Why are so many of you on 1.6 crop cameras?

[Splog]

Why not take the argument the other way

Should we all move over to compact 8mp cameras with 10mm sensors and 10 X optical zoom There has to be a trade off with pixel count vs pixel size

 

[Naboo32]

Well what do you want full frame for? The wider FOV is a given, although you can now get specialist wide lenses for crop sensor cameras which largely negate that advantage.

You'll see a big benefit if you want to submit stock library images from the newer FF cameras with their larger pixel counts - they meet minimum file size requirements straight out of the camera. You'll see a big benefit if you make big prints, and mean BIG expensive prints from FF, otherwise it's highly debatable if you will see a difference worth the wonga.

If you're just sticking shots up on TPF, then an 800 pixel image is an 800 pixel image whatver sized sensor it comes from.

Sensible question .

I want the best performance in low light conditions (for indoor "portraits" in available light only) that I can possibly get. I also want to be able to get a very shallow DOF (not really sure if that's a sensor issue, but some of what I've read implies that it is). What I don't want is uncontrollable vignetting, or being restricted to only the most costly lenses. Any opinions on which sensor size would best help me achieve these goals, are very welcome .

Finally, whilst I won't be printing anything much above A3 size in the coming months, I don't want to find myself limited by having made the wrong camera choice, at some point 2 or 3 years down the line. I've had other hobbies where I've worked my way slowly upwards through the equipment chain (upgrading and upgrading) and in the end, it's a bigger waste of money than just going out and buying what I really wanted in the first place.

I will keep my Olympus E420 (with it's improbable 2x image crop sensor ), in case I ever need a greater "robin factor" at any point, but I'm already tired of squinting through it's postage stamp perception viewfinder, so it's not a camera that I'd want to build a lens collection around :|.

 

[CT]

I'm not sure I understand what the obvious advantage is with regards to having a larger field of view when it comes to landscape photography for example.

For a wider view, just get a wider lens?

I've just old-graded to a 5D from a 40D on which I primarily used the EF-S 10-22mm for landscapes. Now, in the world of full frame, a 16-35 would give me a similar field of view would it not?

That's true, and I did make the point in my last post about incredible 10mm EF-S lenses now being available for crop sensors.

To be fair you'd get less distortion on a full frame sensor than a crop sensor for equivalent fields of view, but all SLR cameras distort anyway with very wide lenses - they simply can't extend the rear element into the camera far enough without it interfering with the mirror. Rangefinder cameras reign supreme if it's distortion free mega wide angle lenses you want. The rear element is so close to the shutter your wouldn't believe it.

 

[CT]

Sensible question .

I want the best performance in low light conditions (for indoor "portraits" in available light only) that I can possibly get. I also want to be able to get a very shallow DOF (not really sure if that's a sensor issue, but some of what I've read implies that it is). What I don't want is uncontrollable vignetting, or being restricted to only the most costly lenses. Any opinions on which sensor size would best help me achieve these goals, are very welcome .

OK... there is a shallower DOF with a full frame sensor but we're getting a bit technical. It's far more a function of the lens for all practical photographic requirements. Fast 50mm lenses such as f1.4 are the way to go or for portraits something a bit longer like 85mm would be an ideal length.I have the Canon 85mm f1.2 and DOF is paper thin wide open so it's a very flattering portrait lens becoming as cruel as you like as you stop down. It will also turn the busiest bg into something resembling an impressionist painting. OK it costs a bomb but the 85mm f1.8 doesn't and it's rpobably 95% as good. I'll try and find a pic .I use mine on a 1.6 crop sesnor.

I honestly don't think noise and sensor size is important to most of us with the high ISO capabilities of modern cameras, and IMHO a lot of nonsense and wild claims are made about noise. Put the ISO up on any camera to full file size and it will be intrusive. Reduce the file size and the noise largely disappears.

Vignetting tends to become an issue with full frame camera.

