[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

So my 500mm f4.5 Sigma, full frame lens has a depth of field at 75m of 6m on FF, 4.2 or so on apsc. The coyote that I saw today at 75m and got a decent shot with my k3 1250iso 1/1600 f4.5. I cropped it by about 1/3, 2000*1350. I won't print it, it isn't good enough.

Dof is not an issue, I had adequate shutter speed. A k1 would give me a couple stops improvement on noise. It wasn't bad to start with and cleaned up reasonably well. If be at 1600*1000 roughly pixels, probably pretty close to equivalent. No real gain or loss. An hour later that same shot would be 1/800 2400iso, and on the k3 it would be a mess. But on the k1 it potentially would be close to what I got with more light.

I get lots of shots like that noise, vibration, focus are the limiting factors.


Another one a few weeks ago, 1/1250 Iso 1600 f5.6 500mm. Dof is not a factor here. A shot of a pied bill grebe, cropped a bit tighter than the first one, 1800*1200. Noise decreases resolution and detail, if I wanted to show it I would apply two noise levels, subject and background. The half stop gives better tonality from the lens, worth giving up. I could drop shutter speed a bit but I run into vibration below 1/1000 on the k3.

I suspect some of these shots would be better, some worse. I get few keepers in any case. I'm curious about the shutter. I could get handheld 1/40 400mm shots with the k5, but I run into mirror slap with the k3.

Another shot I wish I could have printed was early light in October, watching bears. 1/320 Iso 1000 f4.5. At these light levels the k3 noise and color is not very good. They were close, the image was cropped in half. Again a minor loss of resolution but I think this one would have been on my calendar. 15 minutes later the shots were wonderful, warm morning light.

I shot with a 400 mm manual lens for a while and liked the length. 500 missed me some shots, being too close in.

At 10m the lens wide open has a depth of field of .07 and .1m. Guess which number matches which sensor.

Noise really matters. Any gain in resolution from the smaller sensor can easily be lost by noise.

This really reflect what I and other have noticed going FF for wildlife with a 36mp camera, the only real time we see the reach advantage of a 24mp cropped body is below iso 500
Often times one would only have to move a few steps to gain back the FOV that you loss from having a 24mp cropped body with the same lens. If you decided to use that 36mp sensor at 24mp with a 500m lens the crop factor that the 24mp cropped body has over that FF camera is 1.2 , the difference between 500 and 600 in extreme cropping how one would say it diminished returns.

What that 500 mm lens on a 36mp opens up for you in wildlife photography( ignoring this reach quest many are after thinking it would make all the difference ) is a lens that is cracking sharp wide open and get you shooting in conditions that most wildlife are active.

[rawr]

Noise really matters. Any gain in resolution from the smaller sensor can easily be lost by noise.

+1. A very important general point that applies across all focal lengths.

Worth noting that blur can have the same impact on resolution as noise, of course. As may vignetting and other optical flaws (like CA and flare). There are a lot of ingredients in the recipe for decent resolution.

[Sandy Hancock]

Now I feel like I'm learning something from this thread!
Thanks Derek and Ian

[2351HD]

The problem with all these arguments is that everybody has forgotten that none of the manufacturers are spending R&D dollars on APSC, its all going to full frame tech. So based on that alone, FF will just keep getting better and better as the generations go on, leaving APSC behind, regardless of "equivalence" etc. The only real exception to this is Nikon, with their D500, who are specifically investing and targeting a particular APSC market, the rest are just playing "me too".

And come on, you can't honestly tell me that at 1 stop difference that a K-3 would keep up with a K-1, the sensor tech alone is more advanced. Nikon already showed us that with the D800/810. I am happy to be proven otherwise, but from what I've seen there would be no comparison worth making.

If APSC if all you need then thats fine, there is no shame in it. Heck, I am seriously considering a D500 over a K-1 for my second kit that I wish to build, because of lens selection, lens size, reach and AF system. I certainly don't feel that I would be making a mistake buying an APSC at all. You buy and use what you need and what works best for you.

[rawr]

none of the manufacturers are spending R&D dollars on APSC

Only if you are talking about camera bodies, perhaps.

But if you are talking about lenses, Sigma may prove you wrong. 18-35/1.8, 50-100/1.8 as cases in point.

And maybe expensive, high-end APS-C bodies like the Canon 7D II and the D500 you mentioned too.

[2351HD]

Only if you are talking about camera bodies, perhaps.

But if you are talking about lenses, Sigma may prove you wrong. 18-35/1.8, 50-100/1.8 as cases in point.

And maybe expensive, high-end APS-C bodies like the Canon 7D II and the D500 you mentioned too.

Possibly the Sony A6300 to that list, but it was really just an on-sensor AF refresh, not really much IQ gain there. I would not put the 7DII in that class, not sure what's going on over at Canon but they are a bit off the boil.

Yes, Sigma's recent investments could be because of their mirrorless system that they just introduced, or it could be knowledge of some exciting sensors to come. Either way I think FF or MF is where the bulk of their efforts are going, with exception of Fuji.

