Switching to full frame for bird photography

[rogermaioli]

I started saving to eventually buy an A1 for bird photography. I have a question about what to expect, but first here's some context: I've never had a full-frame camera, and I've been making do with the Sony a6600, with a 200-600 mm. I decided to switch to full frame to get better low-light performance and less noise under high ISOs. My only concern is that I'm used to the extra reach afforded by the crop sensor, and I worry that I may find it challenging to get small birds to fill the frame on the A1. I do realize the camera offers a crop mode, but I would ideally want to benefit from the extra resolution that comes with shooting full frame.

For those of you who made the switch from APS-c to full frame: Could you share some of that experience? Did you find yourself having to get closer to the birds in order to get acceptable shots? If you used teleconverters, were you happy with the results?

Thanks in advance. This is my first post in this forum -- I really like Steve's work.

 

[DRwyoming]

For those of you who made the switch from APS-c to full frame: Could you share some of that experience? Did you find yourself having to get closer to the birds in order to get acceptable shots? If you used teleconverters, were you happy with the results?

Welcome to the forums and great questions.

Yeah, there's an adjustment when moving to full frame from an APS-C camera and the suggestions you offer all work. IOW, getting closer is probably the big goal with the best results when you can manage that but it's not always possible. Teleconverters can be good tools as long as you don't expect too much out of them and though I primarily shoot Nikon (plus a Sony A6300 which I love) from everything I hear from friends the Sony TCs are very, very good when paired with their better lenses.

Cropping can always be used to some extent but many of the advantages you might get with a full frame camera evaporate once you start cropping deeply. IOW, the noise advantage of a full frame camera assumes you use most or all of that frame and once you crop to APS-C dimensions or further the noise advantage in the same sized output image disappear. Similarly cropping whether in-camera or in post impacts DoF the same way shooting with a crop body camera would so it can be a good tool but it's not without its tradeoffs.

All that said, I can't imagine a situation where shooting your A1 in crop mode (or cropping to APS-C size in post) would yield image quality below what you're accustomed to with your A6600 now and all the other features like incredible fast action tracking would still work as expected so in every way it's an upgrade even if you have to sometimes crop back to what you're accustomed to and in situations where you can get physically or optically closer the full frame camera has substantial IQ including low noise advantages.

Unless you're after the lightest and smallest hiking and walk around kit I expect you'll be very happy with a switch to full frame as in many situations it has advantages but yes you may find yourself working harder to get closer than you're used to. In the end that's not a terrible thing and typically helps folk's wildlife photography.

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

Welcome -- there are two immediate impacts, but first please consider what you shoot, who you shoot and from where and in what lighting conditions.

1. The crop factor provided by an APC or DX or even micro sized sensor must not be overlooked - the effective 50% (or more) boost in focal length when using the same gear is considerable - particularly when one is shooting small birds or from a long distance.
2. DX/APC lenses and camera bodies tend to be smaller and lighter. - Sure with a couple of button presses I can shoot cropped in a full frame body, but currently this give me almost no advantages over cropping on screen later.
   
   Some APC/DX systems shoot with high frame rates than their full frame cousins -- this was the case with the D500 (all those years ago). But others don't.

What do you lose with a cropped sensor -- well starting with the size of photo-sites and their ability to provide smooth/relatively low noise images -- my last cropped sensor body was the 2016 D500 (21.5mp) and at the time I also used a 2014 D810 (36.3mp) - the D500 12% more photosites per mm2 (the pixel size was 4.2 μm in the D500 -vs- 4.80 μm in the D810 and 4.35 μm in the 45.7mp D850). While I loved the additional "reach" from the D500 and certainly the faster FPS, I found the images it provided to be "rougher" than those from the D810 or D850 when shooting at relatively low ISO, but at high ISO the D500 was better (The D500 tuned 2/3rd of a stop more towards low light than the D8xx).

In making your decision you should research as best you can, the quality of images coming from your preferred bodies APC or Full Frame at the budget you want to spend -- they will not be not exactly the same - particularly if the pixel density and sensor design is different. AND then ask does the extra "reach" and lighter weight offset any disadvantages that you see in image quality AND vica-versa.
And then you have to consider that you are buying into a system not just a camera body - If you want to replicate the reach you could achieve with your APC body then you will need bigger LONGER glass and this is where the real cost emerges. Moving sensor size may not allow you to use glass that only fitted your APC sensor body on on a full frame body by the same manufacture. Some mounts are just different/smaller or larger.