Full frame cameras also are demanding of lens quality, the better glass being required. It's also true that the 50D with it's crop sensor and 15 million pixels is also very unforgiving of cheap glass, so the playing field is getting levelled a bit there.

Finally, whilst I won't be printing anything much above A3 size in the coming months, I don't want to find myself limited by having made the wrong camera choice, at some point 2 or 3 years down the line. I've had other hobbies where I've worked my way slowly upwards through the equipment chain (upgrading and upgrading) and in the end, it's a bigger waste of money than just going out and buying what I really wanted in the first place.

Modern crop sensors will walk A3 size prints and larger.

If it's full frame you really want, then go and do it - you will eventually anyway, just be dead sure of the reason why you're getting it. The rate at which new cameras are coming out today, then regardless of how much you spend you can rest assured that it wont be long before it's being pushed or bettered by a newer model and possibly one costing less money. Whether you'll actually see a benefit for forking out again is another matter.

I'll try and find that 85mm 1.2 piccy.

 

[Yv]

Finally, whilst I won't be printing anything much above A3 size in the coming months, I don't want to find myself limited by having made the wrong camera choice, at some point 2 or 3 years down the line. I've had other hobbies where I've worked my way slowly upwards through the equipment chain (upgrading and upgrading) and in the end, it's a bigger waste of money than just going out and buying what I really wanted in the first place.

hmmm....I have some prints, I am looking at them on my office wall as I type, that are bigger than a3, in fact they are 20 inches x 30 inches from a cheap print service, from a cropped sensor D200, which are just stunning in clarity and detail...

 

[CT]

Both taken with the 85mm f1.2 0n a 40D (1.6 crop body) at f1.2.

 

[Naboo32]

OK... there is a shallower DOF with a full frame sensor but we're getting a bit technical. It's far more a function of the lens for all practical photographic requirements. Fast 50mm lenses such as f1.4 are the way to go or for portraits something a bit longer like 85mm would be an ideal length.I have the Canon 85mm f1.2 and DOF is paper thin wide open so it's a very flattering portrait lens becoming as cruel as you like as you stop down. It will also turn the busiest bg into something resembling an impressionist painting. OK it costs a bomb but the 85mm f1.8 doesn't and it's rpobably 95% as good. I'll try and find a pic .I use mine on a 1.6 crop sesnor.

I honestly don't think noise and sensor size is important to most of us with the high ISO capabilities of modern cameras, and IMHO a lot of nonsense and wild claims are made about noise. Put the ISO up on any camera to full file size and it will be intrusive. Reduce the file size and the noise largely disappears.

Vignetting tends to become an issue with full frame camera.

Full frame cameras also are demanding of lens quality, the better glass being required. It's also true that the 50D with it's crop sensor and 15 million pixels is also very unforgiving of cheap glass, so the playing field is getting levelled a bit there.



Modern crop sensors will walk A3 size prints and larger.

If it's full frame you really want, then go and do it - you will eventually anyway, just be dead sure of the reason why you're getting it. The rate at which new cameras are coming out today, then regardless of how much you spend you can rest assured that it wont be long before it's being pushed or bettered by a newer model and possibly one costing less money. Whether you'll actually see a benefit for forking out again is another matter.

I'll try and find that 85mm 1.2 piccy.

Thanks again CT, for taking the time to address my concerns . In the (brief) interim, I got an answer from "Diego Garcia" on what kind of lenses would suit the D700 - he too recommended the (cheaper) fast primes, specifically the 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4/f1.8 models. Both of those, coupled with the 70-300mm VR lens would be an excellent trio for me, I reckon .

That said, I'm still not 100% clear on how sensor size plays into the equation :|. The sales BS makes a strong case for it, but the users here don't seem to be so enamoured with it all - that always makes me hesitant.

Looking forward to seeing your sample pic ...