[noelpolar]

Now I feel like I'm learning something from this thread!
Thanks Derek and Ian

That learning sounds expensive.......and I'm not stalking you.....

[Sandy Hancock]

That learning sounds expensive....

Not if the lesson learned is that the high end birding/wildlife game is too complicated and too expensive to justify the time and money I would be required to invest

....and stop stalking me or I'll come down to Goolwa for a pizza

[Gimbal]

For anyone else who wants to be gob-smacked, let's look at your example - the K50 and the A7S.

Sony A7S vs Pentax K-50

Compare the real 'Screen' measurements with the mathematical assumption on the 'Print' screen and you find:

Sony A7S at ISO 10587 improves its signal to noise ratio by 23.5 to 25.3 dB.

K-50 at 10843 improves by from 19 to 22 dB - that's the cropped sensor cleaning up its JPG or whatever you want to call it *better* than the full frame one.

Hands up all who realised that?

Well, (holding up hand) I did.

You do realize that down sampling cleans up a picture? Noise (and details of course) are averaged out and ultimately lost.

And you know that the K50 has more Mp than the A7S, so it has to be down sampled more if one are to compare them printed at the same size. Therefore the K50 cleans up more (and loses more details, details the A7s never captured in the first place due to its lower Mp count.)

So compared pixel by pixel the A7S is way ahead, it has huge pixels compared to the K50. When printed at the same size the gap closes slightly, although the A7S still wins by a great margin due to its larger total sensor area. As expected.

[2351HD]

Well, (holding up hand) I did.

You do realize that down sampling cleans up a picture? Noise (and details of course) are averaged out and ultimately lost.

And you know that the K50 has more Mp than the A7S, so it has to be down sampled more if one are to compare them printed at the same size. Therefore the K50 cleans up more (and loses more details, details the A7s never captured in the first place due to its lower Mp count.)

So compared pixel by pixel the A7S is way ahead, it has huge pixels compared to the K50. When printed at the same size the gap closes slightly, although the A7S still wins by a great margin due to its larger total sensor area. As expected.

You know that won't be good enough for our friend Clackers. There will be a healthy level of retort, you can be sure.

[Rondec]

I'll stop you right there, Jay.

The screen tab *is* the DxOMark measurement, and tells you the contents of your RAW file.

The Print tab does not. Nobody did a measurement with any sensor for that.



Oh, beautiful, you're the Venn diagram intersection of Total Light Fanatics and Equivalence Cultists!

Did you know 'Total light' and 'Sensor size' are not considered at all in the Print values, if that's what you were hoping for?

Methinks you need to go the DxOMark site and see how those values are actually generated.

Well, I think you need to have some way of normalizing the output of your camera. DXO Mark has picked a certain megapixel mark (8). But you could pick a certain screen size or print size. In the end, the question is, if you print from a K10, K3 or a K-1 at a given size, how do the photos look with regard to noise, colors and dynamic range? I'm sure on a pixel level the K-1 will have the same amount of noise and dynamic range that K5 does, but when it comes to an 8 by 10 print of a iso 6400 photo, odds are the K-1 will look a lot better.

So my 500mm f4.5 Sigma, full frame lens has a depth of field at 75m of 6m on FF, 4.2 or so on apsc. The coyote that I saw today at 75m and got a decent shot with my k3 1250iso 1/1600 f4.5. I cropped it by about 1/3, 2000*1350. I won't print it, it isn't good enough.

Dof is not an issue, I had adequate shutter speed. A k1 would give me a couple stops improvement on noise. It wasn't bad to start with and cleaned up reasonably well. If be at 1600*1000 roughly pixels, probably pretty close to equivalent. No real gain or loss. An hour later that same shot would be 1/800 2400iso, and on the k3 it would be a mess. But on the k1 it potentially would be close to what I got with more light.

I get lots of shots like that noise, vibration, focus are the limiting factors.

Another one a few weeks ago, 1/1250 Iso 1600 f5.6 500mm. Dof is not a factor here. A shot of a pied bill grebe, cropped a bit tighter than the first one, 1800*1200. Noise decreases resolution and detail, if I wanted to show it I would apply two noise levels, subject and background. The half stop gives better tonality from the lens, worth giving up. I could drop shutter speed a bit but I run into vibration below 1/1000 on the k3.

I suspect some of these shots would be better, some worse. I get few keepers in any case. I'm curious about the shutter. I could get handheld 1/40 400mm shots with the k5, but I run into mirror slap with the k3.

Another shot I wish I could have printed was early light in October, watching bears. 1/320 Iso 1000 f4.5. At these light levels the k3 noise and color is not very good. They were close, the image was cropped in half. Again a minor loss of resolution but I think this one would have been on my calendar. 15 minutes later the shots were wonderful, warm morning light.

I shot with a 400 mm manual lens for a while and liked the length. 500 missed me some shots, being too close in.

At 10m the lens wide open has a depth of field of .07 and .1m. Guess which number matches which sensor.

Noise really matters. Any gain in resolution from the smaller sensor can easily be lost by noise.

