[bm75]

Even that is misleading

I know. I'm just guessing what's his POV with the term "reach" and supposed he is arguing of "distance from the subject" that implies longer FL allowing to not disturb birds in their habitat ... My opinion otherwise is clear.

[Dan Rentea]

For sports I would probably chose a full frame, especially if you're shooting indoor. High ISO capabilities and smaller DOF will give you better results. For wildlife...I would probably pick a D500 or a 7D Mark II, but only because you have the 1.5x or 1.6x magnification for each lens attached to these 2 cameras. As a multi purpose camera, I would probably pick a full frame.

Here is an image from today. I used a full frame camera and a lens which at its maximum focal lenght has 400mm. In order to get this image I used a camouflage net. I was at a distance of 4-5 meters from the bird. With a bit of luck, even with a 70-200mm lens I would have taken this image.

You can do wildlife with 200mm lenses, 300mm lenses, 400mm lenses, 600mm lenses, 900mm lenses (a 600mm lens + a 1.4x TC), etc. All depends on what type of birds/animals you plan to photograph.

[normhead]

Well if we are going to start showing off today's images....
I've had sun for two days, the first couple days all month I could sit out in my blind.
K-3, Tamron SP AF 300 2.8 with 1.4 TC

All AF.s and burst mode.

[Dan Rentea]

Well if we are going to start showing off today's images....
I've had sun for two days, the first couple days all month I could sit out in my blind.
K-3, Tamron SP AF 300 2.8 with 1.4 TC

All AF.s and burst mode.

It's not about showing off images as if we are in some kind of contest. All I said is that if I had to choose now between a crop camera and a full frame camera, I wouldn't pick a K-3 II, despite its 8fps. I either wait for K3 Mark III or pick a K1. I can deal with K1's slow buffer clearing and also with the small number of fps, because I find K1 a little more precise in terms of af than K- 3 II and because the high ISO capabilities of a full frame it's an advantage often forgotten.

I also use AF.s for static subjects like the ones you see below, but not burst mode.





I use AF.s and burst mode only for images like the ones from below (these are only test images, straight from the camera).

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

I suppose Schraubstock was referring to the optical qualities of the lens, i.e. for example,min. focus distance impling magnification. In this case, I suppose, he was referring to the fact that the min focusing distance of a 300 remains the same, as the opt. qualitiesof the lens, no matter the crop involved by different sensor size. .

One of the optical qualities that show diminished returns with cropping a 300mm lens to a FOV that of 450mm is how much that camera and lens can resolve for that FOV. With good quality glass increasing the pixel density by a factor of 2.25 (for the ability crop by a factor of 1.5 ) you would see loss in resolution somewhere around half of the crop factor, so around 1.25

So if we take DS with a sensor resolution of 6mp with a quality prime lens and then compare it to that of the K5 cropped to 6mp (holding framing the same). When cropped it to 6mp we would see a decrease in the resolution with the K5 to that of what the ds can resolve .

What does this mean for the debate for cropped verses FF with quality glass on both and using the same pixel count, you really only need to adjust the FOV of the FF lens around 2/3 to ½ of the crop factor to give you the same reach.

---------- Post added 05-21-2017 at 12:46 AM ----------

It's not about showing off images as if we are in some kind of contest. All I said is that if I had to choose now between a crop camera and a full frame camera, I wouldn't pick a K-3 II, despite its 8fps. I either wait for K3 Mark III or pick a K1. I can deal with K1's slow buffer clearing and also with the small number of fps, because I find K1 a little more precise in terms of af than K- 3 II and because the high ISO capabilities of a full frame it's an advantage often forgotten.

I also use AF.s for static subjects like the ones you see below, but not burst mode.





I use AF.s and burst mode only for images like the ones from below (these are only test images, straight from the camera).

Nice work
Bee eaters?

I am starting to get into the habit of using AF C for static birds over the last few years, I move, the bird slightly moves and the focus plane falls off of the eye. My working distance and the shallow DOF of the bird along with how I decide to display the images played a role in this decision.

When I using MLU and a cable release is about the only time I use AF S

[bm75]

I'm sorry Sir, I can't focus your point. The aim is to fill the frame so , given 100% coverage of the viewfinder, a 24 mpx sensor APSC and a 24 mpx FF will give you the same resolution. photosites have a phisical size, once the signal is converted to digital your image will have 24 mpx, no matter what the photosites density. But you'll find differences due to the difference in processing the image. So ... Yes, as said in a previous post, with FF you can achieve the same composition , just reducing distance from the subject.Obviously, with a 36 mpx FF you'll have much more resolution than a 12/16/20/24 mpx camera*. But if and when Apsc will have 36 mpx you'll have the same resolution of a Ff 36 mpx image. Iso is a different story, you know. Obviously the Apsc image could have much noise at high Iso so a FF wuold have an advantage , if you actually shoot at 1600 Iso or more.

*given the same composition.

