Full frame or crop?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by lynx6500@netscape.net, Apr 14, 2007.

  1. Guest

    , Apr 14, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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, Apr 14, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. John Sheehy Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet <> 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, Apr 15, 2007
    #3
  4. John Sheehy wrote:
    > David Dyer-Bennet <> 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.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 15, 2007
    #4
  5. ASAAR Guest

    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. :)
     
    ASAAR, Apr 15, 2007
    #5
  6. 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
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Apr 15, 2007
    #6
  7. Josef Svejk Guest

    John Sheehy wrote:
    > David Dyer-Bennet <> 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, Apr 15, 2007
    #7
  8. John Sheehy Guest

    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 <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    John Sheehy, Apr 15, 2007
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. wylbur37
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,240
    Jukka Aho
    Nov 6, 2006
  2. Don and Liz Campbell

    1 Frame per second frame capture rate

    Don and Liz Campbell, Mar 24, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    394
  3. asprigoftrig

    view loaded clip frame-by-frame on PC?

    asprigoftrig, Dec 14, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    723
    asprigoftrig
    Dec 14, 2005
  4. PanHandler

    Full frame vs. 1.6 crop factor

    PanHandler, Aug 31, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    1,174
  5. Wally
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,033
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Feb 12, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page