 

[CT]

That said, I'm still not 100% clear on how sensor size plays into the equation :|. The sales BS makes a strong case for it, but the users here don't seem to be so enamoured with it all - that always makes me hesitant.

I know -it's bloody confusing and you get so many opinions - including mine.

People who need a crop sensor will love it - people who don't - wont. :shrug:

 

[Naboo32]

Both taken with the 85mm f1.2 0n a 40D (1.6 crop body) at f1.2.

My God! That's some tool (the lens, not the subject )!

Even his own shoulders are out of focus . That's definitely the kind of lens power that I crave and the primary reason for my emerging from the primeval swamp of "digital compact photography" and into the world of DSLR.

Again, no real understanding here of the effects of sensor size on all of these other variables, but certainly a good advert for prime lenses .

Thanks!

 

[Naboo32]

I know -it's bloody confusing and you get so many opinions - including mine.

People who need a crop sensor will love it - people who don't - wont. :shrug:

Well, I appreciate opinions like yours, which are directly related to the questions that I'm asking .

If this whole sensor thing really was as simple as answering the question; "How big do you want your robin to appear in the view finder"?, then life would be a lot easier .

As it stands, I'm still torn between the D300 (with it's lower price and compatablitiy with any Nikkor lens) and the D700 (which appears to offer improvements in noise control, picture sharpness and the ability to extract the most from the high end optics, but in reality ... may not!) .

Time to toss a coin !

 

[CT]

Well, I appreciate opinions like yours, which are directly related to the questions that I'm asking .

If this whole sensor thing really was as simple as answering the question; "How big do you want your robin to appear in the view finder"?, then life would be a lot easier .

As it stands, I'm still torn between the D300 (with it's lower price and compatablitiy with any Nikkor lens) and the D700 (which appears to offer improvements in noise control, picture sharpness and the ability to extract the most from the high end optics, but in reality ... may not!) .

Time to toss a coin !

LOL.Good luck.

As a final thought, just remember that all this crop sensor factor stuff came about with the first DSLR cameras with their smaller sensors. 35mm togs put down their 35mm film cameras, picked up the new DSLR and shouted in anquish trying to understand how the new sensor size related to their old 24mm X 36mm 35mm file format.

Instead of saying the new size is what it is, manufacturers started quoting crop sensor factors - the whole idea being to help togs understand the relationship to their old 35mm cameras. Why? :shrug: The effect was to cause confusion which has reigned ever since, and probably always will.

The full frame format is 24mm X 36mm exactly the same size as a 35mm film frame which is no co-incidence, and the new technology bows to the old. :shrug:

It's about now I usually upset somebody.

 

[Naboo32]

Let's not start on that one!

I read something on the www. recently, which said that a DSLR camera would require a sensor with around 30MP to capture the same level of detail as 35mm film - that made me look at my (recently bought for £26) Canon EOS 5 (film ) camera in whole new light .

 

[CT]

I'm the biggest digital whore on the block, I love the convenience and immediacy of it like everyone else, but I have a real yen to go back to shooting some film, 35mm and medium format, and I'm going to be doing quite a bit of it come the new year. It's more to do with just wanting a change from the same old digital work flow than anything else though.

 

[contrastingLight]

Love this thread the can of worms has truly been opened.
I am also considering which Nikon to purchase in the future I had initially been looking at the d300 partly on price, however I am now tempted with the d700 for low light and landscape.
Also the argument about buying the system which will last you for the next 2-3 yrs instead of buying an interim purchase is weighing in.
Will watch this debate with interest

 

[Naboo32]

I'm the biggest digital whore on the block, I love the convenience and immediacy of it like everyone else, but I have a real yen to go back to shooting some film, 35mm and medium format, and I'm going to be doing quite a bit of it come the new year. It's more to do with just wanting a change from the same old digital work flow than anything else though.

Why not!?

