Is Reach overrated?

[Tom Reynolds]

It is a rare picture that I print bigger than 8.5 x 11. Current experiences kinda indicate that greater than 600mm on a 45mp sensor is relatively unnecessary.

I shoot a 500pf on a cropped sensor. I use a 500pf which is 750 effective mm with a 21mp sensor. A 45MP FF camera would have the same pixel density. While I have a 1.4TC I rarely use it because I find that I can crop to 20% of the original frame or less, clean up the shot in Photoshop, then use Topaz. This shot is about a 90% crop. The bird was at least 100 yards away.

More interestingly, I lent our D-500/300pf setups to a couple of novices. Naturally they shot subjects too far away. But guess what? When I cleaned up the images they were just fine and could even be printed,

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[ruley74]

Such a personal thing I feel, depends on what you feel is an acceptable level of quality and as you stated how large you print. My personal level of expectation will not allow me to crop that heavy and be happy with the detail and image quality, but again, that is for me, everyone is different.

 

[Bristolian]

I normally shoot a D750/Sigma 150-600C and print 40x50cm (16x20"). At most places that I go to take photos I need to crop more than I like to so recently tried adding a Sigma 1.4TC to get some extra reach. I was surprised to find that the TC didn't adversely affect the image quality I was getting (sharpness, detail, etc.) but significantly reduced the amount of the image I needed to crop. For me the extra reach is important.

 

[bleirer]

I like reach, who doesn't like reach. But I think all other factors equal, as if they could be equal, being able to fill a full frame with the same subject is always going to be better than filling part of a full frame or filling a crop sensor. You just have to judge it apples to apples, same final output size and pixel dimensions viewed at the same viewing distance.

That said the differences I think are subtle at first until they aren't.

 

[NorthernFocus]

You bring up a good point. For those who only use their images for posting on line or for small prints(i.e. 8x10 or smaller) investing in long high end primes is really not necessary. For that desired end result a D500 w/200-500mm lens should be adequate to fill one's every desire. But as mentioned above we each have our own standard of performance. For my own needs my general rule of thumb is a minimum of 6MP for the final cropped image before any resizing. That assumes a reasonably high quality original(the definition of which changes with improvements in software). But more pixels on target are better and IMO you can never have too much lens(sans TC).

I guess that means for me personally, no, reach is not over rated.

 

[MartyD]

I think sometimes the idea of "reach" should be replaced with the concept of "fill the frame." When you think reach, you have the idea that you can photograph things far off in the distance, but distance just creates more obstacles to getting sharp images. In the Rocky Mountains the last few summers it didn't matter how many megapixels or millimeters you had, your shooting distance was limited more by smoke than anything else.

 

[RichF]

You bring up a good point. For those who only use their images for posting on line or for small prints(i.e. 8x10 or smaller) investing in long high end primes is really not necessary. For that desired end result a D500 w/200-500mm lens should be adequate to fill one's every desire. But as mentioned above we each have our own standard of performance. For my own needs my general rule of thumb is a minimum of 6MP for the final cropped image before any resizing. That assumes a reasonably high quality original(the definition of which changes with improvements in software). But more pixels on target are better and IMO you can never have too much lens(sans TC).

Years ago I had an 11 MP Canon 1Ds (not sure which version) which I cropped the image in half. I then made a large print from it (something like 12x18 or 16x20) which worked very well. To show something on a computer monitor, 1-2 Megapixel is more than enough.

 

[RichF]

I think sometimes the idea of "reach" should be replaced with the concept of "fill the frame." When you think reach, you have the idea that you can photograph things far off in the distance, but distance just creates more obstacles to getting sharp images. In the Rocky Mountains the last few summers it didn't matter how many megapixels or millimeters you had, your shooting distance was limited more by smoke than anything else.

Smoke and atmospheric haze destroy the images. Even wildlife in Africa - if the animal is too far away, it gets soft and longer, more expensive glass will not fix that problem

 

[NorthernFocus]

...To show something on a computer monitor, 1-2 Megapixel is more than enough.

