Can I get better results from cropping a photo in Photoshop than adding a longer lens? Will using more megapixels help me achieve better results when cropping? I read a review on the FZ50 telephoto lens and he said he had better results from cropping than adding the lens. I have the FZ10 and want to upgrade, my choices are: (1) 6MP DSLR with a 500mm lens (750mm, 1.5x) or (2) the FZ50 with the telephoto lens set at 5MP with 1020mm or 8MP at 750mm. If I crop each photo to fill the screen or page, which set up do you believe will offer the best results? I would like some other opinions please.
-
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.
DSLR/500mm, FZ50/Telephoto Or Crop? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter PCC
- Start date
bkrownd
Well-known member
PCC said:
Cropping...is a way of life with bird photos. If you could afford a lens that prevented you from having to crop, you'd be a rich man indeed! (and a strong one) The lens is what provides the magnification. Cropping doesn't do anything except throw away pixels you don't want because you didn't have a big enough lens to zoom in on the bird so it fills most of the frame.
A decent dslr should provide better images than a good superzoom for the same optical numbers, if you know what you're doing. Number of pixels doesn't matter too much. 6Mp to 10Mp isn't much different, and if the picture isn't in focus or has motion blur or aberrations, more pixels won't help that.
What are you referring to as "the FZ50 telephoto lens"? Do you mean the built-in zoom lens, or a teleconverter attachment? You don't "set" a lens to any number of pixels. The FZ50 is 35-420mm equivalent, and a good teleconverter will get you to 714mm equivalent.
Last edited:
The DSLR option should give significantly better results - though it will cost more and be much more bulk to carry around with you. If DSLR's didn't produce noticeably better images people would not spend the money on them. DSLR's will generally offer faster focusing, quicker start-up and faster frame rate, all of which are very useful in bird photography.
As I understand it a DSLR will have a larger sensor than a 'bridge' camera, so each pixel is larger. This gives better light sensitivity (so high ISO shots are better and cleaner), and allows the camera to record fine detail more acurately.
Attahced is a 100% crop of a shot I took at the weekend using a Canon 400D (10mp camera) and a Sigma 500mm lens. This shows the sort of detail that a DSLR can give.
As I understand it a DSLR will have a larger sensor than a 'bridge' camera, so each pixel is larger. This gives better light sensitivity (so high ISO shots are better and cleaner), and allows the camera to record fine detail more acurately.
Attahced is a 100% crop of a shot I took at the weekend using a Canon 400D (10mp camera) and a Sigma 500mm lens. This shows the sort of detail that a DSLR can give.
Attachments
Thanks for the info. The FZ50 has a special feature called "extra optical zoom", its pretty cool. It allows you to set the megapixel value which will increase the zoom multiplier factor. It reduces the size of the sensor that is being used. It has four values (approx), 10MP (12x35mm), 8MP (13.4X35mm), 5MP (17.1X35mm), and 3MP (21.2X35mm). The LT55 telephoto lens adds a 1.7X multiplier. With the telephoto lens you would have approx. 700mm, 800mm, 1000mm and 1250mm. I wonder if I use the 5MP setting and the telephto lens (1000mm) would I get a lot better results cropping a DSLR at 6MP and 750mm?
Last edited:
Thanks for the info postcardcv. You are so right, speed is king in bird photography. As I was typing my question I knew what the outcome may be. Not only do you have all the advantages of the quick, high iso DSLR, but the usually faster and better lens without having to add a seperate lens like the FZ50. I have the FZ10 and it is very nice but slow, slow to focus, slow to take photos and I am using a very fast write card. If I purchase a DSLR, I am looking at the Pentax K10, image stabilized body and the Sigma 50-500 lens. The prime 500 lens may be out of my price range.
Last edited:
PCC said:
The Canon 400 f5.6 prime would cost about $1100 new - at that price it's very hard to beat. It remains sharp even when wide open, is fast focusing, lightweight and of course Canon L glass... but you'd need to buy a Canon camera to use one.
Frome the sound of the FZ50's "extra optical zoom", it seems it just crops the shot in camera. I can't see any adavntage in this as you can do this yourself on your computer. It seems to me to be a feature designed to make the camera sound more powerful than it really is.
bkrownd
Well-known member
postcardcv said:
Sounds like the "Extended Optical Zoom" EZ mode on my FZ-7 which isn't optical zoom at all, but instead is just in-camera cropping. No extra resolution. You don't get 1000mm+, just the same 714mm and less pixels. (smaller frame/area) Marketing junk.
There is one thing it's useful for - if you know that your subject is going to be inside the cropped area it makes it a lot easier to see the subject in the viewfinder and verify focus and metering. It can also help improve metering since you don't have all the extra edge area to consider. However, the way birds move around unpredictably I find that I need the full image area to make sure they'll be in the frame when the picture is taken.