I've bought three 35mm cameras in the past 2 weeks and got change out of £100 for the trio - not so easy to do with digital :|. It's not all about money, it's more to do with the fact that you can have a different camera body paired with every common lens value, shoot as much (cheap) film as you want, scan the negs and digitalize them, for next to nothing ... .. OK, so it is all about money .

Forget everything after, "Why not ...."

 

[Naboo32]

Love this thread the can of worms has truly been opened.
I am also considering which Nikon to purchase in the future I had initially been looking at the d300 partly on price, however I am now tempted with the d700 for low light and landscape.
Also the argument about buying the system which will last you for the next 2-3 yrs instead of buying an interim purchase is weighing in.
Will watch this debate with interest

Meet you back here in 2011 for "the verdict", then .

 

[DigitalRelish]

The EOS 5 was a fantastic camera and one that I really wanted back when I was shooting with an EOS 10.

Whatever happened to eye-controlled autofocus?

 

[Naboo32]

The EOS 5 was a fantastic camera and one that I really wanted back when I was shooting with an EOS 10.

Whatever happened to eye-controlled autofocus?

I think that the answer to your question lies within the (18 word) text of this EOS 5 ebay listing ...

Link ...

Sad really, that these once magnificent machines are now being discarded for the price of a 4GB memory card ...

 

[DigitalRelish]

I mean, I wonder what happened to eye-controlled autofocus as a feature?

 

[Foggy]

I mean, I wonder what happened to eye-controlled autofocus as a feature?

Lots of blokes were getting black eyes when their better halves opened the holiday snaps from the beach to find a series of apparently innocent beach shots with focus purely on boobs and bums

 

[grumpybadger]

Crop Sensor

Put simply, a crop sensor has massive advantages for wildlife photography or any use involving long lenses - you simply fill the frame better with your main subject so need to crop less than you would with a full frame camera.

Cedric

Much as I respect you opinion, I really think you over egg the crop sensor for wildlife issue. There are a number of factors, including noise performance, that need to be considered when you get the need to photograph objects in poor light (as a lot of nature photographers do)

I've recently written up some results from DxO Mark here which shows that the larger sensors of full frame offer significantly (i.e. more than a stop) better performance than crop sensors.

The other thing is that not all wildlife is small garden birds shot from indoors. The use of field craft can allow people to get closer to wildlife (as shown by some superb work on here in the past year) and some subjects are larger. Whilst a crop sensor gives a given lens more apparent reach, you really need top quality glass to cope with the pixel density on a 50D.

I've just done a quick look across some of the wildlife pros I know or know of. Peter Cairns, Mark Hamblin, Danny Green, Mark Sisson, Chris Gomersall and Andy Rouse all run full frame cameras. They must be doing something right!

Paul

 

[catmangler]

I've come to this debate very late, but here are a few thoughts, gathered from 4 years infighting on dpreview...

Canon are finally addressing their corner sharpness, and bringing out new versions of existing lenses to address appalling QC issues from 3-4 years back. I regularly read, on CANON fora, of people sending 3 samples of a lens back, before getting a good one. This should be reduced in the future.

Yes, if you want razor thin DOF, buy a large sensor camera. LEAF back on a Blad should be best for this? Or see RED?

The bigger the sensor, the bigger the glass, meaning more WEIGHT to carry. A guy on dpreview bought into Olympus for his photography. He's argued against large sensors, because of the weight issue. He now runs a D3 Nikon. Go figure?

90% of images will not need the extra definition available from a 35mm size sensor, or any other specific benefits. They MAY suffer from the fact said camera is TOO big to carry at the time, so NO picture was taken!

Me, I'm debating between an Olympus E-3, or a Nikon D300. D700 IS lurking in th eedge of my thoughts, but I know I will need to spend THOUSANDS more on longer glass, for what I do.

Go have a look around the FAQ on dpreview.com, for various thoughts, opinions, etc.

Then buy what suits YOU. NOT what suits ME.

 

[Scotty B]

Simple answer: I can't afford a Full Frame Camera.

