[luftfluss]

I totally agree with you on that.
Actually, it works better than the HD 1.4X Pentax TC ! (I have both).

The AFA 1.7x works pretty swell with a 300/2.8 also...

[Dan Rentea]

That's a case by case basis, dictated mostly by the launch date of the camera and not the size of its sensor.

I don't agree.

Hum, not really. See the K-3 vs K-1, for instance. All things being equal, smaller files yield faster fps. Again it's mostly a case by case basis, you can build a fast-shooting camera regardless of its sensor, it's a shutter and buffer issue.

Pentax is new to full frame, having only the K1 for the moment. If you look at my examples, 1Dx/1Dx Mark II have 12 and 14 fps while 7D Mark II has 10fps. Same in Nikon boat.

That I agreed upon above. I'll point out, however, that you're better off with this year's APS-C than three years ago's FF.

Try 1Dx Mark I (not Mark II) vs 7D Mark II. 1Dx it's better on any aspect than 7D Mark II.

Getting "closer" is easier with APS-C's crop factor.

Yes, but if a cloud covers the sun and you have to raise the ISO, I would rather prefer to have the high ISO of a full frame and work on my approaching technique.

And yet you're basing your opinion on some people you follow on the internet who use FF and say it's better (or maybe don't say anything at all but simply use FF?)

I'm just presenting facts. Amateur photographers choose which camera they want. Pro action photographers use full frame cameras. The guys who shoot for National Geographic shoot with the best full frame cameras, the pro sports photographers shoot with the best full frame cameras and so on. Seeing their work, I understand why they use those cameras.

DOF is linked to the pixel size (because that drives the circle of confusion value) but otherwise is dictated by the focal length and aperture, not the sensor size.

Try and do a comparation between a:

- 300mm f4 on a micro 4/3
- 400mm f4 on a APS-C
- 600mm f4 on a full frame

Basicaly, we have 3 different formats but what they have in comon is the same focal lenght (angle of view to be more precise) and the same aperture for all 3 lenses. See which camera will give you the increased DOF at f4 and 600mm. My guess is the micro 4/3 camera.


Later edit. My comments were not about full frame vs crop cameras when we take into consideration price and weight of the lenses. My comments are strictly based on this general affirmation "With all due respect, I fail to see why wildlife should be coupled with a FF sensor. If there's one area where APS-C really shines, it's this particular application." I have found an example on my computer from work with an 80D image vs a 6D image.

At almost the same focal lenght and aperture, the image taken with 6D is better than the one taken with 80D. It's sharper (I think I still have the full resolution images on a hard drive, at home), the background is more creamy and the details are more visible on the butterfly even at ISO 2000. Wildlife is not always possible to shoot at ISO100 so a full frame is better in the field in more than 80% of the cases than a crop camera, despite the fact that a crop camera has better reach. This is my conclusion after doing lots of tests and after I watched tons of pro wildlife photographers images and after I talked with a few.

[monochrome]

Anyone who reads these threads should by now understand that Dan has his opinion and justifies it from a ‘professional tools’ perspective. Since we don’t perfectly agree on all the characteristics of Good, neither side can definitively prove what is ‘Best’. We must agree to disagree and get about shooting with what we have.

Frankly, a K-1 is an extravagance for someone like me. KP and a collection of used DA (including DA*300) lenses would be sufficient - but I’ll likely never sell anything to Missouri Conservationist, either.

[Dan Rentea]

Anyone who reads these threads should by now understand that Dan has his opinion and justifies it from a ‘professional tools’ perspective. Since we don’t perfectly agree on all the characteristics of Good, neither side can definitively prove what is ‘Best’. We must agree to disagree and get about shooting with what we have.

Frankly, a K-1 is an extravagance for someone like me. KP and a collection of used DA (including DA*300) lenses would be sufficient - but I’ll likely never sell anything to Missouri Conservationist, either.