That depends on the monitor. Displayed on a modern 8K screen the result might be disappointing.

 

[RichF]

That depends on the monitor. Displayed on a modern 8K screen the result might be disappointing.

8K? I thought 4K was the max. Right now I have 27" which is 2760x1440. I could imagine going to 4K on a 32" monitor, our 65" TV is 4K. Is anything broadcast in 8K?

 

[NorthernFocus]

8K? I thought 4K was the max. Right now I have 27" which is 2760x1440. I could imagine going to 4K on a 32" monitor, our 65" TV is 4K. Is anything broadcast in 8K?

Not aware of any 8k broadcasts. But content is being produced in 8k so it's just a matter of time. I'm also still using a 27in 2760x1440 and 1080p laptop. I guess we're both dinosaurs. I'm in awe every time I walk through the electronics section of my local Costco. OTOH perfectly content sitting home watching my 40in 1080p TV or working on my ancient monitor. Maybe a Z9 is wasted on me as well....

 

[RichF]

Not aware of any 8k broadcasts. But content is being produced in 8k so it's just a matter of time. I'm also still using a 27in 2760x1440 and 1080p laptop. I guess we're both dinosaurs. I'm in awe every time I walk through the electronics section of my local Costco. OTOH perfectly content sitting home watching my 40in 1080p TV or working on my ancient monitor. Maybe a Z9 is wasted on me as well....

I got a new monitor recently. Decided not to go with a 4K monitor as it would make fonts too small to read. I only edit still images, 0.01% videos so I don't need to 4K for videos.

 

[Steve]

The biggest problems with cropping are:

1.Relative output noise is higher than when you fill the frame at the same ISO.
2.You sacrifice subject isolation due longer distances / short optics.

Although for smaller output noise may not be a huge factor, subject isolation is no matter what the output size. I personally enjoy shooting images with softer backgrounds so I tend to use longer glass or fill the frame. The farther away I am (or the shorter the lens I use), the busier those backgrounds look.

 

[Doug Herr]

... It is a rare picture that I print bigger than 8.5 x 11. Current experiences kinda indicate that greater than 600mm on a 45mp sensor is relatively unnecessary....

We all have our own standards. The metric I use is "pixels per duck" which is met with either (preferred) getting close enough w/o disturbing the critter, or (alternatively) a longer lens. Since I print much larger than 8.5 x 11 and the stock agencies I work with expect low noise and lots of detail I never have too many pixels on the duck.

 

[RikWriter]

If I was doing this for money, I wouldn't care. Since I do it for the passion of the hobby, it has to be perfect.

 

[fsi22]

I use a 200mm mft lens. Dropped down from 600 to 500 and then to 200 when I moved to mft.
I also use a 400mm on 35mm.

 

[bleirer]

Correct me please, but I believe one can think of it as applying a crop factor to both the focal length and aperture to get the "effective aperture." And "effective field of view." To get an idea how the subject isolation would be affected.

Take-away quote from the 3rd article linked:

"Just to refresh, that math is as follows:

• Equivalent Focal Length = (Focal Length) x (Crop Factor)
• Equivalent Aperture = (F-Number) x (Crop Factor)
• Equivalent ISO = (ISO) x (Crop Factor^2)

You need to apply all three in order to get an equivalent photo. Don’t misinterpret that I’m saying “ISO 200 on M4/3 is the same as ISO 800 on full frame.” It’s not. Hopefully this goes without saying, but any side-by-side test will show ISO 800 to be brighter than ISO 200. However, if you want equivalent photos on both these cameras, you’ll need to shoot your full-frame sensor at twice the focal length, twice the f-number, and four times the ISO."