 

[EricBowles]

While the crop factor is relevant, the uncropped image is also important. With full frame you have the benefit of using a longer focal length - all the way out to maximum focal length. That provides better subject isolation from the background. Even when cropping a full frame image, until you reach the equivalent of an APS-C crop (or near that depending on camera resolution if you compare different cameras), you still have the benefit of better subject isolation with full frame.

Also keep in mind the impact of ISO and noise. APS-C always has a 1.2 stop disadvantage compared to full frame until you crop full frame to APS-C proportions or beyond (again depending on the specific models you are comparing).

With mirrorless you can zoom through the EVF even before taking the shot. I choose lower magnification when zooming through a higher resolution camera's EVF (a 100% view on a high resolution camera is similar to a 200% view on a standard resolution camera).

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

Also keep in mind the impact of ISO and noise. APS-C always has a 1.2 stop disadvantage compared to full frame until you crop full frame to APS-C proportions or beyond (again depending on the specific models you are comparing).

Eric - is this still correct with the latest generation of sensors (Dual-pixel FSI CMOS sensor)? [FSI = FrontSide Illuminated - I had to look it up -vs- backside-illuminated CMOS sensor as found in the D850 or the Stacked version in Z9 and R3]
I watched a vid comparing the output from the R7 -vs- R5 and the reviewer observed almost no difference Canon R7 ISO Performance vs R5.

 

[EricBowles]

Eric - is this still correct with the latest generation of sensors (Dual-pixel FSI CMOS sensor)? [FSI = FrontSide Illuminated - I had to look it up -vs- backside-illuminated CMOS sensor as found in the D850 or the Stacked version in Z9 and R3]
I watched a vid comparing the output from the R7 -vs- R5 and the reviewer observed almost no difference Canon R7 ISO Performance vs R5.

Bill Claff's site shows anywhere between a .8 and 1.2 stop difference between FX and DX for the Z9. (The difference in Photographic Dynamic Range is less as lowest ISO levels because noise is minimal)

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

The difference is purely based on the impact of resizing to a common output size or the equivalent adjustment. The photosites are exactly the same.

A one stop difference is hard to see visually - especially with a web sized image. But it's there for all APS-C sensors and smaller. The only way you can eliminate the issue is with noise reduction and gain during the Raw file processing (such as the use of dual gain). In this example using a single camera, the sole reason for the difference is the sensor size. The same was true for all prior FX cameras in DX mode.

This is also the basis for the impact of cropping based on ISO. The rule of thumb is for every 1/3 of the image you crop, you have effectively increased ISO related noise by a full stop. Cropping each successive 1/3 of the image creates an additional impact on one more stop.

 

[bleirer]

Though in fairness it's all relative. Full frame is penalized relative to medium format but no one says to avoid full frame. I guess like any project, we choose our tools for the job or choose jobs our tools can handle.

 

[rogermaioli]

Thank you all for your generous responses so far. I do have a good sense of the technical trade-offs involved (which is why I decided to go full frame); in addition, my system wouldn't be changing much in size, since my current 200-600mm lens is designed for full-frame bodies and works with the A1.

Instead, I'm mainly curious about the experience of transitioning, which DRwyoming kindly addressed above. What is it like to feel farther away from your subject, especially when photographing very small birds? Did you have to go through an adaptation/frustration phase? If yes, how did you work your way out of it? I've been thinking of getting a 1.4 teleconverter to compensate, but I've heard that unless you attach it to a big prime (which I can't afford), they will give you similar results as cropping the image in post. I wonder if that has been your experience with that particular configuration (A1 + 200-600 mm).

 

[Stephen Berger]

Thank you all for your generous responses so far. I do have a good sense of the technical trade-offs involved (which is why I decided to go full frame); in addition, my system wouldn't be changing much in size, since my current 200-600mm lens is designed for full-frame bodies and works with the A1.

