Filling the Frame on an FX sensor

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

We've heard it before and in wildlife photography, DX sensors 'crop factor' allows the subject to fill the frame resulting if necessary, smaller cropping to remove unwanted space in the composition.

Having never shot with an FX sensor body, I imagine that one would always need to crop to some degree unless one can really really get that close to the wildlife subject to 'fill the frame' and maximize the composition space, but I"m strugging to understand how that would be possible. Ie. birds, mammals, anything that moves wouldn't want any human getting close to them - other than a dog or cat, or other pet.

Hoping someone can help me understand.

Thanks
 
Sounds to me like you understand it. When I started reading about birding, I heard the phrase, "you can never have too much reach". Most of the time that's true, especially with smaller birds and mammals, so the DX sensor size has the advantage here. If I know I'll be able to get close enough to my subjects to fill the frame, I'll bring the D850 FX. If not, it's the D500 DX, but the reach and quality of the glass you have is every bit as important, if not more important, than the camera. Improving your stalking skills to be able to get closer to your subjects no matter what camera and glass you bring, is a big advantage in filling the frame.
 
You pretty much have it down :)

With an FX camera, you either need to be 1.5X closer or use 1.5X more focal length than you do with the DX bodies. I like FX, but I also tend to favor places that let me get closer to the wildlife, like zoos (kidding LOL).

Seriously though, if you can't get close enough DX is the way to go. I use FX because I have places near me where birds will land right on your hand, there are tons of places in Costa Rica where the wildlife is approachable, ditto for Africa, and many national parks in the US. If I'm looking for a certain species, the first thing I do is find out if there's anyplace where that animal is more approachable. For example - there are some marshes near where I live and we have great blue herons and great egrets there - a lot of them. However, a DX camera with my 600 F/4 and 1.4TC often aren't enough to fill the frame. So, I get my heron and egret shots in FL where I can fill the frame with a 300mm lens.

In short, FX is viable for wildlife, but you have to travel sometimes.
 
The trick crop sensors pull off is they cram in more pixels per sensor area. So a smaller sensor might have as many pixels as a larger sensor. So given the same focal length lens, you can fill the sensor with the same subject from farther away on the crop sensor and still have the same pixel dimensions. There is no free lunch though. There can be impacts from the smaller sensor related to diffraction, dynamic range, and noise. So there are pros and cons for each format and you choose the right tool for the job.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Steve and everyone - appreciate the validation of what I thought is correct in my assumption.

I'm still leaning towards getting the Z7ii because of the higher Megapixel sensor, I can crop if I have to in post processing - I get a mix of both scenarios where I can get close to subjects and sometimes not, so instead of having to carry 2 bodies - ie. D500 and a Z7ii, my thought is to just carry the Z7ii. My focus is on static objects, so I don't need to worry about fast AF at this point. I can use the Z7ii for travel, landscapes and wildlife is what my thought process is with regards.

It's a lot money to pay for the Z7ii for me, but if it can provide me the both of 2 worlds - DX and FX, then it justifies the purchase. I would not use the DX mode in the Z7ii, but as mentioned will crop during post processing if necessary.

I could wait for the next iteration of Z series will it might have better and faster AF if BIF is something I want to do more of later, but then that new Z8/Z9 body will have a much higher price point I imagine.

Welcome any further feedback or thoughts to share with my thoughts on this.

Thanks again folks!

You pretty much have it down :)

With an FX camera, you either need to be 1.5X closer or use 1.5X more focal length than you do with the DX bodies. I like FX, but I also tend to favor places that let me get closer to the wildlife, like zoos (kidding LOL).

Seriously though, if you can't get close enough DX is the way to go. I use FX because I have places near me where birds will land right on your hand, there are tons of places in Costa Rica where the wildlife is approachable, ditto for Africa, and many national parks in the US. If I'm looking for a certain species, the first thing I do is find out if there's anyplace where that animal is more approachable. For example - there are some marshes near where I live and we have great blue herons and great egrets there - a lot of them. However, a DX camera with my 600 F/4 and 1.4TC often aren't enough to fill the frame. So, I get my heron and egret shots in FL where I can fill the frame with a 300mm lens.

In short, FX is viable for wildlife, but you have to travel sometimes.
 
Thanks Steve and everyone - appreciate the validation of what I thought is correct in my assumption.

