Switching to full frame for bird photography

[O]

Full Frame on a 45 or 60 mp camera just kills cropped camera comparison.............you have a DX camera in the FX camera already............no need to Analise or question the answer is clear
Go full frame hi res you wont look back

 

[Roy]

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.

First - 600mm seems the ideal for birding.
Secondly - even though I sometimes have to use them - I hate TCs - they degrade the image and steal light.
You will find that the difference between full frame and crop is less than you think.
Your 200-600mm should be versatile enough to get some great images...

 

[rogermaioli]

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

Those are stunning images, Rassie. Thanks a lot for sharing.

And thanks everyone for the consistently helpful replies!

 

[O]

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).

If you use say a 60mp full frame with the correct shutter speed, the correct exposure, with a floated iso, you should be able to have significant gains with crop ability that surpasses a cropped sensor performance especially in iso.

The one thing that is important is focus permanence, i mean first comes light then focus, then speed, then exposure, these are all more challenging for a cropped sensor if conditions become challenging................

The 6600 is a really great camera, for me personally its a brilliant camera for traveling and holidays.
Your Instagram shots are very nice record shots and represent a diverse variety of interesting different birds very enjoyable to see.

For myself the move to full frame higher resolution cameras (even bargain priced used one's ) opened so many opertuinaties and really transformed my photography immensely.
If i was like my ornithologist friend looking at just birds on a stick record shots in ideal light then i guess any camera is fine.

Your enjoyment is what matters, please yourself first second and third...........LOL

As Northern Focus pointed out, at a touch of a button you can switch from full frame to cropped sensor.........

What i do at times with my D850 or Z9, is i use the 200-500 with a 1.4TC III in cropped mode therfore using the center of the lens where the performance often is best, this gives amazing results especially when covering surfing events that i often do where reach and or the perception of reach matters, having a high resolution full frame camera really helps with greater tolerance and results in post.

Decision time best of luck, remember 80 - 90% of what you get comes from you.

Light is your greatest asset.

 

[Dave Wo]

I have both worlds in that my D810 FF has it's uses and the D500 crop camera definitely has it's place. Really depends on what you are shooting. Last year or two has me shooting a lot of wildlife so my obvious choice is the D500 for many reasons. Have also used the D810 for some great wildlife, but the Fps of the D500 wins out usually. The long reach is nice too with the crop body and the images do not suffer. Have not used a teleconverter with the D810 and long lens yet, but I notice a few complaints going that direction here on the forum. I enjoy using both cameras and until a camera comes out that is a "do-all" camera, I'll stay where I am.

 

[Fishboy1952]

So I have been shooting with a D500 for the past couple of years, and recently acquired a D850. I primarily shoot wildlife with an emphasis on BIF. I have been using the D850 almost exclusively in order to learn it’s nuances. I love the higher resolution and the larger viewfinder on the D850 helps with keeping the subjects in view. It is gripped with the big battery to get 9 fps, so almost up to the D500 with it’s 10 fps. I think the AF on the D500 is just a touch better due to the same number of AF focus points over a smaller sensor, but not by much.

The biggest difference I’ve noticed is the D850 illustrated deficiencies in my technique that were not as evident with the D500. Using the same settings on the D850 as I was used to using on the D500, yielded a lower keeper rate. I attributed that primarily to motion blur (I shoot primarily hand held with the 500mm PF) that wasn’t evident in the lower resolution DX camera but was definitely present at 45 mp. Going to a faster shutter speed definitely helped this issue.

I haven’t used the D850 in DX mode to date, as I prefer to crop in post, if I need to. But I have to say that most of my photography has been close to home where I won’t get a large number of images. That might change in the future should I ever acquire a Z9 or Z8 ( if that unicorn ever comes to fruition).

In summary, I’ve enjoyed the transition from the D500 to D850. The D500 is a GREAT camera, one that I don’t ever see selling. But the images on the D850 are fantastic, and I think using it is making me a better photographer. And when all is said and done, that’s what it’s all about.

 

[Roy]

So I have been shooting with a D500 for the past couple of years, and recently acquired a D850. I primarily shoot wildlife with an emphasis on BIF. I have been using the D850 almost exclusively in order to learn it’s nuances. I love the higher resolution and the larger viewfinder on the D850 helps with keeping the subjects in view. It is gripped with the big battery to get 9 fps, so almost up to the D500 with it’s 10 fps. I think the AF on the D500 is just a touch better due to the same number of AF focus points over a smaller sensor, but not by much.

The biggest difference I’ve noticed is the D850 illustrated deficiencies in my technique that were not as evident with the D500. Using the same settings on the D850 as I was used to using on the D500, yielded a lower keeper rate. I attributed that primarily to motion blur (I shoot primarily hand held with the 500mm PF) that wasn’t evident in the lower resolution DX camera but was definitely present at 45 mp. Going to a faster shutter speed definitely helped this issue.

I haven’t used the D850 in DX mode to date, as I prefer to crop in post, if I need to. But I have to say that most of my photography has been close to home where I won’t get a large number of images. That might change in the future should I ever acquire a Z9 or Z8 ( if that unicorn ever comes to fruition).

In summary, I’ve enjoyed the transition from the D500 to D850. The D500 is a GREAT camera, one that I don’t ever see selling. But the images on the D850 are fantastic, and I think using it is making me a better photographer. And when all is said and done, that’s what it’s all about.

500mm is the size lens where support becomes useful.
Even bracing against a wall fence makes a big difference...

 

[Roaring 40s]

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.

I've used the A1 for birds for a while now having come from an A9. It's a great tool but I can't say it's worth the extra money. Investing in time in the field, and developing your eye and your technique will pay greater dividends.

And for BIF I don't think that 600mm is enough. Some folk are happy to add a TC to the 200-600 but for me it didn't cut it. That left only the difficult choice of going prime.

 

[Roy]

I've used the A1 for birds for a while now having come from an A9. It's a great tool but I can't say it's worth the extra money. Investing in time in the field, and developing your eye and your technique will pay greater dividends.

And for BIF I don't think that 600mm is enough. Some folk are happy to add a TC to the 200-600 but for me it didn't cut it. That left only the difficult choice of going prime.

An 800mm or longer lens can be very useful sometimes.
But the 400mm to 600mm length seems to be the sweet spot for BIF.
I still hate TCs and only use them as a last resort.
It comes down to how close can you get and how big the bird is...

 

[Roaring 40s]

An 800mm or longer lens can be very useful sometimes.
But the 400mm to 600mm length seems to be the sweet spot for BIF.
I still hate TCs and only use them as a last resort.
It comes down to how close can you get and how big the bird is...

I've got the choices of 400mm, 560 and 800 and the last is the most chosen for FF BIF. You're not often given the choice to get closer to a BIF.

TCs are as good as the lens allows them to be.