Wildlife photography moving from crop to full frame

I've been thinking of potentially moving from crop sensor cameras to full frame. Or to put it more factually getting a full frame camera alongside my crop sensor body.

Partly because I'm in the market for a second body, partly because that Canon R7 doesn't seem to be coming out, partly for some better low light performance and mainly for that sweet sweet Animal Eye AF.

My current wildlife setup is 90D + 150-600C (along with Tamron 70-300 and Canon 300mm F/4). My worry with moving to full frame is missing the reach that I get with a crop sensor. What I love about it is the reach. I find my 600mm gets me just about the right range for most photos, but even at 960mm equivalent it can sometimes be a bit short.

Then I look at my 300mm which get's me just about the same range as the RF 100-500.

Has anyone moved from crop to full frame for wildlife photography? How did you find the drop in range vs the gains else where?

Biertje said:

I've been thinking of potentially moving from crop sensor cameras to full frame. Or to put it more factually getting a full frame camera alongside my crop sensor body.

Partly because I'm in the market for a second body, partly because that Canon R7 doesn't seem to be coming out, partly for some better low light performance and mainly for that sweet sweet Animal Eye AF.

My current wildlife setup is 90D + 150-600C (along with Tamron 70-300 and Canon 300mm F/4). My worry with moving to full frame is missing the reach that I get with a crop sensor. What I love about it is the reach. I find my 600mm gets me just about the right range for most photos, but even at 960mm equivalent it can sometimes be a bit short.

Then I look at my 300mm which get's me just about the same range as the RF 100-500.

Has anyone moved from crop to full frame for wildlife photography? How did you find the drop in range vs the gains else where?

Click to expand...

Why do you really "need" FF ???

Are you doing wall-size murals ???

Are you doing low-light -- that can't be overcome via a "stacking" mode (aka newer cell-phones "night"-shot modes) ???

Do you need shallow DOF on animals that may be 100yds away -- or could be (selectively/controllably) replicated via PP ???

If you value long-reach (via ILC), I would consider m4/3 !!! The new Olympus OM-1 has "Pro-Capture" which I consider a new paradigm for catching the "peak" of action AFTER the "peak", (which seems ideal for sports or wildlife where their movements are unpredictable).

You can use a teleconverter, aka an extender.

ThrillaMozilla said:

You can use a teleconverter, aka an extender.

Click to expand...

And lose resolution, and 1 or 2 stops of light, (requiring longer SS or higher ISO w/ more noise).

My birding buddy shoots with a FF camera. He switched from a Nikon D500 to a D850 (and I bought his D500 from him -- truly win-win!) The D850 has essentially the same pixel density as the D500, so he can and does shoot cropped mode often. He now shoots with a Z9, which also has the pixel density of a D500. My sense is that going FF is not a big problem as long as you don't get a lower-end FF with roughly the same total pixels as a DX camera. If you can crop to DX and still have plenty of pixels in your image, it's a clear win. And with the Z9, you can either shoot in cropped mode and the viewfinder will show you the DX image or shoot in FF, getting the wider view for finding your elusive target in the viewfinder, and crop in post. Especially if you're transitioning from an SLR to a MILC, the switch to a top of the line FF seems like a no-brainer if you can afford it.

Biertje said:

I've been thinking of potentially moving from crop sensor cameras to full frame. Or to put it more factually getting a full frame camera alongside my crop sensor body.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but only if the full frame camera has at least 2.56 x the number of pixels as your existing 90D. But the 90D has a remarkable 32.5 megapixels, meaning that you'll need a full-frame with at least 83.2 MP without missing out. But that does not exist; as far as I know, the largest Canon FF pixel count is 45.7 MP. You'll be losing a not insignificant 35% of resolution.

Biertje said:

Partly because I'm in the market for a second body, partly because that Canon R7 doesn't seem to be coming out, partly for some better low light performance and mainly for that sweet sweet Animal Eye AF.

Click to expand...

If you have to crop a format heavily, you'll lose out on low light performance, since cropping cuts the camera's dynamic range. Also, with cropping, focus errors are magnified, so you really aren't getting many benefits from full fram.

Biertje said:

My current wildlife setup is 90D + 150-600C (along with Tamron 70-300 and Canon 300mm F/4). My worry with moving to full frame is missing the reach that I get with a crop sensor. What I love about it is the reach. I find my 600mm gets me just about the right range for most photos, but even at 960mm equivalent it can sometimes be a bit short.

Click to expand...

So I wouldn't even consider it.

Biertje said:

Then I look at my 300mm which get's me just about the same range as the RF 100-500.