The hard part is that if you are only using a part of your APS-C image, then full frame won't help you -- unless you either use a longer lens or figure out how to get closer. From what I've seen (I'm not a wildlife photographer by any means), the thing that wildlife photographers work hardest at is getting close to their subjects.

[dtmateojr]

If you have lots of FF lenses then go FF. Otherwise the output quality of the K1 will be no different from a K5.

[derekkite]

Not if the lesson learned is that the high end birding/wildlife game is too complicated and too expensive to justify the time and money I would be required to invest

....and stop stalking me or I'll come down to Goolwa for a pizza

I run into guys in the bush with quads and trailers, large 4x4 trucks, snowmobiles and the like that make what I spend on my hobby a rounding error.

---------- Post added 03-14-16 at 05:44 AM ----------

Well, I think you need to have some way of normalizing the output of your camera. DXO Mark has picked a certain megapixel mark (8). But you could pick a certain screen size or print size. In the end, the question is, if you print from a K10, K3 or a K-1 at a given size, how do the photos look with regard to noise, colors and dynamic range? I'm sure on a pixel level the K-1 will have the same amount of noise and dynamic range that K5 does, but when it comes to an 8 by 10 print of a iso 6400 photo, odds are the K-1 will look a lot better.



The hard part is that if you are only using a part of your APS-C image, then full frame won't help you -- unless you either use a longer lens or figure out how to get closer. From what I've seen (I'm not a wildlife photographer by any means), the thing that wildlife photographers work hardest at is getting close to their subjects.

Indeed.

I rarely get into situations where I can shoot iso200. Sometimes, but in those situations almost anything can get a very nice shot; there is room to stop down a less expensive lens, or increase the shutter speed.

Or it is a situation where the bright light is wreaking havoc with the whites or reflections off the water. I found using the older long manual lenses that needed to be stopped down to f8 or f11 to get decent sharpness that when the light was bright enough to get a decent shutter speed I ran into nasty flare and stray light issues. I had to stop down even more.

In any of these discussions there is a basic fact. In good light with a good subject, a careful photographer can get a great shot with almost anything on the market including phones. As you get away from optimum conditions the differences in the various sensors and bodies become apparent. There are edges, and if you live on those edges the seemingly marginal gains result in shots that you couldn't get otherwise.

[reh321]

I run into guys in the bush with quads and trailers, large 4x4 trucks, snowmobiles and the like that make what I spend on my hobby a rounding error.

My birding pictures is an adjunct to my wife's bird watching hobby, so I value mobility more than anything else; we go for a nice walk in the woods, and if she sees a bird, that is great, and even better if I'm able to get a reasonable picture of it, which is why my birding outfit currently consists of a Q-7, a long K-mount lens borrowed from my K-30 kit, and a walking stick / monopod.

Every May we go up to Pt. Pelee National Park, on the Canadian {north} side of Lake Erie; her work schedule usually gets us there just after the end of the prime migration time, so we see fewer birds, and fewer birders. They have various walking trails, including one that goes maybe a mile from the tram stop to the actual point. Almost every year I'll see someone get off the tram and march down to the point lugging a wooden tripod and other impressive gear; I'm sure he gets an impressive picture. We have our fun wandering, seeing more of the park, and that is what matters to us.

[jsherman999]

AFAIK, he's a fashion photographer chucked out of the DPR forum in the past who did a diatribic blogpost some have bookmarked as a kind of holy relic.

The time I once spent reading it is time I won't get back, unfortunately. My training is in Physics so I had to read genuine Optics papers by people who actually knew what they were talking about.

Good "appeal to authority" - not!

There's 'appeal to authority' and then there's citing sources or aggregation of sources. One great tactic folks like you use is to call citations and references an 'appeal to authority' once you realize the citation makes you lose the argument.

You can do literally dozens of things to clear up your misconceptions - check Falk's site, or go root around on dpreview until you encounter Eric Fossum for example who provided information to JJ for some of the read noise information in his article and is one of the clear voices on Equivalence - or tries to be, among all the noise out there. Emil Martinec, Bob Newman, Bill Claff, Bob Sheehey, etc -- these are not 'appeals to authority', they are researchers and engineers who have laid out the facts on their own research and calculations and data for you nicely. I once got into a 'discussion' with Bob Newman when I didn't think he understood the concept of "ISO-less" correctly - he proceeded to carefully take apart my argument piece by piece - very patiently, i might add - and I learned much about the subject before I even realized who he was. You could find some direction there.

Maybe we should check in with you to see if this isn't just a stalling/trolling tactic on your part or if you really have some specific objections - going back to my first post, what statement specifically do you have issue with?

Oh, and BTW - "I have training in physics" is also a certain type of appeal - one that falls flat on it's face when you deny basic things like Equivalence and misunderstand the meaning of the screen tab vs. print tab on DxO. We had a 'physics major' on here last year who proceeded to leave his idiotic droppings in multiple threads, then go on dpreview and make such a horrible fool of himself I actually felt bad for him. (he's been banned from there and I think from here now, because although he was a confirmed physics undergrad major - he was a complete equivalence-denying idiot, and a very rude one at that.)



.