Full Frame Telephoto Compared to APS-C Telephoto Capture

C_Jones · 05-02-2015, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by derekkite

Someone pointed out an advantage of full frame, where with moving subjects you have a greater chance of capturing something in the frame. There is an advantage in noise as well, although that may diminish as you crop.

I want my free lunch.

Thank you.

---------- Post added 05-02-15 at 04:20 PM ----------

Originally posted by Na Horuk

Um I think pretty much all modern FF cameras allow this in-camera? Not sure, though. And you can always batch process in post, especially if you shoot raw.

Thank you. I will wait for the camera to come out and see if the options will be available. You have been very helpful as have others in this forum. What a full frame actually consisted of and how it operates is more clear to me now, and I appreciate the information.

**Rondec** · 05-02-2015, 01:31 PM

If you shoot a lot of telephoto, then in general APS-C has some advantage. If you are shooting APS-C with a higher pixel density than your full frame sensor (24 megapixel APS-C versus 24 megapixel full frame) then there is definitely some extra "length" you get with APS-C. The other thing is that if you mostly shoot telephoto and would be cropping down to your APS-C frame anyway, then you might as well shoot APS-C, even if you could technically crop a D800 image down to a D7000 image.

osv · 05-02-2015, 01:32 PM

with the sony a7r ff camera you normally shoot at the default 36mp, but when you put an e-mount crop lens on the camera, the camera will recognize that it's a crop lens, and automatically crop the shot.

however, you can override that behavior in the camera menu, and make the camera shoot in ff 36mp mode regardless of what lens is on the camera.

1)there is no such thing as more "reach" with aps-c, because focal length is a function of the lens, not the sensor... your 150-500mm sigma lens is 150-500mm regardless of what camera it's on.
2)when 50mp ff cameras are released later this year, the pixel density will approach what 24mp crop sensor pixel density currently is, which will confuse a lot of crop sensor people, because they will finally have to accept point #1 :-)

i don't think that we know what sensor the pentax ff will have? surely it will still support screw-drive af?

derekkite · 05-02-2015, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by C_Jones

Thank you.

---------- Post added 05-02-15 at 04:20 PM ----------

Thank you. I will wait for the camera to come out and see if the options will be available. You have been very helpful as have others in this forum. What a full frame actually consisted of and how it operates is more clear to me now, and I appreciate the information.

Telephoto wildlife shooting consists of being on the edge of the capability of both the body and the lens, and marginal improvements in either make a difference whether a shot is passable or excellent. I suspect that the full frame or aps-c may be dependent to a large degree on the actual shooting circumstances of the individual. Some situations would give the advantage to one, another to the other. Ultimately if you can get close enough so that the subject almost fills the frame, then a full frame would be advantageous, giving a little more leeway in shutter speed with the lower noise. But that same advantage can be gained being a bit further away with an aps-c at the cost of a little worst noise.

I know that I crop substantially, and the higher resolution of aps-c is an advantage.

C_Jones · 05-02-2015, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by derekkite

Telephoto wildlife shooting consists of being on the edge of the capability of both the body and the lens, and marginal improvements in either make a difference whether a shot is passable or excellent. I suspect that the full frame or aps-c may be dependent to a large degree on the actual shooting circumstances of the individual. Some situations would give the advantage to one, another to the other. Ultimately if you can get close enough so that the subject almost fills the frame, then a full frame would be advantageous, giving a little more leeway in shutter speed with the lower noise. But that same advantage can be gained being a bit further away with an aps-c at the cost of a little worst noise.

I know that I crop substantially, and the higher resolution of aps-c is an advantage.

I was just looking at the different camera sensor stats for the K5IIS (which I have), the K3II (new stats) and the mention of a stat for the FF in its announcement. The spec for the K5IIS states it is a 16.3 MP sensor, the K3II stats mention a 24.35 sensor, and the mention of a 36-megapixels sensor for the full frame in an announcement which says "If we had to guess, we'd say 36-megapixels and a slightly bigger body than the K-3 to facilitate a larger grip." My K5IIS gets excellent pictures as it is and even if it gets old, it will probably be one of the best ever made. The K3II facilitates technology with its sensor mp, and probably has faster AF than its predecessors. If the Pentax FF has the 36 mp sensor and of course a reliable AF system, then it will be croppable and still give the FOV that has been mentioned. So, I am almost positive some of you may be possibly more experienced than me, but it is almost like the K3II is offering a great alternative in the APS-C line without really losing too much capability to the Full Frame if you are planning on doing wildlife zooming which may involve cropping, and the Pentax FF will offer almost the best of both worlds if it in fact does house a 36 mp sensor which will be croppable and still have the Full Frame capability for those that are interested in that type of FOV. The K3II, the Pentax FF, or the next APSC in line after the K3II will probably all be able to handle quite a bit in a nice way per the sensor mp if it is used technologically well. I know getting down to the real shooting preferences and needs of each specific user will make a difference in the final choice, but they really do seem like they will most likely be fulfilling products in their time just as my K5IIS has been. So, I really like the new Pentax choices. Per the information I have gained on this forum, I know what to look for in a more knowledgeable way.

snostorm · 05-02-2015, 09:17 PM

One last thing that I think nobody has mentioned. If you shoot a lot of telephoto, there are disadvantages to shooting a 24x36 sensor DSLR in crop mode. The optical VF will stay the same, but might have a cropped FOV overlay or etchings. This means that the subject will be @33% smaller in relation to the frame in the VF. This means that it will be harder to visually confirm critical focus, and if the AF sensor areas are expanded proportionally to cover the over 2x larger frame, then they will be that much larger in area, thus you might lose some critical focus accuracy, or at least the ability to see it in the VF. Of course, you can eliminate both disadvantages by using LV, but then you lose PDAF.