Has anyone moved from crop to full frame for wildlife photography? How did you find the drop in range vs the gains else where?

Click to expand...

When megapixels are important, understand that equivalence isn't actually helping you out; instead, think of this basic relationship:

focal length / pixel pitch

where larger numbers are better.

You simply cannot do better than your 90D, which is a remarkable camera. How about getting a second one?

Biertje said:

My current wildlife setup is 90D + 150-600C (along with Tamron 70-300 and Canon 300mm F/4). My worry with moving to full frame is missing the reach that I get with a crop sensor. What I love about it is the reach. I find my 600mm gets me just about the right range for most photos, but even at 960mm equivalent it can sometimes be a bit short.

Click to expand...

Since you're planning to keep your current APS-C camera, you'd have the option of using/bringing it on shoots when your wildlife subjects may be fairly distant.

The question I'd have for you is, how often do you fully fill the frame with wildlife compositions? How often are you filling the frame at the 375mm or shorter end of your lens? If you make keepers at 375mm or shorter with some reasonable frequency, then you should be able to fill the frame with similar frequency using an R7 or R5 body and the same lens at 600mm.

As I recall, the 150-600mm f/5-6.3C closes from f/5.6 to f/6.3 not too far past 400mm. The focal lengths where the lens closes from f/5 to f/5.6 to f/6.3 are relevant because the widest available aperture affects the potential light-grasp and noise benefit of adding full-frame.

Let's walk through some scenarios.

If you routinely shoot with the 90D at 600mm, f/6.3 and do perhaps a touch of cropping in post, you'd routinely be shooting at the same focal length and f-stop with a full-frame body, but cropping away all the additional light gathered and losing resolution on the subject. A Canon R7 photo (based on rumored specs) cropped to APS-C size would put about 13MP on the subject. A Canon R5 photo cropped to the same size puts about 17MP on the subject. Neither would offer any noise advantage compared to an uncropped 90D image that puts 32MP on the subject.

That's a worst-case scenario. Here's the best case scenario. If you're filling the frame of the R5 or R7 at 600mm f/6.3, you'd be filling the frame of the 90D at 375mm f/5.6. The 1/3-stop difference in exposure means the full- frame bodies would potentially give you about 2/3-stop more light to work with. The R7 - again, based on rumored specs - would match the 90D's 32.5MP. The R5 would deliver a bit better resolution at 45MP.

Of course if you're interested in other genres of photograhy, there may be other scenarios in which you'd fully realize the dynamic range potential of a larger sensor body. Or if the R7 just seems like a cool camera to you; something you'd like to own and use...there's no reason to not indulge that interest if the budget allows.

However, I would not expect to see a dramatic improvement in your wildlife photograhy from just the addition of a full-frame body. You'll get better results investing time in developing your skill and artistry with the camera along with your field craft. Or possibly by taking a trip to a bucket list destination to do wildlife photography.

Biertje said:

Has anyone moved from crop to full frame for wildlife photography? How did you find the drop in range vs the gains else where?

Click to expand...

I moved from full-frame to APS-C for bird and wildlife photograhy about 4 years ago and haven't looked back. One data point.

Whatever you decide, best of luck to you.

--
Bill Ferris Photography
Flagstaff, AZ
http://www.billferris.photoshelter.com

PhotoTeach2 said:

ThrillaMozilla said:

You can use a teleconverter, aka an extender.

Click to expand...

And lose resolution, and 1 or 2 stops of light, (requiring longer SS or higher ISO w/ more noise).

Click to expand...

No, you don't lose anything, really.

1. Remember that with APS-C, the pixels would be smaller (otherwise, APS-C would have no advantage at all in image quality). That means that with APS-C you sample the image at higher spatial frequency, so the image is a little fuzzier in the center. That's the same problem you have with a teleconverter, so it's a toss-up between APS-C and the teleconverter. No advantage either way.

2. Losing 1 or 2 stops of light? No, either way you get the same number of photons on the bird. It's a toss-up.

With FF you do lose 1 or 2 stops of exposure, but that's immaterial because you just use a higher ISO setting. Perhaps you've heard of the so-called high-ISO advantage? It's a toss-up.

For half of my digital years I had APS-C alongside full frame. Most of my telephoto photography is for motorsports, but it is not all that different from wildlife. I used APS-C for telephoto, and full frame for landscape/architecture.

I sold my 25 MP APS-C after switching to the 50 MP 5DSR. In those instances where I could still not fill the frame the higher MP added enough depth of colour to make up for some lost pixels.

I have adjusted my lenses since then and in most situations I can fill the frame with the lenses that I have.

