Will fx help this kind of photography

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).

J

joe colontonio

New member
Member's gallery
Apparently I have an affinity for take Photos of smal fast birds that bounce around in shadows.
I am using d 7100 with 300 2. 8 or f4. I usually can get pretty close but still have to crop.
I have the tc's but rarely use them. Always handheld, I need to be quick to have any chance.

Will a full frame help or hinder. I know the general consensus for birds is go with the crop sensor.
with what I shoot what makes more sense.

bc-.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
I'm not sure there is a yes or no answer to your question. The sensor size combines with the focal length of the lens to yield a certain angle of view. With the same lens you get more reach with the crop sensor vs. full frame sensor but trade some low light performance, dynamic range, and noise, all else being equal (but all else never is equal).
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
I'm not sure there is a yes or no answer to your question. The sensor size combines with the focal length of the lens to yield a certain angle of view. With the same lens you get more reach with the crop sensor vs. full frame sensor but trade some low light performance, dynamic range, and noise, all else being equal (but all else never is equal).
Click to expand...
Thank you Bleirer, Yes all else being equal but! I borrowed a friends d750. The images were clean for subjects that were in the open.
Autofocus was not up to the task for picking a bird out of tree branches or grasses so the trial was inconclusive.
 
Member's gallery
If you're already cropping your crop sensor images then going full frame will just mean even more cropping unless you can get quite a bit closer or invest in substantially longer lenses. The commonly discussed advantages of full frame sensors including more limited DoF for background blurring and low noise evaporate as soon as you crop your images down to DX sensor size or smaller. Basically to reap the benefits of a full frame sensor you really want to fill that full frame and not just fill a small portion and then crop to enlarge the subject.

IOW, if you're already cropping into DX sensor images then there's no real benefit of switching to a full frame sensor camera as you'll just crop even deeper into those images.
 
Member's gallery
DRwyoming said:
If you're already cropping your crop sensor images then going full frame will just mean even more cropping unless you can get quite a bit closer or invest in substantially longer lenses. The commonly discussed advantages of full frame sensors including more limited DoF for background blurring and low noise evaporate as soon as you crop your images down to DX sensor size or smaller. Basically to reap the benefits of a full frame sensor you really want to fill that full frame and not just fill a small portion and then crop to enlarge the subject.

IOW, if you're already cropping into DX sensor images then there's no real benefit of switching to a full frame sensor camera as you'll just crop even deeper into those images.
Click to expand...
Thank you Drw for putting things in perspective.. Moving to a longer lens would defeat the purpose. I would loose handholdability (There is no way I am handholding a 4002.8). Also I would loose at least 1 stop going to f4 from 2.8 so not only do I loose length I also loose the noise advantage.

Getting Closer would be tough out in the field. I am only 10" away for the above shot. In my backyard I could get closer with a blind but it would not be worth it for the short period i shoot in my backyard. The month of April is the only time it would be worthwhile.
If I am looking at this right I guess I will be looking at a d500 for my next camera.
 
Member's gallery
Its easier to keep birds in the frame with FX. Forget all this reach with DX rubbish the bird will be the same size on the sensor if you use the same focal length lens on both formats. Then its down to POI
 
Member's gallery
Pistnbroke said:
Its easier to keep birds in the frame with FX. Forget all this reach with DX rubbish the bird will be the same size on the sensor if you use the same focal length lens on both formats. Then its down to POI
Click to expand...
On simpler terms.
If I have a d850 in crop mode and d500 Images would then be the same size. Would I still have a cleaner image with d850 or would they both be the same?
Thank you Pistnbroke
 
Member's gallery
Take a good look at the Panasonic G9 camera with the 100-400mm lens. Most people on this forum will probably disparage the micro four-thirds system, but with that combination you've got the full frame equivalent of a 200-800mm zoom in a stabilized, light, inexpensive combination that will give you fine photographs. Olympus just came out with a 150-400mm f4.5 lens (again an 800mm equivalent) that's not inexpensive, but is apparently a great lens, and has some fine cameras, including one designed specifically for wildlife photography. One other advantage of MFT is that both Olympus and Panasonic lenses will work on bodies of the other brand without an adapter -- try that with your Nikon or Canon lenses.
 