There might be a potential advantage for moving subject shooters though. The wider FOV in the VF will allow slightly easier spotting of small subjects and it would allow seeing subjects outside the FOV of the cropped sensor area as they move into the frame. I don't know how actually useful these might be in practical use. . .

For tele shooters, an APS-C body is probably the better choice, regardless of the other factors.

Scott

C_Jones · 05-03-2015, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by snostorm

One last thing that I think nobody has mentioned. If you shoot a lot of telephoto, there are disadvantages to shooting a 24x36 sensor DSLR in crop mode. The optical VF will stay the same, but might have a cropped FOV overlay or etchings. This means that the subject will be @33% smaller in relation to the frame in the VF. This means that it will be harder to visually confirm critical focus, and if the AF sensor areas are expanded proportionally to cover the over 2x larger frame, then they will be that much larger in area, thus you might lose some critical focus accuracy, or at least the ability to see it in the VF. Of course, you can eliminate both disadvantages by using LV, but then you lose PDAF.

There might be a potential advantage for moving subject shooters though. The wider FOV in the VF will allow slightly easier spotting of small subjects and it would allow seeing subjects outside the FOV of the cropped sensor area as they move into the frame. I don't know how actually useful these might be in practical use. . .

For tele shooters, an APS-C body is probably the better choice, regardless of the other factors.
E
Scott

Thanks Scott.

05-02-2015, 02:14 PM	#20
C_Jones Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,085 Original Poster	Originally posted by derekkite Telephoto wildlife shooting consists of being on the edge of the capability of both the body and the lens, and marginal improvements in either make a difference whether a shot is passable or excellent. I suspect that the full frame or aps-c may be dependent to a large degree on the actual shooting circumstances of the individual. Some situations would give the advantage to one, another to the other. Ultimately if you can get close enough so that the subject almost fills the frame, then a full frame would be advantageous, giving a little more leeway in shutter speed with the lower noise. But that same advantage can be gained being a bit further away with an aps-c at the cost of a little worst noise. I know that I crop substantially, and the higher resolution of aps-c is an advantage. I was just looking at the different camera sensor stats for the K5IIS (which I have), the K3II (new stats) and the mention of a stat for the FF in its announcement. The spec for the K5IIS states it is a 16.3 MP sensor, the K3II stats mention a 24.35 sensor, and the mention of a 36-megapixels sensor for the full frame in an announcement which says "If we had to guess, we'd say 36-megapixels and a slightly bigger body than the K-3 to facilitate a larger grip." My K5IIS gets excellent pictures as it is and even if it gets old, it will probably be one of the best ever made. The K3II facilitates technology with its sensor mp, and probably has faster AF than its predecessors. If the Pentax FF has the 36 mp sensor and of course a reliable AF system, then it will be croppable and still give the FOV that has been mentioned. So, I am almost positive some of you may be possibly more experienced than me, but it is almost like the K3II is offering a great alternative in the APS-C line without really losing too much capability to the Full Frame if you are planning on doing wildlife zooming which may involve cropping, and the Pentax FF will offer almost the best of both worlds if it in fact does house a 36 mp sensor which will be croppable and still have the Full Frame capability for those that are interested in that type of FOV. The K3II, the Pentax FF, or the next APSC in line after the K3II will probably all be able to handle quite a bit in a nice way per the sensor mp if it is used technologically well. I know getting down to the real shooting preferences and needs of each specific user will make a difference in the final choice, but they really do seem like they will most likely be fulfilling products in their time just as my K5IIS has been. So, I really like the new Pentax choices. Per the information I have gained on this forum, I know what to look for in a more knowledgeable way. Last edited by C_Jones; 05-02-2015 at 02:18 PM. Reason: edit

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Full Frame simulation on aps-c camera via ...	Pentaxtic	Pentax Full Frame	16	01-15-2014 05:06 PM
APS-C v Full Frame 305?	nomadkng	Photographic Industry and Professionals	3	05-10-2013 11:56 AM
Lens hoods on full frame, APS-C...	nater	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	4	08-04-2010 08:50 AM
Field of View, Full Frame and APS-C compared	Ole	Pentax Lens Articles	5	04-11-2010 06:27 AM
Full Frame, APS-C and Cinema	brucestrange	Photographic Technique	12	12-20-2008 08:24 AM

05-02-2015, 01:17 PM	#16
C_Jones Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,085 Original Poster	Originally posted by derekkite Someone pointed out an advantage of full frame, where with moving subjects you have a greater chance of capturing something in the frame. There is an advantage in noise as well, although that may diminish as you crop. I want my free lunch. Thank you. ---------- Post added 05-02-15 at 04:20 PM ---------- Originally posted by Na Horuk Um I think pretty much all modern FF cameras allow this in-camera? Not sure, though. And you can always batch process in post, especially if you shoot raw. Thank you. I will wait for the camera to come out and see if the options will be available. You have been very helpful as have others in this forum. What a full frame actually consisted of and how it operates is more clear to me now, and I appreciate the information.