My opinion is not necessarily trying to minimise the performances of crop cameras. It was not my intention at all and I'm sorry if this is what all of you thought. Let me put it this way. I went out with a good friend of mine a few months ago to shoot the european bee eaters. We had a 5D Mark III and a 7D Mark II with 100-400mm lenses and a 1.4x TC. We got bored after a while and my friend decided to test the lens with TC added on both cameras. We went home and looked at the results. The 5D Mark III images were a little sharper than the images from 7D Mark II even after he croped the 5D Mark III image to match the 7D Mark II image. See the short article on my friend's website ( https://www.dpvue.com/2017/06/full-frame-vs-crop-sensor-wildlife.html ).

So, even as an amateur photographer, if I have the budget to buy a full frame, why do I have to buy a crop camera for wildlife as long as:
- my images end up on my website or on Facebook, at a resolution of 2048px so I don't mind croping?
- images look as good or better even after I crop the image taken with the full frame camera?
- ISO capabilities from 5D Mark IV or 1Dx Mark II are way better than the ones from a crop camera?
- the af is more responsive on 5D Mark IV or 1Dx Mark II than it is on 7D Mark II?

Yes, if we speak about limited budgets, then give me a K3 (KP is more expensive than K3), an 70/80D, a D7100/D7200, or an OM-D E-M1/M10 Mark II and it would be sufficient for me for wildlife, even if I would have to work a little harder to get some shots. The reach of the lens trough would be my last concern since I developed a good tehnique approach.

---

Last edited by Dan Rentea; 12-08-2017 at 02:49 AM.

[jpzk]

The AFA 1.7x works pretty swell with a 300/2.8 also...

Great shot ! That would be quite a monster of a lens, wouldn't it?

[monochrome]

Certainly. I understand. Of course K-3 is four year old technology now. KP might change the calculus somewhat for this wildlife discussion.

My company paid for professional business portraits shot today. Shooter (full-time pro business portrait shooter) was very happy to still be using a 5DII - said for that work a 5DlV wouldn’t add anything useful. I’m bringing K-1 and FA Limiteds tomorrow so he can play with Pixel Shift (he’ll bring some kind of still life arrangement). Had a fun conversation about K-mount manual lenses on K-1, and Astrotracer. Agreeable fellow.

OTOH my daughter just produced a broadcast TV spot shot in-studio with a 5DlV because she likes the Canon color profile.

I think it is about finding the tools best suited to the end product and shooter skill to use all the capability (not having money embedded in unused marginal image improvement).

[angerdan]

Try and do a comparation between a:

- 300mm f4 on a micro 4/3
- 400mm f4 on a APS-C
- 600mm f4 on a full frame

Basicaly, we have 3 different formats but what they have in comon is the same focal lenght (angle of view to be more precise) and the same aperture for all 3 lenses. See which camera will give you the increased DOF at f4 and 600mm. My guess is the micro 4/3 camera.

600mm f4 delivers the most shallow depth of view.
How Much Blur? - A Bokeh Calculator - Asklens

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

As far as I'm concerned, the simple fact that the majority of pro wildlife photographers are using full frame cameras for wildlife it's enough as a reason for me to desagree with your comment about crop cameras being more suited for wildlife due to the crop factor. When pro photographers will use crop cameras most of the time for wildlife instead of top of the line full frame cameras, then I will agree with your statement. Wildlife is not about who has the longer focal range, at least not acording to pro photographers I follow. It's about:

For me going FF was the next logical step in my wildlife photography, the single largest benefit with the cropped camera was around the times we had 12mp FF sensors. This really limited the pixel density of the final image if we ever had to crop any of those 12mp, at that time we were also limited to the lens selection other than ultra fast telephoto primes and this considerably increased the cost of a FF camera to achieve the same level of reach as a cropped body.

But as times have changed we now have FF bodies with the pixel densities high enough to allow us a very large cropping selection. Also if we consider the amount of lenses that allow us to get to 600mm at very affordable prices I feel that there is a shift to FF as a all rounder for wildlife photography.

We also have a selection of 100-400mm lens that are slower for the times one might only want that FL as a walk around lens and only weight 2 1/2 pound, in days past one could only consider 75-300ish lens along with a DX camera body, we now have the option of using a FF body and that 100-400mm lens and never consider buying that DX for those times anymore.