Sensor Size, Perspective and Depth of Field

photographylife.com

Sensor Crop Factors and Equivalence

photographylife.com

Equivalence Also Includes Aperture and ISO

photographylife.com

 

[Steve]

Correct me please, but I believe one can think of it as applying a crop factor to both the focal length and aperture to get the "effective aperture." And "effective field of view." To get an idea how the subject isolation would be affected.

Sensor Size, Perspective and Depth of Field

photographylife.com

Sensor Crop Factors and Equivalence

photographylife.com

Equivalence Also Includes Aperture and ISO

photographylife.com

Exactly

 

[bjanes]

Smoke and atmospheric haze destroy the images. Even wildlife in Africa - if the animal is too far away, it gets soft and longer, more expensive glass will not fix that problem

Quite true and heat turbulence would be an additional factor in Africa.

Bill

 

[Calson]

What matters is the resulting image size and that is where lens magnification and sensor resolution are equally important. With a DX crop of a 20MP sensor image one gets a 9MP file that is not going to enlarge without loss of image quality. A 45MP sensor allows one to use shorter focal length lenses to get the same image size as a "pro" D5/D6 with their low resolution sensors.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

The hawk shot I posted in introducing this thread is 362KB yet people seem to love it. In particular they comment on the detail. True, they are only looking at a web shot but it is a pleasing shot to many. In contrast, a flying Pelican taken at f/4 is full frame is getting 1/5 the likes.

So, is our demand for ultra-high-quality shots a self-induced rule of the game for wildlife photographers requiring inordinate sums of money?

I ask because to replace my d-500/500pf setup with a 'proper' Nikon setup is about $20K for a Z-9/400 s.

Regards, Tom

 

[jeffnles1]

Quite true and heat turbulence would be an additional factor in Africa.

Bill

heat shimmer, heat turbulence, etc. create an additional factor in North America too.

 

[Replytoken]

The hawk shot I posted in introducing this thread is 362KB yet people seem to love it. In particular they comment on the detail. True, they are only looking at a web shot but it is a pleasing shot to many. In contrast, a flying Pelican taken at f/4 is full frame is getting 1/5 the likes.

So, is our demand for ultra-high-quality shots a self-induced rule of the game for wildlife photographers requiring inordinate sums of money?

I ask because to replace my d-500/500pf setup with a 'proper' Nikon setup is about $20K for a Z-9/400 s.

Regards, Tom

I do not know if this is just my experience with seeing other similar images, or if it is due to post processing choices, but I am not seeing the kind of detail that I would expect to see based on what you are describing. The image looks over sharpened to my eyes and I am not seeing much feather detail. It is a nicely composed shot, but I see so many images with amazing details and micro contrast that make them look almost 3D. I guess the image is not helping to convince me that extensive cropping is an effective strategy. And I say this as an amateur who has had to bin more bird images than I would ever care to admit for all hosts of reasons.

--Ken

 

[arbitrage]

What matters is the resulting image size and that is where lens magnification and sensor resolution are equally important. With a DX crop of a 20MP sensor image one gets a 9MP file that is not going to enlarge without loss of image quality. A 45MP sensor allows one to use shorter focal length lenses to get the same image size as a "pro" D5/D6 with their low resolution sensors.

IME a 20MP image derived from tiny pixels from an APS-C camera or a cropped 45MP FF camera is not the same as a 20MP image using nice fat pixels from a 20MP FF camera.

I'll take the latter every day of the week. But yeah, you need a longer lens and good air.

 

[Drbobcameraguy]

The hawk shot I posted in introducing this thread is 362KB yet people seem to love it. In particular they comment on the detail. True, they are only looking at a web shot but it is a pleasing shot to many. In contrast, a flying Pelican taken at f/4 is full frame is getting 1/5 the likes.

So, is our demand for ultra-high-quality shots a self-induced rule of the game for wildlife photographers requiring inordinate sums of money?

I ask because to replace my d-500/500pf setup with a 'proper' Nikon setup is about $20K for a Z-9/400 s.

Regards, Tom

People like hawks better than pelicans. That's the simple more likely true answer.