I just don't get it

[Robin]

I shoot with either a 7D11 on a 500f4+ 1.4 converter, and a D500 on 500, 300 pf +1.4 converter. In almost all circumstances I crop my images.
I'd like try to improve my Wildlife photography, so my learned friends try to persuade me to go full frame.

Now I get that both Canon and Nikon full frame cameras will give me better ISO quality, more frames per second and probably better AF, esp the new R5 and would inevitably give me more images to play with.
Ultimately though I'm going to have to crop these images just to get to the same size of my Canon / Nikon native images. I then will need to crop even further to get the to the size of my cameras cropped images. (You might say well i need to get closer but in Britain wildlife will rarely allow this. )

If I crop on a 1DX total pixel count would be quite small and surely not as good as I'm getting now. If i do this on say a D850 or say an R5 the pixel count is going to be within the same field as my cropped cameras.

Given the use of the latest denoise and sharpening editors surely the finished images should not be that far apart from each other albeit there may be more of them to edit.

So what will I achieve by paying several extra thousands of pounds for a D5/6/R5? apart from getting a much slicker camera and why should full frame be the camera to aspire to? What am I missing?

 

[Steve]

You're 100% correct - you'll achieve nothing from an image quality standpoint.

There is a LOT of misconception about the difference between full frame and crop cameras, but you're evaluation is 100% correct. In short, you throw out all the advantages of a full frame camera by cropping it to APS-C / DX size. Worse, if you use something like a D5 with a lower pixel density, you are putting fewer pixels on your ducks and not capturing the same level of detail.

In fact, here's an article where I go into detail about it:

The Cropping Epidemic - Backcountry Gallery

I see it all the time – lens jockeys hacking off pixels and tossing them out like they were last week’s kitty litter. It pains me to witness such rampant cropping with so little regard for the consequences – especially since I know how potentially devastating it is to a photo. What really makes...

backcountrygallery.com

There was a time I would use a D5 and D500 in tandem. If I could fill the frame (or close) with the D5, I used that. If I knew I was going to crop to DX, I'd switch to the D500 to put more pixels on my subject. I used it as sort of a digital teleconverter. The only reason I stopped doing that was the D850 - a DX crop is basically the same as a D500. So, it's like having two cameras in one. If I could fill the frame, great, I get a better image. If not, I still get D500 quality ( the R5 is like the D850 in that respect). Note that despite the D850 being full frame, a D850 image cropped to DX really is about the same as what you would get from a D500 (technically the D500 has a slight advantage with studio tests, but nothing you'd see in the real world).

As an aside, I use the D6 for lower light / faster action scenarios with the D850

So, my advice is that unless you can actually fill a good portion of the frame with a full frame camera, save some money and stick to your APC-C / DX bodies.

 

[Robin]

Thanks for your reply Steve, Shame in someways Canon didn't progress with 1.3 cropped sensor, the best of both worlds.
I'm thinking it would be nice to have second D500, a smashing camera, to save swapping lenses all the time and as a back-up.
My 7D11 is ageing and will need replacing I don't fancy the 90 D much and it would be good to get a better spec'd camera.
I guess that if mirrorless cameras are the way to go then the R5 seems to be that expensive way..........

 

[Steve]

Thanks for your reply Steve, Shame in someways Canon didn't progress with 1.3 cropped sensor, the best of both worlds.
I'm thinking it would be nice to have second D500, a smashing camera, to save swapping lenses all the time and as a back-up.
My 7D11 is ageing and will need replacing I don't fancy the 90 D much and it would be good to get a better spec'd camera.
I guess that if mirrorless cameras are the way to go then the R5 seems to be that expensive way..........

It's funny you should mention the 1.3 crop sensor - I had a couple Canons (back when I shot Canon before the D3) and loved that format. It was kind of a sweet spot for wildlife work - it gave you a good deal of the benefit you see with full frame and yet it narrowed the field of view a little.

 

[DRwyoming]

So what will I achieve by paying several extra thousands of pounds for a D5/6/R5? apart from getting a much slicker camera and why should full frame be the camera to aspire to? What am I missing?

As Steve posted it sounds like you've already got a good handle on this but FWIW:

The benefits of full frame like lower noise at higher ISOs and ability to further reduce DoF really do depend on filling the frame. As soon as you crop to DX format or smaller those differences evaporate. So what you get with a FF camera really depends on your subjects and ability to adequately fill the frame. If your subjects and your shooting style result in crops to DX or further then there really is no full frame advantage.

 

[DRwyoming]

It's funny you should mention the 1.3 crop sensor - I had a couple Canons (back when I shot Canon before the D3) and loved that format. It was kind of a sweet spot for wildlife work - it gave you a good deal of the benefit you see with full frame and yet it narrowed the field of view a little.

I'd agree and the most common crop mode I'll use in the field on my Nikon DSLRs is the in-camera 1.2 crop mode. It's a small but useful crop on full frame bodies, even the D5 or my D4s before it and not too terrible a crop even on DX bodies if I need it.

