[Buckeye]

I am curious about the subjective picture quality comparison between a full frame camera such as a Canon 5D Mark III or a Nikon 700 when using a 300 f2.8 lens plus a 1.5x converter vs an APS-C camera, such as the Pentax K-5, using the *DA 300 f4 lens for wildlife shots since both will obtain the same focal length. I've read that there is a slight degradation of the image and loss of a stop of light when using converters. I have not used converters before.

Assuming a skilled photographer is taking the same shots with the different cameras and blowing the images up as large as practical, will the images be comparable or will the full frame camera still be better than the APS-C due the the larger pixels? Has this comparison already been discussed somewhere else?

thanks just curious

[Adam]

Your claims about teleconverters are correct: they degrade image quality (some slightly, others significantly), and you lose light (1 stop for 1.4x, 2 stops for 2.0x).

In this particular case, the APS-C camera would deliver a higher resolution due to the crop factor. The corresponding full-frame sensor would have to have 24.45 megapixels in order to deliver the same resolution as the K-5 (16.3x1.5) or 18 megapixels in order to deliver the same resolution as the K-x/Kr (12x1.5). To compensate for this, the full-frame camera would have to be use a longer lens.

Full-frame sensors are usually better than APS-C when it comes to dynamic range and noise control, as their pixel density is lower. Recent advantages in APS-C sensors, though, such as the one in the K-5, mean that they can hold their ground fairly well against full-frame, however: DxOMark - Compare sensors

[Buckeye]

Thanks Adam