05-02-2015, 01:31 PM	#17
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	If you shoot a lot of telephoto, then in general APS-C has some advantage. If you are shooting APS-C with a higher pixel density than your full frame sensor (24 megapixel APS-C versus 24 megapixel full frame) then there is definitely some extra "length" you get with APS-C. The other thing is that if you mostly shoot telephoto and would be cropping down to your APS-C frame anyway, then you might as well shoot APS-C, even if you could technically crop a D800 image down to a D7000 image.

05-02-2015, 01:32 PM	#18
osv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: So Cal Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,080	with the sony a7r ff camera you normally shoot at the default 36mp, but when you put an e-mount crop lens on the camera, the camera will recognize that it's a crop lens, and automatically crop the shot. however, you can override that behavior in the camera menu, and make the camera shoot in ff 36mp mode regardless of what lens is on the camera. 1)there is no such thing as more "reach" with aps-c, because focal length is a function of the lens, not the sensor... your 150-500mm sigma lens is 150-500mm regardless of what camera it's on. 2)when 50mp ff cameras are released later this year, the pixel density will approach what 24mp crop sensor pixel density currently is, which will confuse a lot of crop sensor people, because they will finally have to accept point #1 :-) i don't think that we know what sensor the pentax ff will have? surely it will still support screw-drive af?

05-02-2015, 01:33 PM	#19
derekkite Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Nelson B.C. Posts: 3,782	Originally posted by C_Jones Thank you. ---------- Post added 05-02-15 at 04:20 PM ---------- Thank you. I will wait for the camera to come out and see if the options will be available. You have been very helpful as have others in this forum. What a full frame actually consisted of and how it operates is more clear to me now, and I appreciate the information. Telephoto wildlife shooting consists of being on the edge of the capability of both the body and the lens, and marginal improvements in either make a difference whether a shot is passable or excellent. I suspect that the full frame or aps-c may be dependent to a large degree on the actual shooting circumstances of the individual. Some situations would give the advantage to one, another to the other. Ultimately if you can get close enough so that the subject almost fills the frame, then a full frame would be advantageous, giving a little more leeway in shutter speed with the lower noise. But that same advantage can be gained being a bit further away with an aps-c at the cost of a little worst noise. I know that I crop substantially, and the higher resolution of aps-c is an advantage.

05-02-2015, 09:17 PM	#21
snostorm Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA Posts: 1,535	One last thing that I think nobody has mentioned. If you shoot a lot of telephoto, there are disadvantages to shooting a 24x36 sensor DSLR in crop mode. The optical VF will stay the same, but might have a cropped FOV overlay or etchings. This means that the subject will be @33% smaller in relation to the frame in the VF. This means that it will be harder to visually confirm critical focus, and if the AF sensor areas are expanded proportionally to cover the over 2x larger frame, then they will be that much larger in area, thus you might lose some critical focus accuracy, or at least the ability to see it in the VF. Of course, you can eliminate both disadvantages by using LV, but then you lose PDAF. There might be a potential advantage for moving subject shooters though. The wider FOV in the VF will allow slightly easier spotting of small subjects and it would allow seeing subjects outside the FOV of the cropped sensor area as they move into the frame. I don't know how actually useful these might be in practical use. . . For tele shooters, an APS-C body is probably the better choice, regardless of the other factors. Scott

05-03-2015, 07:09 AM	#22
C_Jones Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,085 Original Poster	Originally posted by snostorm One last thing that I think nobody has mentioned. If you shoot a lot of telephoto, there are disadvantages to shooting a 24x36 sensor DSLR in crop mode. The optical VF will stay the same, but might have a cropped FOV overlay or etchings. This means that the subject will be @33% smaller in relation to the frame in the VF. This means that it will be harder to visually confirm critical focus, and if the AF sensor areas are expanded proportionally to cover the over 2x larger frame, then they will be that much larger in area, thus you might lose some critical focus accuracy, or at least the ability to see it in the VF. Of course, you can eliminate both disadvantages by using LV, but then you lose PDAF. There might be a potential advantage for moving subject shooters though. The wider FOV in the VF will allow slightly easier spotting of small subjects and it would allow seeing subjects outside the FOV of the cropped sensor area as they move into the frame. I don't know how actually useful these might be in practical use. . . For tele shooters, an APS-C body is probably the better choice, regardless of the other factors. E Scott Thanks Scott.