Posted by Luke Ormand on March 17, 2010 at 4:14 PM
There has been some recent joking discussions in the Fauna gallery about me purchasing a 600mm lens (unless I win the lotto/pull off a bank heist, it won't be happening soon) and it was correctly noted that a 600mm on a FF camera would yield less focal length than what I have now (D300s 300 f/4 + 1.7X TC). So, my question is why would I ever consider going to a FF camera anyway?
I'm aware of some advantages (pro-style camera, better ISO handeling, holds up to cropping better etc.) but don't fully understand what the logic behind it is. I'm thinking what you are shooting plays a role, as shooting large mammals like bears, seals and deer would require less focal length and that not many avian photogs would use a FF camera.
Any thoughts, opinions, experiences and facts are much appreciated. There's still a lot I don't understand about the camera world.
- Luke
Posted by Keith Bauer on March 17, 2010 at 5:23 PM
Well, the real truth is that the real focal length that you have now is 300 * 1.7 or 510mm. The extra crop created by your D300s is 1.5. That does not make the lens any longer. It just crops the field of view. I shoot with both a Canon 50D (1.6 crop) and an Canon 5D (full frame). Usually my 500mm with a 1.4x is on the 50D because it provides that extra crop. My primary target with that setup is usually our Avian friends. When I'm in Yellowstone I will often switch bodies to the 5D because the crop created by the 50D is not as advantageous when I'm after larger mammals. Which one is better?? Can't tell you the answer because there are just too many variables involved. Back in the days of muscle cars in the 60's and 70's there was a saying "There ain't no substitute for cubic inches". I'm in the camp that says for pure image quality, there ain't no substitute for square inches. I really like the images from a full frame sensor and granted my aging 5D is not at the top of the heap any more, but it still produces some incredible results. I'm convinced the limiting factor is the clown behind the viewfinder. Certainly noise seems to be handled better by full frame sensors and I'm guessing extrapolating that out to the medium format digital world, noise is handled even better. I don't own one of those because then I'd have to win the lotto or pull of a bank heist
Assuming the same pixel density, you can a achieve the same results with a full frame sensor as you get with a cropped sensor, simply by cropping. If you are going to want to crop every image, then what's the point of having a full frame sensor?. On the other hand, if you can take advantage of the whole sensor, without cropping, then a the full frame sensor will give you a higher resolution image (assuming the same pixel density). At the other end of the focal length scale, full frame sensor will let you take full advantage of your wide angle lenses.
So if you never use wide angle lenses, and you have a high-resolution cropped sensor, a full frame sensor would give you little advantage. A bonus is that lenses made especially for cropped-sensor bodies, such as the Canon EF-S lenses, tend to be smaller and less expensive. Who knows, maybe someday they'll make super-telephoto lenses specifically for cropped sensor bodies.
Also, assuming equal pixel density and all other things being equal, a cropped sensor will produce smaller files and will allow a smaller mirror, which will allow a faster frame rate and a larger buffer.
Some folks can afford to get the latest and greatest gear and can upgrade every time a new a body is released. On the other hand, the best reason to get a new body is that the one you've got isn't getting the job done, and the new release has new or better features that you can't live without. If a full frame body will give you something you want that your cropped sensor body can't deliver, then an upgrade is in order.
When I replaced my 1.6 crop-factor body with a 1.3 crop-factor body, I found myself using the 2x tele-converter more frequently, where I would probably have used the 1.4 before. I'd like a full frame sensor for wide-angle work, but I think it will increase the desire/need/lust for a longer focal length telephoto lens for wildlife.
A FF sensor would probably work better for in-flight shots, but you could just take off the extender. Full frame bodies generally have better menus, frame rates (assuming the high fps camera is selected), better handling of high dynamic range, and better AF. I think pros are able to maintain there FF bodies by knowing how to get closer and wait longer to get photos of birds. With the higher iso sensitivity, pros are able to get up earlier and get shots of birds when they are more distracted in being the first one to the worm rather than hiding in the forest.
I hope you are getting to grips with it Luke, but here is one to confuse you more. I know you use Nikon, but Canon's flagship for wildlife/sports is a 1.3 crop factor camera! This approach has been criticized even by many canonians ever since the FF's came out. However, I am very happy with that crop factor! Why? because it is a 'free' TC the way I see it. I am not going to crop every image I make and know that if I with a FF I would also want that 600mm. Now the 500mm, which is much easier to work with, is just perfect as a longest lens. In theory the larger the sensor the higher the IQ, but as long as the IQ is terrific (and the 1D series is!), I see no need for FF for wildlife! However, the 1.3 crop factor's down side is on the WA side. For this I have a FF camera, coupled with higher resolution this is simply better for maximum quality and detail in landscape images, which are more likely to be printed extremely large as compared to wildlife images.
Posted by Luke Ormand on March 24, 2010 at 4:12 PM
Thanks for all of the thoughtful input. Vincent, you gave me the answer I was looking for . Brad is a huge fan of the FF cameras, but they expense of the bodies alone, not to mention the lenses/TCs which need to accompany them is awfully prohibitive. I also shoot a lot of birds and insects, so I could use the focal length. I can see if you are shooting a lot of megafauna how a FF could be preferable as you don't need nearly as much reach but there aint a whole lot of megafauna on Long Island aside from seasonal marine mammals
Discussion
5 repliesI'm aware of some advantages (pro-style camera, better ISO handeling, holds up to cropping better etc.) but don't fully understand what the logic behind it is. I'm thinking what you are shooting plays a role, as shooting large mammals like bears, seals and deer would require less focal length and that not many avian photogs would use a FF camera.
Any thoughts, opinions, experiences and facts are much appreciated. There's still a lot I don't understand about the camera world.
- Luke
So if you never use wide angle lenses, and you have a high-resolution cropped sensor, a full frame sensor would give you little advantage. A bonus is that lenses made especially for cropped-sensor bodies, such as the Canon EF-S lenses, tend to be smaller and less expensive. Who knows, maybe someday they'll make super-telephoto lenses specifically for cropped sensor bodies.
Also, assuming equal pixel density and all other things being equal, a cropped sensor will produce smaller files and will allow a smaller mirror, which will allow a faster frame rate and a larger buffer.
Some folks can afford to get the latest and greatest gear and can upgrade every time a new a body is released. On the other hand, the best reason to get a new body is that the one you've got isn't getting the job done, and the new release has new or better features that you can't live without. If a full frame body will give you something you want that your cropped sensor body can't deliver, then an upgrade is in order.
When I replaced my 1.6 crop-factor body with a 1.3 crop-factor body, I found myself using the 2x tele-converter more frequently, where I would probably have used the 1.4 before. I'd like a full frame sensor for wide-angle work, but I think it will increase the desire/need/lust for a longer focal length telephoto lens for wildlife.
- Luke