I'm still leaning towards getting the Z7ii because of the higher Megapixel sensor, I can crop if I have to in post processing - I get a mix of both scenarios where I can get close to subjects and sometimes not, so instead of having to carry 2 bodies - ie. D500 and a Z7ii, my thought is to just carry the Z7ii. My focus is on static objects, so I don't need to worry about fast AF at this point. I can use the Z7ii for travel, landscapes and wildlife is what my thought process is with regards.

It's a lot money to pay for the Z7ii for me, but if it can provide me the both of 2 worlds - DX and FX, then it justifies the purchase. I would not use the DX mode in the Z7ii, but as mentioned will crop during post processing if necessary.

I could wait for the next iteration of Z series will it might have better and faster AF if BIF is something I want to do more of later, but then that new Z8/Z9 body will have a much higher price point I imagine.

Welcome any further feedback or thoughts to share with my thoughts on this.

Thanks again folks!

It's a good approach and one I use with my D850. Your BIF reference does give me a moment of pause though. If that's something you do a lot, keep in mind that while the new Z7ii is capable, it's not quite up to D850 level, IMO. It's not bad, but the D850 is easier to use for BIF and gives a bit higher keeper rate. However, if BIF is not a major consideration, the Z7ii really is a good all-around camera.
 
Most of the BIF shots that I have isn't planned, and using the D500, I know that it's capable for BIF and static objects and it's easy to prep the camera for either. I think I'll miss that flexibility when I get the Z7ii. Perhaps, I'll have to plan before hand what I"m going to be shooting and take the appropriate camera with me - well, I could just carry both camera bodies, but I rather not.
 
Having never shot with an FX sensor body, I imagine that one would always need to crop to some degree unless one can really really get that close to the wildlife subject to 'fill the frame' and maximize the composition space, but I"m strugging to understand how that would be possible. Ie. birds, mammals, anything that moves wouldn't want any human getting close to them - other than a dog or cat, or other pet.
It may seem impossible at times and sometimes things like refuge regulations really do make getting closer difficult or impossible but remember there were plenty of wildlife photographers filling their 35mm frames for decades and though it wasn't always easy then and isn't always easy now it's certainly possible. Filling a full frame sensor with skittish wildlife subjects takes many things including: knowledge of animal behavior, knowing where to go and when to be there, having good field skills and there's always an element of luck but you make a lot of that luck by getting out there and trying as often as you can.

But yes, filling a full frame sensor with wildlife images does generally mean getting closer in addition to having long enough lenses but it's quite possible and gets easier with practice and field time.

I'd also add that finding ways to get closer has big benefits beyond being able to fill that full frame sensor. Generally speaking folk's wildlife images get a lot better when they figure out how to get closer and there are big benefits like shooting through less atmosphere or being able to use shorter focal length lenses to include more of the animal's environment while still keeping the subject relatively large in the frame.
 
Most of the BIF shots that I have isn't planned, and using the D500, I know that it's capable for BIF and static objects and it's easy to prep the camera for either. I think I'll miss that flexibility when I get the Z7ii. Perhaps, I'll have to plan before hand what I"m going to be shooting and take the appropriate camera with me - well, I could just carry both camera bodies, but I rather not.
Just to be clear, the Z7ii can do BIF work - heck, the Z7 ca do it. It's just that it's not up to the level of your D500. Plus, the more you use the Z7ii, the easier flight shots will become. It may never be a D500, but it does sound like it may work for what you need. :)
 
Here's one thing that I learned some time ago regarding getting closer to wildlife: They are called wildlife because they are wild. Wild animals and birds are always on the lookout for threats approaching, and most wildlife see us humans as a threat. Approach them, and they move away. The trick is to get there before the wildlife and let them approach you. That way they are in control and are more likely to come closer to you than they will allow you to get to them if you were the one on the move.

So if you intend spending some time in a specific spot, get there earlier and make yourself comfortable without moving around. If it's in a place frequented by wildlife, they often will come drifting back.
 
Just to be clear, the Z7ii can do BIF work - heck, the Z7 ca do it. It's just that it's not up to the level of your D500. Plus, the more you use the Z7ii, the easier flight shots will become. It may never be a D500, but it does sound like it may work for what you need. :)
Hi Steve, I'm wondering about in-camera cropping with the Z7 ii and focus precision. Any thoughts?
 
