[Venom3300]

But for anything that don't need to crop, so anything between 150mm to 600mm FF equivalent the FF will have the edge... Well a bit more than 600mm actually because the FF has 36MP, 50% more pixels. So you can crop up to 600*(36/24)^(0.5) = 734mm and still get exactly the same magnification. Bellow that FF better, above that if the lens good enough (and theses 150-600 consummers zooms are not) the APSC is better.

Of course I realize they are differnt focal lengths. I was born at night sir, but it wasnt last night.

Yeah IF YOU CAN FILL the frame on a FF at 600 mm you will have an advantage. But thats a big "if". Maybe shooting large more doscile wildlife than I shoot you might get to. But ive shot 400 and 420 on apsc plenty of times and i can tell you the frame number of times the frake was full on a couple of fingers.

Youd have a lot better chance at filling the frame with that 150-600 lens on an apsc camera... where the results would be equal (becaise you cant fill the full frame)... and spending the extra cash on a flash, tripod, and pop-up hunting hide.

[Nicolas06]

Youd have a lot better chance at filling the frame with that 150-600 lens on an apsc camera... where the results would be equal (becaise you cant fill the full frame)... and spending the extra cash on a flash, tripod, and pop-up hunting hide.

Oh sure, the FF body is more expensive and if the goal is an effective framing of 1200mm or 2000mm, then anyway, this doesn't change much. This is the thousand, millions pictures of widlife that look honestly soso because they are taken at quite high iso, heavily cropped etc. I 100% agree with you.

The guy that will take great wildlife picture will manage for its subject to have great lighting conditions and to have the subject to more or less fill the frame anyway. That what will give great results. And in that case FF vs APSC will both handle that well anyway. The FF will give more quality, objectively but it might not be worth it.

Yeah IF YOU CAN FILL the frame on a FF at 600 mm you will have an advantage. But thats a big "if". Maybe shooting large more doscile wildlife than I shoot you might get to. But ive shot 400 and 420 on apsc plenty of times and i can tell you the frame number of times the frake was full on a couple of fingers

Well still easier to frame it at 600mm on FF than 300mm on APSC... The FF still resolve more details and still get you less noise plus the subject is bigger on the viewfinder and the AF will work better.

You may not want to switch to FF, but if you subject need lot of reach, then you may want to consider something longer at least

And longer lenses that are sharp enough to outresolve a 24MP APSC sensor or even a 16MP one are very expensive. The guy with FA600 f/4 on APSC is a lucky one Well for me only if he has a sherpa to lift the gear...

[Venom3300]

Oh sure, the FF body is more expensive and if the goal is an effective framing of 1200mm or 2000mm, then anyway, this doesn't change much. This is the thousand, millions pictures of widlife that look honestly soso because they are taken at quite high iso, heavily cropped etc. I 100% agree with you.

The guy that will take great wildlife picture will manage for its subject to have great lighting conditions and to have the subject to more or less fill the frame anyway. That what will give great results. And in that case FF vs APSC will both handle that well anyway. The FF will give more quality, objectively but it might not be worth it.



Well still easier to frame it at 600mm on FF than 300mm on APSC... The FF still resolve more details and still get you less noise plus the subject is bigger on the viewfinder and the AF will work better.

You may not want to switch to FF, but if you subject need lot of reach, then you may want to consider something longer at least

And longer lenses that are sharp enough to outresolve a 24MP APSC sensor or even a 16MP one are very expensive. The guy with FA600 f/4 on APSC is a lucky one Well for me only if he has a sherpa to lift the gear...

Now that i can agree with you on. 300 on apsc isnt ideal. But its what i can afford. Hope to add a 1.4tc at some point. But stwitching to FF still at 300mm doesnt help me any and that would have been all i could afford.

I have nothing agaisnt full frame. I want it and miss it. But i simply dont get 1000 dollars worth of benefit without something much longer and faster.