Recently I have found situations where I can't fill the frame and started considering the 90D or M6 II. Their 32 MP is very significant and can go a very long way in telephoto photography. I envision one of them working very well with my 300/2.8 and 1.4x, to avoid adding something like a used 500/4.5 L and 1.4x on full frame. I have had luck and some good opportunities to capture images of birds recently and one of the above solutions would be ideal. Both expenditures would be close.

At the moment I am attempting to increase the success of the 300 on full frame by upgrading my Canon extenders, in the hopes of holding out for a used 500/4.5 L down the road. When I do fill the frame results are that incredible.

I too have been wondering where the R7 is, as it may even exceed 32 MP!

We seem to be attacking our situations from opposite sides. You're starting from the high MP APS-C, and I am starting from the high MP full frame.

I would be very tempted to stick with your 90D, and at least see what becomes of the R7. If you go to full frame be prepared to upgrade to a long fast prime with a 1.4x to take advantage of the image quality. I don't think you will be happy with your zoom and a 1.4x for very long. To be up front my main telephoto for motor racing and perched birds is a 40 year old manual focus 800/5.6 L, and that is not for the faint of heart. Hence, my search for an "affordable" AF solution.

I'm not convinced that "reach" is real. Yes, I understand the maths behind it - pixel densities, etc. But when it's all said and done - full frame images always come out ahead - especially when printed very large. IMHO.

Bob said:

I'm not convinced that "reach" is real. Yes, I understand the maths behind it - pixel densities, etc. But when it's all said and done - full frame images always come out ahead - especially when printed very large. IMHO.

Click to expand...

There is no FF in crop-mode that can exceed the (32mpx) resolution of Canon 90D.

Possibly DR and noise ... but not "reach" (resolution) !!!

Well, after 16 years of digital, with 8 of those years with four APS-C, and three full frames, running side by side, I saw the "reach" of APS-C work. With large prints it's all about the number of pixels you can get on the subject.

Yes, if you can fill a high MP full frame with your subject it will be superior. If not, and you can fill the frame of the APS-C with the same lens, then you can achieve the number of pixels to out resolve the ff. There is a theoretical change in depth of field, and even a change in noise at high ISO, but in the supertelephoto range, the more pixels the better.

John Crowe said:

Well, after 16 years of digital, with 8 of those years with four APS-C, and three full frames, running side by side, I saw the "reach" of APS-C work. With large prints it's all about the number of pixels you can get on the subject.

Yes, if you can fill a high MP full frame with your subject it will be superior. If not, and you can fill the frame of the APS-C with the same lens, then you can achieve the number of pixels to out resolve the ff. There is a theoretical change in depth of field, and even a change in noise at high ISO, but in the supertelephoto range, the more pixels the better.

Click to expand...

Should that be "the smaller the pixels the better" ?

I wonder what sensors will be available in ten years' time.

Don

PhotoTeach2 said:

ThrillaMozilla said:

You can use a teleconverter, aka an extender.

Click to expand...

And lose resolution, and 1 or 2 stops of light, (requiring longer SS or higher ISO w/ more noise).

Click to expand...

Let's compare a 1.4X crop body to a full frame.

At the same exposure (ISO setting), the full frame will have one stop less noise.

In order for the full frame to match the "reach" of the crop body, you would need a 1.4X teleconverter. That will reduce the exposure by one stop. The result is that the full frame will have the same noise as the crop body.

It turns out that at the same angle of view, same aperture diameter, same shutter speed, and same subject, the resulting image will be just about the same, independent of sensor size.

By "just about the same", I mean same framing, same depth of field, same motion blur, and same level of image noise.

The main advantages of full frame include:

• You generally have the option of shallower depth of field with a full frame.
• You are more likely to find very high pixel counts in a full frame.
• Some manufacturers put their high end features in their full frame bodies, and not their crop bodies.

D Cox said:

John Crowe said:

Well, after 16 years of digital, with 8 of those years with four APS-C, and three full frames, running side by side, I saw the "reach" of APS-C work. With large prints it's all about the number of pixels you can get on the subject.

Yes, if you can fill a high MP full frame with your subject it will be superior. If not, and you can fill the frame of the APS-C with the same lens, then you can achieve the number of pixels to out resolve the ff. There is a theoretical change in depth of field, and even a change in noise at high ISO, but in the supertelephoto range, the more pixels the better.

Click to expand...

Should that be "the smaller the pixels the better" ?

I wonder what sensors will be available in ten years' time.

Don

Click to expand...

I am hoping for global-shutter w/ unlimited flash-sync and strobes w/ full-power in 1/4000s.

