jalethbridge
I like sea-watching
I think this discussion basically gets us to a place where the camera operator is the limiting factor and not the camera itself.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Full frame query. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter senatore
- Start date
MJN
Well-known member
When I originally read this post I largely dismissed it as being a rant.
Having now used a 5D3 for several weeks, I can to a large extent see where you're coming from.
You are quite correct that the 1D4 is superior for sheer responsiveness and as an all round tool. However the absolute IQ that you refer to in the 5D3's favour is also a big consideration.
That final image quality of the 5D3 wins for me but I think that when I'm shooting BIF's, the MK4 will be out.
You're also spot on with your analysis of the dross that's appearing on Birdguides at the moment, it's like the king and his new clothes. There are instances where shots that should really be deleted are being awarded "notable" status and it sends out completely the wrong message to the poor guy who may genuinely believe that his shot is awesome. There are also many excellent images displayed on BG.
Regards.
Last edited:
This is the the crux of FF v crop. People who extol the FF cameras for wildlife photography usually have at least a 500/4 lens. People spending 1Dx money on a body normally have the funding for a super tele.
There wont be much difference between the 5D3/7D under ISO 800. Go above that and the FF sensor then shows its value.
Frank Anderson
Well-known member
I find it interesting reading comments such as on this thread, but it is also where I feel alienated from my fellow photographers. All the talk seems to be on technical side and little on how the ability to use the camera with either full frame or crop.
At the risk of painting a big target on my forehead, I would suggest the ability to take a good photograph, technically and creatively would matter most and which can be done equally well (or badly) on a crop or full frame camera. Secondly I would go for a good lens and lastly I would worry about the camera. Go online and you will see plenty of very poor images taken with very expensive full frame cameras.
Personally, and again at the risk of upsetting people, I would be content with your 7D - a perfectly capable camera, if you have money to spend, invest in a faster prime than your 400 mm 5.6, perfect your technique, creativity and knowledge of your subject, and when and only when you feel limited by your camera, upgrade.
At the risk of painting a big target on my forehead, I would suggest the ability to take a good photograph, technically and creatively would matter most and which can be done equally well (or badly) on a crop or full frame camera. Secondly I would go for a good lens and lastly I would worry about the camera. Go online and you will see plenty of very poor images taken with very expensive full frame cameras.
Personally, and again at the risk of upsetting people, I would be content with your 7D - a perfectly capable camera, if you have money to spend, invest in a faster prime than your 400 mm 5.6, perfect your technique, creativity and knowledge of your subject, and when and only when you feel limited by your camera, upgrade.
Dave Williams
Well-known member
You make some good and valid points Frank and I agree with everything you say but would also point out that you are blessed with the sort of gear others might drool over, and they certainly would have when you first bought them had they been the latest upgrades !
Avian photography does tend to be very channeled into an obsession with minute feather detail and the like and a lot of the creativity is missing as so much of what we see is simply a bird on a stick. For these kind of shots in particularly you do tend to need a long lens and the ability to crop your shots so megapixels can be important too. Likewise, although I have seen criticisms of people who use their camera bodies like machine guns ( and have indeed witnessed what I believe to be OTT use of such methods) there are many instances when the cameras ability to take multiple shots quickly is extremely useful.
Like so many others I have "upgraded' my gear before I have learnt how to use the old bit of kit properly but that doesn't mean I haven't benefitted from it. I am also blessed with some of the best kit available and have an FX 5D3 which is my latest body and favourite plus a crop 1DMk1V as a back up. Both have their own advantages and disadvantages and to be honest, if I could justify the expense, I would trade in my 1D1V for a 1DX like a shot. Why not ? Will it make me a better photographer ? No! Will I be able to achieve better shots ? Probably !
So , in answer to the original question about whether to choose full frame or a crop body the answer very much depends on which body is the one in question and all the other aspects that it provides such as ISO, FPS,MP's,AF points etc etc.
Money isn't the be all and end all but it helps.
I agree with you Frank to maximise your potential, more than anything else you need to create opportunity. You can make your own no matter what gear you posses with patience, fieldcraft and learning from other peoples experiences and work.
cheers Dave
Sandpiper
Mike Powell
Frank and Dave,
Both of you have expressed honest opinions which make a lot of sense. Thank you both for your valued input. As you both have implied, a lot of photographers may have the "best" gear available but it does not necessary make them the "best" photographers. Good old-fashioned skill and fieldcraft are as equally important as the equipment used.
Mike
Both of you have expressed honest opinions which make a lot of sense. Thank you both for your valued input. As you both have implied, a lot of photographers may have the "best" gear available but it does not necessary make them the "best" photographers. Good old-fashioned skill and fieldcraft are as equally important as the equipment used.