Heck, I was first introduced to the in-camera 1.3 crop mode with my D2X and even on that relatively low resolution camera the results of that slight cropping were surprisingly useful.

 

[Steve]

I'd agree and the most common crop mode I'll use in the field on my Nikon DSLRs is the in-camera 1.2 crop mode. It's a small but useful crop on full frame bodies, even the D5 or my D4s before it and not too terrible a crop even on DX bodies if I need it.

Yup, I've too made friends with the 1.2 crop mode I really like it on my D850 when I have the right subjects- handy for leaving more space in the buffer.

 

[Robin]

Steve, DR, my wife did say, did I really want to get rid of my 1D MK4 to buy my Nikon stuff...........
I think I would be better to post crop from full frame rather than crop in camera, but an interesting thought though.
Going FF will give me that option and may make me see and photograph things differently not sure .
Cheerz guys thank you for replying...........All donations gratefully received

 

[SandyW]

I think I'm missing something regarding cropping. If you use the DX setting on the D850 aren't you ending up with the same number of pixels in the DX size image that you would get if you cropped the image to the DX size in post?

 

[Steve]

I think I'm missing something regarding cropping. If you use the DX setting on the D850 aren't you ending up with the same number of pixels in the DX size image that you would get if you cropped the image to the DX size in post?

Nope, your not missing anything - you're exactly correct.

The reason to crop in-camera is to save space in both the buffer and on the money card. Most of the time I don't switch to a crop mode, but if I'm in a situation where I'm either running low on memory (not much of a problem anymore) or if I'm worried about filling the buffer (heavy action), I'll often switch to one of the crop modes in the camera.

 

[DRwyoming]

... If you use the DX setting on the D850 aren't you ending up with the same number of pixels in the DX size image that you would get if you cropped the image to the DX size in post?

You are.

If framing is challenging, like birds in flight and there's concerns about clipping the image it can make a lot of sense to do all cropping in post and some folks never crop in camera for that reason or just based on the observation that cropping in post and cropping in camera are identical (which they are for the same crop). Cropping in post can also give you more opportunity to adjust composition in post which can be handy at times.

But if your subject is relatively static or there's little risk of clipping parts of your image and you know you'll crop anyway you get smaller files by cropping in camera which is handy both from the standpoint of not filling the shooting buffer and handy for smaller files on the card, smaller files to upload and process and smaller files to save on your hard drive.

Personally I come from shooting a ton of 35mm slide film back in the day and was schooled on getting it right in the viewfinder which I still try to do. Don't get me wrong, I crop in post all the time for a variety of reasons but if I can capture the image I want right in the field and the risk of accidental clipping of the image is low I'll use in camera crop modes rather than capture larger files than I need just to crop out pixels in post.

 

[SandyW]

Thanks for the explanation. Buffer/memory size I understand! I have actually done that for those specific reasons in that past. For some reason the discussion made me think it might change the resulting image quality.

 

[EricBowles]

Nope, your not missing anything - you're exactly correct.

The reason to crop in-camera is to save space in both the buffer and on the money card. Most of the time I don't switch to a crop mode, but if I'm in a situation where I'm either running low on memory (not much of a problem anymore) or if I'm worried about filling the buffer (heavy action), I'll often switch to one of the crop modes in the camera.

Steve's point is important. He is trying to fill the frame with the subject first, then cropping or using a crop mode if uncropped does not fill the frame sufficiently. The D850 is going to have the advantage for everything that has less cropping than DX proportions, and from that point on will be equivalent to the D500 in terms of pixels on subject. The range from uncropped to a 1.5 crop favors the D850.

One advantage of a D500 is the optical viewfinder is magnified. That's helpful in viewing and focusing on a small or distant subject. With the Z cameras you have the ability to program a Fn button to magnify the EVF, so you can check for focus, precise position, or subject behavior and timing.

 

[abc123brian]

If you are always cropping you DX images, the DX camera actually has the viewfinder advantage over FX in DSLR. With FX, the animal will take up a smaller portion of the viewfinder which could make focusing more difficult. With mirrorless this isn’t an issue because the EVF shows the DX view your shooting. I dont see any advantage for you to go full frame.

 

[SandyW]

Well, when it comes to focusing, I find the zoom 100% works best for me. The space saving can be a significant benefit if you are in a low memory situation or for longer bursts!

 

[joe43]

Steve says it best. I use a D 500 with a 500mm f5.6 pf lens for most wildlife where I need maximum reach. I use my D850 for most everything else, macro, landscapes, nature where I am showing habitat more than the animal or bird. With both bodies I try and make every pixel count.

 

[LL4D500]

You are.

If framing is challenging, like birds in flight and there's concerns about clipping the image it can make a lot of sense to do all cropping in post and some folks never crop in camera for that reason or just based on the observation that cropping in post and cropping in camera are identical (which they are for the same crop). Cropping in post can also give you more opportunity to adjust composition in post which can be handy at times.