And unlimited-time "Pre-Capture" @ 60fps.

PhotoTeach2 said:

I am hoping for global-shutter w/ unlimited flash-sync and strobes w/ full-power in 1/4000s.

Click to expand...

Really? I know that there are such things as Better Beamers, but in all my years as a birder I have never encountered one being used in the field. This may be of value in, say, wedding photography, but it's rather niche in wildlife photography IME.

Bob said:

I'm not convinced that "reach" is real. Yes, I understand the maths behind it - pixel densities, etc. But when it's all said and done - full frame images always come out ahead - especially when printed very large. IMHO.

Click to expand...

I am wondering if you could elaborate a bit.

I would think that a crop sensor would come out ahead if you are cropping the full frame image to the same field of view (because it has higher pixel density). For instance, using a 300mm lens on both micro 4/3 and full frame, but cropping the full frame image 2x.

With that said, photographers will always strive to fill the frame. So the photographer with the full frame camera will not always crop as much, resulting in better image quality in those cases.

PhotonBeam said:

Bob said:

I'm not convinced that "reach" is real. Yes, I understand the maths behind it - pixel densities, etc. But when it's all said and done - full frame images always come out ahead - especially when printed very large. IMHO.

Click to expand...

I am wondering if you could elaborate a bit.

I would think that a crop sensor would come out ahead if you are cropping the full frame image to the same field of view (because it has higher pixel density). For instance, using a 300mm lens on both micro 4/3 and full frame, but cropping the full frame image 2x.

Click to expand...

I would think that too based on exactly the same logic you described. I just haven't seen any examples where an ASP-C body paired with a smaller lens produced better tele results than a FF body set up with a matching field of view. But I'm open to being shown.

PhotonBeam said:

With that said, photographers will always strive to fill the frame. So the photographer with the full frame camera will not always crop as much, resulting in better image quality in those cases.

Click to expand...

Bob said:

PhotonBeam said:

Bob said:

I'm not convinced that "reach" is real. Yes, I understand the maths behind it - pixel densities, etc. But when it's all said and done - full frame images always come out ahead - especially when printed very large. IMHO.

Click to expand...

I am wondering if you could elaborate a bit.

I would think that a crop sensor would come out ahead if you are cropping the full frame image to the same field of view (because it has higher pixel density). For instance, using a 300mm lens on both micro 4/3 and full frame, but cropping the full frame image 2x.

Click to expand...

I would think that too based on exactly the same logic you described. I just haven't seen any examples where an ASP-C body paired with a smaller lens produced better tele results than a FF body set up with a matching field of view. But I'm open to being shown.

Bob said:

With that said, photographers will always strive to fill the frame. So the photographer with the full frame camera will not always crop as much, resulting in better image quality in those cases.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

A lot is going to depend on aperture, and the quality of the camera.

Consider a full frame with a 300mm lens at f/5.6 and a 2X crop body with a 150mm lens at f/5.6. Both have the same angle of view, but the 150mm lens has a smaller aperture diameter (27mm vs. 54mm on the 300mm lens).

The result is that the full frame will have a shallower depth of field, and capture four times as much total light. The increase in total light captured will result in an image that looks less noisy.

On the other hand, if you open up the 150mm lens to f/2.8, it will also have a 54mm aperture diameter. That's going to get you the same depth of field as the full frame, and the same total light, resulting in an image with the same noise as the full frame image.

If the full frame is positioned higher in the manufacturer's lineup, it may have more features. Similarly, if the 300mm lens is higher quality than the 150mm lens, that can make a difference.

The biggest difference between full frame and crop, is that photographers tend to shoot crop bodies with smaller aperture diameters. This results in noisier images. This is likely a holdover from workflows developed in the days of film. When shooting film, the emphasis was on light per unit area on the film, rather than total light captured.

Bob said:

PhotonBeam said:

Bob said:

I'm not convinced that "reach" is real. Yes, I understand the maths behind it - pixel densities, etc. But when it's all said and done - full frame images always come out ahead - especially when printed very large. IMHO.

Click to expand...

I am wondering if you could elaborate a bit.

I would think that a crop sensor would come out ahead if you are cropping the full frame image to the same field of view (because it has higher pixel density). For instance, using a 300mm lens on both micro 4/3 and full frame, but cropping the full frame image 2x.

Click to expand...

I would think that too based on exactly the same logic you described. I just haven't seen any examples where an ASP-C body paired with a smaller lens produced better tele results than a FF body set up with a matching field of view. But I'm open to being shown.

Click to expand...

That's fair. I would expect the difference to be minor if using a high megapixel full frame body.

I am certainly not the one to show the difference.