Last edited:
impotentspider
Well-known member
PCC;
if your serious about the K10D you may be interested in some images I have just posted links to in the "Pentax" sub forum, taken with the K10D and Sigma 50-500;
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=72223
You can also find images taken with the K10D here on this thread;
http://www.pentaxuser.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3657
if your serious about the K10D you may be interested in some images I have just posted links to in the "Pentax" sub forum, taken with the K10D and Sigma 50-500;
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=72223
You can also find images taken with the K10D here on this thread;
http://www.pentaxuser.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3657
bkrownd said:Heh, get any old camera up a bird's beak and you'll get that kind of detail.The real question is how it looks at 50-100 feet.
I really don't think that this is true - sure the closer you are to your subject the beter detail will be recorded. However not all cameras and lenses are the same, you do need a decent lens and camera to record this level of detail. Surely is super zooms were capable of getting shots with this fine detail no one would bother lumping dslr's around.
Attached is the original shot that the crop was taken from...
Attachments
Last edited:
David Smith
Warrington Lancs
Still not certain
I (probably like others) am in the position of trying to decide on a 1st serious camera. I don't have lots of money so am trying to decide on the new Olympus super zoom at only £350?? when it arives in March or the Sony Alpha with Sigma zoom.
I fully agree with the comment "would people lug a big camera & lense" if the built in will do the same job. However do I go for the Olympus as an introduction then sell it later and move up ? My feeling is that the Olympus might help me to enjoy the learning curve (I can carry it when walking etc.) but will I be dissapointed with results??
Decisions, decisions!!
I (probably like others) am in the position of trying to decide on a 1st serious camera. I don't have lots of money so am trying to decide on the new Olympus super zoom at only £350?? when it arives in March or the Sony Alpha with Sigma zoom.
I fully agree with the comment "would people lug a big camera & lense" if the built in will do the same job. However do I go for the Olympus as an introduction then sell it later and move up ? My feeling is that the Olympus might help me to enjoy the learning curve (I can carry it when walking etc.) but will I be dissapointed with results??
Decisions, decisions!!
David Smith said:
The simple facts are that all of the current super zooms are good cameras and can produce very good images, though as with all photography your results will get better with practice. However current super zooms cannot get the image quality of a dslr. So really it's a matter of balancing what you want to acheive with what you want to spend. A dslr set up will cost a lot more and will be much more weight to carry... you'll just need to work out what is right for you.
hornet
Well-known member
David Smith said:
Not easy, and I know most DSLR users here are passionate about their gear and their hobby. But plenty of us who have gone the superzoom route have ended up happy that we did.
I have learned a huge amount about photography from scratch over the last 14 months with my Panasonic FZ20, meaning that for the investment of a few hundred pounds I now have:
some half decent bird photos (consistantly better than I managed with some very expensive digiscoping kit);
better holiday / family pictures than ever before;
an irreplaceable photographic record of my son's first year;
a real interest in all kinds of photography from landscapes to portraiture.
I often lust after DSLR kit, but I'm realistic about it. If I get a DSLR then I'm not only going to want a 400/500mm. I l'm going to want 3 or 4 lenses, covering 28 to 500mm, and I bet it doesn't stop there...
With the superzoom I have it the whole photographic package in one small bag (I use a teleconverter, wide angle converter, a few filters and a shutter release) rather than a rucksack. I produce decent enough photogaphs and enjoy it as an occasional but growing hobby. I know I can do better work with my existing kit, just by becoming a better (and certainly more committed) photographer. If I reach the limit of my kit... well, then I might, and only might, look to the next level.
There's no reason why you would be disappointed with a superzoom - they are capable of very good all round photography indeed. In my experience, it is usually me that's the problem, not my kit (in the same way that incorrect IDs are rarely the fault of my scope!)
I'd go the superzoom route again, and will stick with it for some time to come. The new Olympus looks great, so I'd go and try it out when it hits the High Street.
Or, if you want to go all guns blazing at photography as a new hobby - time to get that credit card out for some serious abuse! Happy shopping.
hornet
Well-known member
bkrownd said:
Agreed, DSLRs work much better in low light than superzooms, but this is one of the thing I have had to learn to work around. Makes me a more resourceful photographer I like to think
For non-birding photography, ie indoor people shots, I often switch to high ISO black and white for atmospheric, 'grainy' shots. Or I use a reflector to bounce more natural light into the shot, or use my external flash (one of the finest features of the FZxx range is that hotshoe).
For bird photography it can be a challenge, but then I often hear photographers with relatively slow 500mm lenses moaning about it too (don't know if there is such as thing, but I'd love to know how much a 500mm f2.8 would cost (and weigh)!)
It's very rarely that I am completely beaten by poor light and it certainly beats digiscoping (where the lightest cloud cover reduced my shutter speeds to useless).