Instead, I'm mainly curious about the experience of transitioning, which DRwyoming kindly addressed above. What is it like to feel farther away from your subject, especially when photographing very small birds? Did you have to go through an adaptation/frustration phase? If yes, how did you work your way out of it? I've been thinking of getting a 1.4 teleconverter to compensate, but I've heard that unless you attach it to a big prime (which I can't afford), they will give you similar results as cropping the image in post. I wonder if that has been your experience with that particular configuration (A1 + 200-600 mm).

I was not yet shooting wildlife when I switched from cropped sensors to full frame. But I've had a lot of variation in long lenses (300, 500, 600 with and without TC's - so from 300mm to 840mm). And with all of them I've wanted more reach, had too much reach and have come away with images that made me happy and to which people responded positively. When I feel too far away I tend to use it both as an opportunity to practice focus, tracking, composing and to get sightly more environmental shots vs just filling the frame (something I do more and more intentionally these days). All that is to say, cropped, full frame, exotic prime, zoom lens, it's never enough, sometimes it's too much and either way there are shots to be had. As for getting an A1. Its freaking amazing and you'll love it!

 

[EricBowles]

Thank you all for your generous responses so far. I do have a good sense of the technical trade-offs involved (which is why I decided to go full frame); in addition, my system wouldn't be changing much in size, since my current 200-600mm lens is designed for full-frame bodies and works with the A1.

Instead, I'm mainly curious about the experience of transitioning, which DRwyoming kindly addressed above. What is it like to feel farther away from your subject, especially when photographing very small birds? Did you have to go through an adaptation/frustration phase? If yes, how did you work your way out of it? I've been thinking of getting a 1.4 teleconverter to compensate, but I've heard that unless you attach it to a big prime (which I can't afford), they will give you similar results as cropping the image in post. I wonder if that has been your experience with that particular configuration (A1 + 200-600 mm).

The viewfinder was very different with a DSLR. In that situations, the DX crop was larger in the viewfinder which was a major advantage. It's much less important with an EVF that allows you to magnify what you see in the viewfinder if the subject is small.

There is some added attention you need to pay to proper AF targets and DOF. With the longer focal lengths of full frame and shallower DOF in most cases, it's easy for a minor focus miss to cause a discard.

A teleconverter is a good idea when you really need it. But I'd never consider it as a way to effectively have a 280-900 lens. There are too many tradeoffs working against that as a simple approach. If you go that route, if will push you in terms of technique and camera settings.

There is nothing magic about the camera and lens. If you can up your game, the camera can support you. But you would not expect to buy a high performance sports car, golf club or any other tool and deliver high performance without your performance being at a similar level. Plan on 10-20,000 photos to get comfortable with the transition and getting the best from new gear.

 

[Palmor]

Thank you all for your generous responses so far. I do have a good sense of the technical trade-offs involved (which is why I decided to go full frame); in addition, my system wouldn't be changing much in size, since my current 200-600mm lens is designed for full-frame bodies and works with the A1.

Instead, I'm mainly curious about the experience of transitioning, which DRwyoming kindly addressed above. What is it like to feel farther away from your subject, especially when photographing very small birds? Did you have to go through an adaptation/frustration phase? If yes, how did you work your way out of it? I've been thinking of getting a 1.4 teleconverter to compensate, but I've heard that unless you attach it to a big prime (which I can't afford), they will give you similar results as cropping the image in post. I wonder if that has been your experience with that particular configuration (A1 + 200-600 mm).

I think of it this way… a high MP FF gives me the option to have higher IQ if I can get close enough where I don‘t have to crop. If I can’t and I have to crop back to DX levels I haven’t lost anything from before. You may find in challenging lighting situations that you prefer the non-cropped FF image, and now you have that option where before you didn’t.

As far as the A1 and 200-600+TC it can produce good results but don’t forget you lose a stop of light with the TC so assuming your SS is fixed you will have one stop worse ISO performance. As mentioned in numerous threads here, using a TC gives the best results if you are just looking to fill the frame and not expecting to go over long distances.

Here is a gallery with the 1.4x TC, you can judge if that is exceptale IQ for you (everyone is different). The first 2-2.5 pages are with the 200-600 and either A9II or A1.

Sony 1.4x TC

Photos taken with the Sony 1.4x TC on the 200-600 or 600 f4

www.flickr.com

 

[Calson]

With the full frame camera there will be more space around the subject and more room for error while shooting and a greater ability to crop the image in post. The actual image magnification will be the same with the 200-600mm lens. "Reach" confuses a smaller view angle with more apparent image magnification and this is not the case.