Hi Steve, I'm wondering about in-camera cropping with the Z7 ii and focus precision. Any thoughts?
Focus precision is good for BIF for the most part and for static images it's as good or better than a DSLR. As for in-camera cropping - you mean like DX mode and such? If so, it works really well. With an optical viewfinder, we'd get an outline or mask for the crop area - with the Z cameras, it uses the crop area to fill the viewfinder. Makes for a really good experience - but - just remember you're in crop mode! I was using my Z7 in crop mode once and forgot to turn it back to FX. Since both modes fill the viewfinder, I only realized my mistake when my 300mm seemed way too long LOL!
 
Focus precision is good for BIF for the most part and for static images it's as good or better than a DSLR. As for in-camera cropping - you mean like DX mode and such? If so, it works really well. With an optical viewfinder, we'd get an outline or mask for the crop area - with the Z cameras, it uses the crop area to fill the viewfinder. Makes for a really good experience - but - just remember you're in crop mode! I was using my Z7 in crop mode once and forgot to turn it back to FX. Since both modes fill the viewfinder, I only realized my mistake when my 300mm seemed way too long LOL!
Thanks for your reply Steve! Very helpful!
 
The joke with birds is that you travel to a hotspot and get your best shot in the car park.

Most birds are shy but like humans they vary, so one or two might hang around when you drive up.

Places where birds and humans share the environment are good for getting close as the birds have got used to us.

I find immature birds are often more relaxed about humans, or perhaps more curious. Our Swamp Harrier adult will do a u-turn the moment it sees you while junior won't.
 
Last edited:
You pretty much have it down :)

With an FX camera, you either need to be 1.5X closer or use 1.5X more focal length than you do with the DX bodies. I like FX, but I also tend to favor places that let me get closer to the wildlife, like zoos (kidding LOL).

Seriously though, if you can't get close enough DX is the way to go. I use FX because I have places near me where birds will land right on your hand, there are tons of places in Costa Rica where the wildlife is approachable, ditto for Africa, and many national parks in the US. If I'm looking for a certain species, the first thing I do is find out if there's anyplace where that animal is more approachable. For example - there are some marshes near where I live and we have great blue herons and great egrets there - a lot of them. However, a DX camera with my 600 F/4 and 1.4TC often aren't enough to fill the frame. So, I get my heron and egret shots in FL where I can fill the frame with a 300mm lens.

In short, FX is viable for wildlife, but you have to travel sometimes.
Steve, is shooting in DX mode with the D850 the same as using a DX camera, eg D500?
And BTW, this summary of topics discussed is great!
Thanks.
 
Steve, is shooting in DX mode with the D850 the same as using a DX camera, eg D500?
And BTW, this summary of topics discussed is great!
Thanks.
From an image quality standpoint, it's incredibly close. The D500 is slightly higher res (by just over a MP), but you'd be hard-pressed to see any difference. I know I can't. That's why when I got my D850 I stopped used the D500 by and large - just no reason to anymore (at least for me).

From a performance standpoint, they are also close, but the D500 is going to give you a higher frame rate, buffer, and many claim the AF is a bit better (I'm not 100% sure myself).
 
You pretty much have it down :)

With an FX camera, you either need to be 1.5X closer or use 1.5X more focal length than you do with the DX bodies. I like FX, but I also tend to favor places that let me get closer to the wildlife, like zoos (kidding LOL).
....
Indeed, with a FF camera you need to get 1.5x closer to your subject. But learning to do so is fun and rewarding. You end being intimately close to your living subject and this brings you adrenalin. Plus better picture quality compared to a DX / APS-C camera.

So, to OP, go ahead with FF camera, you will like it!
 
You pretty much have it down :)

With an FX camera, you either need to be 1.5X closer or use 1.5X more focal length than you do with the DX bodies. I like FX, but I also tend to favor places that let me get closer to the wildlife, like zoos (kidding LOL).

Seriously though, if you can't get close enough DX is the way to go. I use FX because I have places near me where birds will land right on your hand, there are tons of places in Costa Rica where the wildlife is approachable, ditto for Africa, and many national parks in the US. If I'm looking for a certain species, the first thing I do is find out if there's anyplace where that animal is more approachable. For example - there are some marshes near where I live and we have great blue herons and great egrets there - a lot of them. However, a DX camera with my 600 F/4 and 1.4TC often aren't enough to fill the frame. So, I get my heron and egret shots in FL where I can fill the frame with a 300mm lens.

In short, FX is viable for wildlife, but you have to travel sometimes.