With the higher resolution bodies found in the current lines of FF bodies I am seeing more and more people using older FF 12-16mp FF bodies for the action that need the FPS but for everything else I see the FF higher resolution bodies taking the place of the cropped body arena. If we compare the additional reach advantage 24mp DX has over a FF 36-51mp bodies where we see the advantage is only at the 100% crops if there is any difference in pixel densities. I feel that the vast majority of the people that I shoot with are not thinking about the what advantage they would have with those 100% crops at base iso, but are looking to put as many of those FF pixels onto the subject by selecting the FL need and doing away with cropping or they have improved their skill as a wildlife photographer.

I know for myself that I am not interested in a crop a 24mp dx image down to a 4mp final image the IQ is not there and I am more interested in the IQ I get from putting 36mp on to my subject. And at the end of the day a 24mp cropped camera only gives me a 1.22 crop factor over my 36FF body and to me that is not really worth it.

[Dan Rentea]

600mm f4 delivers the most shallow depth of view.
How Much Blur? - A Bokeh Calculator - Asklens

Of course it does.

The 300mm lens behave like an equivalent focal length of a 600mm lens (on a micro 4/3 sensor), and the 400mm lens behave like an equivalent focal lenght of a 600mm (on a 1.5x crop sensor) for the same composition. But, the depth-of-field increases by:
- about 2 stops for the 300mm lens on a micro 4/3 camera compared to the 600mm on a full frame
and
- by about a stop for the 400mm lens on a APS-C camera compared to the 600mm on a full frame

Conclusion? A 300mm lens on a micro 4/3 sensor camera will give you the same perspective as a 400mm on a APS-C sensor or the same perspective as a 600mm on a full frame. But the DOF increases.

[Dan Rentea]

Assuming that we will start to photograph wildlife for a living and that we have big budgets and the following options:

- a K-3 II with the low light performance of KP and the af from K1
- a K1 with 8 fps and a better buffer
- a 600mm f4 prime lens
- the 150-450mm zoom lens
- a 300mm f4 lens
- a 1.4x TC and a 2x TC

Which combo would you choose? A poll would be interesting. My vote goes for K1, the 600mm f4 lens and 150-450mm lens (for versatility) and the 2 teleconverters, any time of the day.

[dadipentak]

Long lenses aren't about getting something far away, it is filling the frame with something close.

I think I'll have that engraved on my F*600/4 (or tattooed on my butt ;~)

[luftfluss]

Great shot ! That would be quite a monster of a lens, wouldn't it?

I wouldn't quite describe it as a "monster", but it is pushing the limits of my hand-held comfort zone.

Here's a quick snap of the 300/2.8 + 1.7x AFA + K-5 II.



If the lens were the same physical length and weight but narrower, it would be much easier to handle.

[desert-tiger]

What does everyone recommend for a tc with the 150-450 please

[KiloHotelphoto]

I guess it depends on what body you are using. If you are using a crop body get the DA 1.4 but if you use a K1 it will vignette a lot.

[normhead]

And at the end of the day a 24mp cropped camera only gives me a 1.22 crop factor over my 36FF body and to me that is not really worth it.

You do realize that a 22% increase in resolution is the difference between 400mm lens and a 500mm lens?

---------- Post added 02-13-18 at 08:26 AM ----------

I think I'll have that engraved on my F*600/4 (or tattooed on my butt ;~)

We don't want to see any images of any tattoos on your butt, where the only people likely to see it would be people in cars you moon while passing.

It reminds me of a girl in my class.
"Sir you want to see my tattoo?"
"Sure"
She starts unbuttoning her shirt and pulling down on her bra.
Me:"Wait stop... stop."
Her "What's wrong?"
Me "Why did you have that tattoo put there?"
Her: "So my parents wouldn't see it."
Me: "Honey, if it's in place where your parents wouldn't see it, I'm not allowed to see it either."

These days when folks ask if i want to see a tattoo, I ask where it is.