• 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 (2 Viewers)

Mick50

Active member
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.

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-for-wildlife-photography-one-month-in-the-rainforest/

http://www.intufisuri.ro/2017/07/olympus-om-d-e-m-1-mk-ii-review-or-how.html

https://www.jackkurtzphotography.com/index
 
Last edited:
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. . ..
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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-especially-with-pixels/
 
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-especially-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. :-O

Niels
 
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/comparisons/canon-eos-7d-ii-1d-x-5d-iii-af-comparison.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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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-e-m1-mark-2-english-review/
 
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-e-m1-mark-2-english-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.
 
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:
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.
 
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