Advice on Upgrading Camera

[Brownbear]

Thank you for the correction. The net effect being that with full frame camera, one captures more of the scene? And the benefits with respect to Nature Photography, is?

Christina, I suppose there is a mistyping: as far as I know, it's the opposite: on full frame bodies a 50mm acts as a 50mm, while on cropped bodies, because of the smaller sensor, the same lens acts as a 50mm x crop factor (usually 1.6) which gives approximately a 75mm lens.

[GiacomoD]

Basically, full frame cameras give better quality images, especially at high ISO, because the larger sensor allows (I believe) a better separation of light recordings from individual pixels.
So, I suppose that for Nature Photography they should work better
Beside that, full frame bodies are heavier and, of course, more expensive.
I can't go further than this, since I never had a full fram DSLR

[Brownbear]

Thank you Glacomo.

Does anyone know if the difference in quality makes a huge difference, warranting the extra expense?

And with respect to a larger field of view, I suppose it means that if you were photographing a flock of birds one would be able to capture more of them in the photo? How does a larger field of view effect close up shots?

Bobo, Paul, Joe, Kathy Li and all the wonderful inspiring bird photographers on this site...Your bird photos are amazing.. Do you use full frame dslrs? If yes, or no, why?

[Brev00]

I think you might put full frame in the back of your mind for the time being. It is a nice goal but it is quite expensive. Even a used D700 costs @$1700, I think. But, the real cost is in the glass. You will want to sell the dx glass you have collected, including the Canon 10-22 if you go that way for a while. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with dx. In fact, as GrumpyDiver noted, the crop factor gives you a longer equivalent field of view. So, some who move to full frame, keep a dx camera for sports and wildlife. Of Nikon dx cameras, the D300s is supposed to have the best af performance. But, you don't have to get the 'best'. The D7000 is supposed to perform well and has a newer sensor. Prices seem to have dropped as an even newer model is about to be released. Plus, be aware of the size and weight differences of the different bodies. You want to be comfortable with it in your hands. Try to get to a store for a hands on appraisal. Rob Sheppard is one of my favorite photography authors and uses a dx system (Canon) for his frequently published images.

[pnodrog]

Thank you, Larry and Manfred.

Great advice. With respect to a full frame camera, I'm not sure it would be necessary to upgrade, but in reading "Digital Photography for Dummies" it says my understanding is that with a full frame camera one receives a greater field of view. For example a 50 mm lens acts like a 75 mm lens on a full frame body, and in nature photography this seems important.

Then again, I have also read that some of the higher end cropped dslrs shoot and focus faster, then the lower end full framed dslrs. So I don't know if the extra cost of a full frame dslr is warranted.

The book states that the Nikon D700 is a bargain full frame DSLR with outstanding iso performance, that shoots as fast as the Nikon D3X and is comparable in resolution to the D3 and D3S, all in a smaller lighter body.

For cropped Nikon DSLRs the book says the D300S is truly a professional camera, that is comparable to the Nikon D300S, and it shoots faster (and shoots movies, but that is not important to me), but that it suffers in ISO performance compared to the D300S.

With respect to Canon the book says...

Full Frame E0S 5D Mark ll.. if you must have a full frame DSLR and budget is a consideration the Mark ll is the way to go. It has fewer auto focusing and metering points, and does not shoot as fast as the Mark 111.

Cropped Frame it says the EOS 7D is a serious contender for the best semi professional DSLR, shoots fast, decent iso, and auto focusing speeds.

Any thoughts on the above statements?

When was the book last revised? The new low end full frame cameras from both Canon and Nikon should at least be on your possible list if you are considering going full frame.

It seems to me you need a camera with good ISO1600 performance so you can use a high shutter speed while panning for flying birds. I am looking at getting a Nikon D800 but it will probably be in the DX mode for the type of shot you have shown.

[Polar01]

Christina: I think one of your problems is the quality of the image that you want, in this case, birds, hopefully in flight. If you look at the so called "NG" shooter's quality, you will find they are using 600mm @f/4 alot of the time with a multiplier, just these lens, either Canon or Nikkor are worth over $10,000.00 not including the multiplier. It is the glass that gives you the faster speeds in low light, that said the newer cameras are getting better all the time at reducing noise at higher ISO settings. A newer camera at this time may help as it will help you shoot faster in lower light than your present camera. As for camera it all comes down to which camera feels better in you hands they basically the same with a few differences thrown in, and top end glass again both are very close. Once you have pushed your present camera to its limites then it is the time up setup.