 

[arbitrage]

You really aren't giving up any reach going from A6600 (24MP APS-C) to A1 (50MP Full frame).
50MP full frame cropped to APS-C is equal to 22.2MP so only 1.8MP less than A6600.

You can use the A1's APS-C mode anytime you know you won't be filling more than the APS-C size of the frame. I use this all the time. I have a single button C2 programmed to toggle in and out of APS-C mode. One tap and my subject is magnified, my files are smaller. It is so easy that I actually will start shooting a more distant BIF in APS-C and switch half way during the burst into FF as the bird approaches closer. It is so easy that you will never miss the magnification of the A6600. The A1 EVF is just light years ahead of the postage stamp A6600 EVF. You will be amazed.

And of course the performance of the A1 over the A6600 is just not even comparable. The things the A1 can do are amazing. I've owned all the top cameras, Z9, R5, R3, 1DX series, D500, D850 and the A1 is just a step ahead of everything.

 

[Stephen Berger]

You really aren't giving up any reach going from A6600 (24MP APS-C) to A1 (50MP Full frame).
50MP full frame cropped to APS-C is equal to 22.2MP so only 1.8MP less than A6600.

You can use the A1's APS-C mode anytime you know you won't be filling more than the APS-C size of the frame. I use this all the time. I have a single button C2 programmed to toggle in and out of APS-C mode. One tap and my subject is magnified, my files are smaller. It is so easy that I actually will start shooting a more distant BIF in APS-C and switch half way during the burst into FF as the bird approaches closer. It is so easy that you will never miss the magnification of the A6600. The A1 EVF is just light years ahead of the postage stamp A6600 EVF. You will be amazed.

And of course the performance of the A1 over the A6600 is just not even comparable. The things the A1 can do are amazing. I've owned all the top cameras, Z9, R5, R3, 1DX series, D500, D850 and the A1 is just a step ahead of everything.

Is there an AF/sharpness advantage when you do this? And/or is there a sharpness/noise advantage vs cropping in Lightroom or equivalent?

 

[arbitrage]

Is there an AF/sharpness advantage when you do this? And/or is there a sharpness/noise advantage vs cropping in Lightroom or equivalent?

It is identical to cropping in LR.
I like using it as I get smaller files, more room on my memory cards when I know I won't need more than APS-C FOV for a given lens/subject.
The subject is magnified in the EVF, yet the size of the single AF point remains the same so it targets a smaller area on the bird.

There is no sharpness advantage.

I'm not sure if there is an AF advantage other than the more targeted single AF point size.
On other brand cameras like R5 and Z9 I found that going to crop mode made the Bird Eye AF come on more frequently where it didn't in FF mode as the bird was small in the frame. I don't see that same trend on the A1...if anything I think I see BEAF activate more often in FF mode which is odd to me but then sometimes it going to APS-C does seem to help out BEAF activation...just not as clear cut as the R5/Z9 were.

 

[abc123brian]

I started with crop sensors and moved to full frame DSLR, then later to crop sensor mirrorless, then back to full frame mirrorless. With mirrorless cameras it is less of an issue because if you chose crop mode on full frame, the EVF automatically adjust and shows you the cropped image. Other than the subject appearing to be farther away when you look through the evf, from a shooting perspective there isn’t much difference. Regarding getting closer to the subject to fill the frame, a lot of that depends on your location and techniques you use, and how tolerant your subjects are or how safe it is to get closer. For example, I don‘t want to get as close to a grizzly as a black bear so subject matter is important. For small birds, I’m not a birder so others may have helpful tips, but I find I rarely have enough focal length on full frame to fill the frame even with a 500mm + 1.4x TC. I can get fairly close to them but still end up cropping. If you plan to use crop mode, you will end up with essentially the same image as before but with a more expensive camera. Of course you gain the other advantages like better AF, higher fps, silent shooting. I am not a huge fan of teleconverters, but they can help make up the difference. I find the 1.4x ones to be acceptable but if you still need to crop significantly you are asking too much from them. In summary, if you’re currently cropping a lot you won’t gain any noticeable IQ advantage. If you’re mostly filling the frame, you can probably either get a little closer or use a TC and be quite happy.