Mike
fogboundturtle
Well-known member
As a FF user now. I would agree. It doesn't make you a better photographer but it does alleviate certain issue like low light shooting. I used to worry all the time about my ISO settings on my T2i. I don't even bother with the 5D3. I left it on auto ISO and I know the result is going to be good no matter what. the other thing I like about FF is the shallower depth of field at the same aperture.
At the end of the day. They are just tools to help us facilitate toward our end result. I found it easier to work with an FF but crop camera are no slouch and should not be prevent you from obtaining amazing result.
mr_birdman
No longer a Canon Snob.
The only downside of full frame is people need to take a few extra steps towards the bird. Not that hard to do with good field craft and as Roy said, the high ISO performance of the FF or APS-H will blow any APS-C sensors away. Crop sensors are no match for full frame or APS-H (sadly second hand only now) sensor bodies.
After being on these forums for years I've often heard these terms bandied around. They are NEVER backed up with any scientific side by side controlled tests though. As I posted earlier, under ISO 800 you'd be pushed to notice the difference between a modern crop and FF. When I'm birding my walkaround ISO is 800 which is 'usually' enough for SS of 1/640 plus. Yes there are exceptions, and those exceptions show the differences of the sensor size.
And, if you're in a hide or by the waters edge, how can you take a few steps towards your quarry ? ? ?
Also are you seriously suggesting the 1D4 can't compete with the 6D/5D3/1Dx............
Last edited:
Frank Anderson
Well-known member
While I agree with Miguel there is plenty of evidence online to show the differences between FF & Crop especially with noise, I think the problem with the digital age of photography we have become maybe a little obsessed with seeing everything at 100% on our monitors. In real terms I doubt most could tell the difference on a DSLR. I have a FF camera, 1.3 and 1.6 crop cameras and the differences for me have been more to do with depth of field and in their use of wide angle lenses.
There are lots of deciding factors that can give the sensor its quality but it is generally true that the larger the sensor the better the quality. An extreme and simplistic example would be comparing my Nikon Coolpix 12 megapixel sensor with my old Canon 1d MkIIn 8.1. The latter is vastly better even without the benefit of looking at them at 100%.
Perhaps one of the reasons the full frame has the advantage is the amount of pixels they try to cram into the crop sensors. At the end of the day if you know how to use your camera to its strengths and understand its limitations, it doesn't matter.
There are lots of deciding factors that can give the sensor its quality but it is generally true that the larger the sensor the better the quality. An extreme and simplistic example would be comparing my Nikon Coolpix 12 megapixel sensor with my old Canon 1d MkIIn 8.1. The latter is vastly better even without the benefit of looking at them at 100%.
Perhaps one of the reasons the full frame has the advantage is the amount of pixels they try to cram into the crop sensors. At the end of the day if you know how to use your camera to its strengths and understand its limitations, it doesn't matter.
Just my opinion and not scientific - but I do own both!
So for what it's worth I was happy with the 1D4 to iso 3200 and would go to 6400 in emergencies. My 1DX gives cleaner files at iso 8000 than the 1D4 did at 3200 and my upper (emergency) limit of iso16000 is considerably better than the 1D4 at 6400. I don't need a scientific analysis - I just look at the images!
If Canon/Nikon limited their Apsc sensors to around 8Mp then they would be equally capable of producing pre-cropped images of the same quality and ISO performance - but they don't.
There is nothing wrong with a smaller sensor - the problem is with smaller pixels!
Having gone from the 1D4 to the 1DX I would agree that the 1D4 can compete very well - it just doesn't win.
What part of Wales do you live in? I live not far from Bridgend.
I was out earlier today looking for Adders and the light wasn't bad but I was still running at ISO 2500 for 1/320th sec at F7.1. I don't see the smaller sensors competing to well here - also I had lots of ISO in reserve! Around 2 stops if necessary.
I am not knocking small sensor DSLR cameras - far from it! They are getting cheaper all the time and getting more people into photography. I just wish there wasn't this mad race for more pixels.
If you are not too far away send me a PM and you can have a try of my camera so that you can see the pros and cons -then we can squabble over a coffee3
mr_birdman
No longer a Canon Snob.
The 1DMkIV is a 1D body isn't it? Last time I checked. OF course it can compete, but it ain't going to better a 1Dx. I don't know about a 6D, never used one and I have no interest in that model. For bird photography you cannot go past a 1D series (APS-H or FF) if you want the very best quality in your images; even a 5DMkIII is fine, but still for action it's lame in comparison. Go shoot in some low light and see how your 7D or other APS-C performs even against an older 1D like a MarkIII.
The biggest problem is that most people are too lazy to learn about the basics of digital photography and have a lax attitude like: "Don't worry if I get it wrong in camera, I can fix in Photoshop later". That does not get you far.