 

[catmangler]

More of MY opinion here:
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=1094129&postcount=48

 

[GEH007]

ignore sorry

 

[CT]

Cedric

Much as I respect you opinion, I really think you over egg the crop sensor for wildlife issue. There are a number of factors, including noise performance, that need to be considered when you get the need to photograph objects in poor light (as a lot of nature photographers do)

I've recently written up some results from DxO Mark here which shows that the larger sensors of full frame offer significantly (i.e. more than a stop) better performance than crop sensors.

You know, half the problem with trying to get to grips with this, is that people will quote this or that review and publish charts like the ones you've linked to with the result of someone else's findings. Whether you or anyone else agrees with my views or not, they're the result of my own findings in practical photographic situations. Do some real world tests of your own Mark and let's see what you come up with - preferably with some actual photos which support what you're saying.

I've never argued about the noise advantage of larger sensors, but I don't see it to be of overriding importance either when viewed against the ability of crop sensors to deliver the larger subject image.

The other thing is that not all wildlife is small garden birds shot from indoors.

Hmmm...

The use of field craft can allow people to get closer to wildlife (as shown by some superb work on here in the past year) and some subjects are larger. Whilst a crop sensor gives a given lens more apparent reach, you really need top quality glass to cope with the pixel density on a 50D.

I don't think I've ever argued any of the points you're making there including the fact that the 50D needs top quality glass, but generally speaking, so do FF sensors.

I've just done a quick look across some of the wildlife pros I know or know of. Peter Cairns, Mark Hamblin, Danny Green, Mark Sisson, Chris Gomersall and Andy Rouse all run full frame cameras. They must be doing something right!

Paul

Of course they run full frame cameras, they photograph all sorts of much larger critters and have to meet exacting image size requirements in a competitive market The crop adavantage largely disappears proportionately to the size increase of the critter you're photographing, but there you go again quoting someone else's views and that impressive list of names to support what you're saying.

Please guys - sensiible photographic tests please of you own findings!

 

[IanC_UK]

The only thing i can comment on in this, is i wont be keeping my 50D, the AF is horrifically slow for birds in flight, i tried to persevere with the 50 but i was missing more and more shots because it couldnt keep up with the subjects, specificially Barn Owls and Short Eared Owls. I would get maybe 1 out of 5 shots in focus with it, tried changing settings etc but no difference, the lens hunts back and forth before locking on, whether the TC is on or not. Where as with the Mk3 it locks on instantly and tracks every time.

I know its not scientific, but i just dont enjoy shooting with the 50D, the pictures it produces when it does lock on are excellent, but for the subjects i shoot, the AF just isnt good enough.

 

[grumpybadger]

Cedric

Interesting tone in your response to me...

You haven't responded to the fundamental point of my post, which is that you consistently say in this and other threads that crop sensors are better for wildlife - and this is positioned as fact and not opinion. I repeat the quote from last time with clarification (my emphasis):

Put simply, a crop sensor has massive advantages for wildlife photography or any use involving long lenses

Which is simply not true. It depends on the subject matter, choice of lens and ability to get within a suitable distance to the subject.

You know, half the problem with trying to get to grips with this, is that people will quote this or that review and publish charts like the ones you've linked to with the result of someone else's findings. Whether you or anyone else agrees with my views or not, they're the result of my own findings in practical photographic situations.

The charts I posted were to try and get some scientific fact around noise amongst all the hype that is posted. You can say they are someone elses findings but they are objective rather than subjective as they are measurements of a phyical phenomonon (i.e. noise)

I've never argued about the noise advantage of larger sensors, but I don't see it to be of overriding importance either when viewed against the ability of crop sensors to deliver the larger subject image.

I honestly don't think noise and sensor size is important to most of us with the high ISO capabilities of modern cameras, and IMHO a lot of nonsense and wild claims are made about noise. Put the ISO up on any camera to full file size and it will be intrusive. Reduce the file size and the noise largely disappears.