[normhead]

I'm sorry Sir, I can't focus your point. The aim is to fill the frame so , given 100% coverage of the viewfinder, a 24 mpx sensor APSC and a 24 mpx FF will give you the same resolution. photosites have a phisical size, once the signal is converted to digital your image will have 24 mpx, no matter what the photosites density. But you'll find differences due to the difference in processing the image. So ... Yes, as said in a previous post, with FF you can achieve the same composition , just reducing distance from the subject.Obviously, with a 36 mpx FF you'll have much more resolution than a 12/16/20/24 mpx camera*. But if and when Apsc will have 36 mpx you'll have the same resolution of a Ff 36 mpx image. Iso is a different story, you know. Obviously the Apsc image could have much noise at high Iso so a FF wuold have an advantage , if you actually shoot at 1600 Iso or more.

*given the same composition.

The whole photos, you have to have a longer heavier lens to have the same composition from the same distance, even shooting a 36 MP FF against a 24 MP APS-c, if as in most birding you will be heavily cropping your images. But that is problematic as well. The physical limitation of the digital pipeline means 36 MP cameras have slower frame rates. This is also tempered by the fact that when shooting for the same DoF, you have to stop down to match APS-c DoF so if you're shooting 3200 ISO FF and 1600 ISO APS-c you are essentially shooting the same image. The FF has to be higher ISO to match the DoF. If you don't match the DoF you are comparing apples and oranges.

I actually wouldn't buy a K-3 right now either. We are too close to another APS-c flagship model right now, and if the KP is any indication, the bothersome loss of DR and noise will be addressed.

---

Last edited by normhead; 05-21-2017 at 06:19 AM.

[Dan Rentea]

Nice work
Bee eaters?

I am starting to get into the habit of using AF C for static birds over the last few years, I move, the bird slightly moves and the focus plane falls off of the eye. My working distance and the shallow DOF of the bird along with how I decide to display the images played a role in this decision.

When I using MLU and a cable release is about the only time I use AF S

Thank you. Yes, this is European bee-eater, one of my favorite birds.

I used to shoot using af-c and burst mode also for static birds, but I quit because it's time consuming (and also boring ) to sort images once I get back home. I usually don't take more than 15-20 images with a bird sitting on a branch. I rapidilly see if the images are in focus by using a magnifying LCD viewfinder. If in these 15-20 images I find 3 or 4 images that I like, then I change the af from af-s to af-c and burst mode and I concentrate in getting the bird in action.

I tend to use an aperture between f4 and f8 when I shoot birds, depending on the background and also on the lens used. In the first image I posted in this thread, the aperture was at f5.6 which was wide open on my lens. At 400mm and f5.6 I've got enough DOF even if the bird changed slightly its head position.

But, we all develop techniques over the time in order to get images that we want with the gear we have and this kind of discussions are good because it's somehow a free exchange of informations and experiences also.

[hjoseph7]

My 2c worth.... in Pentax land, unless your life revolves around shooting little skitish birds on sticks.... the K-1 every day. You Sigma will give better IQ with the K-1 over a K3..... and you'll love it.

This image is a 1/3 crop of a K-1 image (12mp)..... I printed it 24" square on canvas at 150dpi and sold three copies recently at a show here ($285 each.... print cost $45) and got $1,000 prize money for second place.... iso 2,000 as well.



I have a K3 and K-1.... and after just shooting everything for something to do (retired)..... I'd now take the K-1 and just get closer to get THE shot.... not just lot's off shots....

Great shot !

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

I'm sorry Sir, I can't focus your point. The aim is to fill the frame so , given 100% coverage of the viewfinder, a 24 mpx sensor APSC and a 24 mpx FF will give you the same resolution. photosites have a phisical size, once the signal is converted to digital your image will have 24 mpx, no matter what the photosites density. But you'll find differences due to the difference in processing the image. So ... Yes, as said in a previous post, with FF you can achieve the same composition .

There is resolution as in pixel count and then there is resolution in what the lens and the camera can resolve together.

As you crop the image circle that is projected by the lens the more that image has to be enlarged, this equals less resolution is capture . If there was no penalty to cropping with a higher pixel density camera we all would be shooting with a 100mm lens on the K3 cropped to 6mp image and expect that to give us the same captured resolution as the DS with its 6mp sensor when used with a 200mm lens.
but we both know this is not possible.

[normhead]

There is resolution as in pixel count and then there is resolution in what the lens and the camera can resolve together.

As you crop the image circle that is projected by the lens the more that image has to be enlarged, this equals less resolution is capture . If there was no penalty to cropping with a higher pixel density camera we all would be shooting with a 100mm lens on the K3 cropped to 6mp image and expect that to give us the same captured resolution as the DS with its 6mp sensor when used with a 200mm lens.
but we both know this is not possible.

Enlargement is simply not an issue on digital because it is the display that determines the image size. To your monitor, a pixel from a small sensor in exactly the same as the pixel from a large sensor. Which is why a Panasonic one inch sensor at 100 ISO can produce practically the same image (same number of LW/PH) as a D7500. Sensor size has nothing to do with it.