 

[rogermaioli]

Thank you all -- this has been reassuring. My main concern, as Brian puts it above, was that I wouldn't want to get a more expensive camera and still get the same IQ by continually relying on the cop mode. But this thread has highlighted substantive advantages to shifting to the A1.

Thanks to Palmor for sharing images. I really enjoyed them! Here's what I've been doing with the a6600, in case anyone is interested:

Roger Maioli (@rogermaioli) • Instagram photos and videos

www.instagram.com

 

[DRwyoming]

Here's what I've been doing with the a6600, in case anyone is interested:

Great images with fantastic color. The SandHill Crane colts really jumped off the page, great shot!

 

[Stephen Berger]

Thank you all -- this has been reassuring. My main concern, as Brian puts it above, was that I wouldn't want to get a more expensive camera and still get the same IQ by continually relying on the cop mode. But this thread has highlighted substantive advantages to shifting to the A1.

Thanks to Palmor for sharing images. I really enjoyed them! Here's what I've been doing with the a6600, in case anyone is interested:

Roger Maioli (@rogermaioli) • Instagram photos and videos

www.instagram.com

If you'r getting those images with the 6600 you don't even need the A!! Seriously though... you are gonna love it. I look forward to seeing the pictures you make.

 

[Rassie]

What is it like to feel farther away from your subject, especially when photographing very small birds? Did you have to go through an adaptation/frustration phase? If yes, how did you work your way out of it? I've been thinking of getting a 1.4 teleconverter to compensate, but I've heard that unless you attach it to a big prime (which I can't afford), they will give you similar results as cropping the image in post. I wonder if that has been your experience with that particular configuration (A1 + 200-600 mm).

I switched from a Nikon D7500 APS-C to the Z6II full frame. Most of my photography is wildlife, and most of it concerns birds, big and small. I've always been on a budget, so I never had the flagship camera or lens. My wildlife lens has been the Nikkor 200-500mm F/5.6 since 2016, It's a slow-focusing lens so shooting BIF is challenging. I'll be replacing that lens with something more capable in the near future, either a new Nikkor Z 200-600mm (when that becomes available) or a 500mm PF or similar.

I also struggled with the reduced reach on my long lens once I switched to full frame, and I realized cropping does not always provide satisfactory results. I therefore acquired a 1.4X teleconverter and that is now on the 200-500mm almost full time. I cannot discern much of an image quality degradation through the teleconverter than without so I'm satisfied with lens IQ using the converter. Focus tracking of BIF is a bit less reliable with the converter mounted, as well as focus accuracy under dim light.

The Z6II with its 24 mp sensor happens to be one of Nikon's best low-light noise performers, and I can shoot at significantly higher ISO's than what was feasible with my D7500 APS-C. The bottom line for me is that I get good enough IQ through the teleconverter and I can both push the ISO and crop to a reasonable degree before my image quality degrades to the same as the APS-C sensor.

The next two images were shot with the Z6II, 200-500mm with TC-14E III, hand-held in good light.

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

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

The image below was shot with the same equipment at ISO 12,800 with the rig on a monopod. I had to apply some strong noise reduction during post on this image. It's less crisp than the other two but it shows what is possible at high ISO with a decent full frame sensor. Each of the three images was cropped to some extent for composition.

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

 

[O]

I started saving to eventually buy an A1 for bird photography. I have a question about what to expect, but first here's some context: I've never had a full-frame camera, and I've been making do with the Sony a6600, with a 200-600 mm. I decided to switch to full frame to get better low-light performance and less noise under high ISOs. My only concern is that I'm used to the extra reach afforded by the crop sensor, and I worry that I may find it challenging to get small birds to fill the frame on the A1. I do realize the camera offers a crop mode, but I would ideally want to benefit from the extra resolution that comes with shooting full frame.

For those of you who made the switch from APS-c to full frame: Could you share some of that experience? Did you find yourself having to get closer to the birds in order to get acceptable shots? If you used teleconverters, were you happy with the results?

Thanks in advance. This is my first post in this forum -- I really like Steve's work.

Hire or borrow a full frame camera for a few days and things will become evident very quickly.