Question, I can see that the DX D500 can fill the frame if your not close enough, despite the subject in reality being no closer physically be it a D500 or D850.
So with the amazing IQ of the D850 is the option to crop the image at home to fill the frame as good when compared to an uncropped image from the D500, is there that much of a difference ?

Oz Down Under
 
Question, I can see that the DX D500 can fill the frame if your not close enough, despite the subject in reality being no closer physically be it a D500 or D850.
So with the amazing IQ of the D850 is the option to crop the image at home to fill the frame as good when compared to an uncropped image from the D500, is there that much of a difference ?

Oz Down Under

With the D850, you can crop to DX and get nearly identical results as the D500 (the D500 is slightly higher res, but by less than 2MP). In fact, one reason I don't really shoot a DX camera anymore is because I can crop and get the same results on my D850 or Z7ii. In addition, the D850 / Z7ii give you the "in-between" areas as well. Maybe you can't fill the frame the way you want in FX, but in DX it's too tight, so you crop to 35 or 40MP instead.
 
With the D850, you can crop to DX and get nearly identical results as the D500 (the D500 is slightly higher res, but by less than 2MP). In fact, one reason I don't really shoot a DX camera anymore is because I can crop and get the same results on my D850 or Z7ii. In addition, the D850 / Z7ii give you the "in-between" areas as well. Maybe you can't fill the frame the way you want in FX, but in DX it's too tight, so you crop to 35 or 40MP instead.

Thankyou for your reply, its why so many members in our club have sold their D500 when the D850 came out.

OZ down Under
 
With the D850, you can crop to DX and get nearly identical results as the D500 (the D500 is slightly higher res, but by less than 2MP). In fact, one reason I don't really shoot a DX camera anymore is because I can crop and get the same results on my D850 or Z7ii. In addition, the D850 / Z7ii give you the "in-between" areas as well. Maybe you can't fill the frame the way you want in FX, but in DX it's too tight, so you crop to 35 or 40MP instead.
Thanks Steve.
 
We've heard it before and in wildlife photography, DX sensors 'crop factor' allows the subject to fill the frame resulting if necessary, smaller cropping to remove unwanted space in the composition.

Having never shot with an FX sensor body, I imagine that one would always need to crop to some degree unless one can really really get that close to the wildlife subject to 'fill the frame' and maximize the composition space, but I"m strugging to understand how that would be possible. Ie. birds, mammals, anything that moves wouldn't want any human getting close to them - other than a dog or cat, or other pet.

Hoping someone can help me understand.

Thanks

There are so many questions and answers dealing with what we need, want, or like and that's good.
Things usually start with a thought, then turn to words, words then to action........so the simplest answer to your situation is, Borrow a D850, or rent one, under stand it and use it properly, in their lies the answer......your course of action will surprise you and the new question may well be why didn't i do this a long time ago.

Every time i used a DX camera i always went back to the FX, example D300 to D3X, D7100 to D3x D4s, D500 I borrowed I gave it back and stayed with the D3x, D4s, D5, When i got the D850 after a short while I sold the D4s D5 and got a second D850 with a grip, I shot everything from sports action landscapes to models to you name it, also nature and wild life.
Of course what I do doesn't suite everyone else.

OZ down under
 
Last edited:
With the D850, you can crop to DX and get nearly identical results as the D500 (the D500 is slightly higher res, but by less than 2MP). In fact, one reason I don't really shoot a DX camera anymore is because I can crop and get the same results on my D850 or Z7ii. In addition, the D850 / Z7ii give you the "in-between" areas as well. Maybe you can't fill the frame the way you want in FX, but in DX it's too tight, so you crop to 35 or 40MP instead.
From a quality point of view is it better to crop to DX directly with the FX camera or to shoot in FX mode and then crop with the editing software (lightroom or other)?
 
From a quality point of view is it better to crop to DX directly with the FX camera or to shoot in FX mode and then crop with the editing software (lightroom or other)?
It's actually the same exact thing, no difference at all :)

The advantage of cropping in-camera is that you can put more photos in the buffer and use less space on your memory card. The advantage of cropping at home is that you have more compositional flexibility.
 
It's actually the same exact thing, no difference at all :)

The advantage of cropping in-camera is that you can put more photos in the buffer and use less space on your memory card. The advantage of cropping at home is that you have more compositional flexibility.
Thanks Steve. Probably ad additional advantage of cropping in camera is that you might be more accurate in focus since you see zoomed the point to be focus. Probably with autofocus it doesn’t change but with manual focus this could help.
 
Back
Top