«

Should a wildlife shooter stick with a 1.6x? It would seem so.
Although the 5D with the 24-105 makes a sweet walk around.


http://www.camerablognetwork.com/

wrote:
> Should a wildlife shooter stick with a 1.6x? It would seem so.
> Although the 5D with the 24-105 makes a sweet walk around.

A lot of the serious wildlife people seem to use the 1DmkII, a 1.3x crop
camera. But yeah, since generally wildlife shooters are using long
telephotos, crop does seem to be a downright helpful thing.

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-> wrote in news:46213678$0$960
$:

> wrote:
>> Should a wildlife shooter stick with a 1.6x? It would seem so.
>> Although the 5D with the 24-105 makes a sweet walk around.
>
> A lot of the serious wildlife people seem to use the 1DmkII, a 1.3x crop
> camera. But yeah, since generally wildlife shooters are using long
> telephotos, crop does seem to be a downright helpful thing.

The crop, per se, does not provide any extra "reach" for the capture. It
may for viewfinder purposes, if the view is as big as a crop, but usually
isn't (and there isn't as much light with the crop for a bright view). The
crop cameras only get more detail from the same lens because they also
happen to have smaller pixels. A 35MP full-frame would get more subject
detail than an 8MP 1.6x camera; more true sensor "reach", just wider.

The 1D* cameras have faster shutter response, good for birding, and faster
burst mode, and better if it starts raining.

I still think they cost way too much, though, so I use crop cameras.
If they actually had finer pixel pitches, I might consider them.

I might get the 5D successor, but most likely for street shooting
(especially at night), not for wildlife.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

John Sheehy wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-> wrote in news:46213678$0$960
> $:
>
>> wrote:
>>> Should a wildlife shooter stick with a 1.6x? It would seem so.
>>> Although the 5D with the 24-105 makes a sweet walk around.
>> A lot of the serious wildlife people seem to use the 1DmkII, a 1.3x crop
>> camera. But yeah, since generally wildlife shooters are using long
>> telephotos, crop does seem to be a downright helpful thing.
>
> The crop, per se, does not provide any extra "reach" for the capture. It
> may for viewfinder purposes, if the view is as big as a crop, but usually
> isn't (and there isn't as much light with the crop for a bright view). The
> crop cameras only get more detail from the same lens because they also
> happen to have smaller pixels. A 35MP full-frame would get more subject
> detail than an 8MP 1.6x camera; more true sensor "reach", just wider.

Sure, with the same lenses the crop view will be identical to the crop
from the full-frame view (if the sensors have the same pixel pitch,
meaning the cropped sensor has fewer pixels than the full-frame sensor).

Thing is, if you're going to be using that crop all the time, why bother
to pay for the more expensive full-frame sensor?

> The 1D* cameras have faster shutter response, good for birding, and faster
> burst mode, and better if it starts raining.

Sure, those are useful features; those are all ways in which my Nikon
D200 is better than my Fuji S2 was, too. And the D2x is better than my
D200 by some more.

> I still think they cost way too much, though, so I use crop cameras.
> If they actually had finer pixel pitches, I might consider them.

I never did make the leap to medium format, quite (I've owned a
Yashicamat 124G and a Fuji GS645 and a Norita Graflex, but never an
actual medium format system, and never used them regularly), largely
because of price; and because my day-to-day photography is better suited
to 35mm (responsive, extreme lenses, low light).

I can use slow wide lenses much more easily than slow long lenses, so a
crop camera with a relatively slow 12-24mm zoom as my widest lens works
out pretty well for me.

> I might get the 5D successor, but most likely for street shooting
> (especially at night), not for wildlife.

I'd certainly take a 1DmkII over a 5D for wildlife any day of the week.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:32:13 GMT, John Sheehy wrote:

> I might get the 5D successor, but most likely for street shooting
> (especially at night), not for wildlife.

If you don't pick your streets carefully, you may get more
wildlife than you can handle.

wrote:
> Should a wildlife shooter stick with a 1.6x? It would seem so.
> Although the 5D with the 24-105 makes a sweet walk around.
>
> http://www.camerablognetwork.com/

The reasons to choose a specific camera for wildlife
photography have little to do with the crop factor
in my opinion. Things that are more important
include: fast response: low shutter lag, fast turn
on, fast and accurate autofocus, large buffer size for raw
files, autofocusing at f/8 (pro cameras autofocus at
f/8 and even with stacked 1.4x and 2x TC for f/11;
consumer cameras only focus up to f/5.6), frames
per second for recording action, pixel size for
high ISO low noise performance, many autofocus
points (e.g. 1D Mark II has 45 AF points), weather
sealing to work in harsh conditions, and
ergonomics to operate easily in fast action
(e.g. I change the autofocus point while tracking
a fast moving animal to keep the animal's eye on an
AF point while keeping the composition I like. With
changing action that AF point needs to be moved around
with the changing scene).

Roger
Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com

John Sheehy wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-> wrote in news:46213678$0$960
> $:
>
>> wrote:
>>> Should a wildlife shooter stick with a 1.6x? It would seem so.
>>> Although the 5D with the 24-105 makes a sweet walk around.
>> A lot of the serious wildlife people seem to use the 1DmkII, a 1.3x crop
>> camera. But yeah, since generally wildlife shooters are using long
>> telephotos, crop does seem to be a downright helpful thing.
>
> The crop, per se, does not provide any extra "reach" for the capture. It
> may for viewfinder purposes, if the view is as big as a crop, but usually
> isn't (and there isn't as much light with the crop for a bright view). The
> crop cameras only get more detail from the same lens because they also
> happen to have smaller pixels. A 35MP full-frame would get more subject
> detail than an 8MP 1.6x camera; more true sensor "reach", just wider.

Also, if your camera is doing the cropping for you, then your lightmeter
isn't taking into account a huge chunk of picture that you are not going
to use, so you're increasing your chances of getting the subject
correctly exposed - for example a light-coloured bird amongst dark leaves.

Josef Svejk <> wrote in
news:4621b0aa$0$25474$:

> Also, if your camera is doing the cropping for you, then your
> lightmeter isn't taking into account a huge chunk of picture that you
> are not going to use, so you're increasing your chances of getting the
> subject correctly exposed - for example a light-coloured bird amongst
> dark leaves.

That's true. I use the EC intuitively, but that factor keeps everything
more in check. the more a subject fills the frame, the less likely I see
flashing highlights in the review image.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><