Of course You know that regardless of full frame or cropped sensor the physical distance to the subject is identical.

Light gathering performance if critical is a consideration, full frame wins here.

My D7100 in ideal light delivers stunning images not dissimilar in appearance to a high res full frame, when the light fall's of or things become a little challenging performance changes markedly compared to full frame, larger pixels always gather more light with that comes more dynamic range, Compare the performance from the pixel pitch size of a D6 versus a D7100 or D500.

My 80+ year old ornithologist friend gave up using a D810 on a 500 F4 prime on a mono pod and tripod, he would on an annual trip capture 12 to 15 of the 30 species he was looking for, he switched to a D500 on a 300 F4 with a 1.4 TC, he got 27 out of 30 species, on reviewing the files it was clearly visible that the image quality was vastly superior on the D810 and 500 f4 and he required far less editing, on the Full frame rig.

How ever Bottom line, full frame cameras now are becoming smaller and lighter as well as moving higher in resolution.

The new models coming in Sony Canon and even Nikon will be amazing, the Z8 will i hear have 60 mp and 12 fps with the Z9 type focusing system, all in a small light body, lots of people will want to dump their Z6 and 7 II for a Z8, Like the I Phone 10, then 11 then 12 then 13.............

Many people i know who had cropped sensor cameras have all moved to full frame and haven't regretted it.

You can do your head in with all the questions and answers or options analysis, the most important thing is not what is technically better or worse, its what you enjoy using and doing.

Again Hire or borrow a full frame unit, i mean you wouldn't buy a car on line without hiring or having a test driving first ?

Short answer to the above, for me its full frame period.

Remember a camera only uses time light and speed in a multitude of combinations, light is your greatest asset.

 

[Whiskeyman]

With any given lens, the subject image size on either the full-frame or cropped-frame sensor is the same. The full-frame helps me in initial pickup of the subject in the viewfinder, which can be a make-or-break factor with longer focal length lenses for me. To me, the biggest advantage of the cropped sensor is reduced file size and possible increase in frame-rate operation. Overall, I'll take the full-frame camera over the crop-frame camera almost every time, as long as the sensor pixel density is very similar. (Such as when the choice is between the D500 or D850.)

 

[O]

With any given lens, the subject image size on either the full-frame or cropped-frame sensor is the same. The full-frame helps me in initial pickup of the subject in the viewfinder, which can be a make-or-break factor with longer focal length lenses for me. To me, the biggest advantage of the cropped sensor is reduced file size and possible increase in frame-rate operation. Overall, I'll take the full-frame camera over the crop-frame camera almost every time, as long as the sensor pixel density is very similar. (Such as when the choice is between the D500 or D850.)

Well put

 

[Whiskeyman]

Well put

Thank you, O.

 

[NorthernFocus]

I started saving to eventually buy an A1 for bird photography. I have a question about what to expect, but first here's some context: I've never had a full-frame camera, and I've been making do with the Sony a6600, with a 200-600 mm. I decided to switch to full frame to get better low-light performance and less noise under high ISOs. My only concern is that I'm used to the extra reach afforded by the crop sensor, and I worry that I may find it challenging to get small birds to fill the frame on the A1. I do realize the camera offers a crop mode, but I would ideally want to benefit from the extra resolution that comes with shooting full frame.

For those of you who made the switch from APS-c to full frame: Could you share some of that experience? Did you find yourself having to get closer to the birds in order to get acceptable shots? If you used teleconverters, were you happy with the results?

Thanks in advance. This is my first post in this forum -- I really like Steve's work.

The beauty of switching to a high resolution FF camera like the A1 is that you can't lose. If you can only get close enough to fill the frame in APS-C mode you're where you were before but with much better AF, frame rate, etc. If you can manage to get closer to your subject then with the press of a button you're in FF mode and putting some serious pixels on target. If you're OK with the financial aspect of it then you have nothing to lose and plenty to gain.

When I switched to full frame it was from the 12mp D300 to the 36MP D800. Because of the ability to shoot in APS-C mode and get even more pixels on target it was an easy transition. Now the frame rate was a different story. But in your case you'd be improving in fps etc. It's understandable that you have your doubts but you're talking about such an improvement in technology that even if you still shoot the majority of the time in APS-C mode you'll be way ahead. Try it, you'll like it