 7D2 is a cracker on Kingfishers and similar subjects - but for the other 350+ days of the year the 1DX does a better job on the same subjects.

Just my experiences.
johnf3f is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 10th September 2017, 09:38   #16
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
 
Roy C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Barnstaple,North Devon,UK
Posts: 16,215
I have done a lot of controlled tests between shots on 1.6x crop camera (7D2 in my case) v cropping FF images (5D3) to the same field of view and there is no doubt in my mind that the 7D2 images yield more detail than the cropped FF ones. Having said that the FF images are much cleaner in poor light (higher ISO) of course. If I was not range limited I would choose the FF every time but for me and my style I choose the 7D2 over the FF all of the time for distant stuff.
If I understand the OP's concern correctly he is looking to do less cropping so just switching to a FF Camera would mean MORE cropping so the obvious way forward is a longer lens.
Roy C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 12th September 2017, 18:38   #17
Jim M.
Choose Civility

 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6,664
Thanks Roy for your comments.

Here's a recent blog post in which the author explains how pleased he was with moving from a full frame Canon camera to the micro 4/3 format (specifically the Olympus EM 1 mk.ii).
I like the look of the Olympus photos better and compared to Canon I feel I do less post processing. This might change in the near future but for now I feel this way. Maybe it is just the “new factor” . Maybe all of this will change. Maybe in 1 year I will move back again to full frame. But for now this is the most wonderful thing that happened in my photographic life in the past 8 years.”

http://aurelm.com/2017/07/10/olympus...nglish-review/
Jim M. is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 13th September 2017, 13:42   #18
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
 
Roy C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Barnstaple,North Devon,UK
Posts: 16,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim M. View Post
Thanks Roy for your comments.

Here's a recent blog post in which the author explains how pleased he was with moving from a full frame Canon camera to the micro 4/3 format (specifically the Olympus EM 1 mk.ii).
I like the look of the Olympus photos better and compared to Canon I feel I do less post processing. This might change in the near future but for now I feel this way. Maybe it is just the “new factor” . Maybe all of this will change. Maybe in 1 year I will move back again to full frame. But for now this is the most wonderful thing that happened in my photographic life in the past 8 years.”

http://aurelm.com/2017/07/10/olympus...nglish-review/
I was just addressing the OP's original question regarding cropping less with a full frame opposed to a 1.6 crop sensor Jim, which is of course the exact opposite as you would need to crop more with the full frame to get the same FOV.
As regards to a micro 4/3 format being better than a Full Frame DSLR that is another question/topic but I would very much doubt it myself. I do not see Canon or Nikon users switching to 4/3 in big numbers any time soon, that's for sure, but for any that are happily using a 4/3 system then the best of luck to them.
Roy C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 13th September 2017, 13:51   #19
Jim M.
Choose Civility

 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy C View Post
I was just addressing the OP's original question regarding cropping less with a full frame opposed to a 1.6 crop sensor Jim, which is of course the exact opposite as you would need to crop more with the full frame to get the same FOV.
As regards to a micro 4/3 format being better than a Full Frame DSLR that is another question/topic but I would very much doubt it myself. I do not see Canon or Nikon users switching to 4/3 in big numbers any time soon, that's for sure, but for any that are happily using a 4/3 system then the best of luck to them.
Of course, I didn't mean to suggest your post and mine were addressing the same topic. But in addition to the blog I linked to, the m4/3s forums I visit get frequent posts from former canikon users who are happy with a switch to m4/3 for various reasons; and I believe it's a substantial portion of the m4/3 user base. In any event, I don't think there's a "better" or "best" camera system choice in general; just systems that are better for different users with different needs.

Last edited by Jim M. : Wednesday 13th September 2017 at 15:23.
Jim M. is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 14th September 2017, 06:37   #20
Robert_Scanlon
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
Having a crop sensor extends your lens's reach
No, a 400mm lens is still a 400mm lens, and a 600mm lens is still a 600mm lens, the magnification is exactly the same.

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.
Robert_Scanlon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 14th September 2017, 13:06   #21
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
 
Roy C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Barnstaple,North Devon,UK
Posts: 16,215
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 by Roy C : Thursday 14th September 2017 at 13:53.
Roy C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 14th September 2017, 13:18   #22
njlarsen
Opus Editor
 
njlarsen's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Portsmouth, Dominica
Posts: 20,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert_Scanlon View Post
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
__________________
Support bird conservation in the Caribbean: BirdCaribbean
njlarsen is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 14th September 2017, 16:16   #23
Vespobuteo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Utopia
Posts: 1,635
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/Chart...ikon%20D750(DX)

Last edited by Vespobuteo : Thursday 14th September 2017 at 16:21.
Vespobuteo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 15th September 2017, 02:23   #24
njlarsen
Opus Editor
 
njlarsen's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Portsmouth, Dominica
Posts: 20,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vespobuteo View Post
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
__________________
Support bird conservation in the Caribbean: BirdCaribbean
njlarsen is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 15th September 2017, 10:59   #25
Vespobuteo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Utopia
Posts: 1,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by njlarsen View Post
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/Chart...ikon%20D850(DX)

*Same generation of sensor/electronics
Vespobuteo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Worth it to have a Full Frame camera? Nick Leech Canon 43 Thursday 30th October 2014 13:03
Full frame or crop camera? alphan Photography using 'Astro' telescopes 11 Tuesday 29th November 2011 04:59
Full Frame vs. APC toothtango Canon 10 Sunday 28th November 2010 12:37
full frame - would you? pduxon Cameras And Photography 7 Monday 31st August 2009 16:25
Full Frame-Non-Full frame and 4/3 Lens redtail7 Nikon 7 Saturday 23rd August 2008 07:05

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.18155289 seconds with 37 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:43.