Of course for happy snaps it's fine, but if you want to get the best quality photographs then paying attention to basic skills - e.g. learning about how to use a histogram - will pay off big time. If you cannot get closer, then there are things like converters to add to your lens. Of course converters only work well on super telephoto lenses that have superior optics compared to cheaper "this will have to do" type lenses.
Take a look at most pro bird photographers; they will be using mostly 1D series bodies and super telephoto lenses for the reasons I mentioned. Of course not everyone wants to or can buy these cameras and lenses, and that is fine, but the lower end ones certainly have real life limitations with regards to many features and image quality and there is plenty of evidence there on the internet if reading internet reviews is what you want.
Good luck! fogboundturtle
Well-known member
I am sorry but the last time I check the 5D3 does have the AF system on the 1Dx. It just doesn't have the FPS. As a shooter with APS-C and FF camera, I can see how FF is a huge improvement in terms of low light but we give up reach in return. I have seen the most amazing bird picture taken with an Nikon D300 and Tokina F2.8. Although everyone would love to have an 1DX with an 600mm F4, you can achieve a certain quality level that is I would call professional level.
Dave Williams
Well-known member
The 1DX and 5D3 don't have the same AF system..they may have the same number of AF points and the same menu options but the 1DX distinguishes colour and has better tracking. Add that to the fps rate so for action it's in a different league it seems. I have been very impressed with what I have seen and I have been underwhelmed by my 5D3 vs my 1D1V but that could of course be me ..
DaveAitch
Well-known member
Full frame will be better for most photography, but....
In the real world few will have the money to buy a 5D3, so a 1D tripleX or whatever will definitely be out of the question, though it's interesting to hear about the equipment I might buy if I have the money. (However, it's probably better to spend on the lens rather than the body: in a year or two the current "latest" body will be considerably cheaper.)
For most people it's a case of learning to take the best photos they can with the equipment they can afford. If money will go no further than a Box Brownie,.....well that was how Karsh of Ottawa started.
There is another factor that comes into play as regards the sensor, particularly its ability at high ISO: the age of the camera. The 7D, for instance, came out in in 2009 while the 5D3 was 2012, two and half years later. That is a considerable time in terms of digital improvement. The more exact comparison of sensor capabilities should be between the 7D and the 5D2 which were brought out at a similar time., the 5D2 just being a few months earlier. The 5D2 would probably still win, however, as a good big one normally beats a good little one, but the result would be much closer. It would be interesting to compare 5D1, 5D2 and 5D3 and their ISO noise, and then add the 6D in as well. Anyone got all four?
In the real world few will have the money to buy a 5D3, so a 1D tripleX or whatever will definitely be out of the question, though it's interesting to hear about the equipment I might buy if I have the money. (However, it's probably better to spend on the lens rather than the body: in a year or two the current "latest" body will be considerably cheaper.)
For most people it's a case of learning to take the best photos they can with the equipment they can afford. If money will go no further than a Box Brownie,.....well that was how Karsh of Ottawa started.
There is another factor that comes into play as regards the sensor, particularly its ability at high ISO: the age of the camera. The 7D, for instance, came out in in 2009 while the 5D3 was 2012, two and half years later. That is a considerable time in terms of digital improvement. The more exact comparison of sensor capabilities should be between the 7D and the 5D2 which were brought out at a similar time., the 5D2 just being a few months earlier. The 5D2 would probably still win, however, as a good big one normally beats a good little one, but the result would be much closer. It would be interesting to compare 5D1, 5D2 and 5D3 and their ISO noise, and then add the 6D in as well. Anyone got all four?
Last edited:
MiguelM
Well-known member
Arthur Morris, a very well known and with confirmed credits in bird photography, regarding the 5dm3, says that if he isn't going to need the initial AF acquisition speed(of the 1dx due to a more powerful battery or w/e) and fps, he would choose the 5d3 over the 1dx due to it's larger files(mpx) hands down
Dave Williams
Well-known member
And he's spot on in that comment because the files from the 5D3 are superb, it's limitations are exactly what he points out, AF acquisition and FPS, both of which are extremely important if you want to increase your keeper rate of action shots.
That said as I have recently had the chance to play with some 1DX files there is a lot of detail at big crops. What I thought would be a limitation in terms of MPs versus the 5D3 doesn't seem to be.
In the end everything comes down to affordability, personal choice on how you want to spend your hard earned. A lens is a better investment than a camera body but there again, a garage is a better long term investment than a car.
fogboundturtle
Well-known member
I think that if you are having issue shooting bird with the 5D3 , the 1DX won't help you. There is also skilled that needs to be perfected before you really gain advantage from a faster body.