As you crop the image circle that is projected by the lens the more that image has to be enlarged, this equals less resolution is capture .

Definitely not, only the poorest lenses are equalled in potential resolution by modern sensors. There's lot's of room for for smaller pixel sensors to increase resolution from the same lens. My K-3 with an FA 1.7 AF Adapter on it still picks up quite a lot of resolution using my DA*200 or Tammy 300 2.8. Even my Q continues to show serious resolution gains on a small subject used on DA* quality lens with the adapter.

There is not a shred of evidence to support the notion that modern lenses can't resolve at least 1.7 time as much as a modern sensor and I can show you tests with a 1.7 TC to confirm that.

A shot taken with my Q, and the Tamron 300 for an effective focal length of 1200mm. There is still enough resolution to resolve feather detail.
My guess is that 1/4 the size of an APs-c sensor.



This is taken 40 meters away from my porch. A lot of the detail that may have been lost is because I'm far away. There's a lot of atmosphere between me and there, yet i still have feather detail. Shot with the same lens and K-1 then enlarged the bird would be just a little spot on the image, possibly not even recognizable as a bird.

Closer is always better, but if you can't get closer, reducing your sensor size is a good start if your light is good enough to give you a decent shutter speed at 100 ISO.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Enlargement is simply not an issue on digital because it is the display that determines the image size. To your monitor, a pixel from a small sensor in exactly the same as the pixel from a large sensor

Well any publish sites that show lens resolutions with lenses on bodies with different pixels sizes tell us differently.

Take the smcFA 35 F2 on the K5



it can resolve 2723 at 16mp when you only use a 10mp crop from that resolution and it drops to 2152, so how does this compare with the same lens on the k10d



even when only using a only cropped by a factor of 1.265 we see a decrease in resolution, there is even more if you compare it to a true 1.5 crop factor

So lets see if it hold up on other lenses

43 limited on the K5



10mp crop 2070

on the k10d



now the 70 f2.4 on the k5



10mp crop 2140

on the K10d



Reference Pentax K Lens Tests

So do we see a pattern, that pattern is a the pixel size goes down the resolution decreases by half of the factor that the pixel gets reduced

The resolution loss is even more evident when one would have to enlarge the image circle of those lens by 2.25 time to make up for the enlargement needed, so yes enlargement plays a role in how much detail we can capture

If you say that enlargement plays no role in resolution, then it should be easy to show me a image taken with a 24mp camera cropped to that of 6mp all while showing that they will resolve the same amount of detail as a 6mp uncropped image when holding the framing the same, because I would like to see this.

[bm75]

The camera used for the test by Photozone.de are both apcs. The results of the test are obvious: the pixel density of a 10 mpx camera is inferior to that of the 16 mpx camera. That's math. Obviously , given the same composition with both the cameras and given the same lens on both, you'll find more detail with the 16 mpx camera. That's OBVIOUS : more pixel can resolve more detail, given the same composition. It's like a mosaic: the smaller the pieces, the more the detail you can achieve. I repeat: given the mpx count, given a composition, pixels are just pixels, on FF and APSC . A mosaic of 24 000 000 of pieces is simply that. differences in detail can be visible due to other causes: lack of LP filter, for example, or a different image processing by the camera engine.

When you downsample images to a lower resolution, the effect is that of a sharpening just at low magnification, but actually you loose high magnification possibility. All depends on the magnification of the output device.

[Schraubstock]

Pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about, Schraubstock.

Despite of what you think of the contrary, I am pretty sure I know what I am talking about.

The OP ask: "Fullframe or APS-C for sports or bird photography". In this context "reach" started to find its way into the discussion.

You advanced this all embracing answer:

Quote "I'd stick with crop, Galegg. You're basically making your lenses get fifty percent more reach" End of quote.

In my book the "reach" of a lens is determined by its focal length. And that never changes.
The amount by which a photograph can be cropped/enlarged is dependent on the sensor of a camera, that is, the quality, size, spacing and quantity of its photosites (pixel) among other things.

Listening to you, one would think a crop camera is always better for "better reach" then a FF camera. This is not so. There are many crop cameras on the market and with any given lens they perform differently.

Cheers

---------- Post added 22-05-17 at 08:27 PM ----------

I'm not sure you actually own these cameras.

This is not your brightest retort, normhead.

[bm75]

I actually see magnification limits when I use the Sigma 10-20 3.5 on the 12 mpx Nikon D300. If I use the 10 mm FL and fill the frame with a subject big enough, I can achieve a good detail. But If I use the same FL for landscapes including trees at a distance, the limits of the resolution/pixel density appear: simply put at high magnification rates the leaves can't be reproduced with detail, given the fact that the pixel densitiy of a 12 mpx camera can't resolve detail in the small part of the image tha's a leaf on a tree in a 10 mm lanscape scene. 20*30 cm prints are the limit, for my taste, with 12 mpx, 10 mm FL and landscape with really fine detail. Otherwise I can print at much bigger sizes.