The two quotes above highlight why I drew reference to the noise issue. I personally think it is important as, if you accept the measured noise performance of a camera to be valid, the current full frame cameras offer more than a stop improvement over the crop. Therefore, you can fit a 1.4 converter and get pretty much the same field of view and the same final image quality. Again, it depends on what you want to do. A4 print, web use, 100% pixel peeping. Which is why all the charts I posted were normalised to a 12x8" print, which I personally see as a good benchmark for a photographic output. Afterall, the magazine full page is one of the main reasons for the resolution requirements of most libraries.

Of course they run full frame cameras, they photograph all sorts of much larger critters and have to meet exacting image size requirements in a competitive market The crop adavantage largely disappears proportionately to the size increase of the critter you're photographing

So the "much larger critters" aren't wildlife? I think that's the point - I have a fundamental issue with your sweeping generalisation about cropped sensors being better for wildlife. As I said in my first post, and reiterate in this one, choice depends on subject matter, technique, lenses etc as well. The only real solid fact is that full frame cameras offer better noise performance than the cropped sensors of the same generation. I agree that crop sensors are the best option for photographing garden birds (and other very small objects) if you have limited reach lenses or a fixed shooting location that is some distance away.

but there you go again quoting someone else's views and that impressive list of names to support what you're saying.

Where? Where am I quoting someone else's view. It is my view. I'm just challenging your sweeping generalisation and providing an indication that many of the top names in the business have come to a different conclusion. As I have myself.

As you know, my prefered subjects are wildlife, both birds and mammals. At the start of the year I was running a pair of 1D Mark II's - which are a halfway house between FF and the mainstream APS-C cropped sensors. In June, I swapped out on of these cameras for a full frame 1Ds Mark II. Since then, 70% of the 6178 images I have kept have been on the full frame camera. Yes, I am lucky enough to have good long lenses but, from my personal experience, full frame is the right answer for wildlife photography. I have owned APS-C, APS-H and FF digital cameras so have experience of using them all to take wildlife images. I therefore feel my conclusion is on the basis of sound experience.

Please guys - sensiible photographic tests please of you own findings!

Well said. But when people disagree with you from their own experience, please try to be less damning of opposing views...

Paul

 

[whooshdemon]

I want the best performance in low light conditions (for indoor "portraits" in available light only) that I can possibly get.

Just a small contribution - but having sat with my 40D in very low light conditions (norwegian twilight, norfolk mist) next to other photographers on full frame cameras, the full frame pictures had less noise than mine. They camera also focussed better in the low light and coped with tracking moving objects better.

The facts from DxO that grumpy badger found confirm what I've seen in real pictures from actual side by side situations in low light.

I had felt smug that my 40D wound up to higher ISO numbers, but the comparison of resulting pictures fixed that. :bang:

But basically, if you want the best low light performance, check out the DxO website for your answers.

 

[CT]

The only thing i can comment on in this, is i wont be keeping my 50D, the AF is horrifically slow for birds in flight, i tried to persevere with the 50 but i was missing more and more shots because it couldnt keep up with the subjects, specificially Barn Owls and Short Eared Owls. I would get maybe 1 out of 5 shots in focus with it, tried changing settings etc but no difference, the lens hunts back and forth before locking on, whether the TC is on or not. Where as with the Mk3 it locks on instantly and tracks every time.

I know its not scientific, but i just dont enjoy shooting with the 50D, the pictures it produces when it does lock on are excellent, but for the subjects i shoot, the AF just isnt good enough.

Well that's a shame. the 45 AF points of the 1 Series are obviously going to be better for BIF shots. I can't see your logic though in dropping the 50D which has a massive advantage for you for more static birds.

 

[GEH007]

Well that's a shame. the 45 AF points of the 1 Series are obviously going to be better for BIF shots. I can't see your logic though in dropping the 50D which has a massive advantage for you for more static birds.