But if your subject is relatively static or there's little risk of clipping parts of your image and you know you'll crop anyway you get smaller files by cropping in camera which is handy both from the standpoint of not filling the shooting buffer and handy for smaller files on the card, smaller files to upload and process and smaller files to save on your hard drive.

Personally I come from shooting a ton of 35mm slide film back in the day and was schooled on getting it right in the viewfinder which I still try to do. Don't get me wrong, I crop in post all the time for a variety of reasons but if I can capture the image I want right in the field and the risk of accidental clipping of the image is low I'll use in camera crop modes rather than capture larger files than I need just to crop out pixels in post.

Your Post brought back a couple of memories.
Grew up in the 50’s-70’s with a Dad that took 1000’s of slides - had 10K slides of his and transferred 6K of them to JPEG files this last year. Brought back all kind of memories!
Started with a Canon A-1 and FTB shooting 35 mm in early 70’s and went to Digital about 2005. It took me years to focus less on composition through the viewfinder and get comfortable shooting multiple pictures, let alone “bursts”!

 

[Robin]

Thank you Eric, I briefly borrowed a R5 at a local reserve just for a few minutes.
Having used cropped sensor cameras since the Canon 20D, I was dismayed to say the least when I saw how far away the ducks seemed.
Although the focusing was dancing all over said duck I couldn’t confirm with my
Eyes any state of sharp focus. With the D500 bringing images closer, focus conformation could be almost always confirmed with my eyes.
This was a big disappointment and probably a deal breaker for any future FF camera for me.
So I’m thankful for you pointing out the view finder can be zoomed in to verify sharp focus.

 

[Capturingtheunseen.com]

If you are always cropping you DX images, the DX camera actually has the viewfinder advantage over FX in DSLR. With FX, the animal will take up a smaller portion of the viewfinder which could make focusing more difficult. With mirrorless this isn’t an issue because the EVF shows the view your shooting. I dont see any advantage for you to go full frame.

Low light performance is always a reason to go with full frame. If you always shoot in great light, no problem. However, for most of us in wildlife photography, that isn't always the case.

 

[Cristobal]

Yup, I've too made friends with the 1.2 crop mode I really like it on my D850 when I have the right subjects- handy for leaving more space in the buffer.

I am intrigued by what you said about 1.2 crop mode on full frame camera; my only experience is with my D500 I appreciate a lot; I follow with a lot of interest the discussions about the new Z serie; my goal is to buy one (Z6II or Z7II) as a second camera in addition to my D500, for lanscape (I read your comments about the new Z14-30) and also wildlife in low light situations; if I understood what you said, there is some contribution with 1.2 crop mode for filling the frame, without losing to much pixels; is it the case?

 

[Steve]

I am intrigued by what you said about 1.2 crop mode on full frame camera; my only experience is with my D500 I appreciate a lot; I follow with a lot of interest the discussions about the new Z serie; my goal is to buy one (Z6II or Z7II) as a second camera in addition to my D500, for lanscape (I read your comments about the new Z14-30) and also wildlife in low light situations; if I understood what you said, there is some contribution with 1.2 crop mode for filling the frame, without losing to much pixels; is it the case?

Keep in mind 1.2 crop is the same as cropping back on the computer - I sometimes use it for the larger buffer capacity and / or smaller files. However, not every camera has it. The D850 does, but the Z cameras do not for some reason (they have DX, 16:9, 1:1, but not 1.2).

 

[Cristobal]

Thank's for the information!

 

[abc123brian]

Low light performance is always a reason to go with full frame. If you always shoot in great light, no problem. However, for most of us in wildlife photography, that isn't always the case.

That’s an advantage, but as you start to crop as the OP mentioned it becomes less of an advantage. That is why I use my Z6 most of the time.

 

[Capturingtheunseen.com]

That’s an advantage, but as you start to crop as the OP mentioned it becomes less of an advantage. That is why I use my Z6 most of the time.

Cropping doesn't alter lowlight performance, it reduces the number of pixels. What do you do with your images? Print them out? Put them on social media? If you post them on the internet it doesn't matter if you lose pixels, the appearance is the same. If you print them out you can always add pixels with software like Photoshop or Gigapixel. I have done this many times.

 

[flyguy]

My 24-70 f/2.8 Nikkor wide open at 24 mm is soft out toward the edges so I have taken to using the 1.2x crop factor in camera with my D850 simply because I will crop anyway most of the time in post. I wonder why only a couple select Nikon DSLRs have the 1.2x FX in camera crop option available??? When using any option other than full FX in the D850, I have the in camera mask option activated; I find it very helpful personally. In low light situations I like that the mask will appear red momentarily when focusing. On the other hand I have learned to use that same 24-70 on my D7100 with satisfactory results. I am not a wide angle lens person at all. I much prefer the "bipedal human zoom" as one of my photography mentors calls it.