Cheers:

Allan

[Brownbear]

When was the book last revised? The new low end full frame cameras from both Canon and Nikon should at least be on your possible list if you are considering going full frame.

It seems to me you need a camera with good ISO1600 performance so you can use a high shutter speed while panning for flying birds. I am looking at getting a Nikon D800 but it will probably be in the DX mode for the type of shot you have shown.

Its' a 2011 revision, probably a bit dated.

Thank you for the advice and recommendations. When I was in Mexico, I had so many opportunities for shots of magpie jays, black bellied whistling ducks, green parrotlets, ie; exotic, colourful birds that I just could not manage to capture a good actions shot of... and I will go back one day. Hence, the wish to upgrade my camera. Are you saying that I would need the highest end full frame camera to capture these types of shots with greater ease?

I still have a lot to learn and my plan was just to upgrade to a better cropped frame dslr and better lens... and later on when my photographic ability has improved, to upgrade to a full frame dlsr. Up until now, I did not know that they used different types of lens, so my original plan does not make financial sense..

So now I'm thinking I should just practice with what I have, and save for a while until I can afford to upgrade to a full frame dlsr instead of upgrading to a better cropped frame? I would expect that their are a lot of great nature photographers using cropped frame dslrs, but still their must be a reason to have a full frame dslr or photographers would not purchase them?

[Brownbear]

Thank you Allan, yes that about sums it up. Great advice, thank you. The cost of is far higher than I imagined. Maybe I will just upgrade to a better cropped frame dlsr and invest in one better quality long lens, and reevaluate in a few years.

Thank you everyone for sharing. As usual, I've learned that I don't know nearly as much as I should.

Christina: I think one of your problems is the quality of the image that you want, in this case, birds, hopefully in flight. If you look at the so called "NG" shooter's quality, you will find they are using 600mm @f/4 alot of the time with a multiplier, just these lens, either Canon or Nikkor are worth over $10,000.00 not including the multiplier. It is the glass that gives you the faster speeds in low light, that said the newer cameras are getting better all the time at reducing noise at higher ISO settings. A newer camera at this time may help as it will help you shoot faster in lower light than your present camera. As for camera it all comes down to which camera feels better in you hands they basically the same with a few differences thrown in, and top end glass again both are very close. Once you have pushed your present camera to its limites then it is the time up setup.

Cheers:

Allan

[inkista]

... Do you use full frame dslrs? If yes, or no, why?

I have a full-frame dSLR [5DMkII] but I don't think I've ever used it for birding. I tend to bring it along when I go birding with the 24-105L on it for landscape shooting while I'm waiting for the birds to show up, but I tend to use a 50D and my 400/5.6L for the birding for the "reach" and AF performance.

What I mostly use my 5DMkII for is for portraits with and without off-camera lighting, landscape shooting, and general walkaround stuff. And for my adapted manual vintage lenses (I have an Oly OM 50/1.2, C/Y Zeiss 100/2, and Leica-R 90 and 35 Summicron (f/2) lenses)--since they were designed for that format, they tend to "behave" better on full frame than on crop.

That is when I'm shooting with my Canons at all. Currently, my most used and always-with me camera is neither my 50D or my 5DMkII, but my Panasonic G3, which is a micro four-thirds camera with a sensor that has a 2x crop factor. I love it. It sucks mightily for birds in flight, but for wildlife that isn't on the wing? It ain't bad.


Pansonic DMC-G3. Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-200 f/4-5.6 OIS. @140mm, iso 160, f/8, 1/320s.

The lens is the biggest difference. Which, with the crop factor, is the equivalent of a consumer-grade Canon EF 90-400 f/4-5.6 IS $250 lens. The camera body, btw, cost me $450 used with the kit lens. And this was a mere 6 months after it debuted ($650 new, iirc). Today, you could pick up a new G3 body from B&H for $250 (it's been replaced by the much higher-specced G5). Mirrorless can churn fast and depreciate like lightning.

I bought the 5DmkII because I missed the FoV from film. I had a lot of designed-for-film lenses, and I was curious about what the larger sensor and higher resolution could do for me, and with the CLP and my dad's broken Powershot S50, it only cost me $1800. At the time, a new 7D body was going for $1700, and the 5Dii went for $2500 new. So, I figured, what the hell? Loved it. The combo of the 5Dii and the 135L for portraits is amazing. And with the 24-105 for walkaround? Or my adapted MF glass? Magic.