Perhaps because, as he alluded to, he shoots birds in flight?

 

[CT]

Perhaps because, as he alluded to, he shoots birds in flight?

He also shoots static birds.

 

[GEH007]

He also shoots static birds.

No doubt he does but if the 50d wont track those in flight very well, only static, whereas the Mk3 does both very well, he clearly thinks its a no brainer; hard to argue with that logic.

 

[fracster]

He also shoots static birds.

He does, that is very unkind killing those birds...........

Seriously, I use the 300 because I like it and it is what I can afford at the moment.I think too many people base thier kit on others opinions, just use what you like and enjoy what you do. If FF is better for some,then fair enough, if you prefer crop,again ,use that.

JMWO..........

 

[CT]

Well said. But when people disagree with you from their own experience, please try to be less damning of opposing views...

Paul

You weren't disagreeing with me from your own experience Paul or not with any pictorial evidence worth a light - you were quoting the opinions of others. If you think my response was damning it's your interpretation.

I've done the tests which support what I'm saying and there are plenty of threads I've posted on the board to show where the crop sensor is a very significant advantage with pictures to support what I'm saying. it's open to you or anyone else who has the equipment to do similar tests and shoot me down, but for some reason that never seems to happen. It's all too easy to quote someone else or state your experiences in a given situation, but without some pictorial support I'm sorry I just don't place a lot of credibility on it, particularly when it's at odds with my own experience from controlled tests.

Fear not though, I know when I'm flogging a dead horse.

 

[CT]

No doubt he does but if the 50d wont track those in flight very well, only static, whereas the Mk3 does both very well, he clearly thinks its a no brainer; hard to argue with that logic.

If you do a search you'll find where I compared the 20D to the 1DMK2n ages ago. The test clearly shows the advantage of the 20D over the 1DMK2n, which is why I sold the 1 Series.

The 40D and the 1DMK3n both output the same full size file and you would see exactly the same differences with a comparison of those two cameras.

The 50D has 50% more pixels than the 40d and puts out a larger 1:1 file again. You want to talk about no brainers? I don't see the logic at all ...sorry. Why not use both cameras to their strenghts?:shrug:

And on that note guys I got things to do.

 

[GEH007]

If you do a search you'll find where I compared the 20D to the 1DMK2n ages ago. The test clearly shows the advantage of the 20D over the 1DMK2n, which is why I sold the 1 Series.

The 40D and the 1DMK3n both output the same full size file and you would see exactly the same differences with a comparison of those two cameras.

The 50D has 50% more pixels than the 40d and puts out a larger 1:1 file again. You want to talk about no brainers? I don't see the logic at all ...sorry. Why not use both cameras to their strenghts?:shrug:

And on that note guys I got things to do.

I'm looking at things very simplistically, which is this way.

For a kick off he was talking about the AF qualities. So, if he cant get "the shot" with the 50D, frankly, the rest of the debate is completely irrelevant for him is it not? Hence his logic is sound and it is very much a no brainer.

 

[grumpybadger]

You weren't disagreeing with me from your own experience Paul or not with any pictorial evidence worth a light - you were quoting the opinions of others. If you think my response was damning it's your interpretation.

I've done the tests which support what I'm saying and there are plenty of threads I've posted on the board to show where the crop sensor is a very significant advantage with pictures to support what I'm saying. it's open to you or anyone else who has the equipment to do similar tests and shoot me down, but for some reason that never seems to happen. It's all too easy to quote someone else or state your experiences in a given situation, but without some pictorial support I'm sorry I just don't place a lot of credibility on it, particularly when it's at odds with my own experience from controlled tests.

Fear not though, I know when I'm flogging a dead horse.