Member's gallery
Woody Meristem said:
Take a good look at the Panasonic G9 camera with the 100-400mm lens. Most people on this forum will probably disparage the micro four-thirds system, but with that combination you've got the full frame equivalent of a 200-800mm zoom in a stabilized, light, inexpensive combination that will give you fine photographs. Olympus just came out with a 150-400mm f4.5 lens (again an 800mm equivalent) that's not inexpensive, but is apparently a great lens, and has some fine cameras, including one designed specifically for wildlife photography. One other advantage of MFT is that both Olympus and Panasonic lenses will work on bodies of the other brand without an adapter -- try that with your Nikon or Canon lenses.
Click to expand...
Thanks Woody, I am trying to get cleaner images not necessarily longer reach. I had an oly e30 2008 , not really a fan of mft.
 
Member's gallery
to me, it almost looks like your image doesn’t have enough depth of field. Like the sharp portion drops too quickly making the photo appear more grainy. Disclosure, im not viewing on my computer. I do notice more details in feathers from my FX camera over my DX.
 
Member's gallery
joe colontonio said:
On simpler terms.
If I have a d850 in crop mode and d500 Images would then be the same size. Would I still have a cleaner image with d850 or would they both be the same?
Thank you Pistnbroke
Click to expand...

Every time you reduce image size by 1/3 - the same as from FX to DX - you effectively increase noise by a full stop. So The D850 and D500 would be about the same. The D850 would never be worse than the D500. But the D850 is better in terms of noise until it is cropped to DX proportions.

The D850 with lower levels of cropping will have cleaner backgrounds. That makes a difference.

The viewfinder of the D500 would be magnified in comparison to viewing with a D850. This may make viewing and framing a little more challenging with a small, distant subject. The AF areas are larger in the D500 than with a D850. That's in part because the D500 was derived from the full frame AF system used in the D5. So Group in the D500 is a larger area and you get more frame coverage.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
joe colontonio said:
Apparently I have an affinity for take Photos of smal fast birds that bounce around in shadows.
I am using d 7100 with 300 2. 8 or f4. I usually can get pretty close but still have to crop.
I have the tc's but rarely use them. Always handheld, I need to be quick to have any chance.

Will a full frame help or hinder. I know the general consensus for birds is go with the crop sensor.
with what I shoot what makes more sense.
Click to expand...

It's about technique. If you are unwilling to use a blind or tripod, and you don't use a teleconverter, there are limits on how sharp your images will be. You can work on technique, but you will never match images from those with better technique. Probably the best advice is to work on tracking and following small subjects so you can focus accurately, and to work on field craft so you can photograph without spooking your subject.

Steve has written books and produced videos that help with technique. They are quite good. You'll have to determine the right balance between convenience and optimal technique, and be willing to accept the resulting images. It's supposed to be fun.

With all that in mind, I'm not sure how much you can expect from a new camera. The pixels on the subject with a D500 or D850 will be slightly below your D7100, but the AF system will be a little faster and more accurate. It will help but probably will not be as meaningful as working on technique.
 
Member's gallery
EricBowles said:
Every time you reduce image size by 1/3 - the same as from FX to DX - you effectively increase noise by a full stop. So The D850 and D500 would be about the same. The D850 would never be worse than the D500. But the D850 is better in terms of noise until it is cropped to DX proportions.

The D850 with lower levels of cropping will have cleaner backgrounds. That makes a difference.

The viewfinder of the D500 would be magnified in comparison to viewing with a D850. This may make viewing and framing a little more challenging with a small, distant subject. The AF areas are larger in the D500 than with a D850. That's in part because the D500 was derived from the full frame AF system used in the D5. So Group in the D500 is a larger area and you get more frame coverage.
Click to expand...
Thank you Eric, this is the basic information I needed.
 
Member's gallery
EricBowles said:
Every time you reduce image size by 1/3 - the same as from FX to DX - you effectively increase noise by a full stop.
Click to expand...

I’ve read hat before and for similarly sized sensors like 20MP DX and 24 FX it makes sense...but I’ve always wondered if FX higher MP bodies largely cancel out the advantage since the sensor pixel size and density are the same between the DX and say an 850 or Z7II. You lose the crop factor lens reach and end up cropping in post so the pixels on target stars about the same...and it’s not really clear that there’s a lot of noise advantage with the smaller more densely packed pixels on high MP FX as compared to normal MP FX. A lot depends on shooting situation, light, and output destination too as well as skill level. It would take a deliberate attempt to shoot the same shot with both and compare in LR... it I don’t have a high MP FX so can’t do it myself. I’ve gotten some similar situation shots with a 6II compared to a 7500 from a couple of folks... up there’s enough situational and light differences in the examples I was graciously provided that it becomes an apples and oranges thing as well as whether the shots are processed the same, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top