I don't think you are flogging a dead horse. I agree that for small in frame subjects, where you cannot (or will not) get closer to them, are reach limited in lenses and light is good enough for a low ISO then the ability to put more pixels over the subject will give you a better image. I think I have two key points:

1. There are other wildlife subjects that those that meet the description above and I still take issue with your comments that crop sensors are superior for wildlife photography and long lens use as being too sweeping a statement. Only if you are subject to the constraints I just highlighted above.
2. Crop sensors are one way of addressing the issue. Others could be to take larger subjects, invest in a hide and move closer, invest in longer glass (although we all know a practical limit is reached)

I don't believe anywhere in my original response I quoted the experience of others. I quoted some lab results that were taken in controlled conditions as I decided evidence helped the debate. But the essence of the response was my own personal experience - of taking over 22,000 images of wildlife and nature this year in a wide range of conditions from the midday African sun to dusk in northern Norway in Februay.

I have no issue with crop sensors and many people like them. I also know that for me FF suits me better. And I don't go around saying it is the answer and that I have proved it, like you seem to do...

If you do a search you'll find where I compared the 20D to the 1DMK2n ages ago. The test clearly shows the advantage of the 20D over the 1DMK2n, which is why I sold the 1 Series.

Your statement is valid for the specific conditions I highlighted above It is invalid to extrapolate that test to "wildlife photography"

On the pictorial front, here is a quick example where a crop sensor would have caused me to lose the elements that, to me, make this image.

Yes, it's not quite central but it shows the point. With that lens and that position, a crop body would have lost the detail. Yes, I could have used a shorter lens, yes I could have moved back (actually I couldn't - I would have fallen into the Firth of Forth!) but you can move closer or get a longer lens (within reason) rather than use a crop.

 

[whooshdemon]

For a kick off he was talking about the AF qualities. So, if he cant get "the shot" with the 50D, frankly, the rest of the debate is completely irrelevant for him is it not? Hence his logic is sound and it is very much a no brainer.

Thank you GEH007. I was wondering if I was missing something as Cedric just seemed to be answering a different question to what IanC raised.

Cedric, your tests don't address the issues of noise or focussing. Just the crop factor.

If you do a search you'll find where I compared the 20D to the 1DMK2n ages ago. The test clearly shows the advantage of the 20D over the 1DMK2n, which is why I sold the 1 Series.

link here
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=37457&highlight=20d+comparison

but that only covers the size in the frame if you and the subject are a fixed distance apart and you're using the same lens. So I have to quote CScottMcQueen from the first page of this discussion...

Are you fixed to the ground ? :shrug:

Get closer. Or given the 1 series will autofocus at f/8, put a 1.4x teleconverter in to get the same(ish) field of view.

 

[CT]

Cedric, your tests don't address the issues of noise or focussing. Just the crop factor.



link here
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=37457&highlight=20d+comparison

I never set out to address noise or focusing - the crop factor was the whole and only point of the test. The other issues being raised now are just clouding the issue.

but that only covers the size in the frame if you and the subject are a fixed distance apart and you're using the same lens.

I's nothing to do with the size in the frame, but it just illustrates to what extent people really don't get this. The image viewed in the viewfinder would look no different in a 20D, 40D, 50D. or any other camera for that matter with the same sized sensor. The relevant point is that the pixel count has increased with each of the above models along with the 1:1 file getting substantially physically bigger each time. You have to view each 1:1 file at full res to see the gains you're making and the more pixels underlying your main subject which gives you the cropping advantage.

So I have to quote CScottMcQueen from the first page of this discussion...


Get closer. Or given the 1 series will autofocus at f/8, put a 1.4x teleconverter in to get the same(ish) field of view.

Overly simplistic. You can't always get closer, in fact, you very often can't get closer.

The 50D will capture at least as large, probably larger image in the 1:1 file of the actual subject with a given lens without a 1.4 converter, than a 1.3 crop sensor will capture with the same lens and a 1.4 converter. A full frame sensor would suffer even more in comparison. You'd also be shooting a whole stop faster on the crop sensor sans converter. Seriously, do the tests yourself - it's easy enough, you might just be surprised.