5DmkII. Adapted Leica Summicron-R 90mm f/2.

But I also work on a computer all day at my day job. I have carpal tunnel. And there was a point when I realized that my little girl hands with tiny fingers were getting very very fatigued by the weight/size of my Canons. I needed something smaller and lighter. And in the last two years, sensor technology has advanced with leaps and bounds.


Panasonic G3. m.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8. iso 160, f/1.8, 1/4000s. handheld.

To me, I can barely tell there's a difference in sensor performance between my 50D images and my G3 images. Between my G3 and my 5Dii, there's about what I'd characterize as a one-stop difference. One stop better high ISO, one stop less DoF, etc. Noticeable. But not huge. To my mind, I think people overplay the advantages of a larger sensor, mostly because they haven't shot them and the prices are what they're going by. Full frame is good. It has advantages, and there are reasons to go there, but insanely better image quality you can tell at a glance from all those lesser formats is not one of them. Insanely better high ISO, again, to me, is not one of them. It's not like you can suddenly shoot in the dark without any noise issues at all. And when you compare newer sensors against older ones, the performance can be surprising.

Here I am again with my tiny little 2x crop sensor. This is an iso 3200 shot:


G3. 45-200 OIS. @200mm, iso 3200, f/5.6, 1/160s. handheld. Shot RAW, processed in LR with noise reduction.

I could not have done that with my 350D/XT five years ago, despite its having a larger sensor. Size isn't everything. Don't be too overawed by the promise of full frame. Consider renting to find out what the reality of having all your lenses get 1.6x shorter is like, and also what it's like to have the post-processing flow gummed up with 20+ MP resolution images. And above all, consider what it is you really need. I ended up deciding I needed less and went downscale, and I'm exceedingly happy that I did. What is going to fit what you want to shoot?

Full frame is kind of like going to L glass: the difference isn't as large as the price difference would indicate. The difference exists. And it can be crucial. But it's up to you and your wallet whether or not it's worth the money. But to me, the difference is more marginal than hobbyists who are trying to justify the amount of money they spent or pros who have a different set of equipment (and pricetag) expectations might make you think from their comments. To me, between APS-C and full-frame in the same sensor generation, I wouldn't expect more than one stop better.

[Manfred M]

There is a bit of a misunderstanding in what full-frame does for the photographer versus a crop frame. I shot both a Nikon D90 crop-frame and a Nikon D800 full-frame camera.

While in theory, a larger sensor will give you better quality, that only really comes into play when make very large prints of the images. I regularly do 17" x 22" (432mm x 559mm) prints from images I shoot with the D90. The only time I find that the larger format gives me better prints is if I crop the shot fairly heavily.

The comments about lower noise at higher ISO is true is if the sensor pitch is larger. This refers to the spacing between individual sensor diodes. The 16.2MP D7000 (crop frame) has about the same sensor pitch as my 36.2MP D800, so one would expect roughly the same high ISO performance. BUT, as the D7000 is older technology, the high ISO noise performance is not as good as the D800. The 16MP D4 has the same size sensor as my 36MP D800, but has a larger sensor pitch, so its low light performance is better; both cameras are the same generation.

In my view there are a couple of really important advantages to a full-frame camera. First of all, the viewfinder is larger, so I can see pretty well the entire shot without contortion. The other major advantage is that its ultra-wide angle performance is much better than with a crop frame due to the availability of lenses. In ultra-wides, every additional mm really does count, and with a 1.5 crop factor, my f/2.8 14-24mm lens gets a wider shot than even the 10-24mm DX lens.

Another advantage is that you can do more with shallow depth of field when shooting fast lenses on a full-frame sensor.

Of course, the pro glass has been designed for these sensors, but you are paying a lot of money for the pro glass; somewhere in the order of $2000 for each of the /f2.8 12-24mm. f/2.8 24-70mm and f/2.8 70-200mm lenses. It is definitely better than the mid-range lenses, but the improvement is not linear (i.e. paying twice as much money does not give you an image that is twice as sharp).


There are downsides as well. A larger sensor means a larger (and heavier) camera body. Because the sensor is physically larger than a crop frame (about 2.35 times larger on for current Nikon sensors) the sensor is a lot more expensive to produce, so that is reflected in the total camera cost.

The upside of crops frame is in camera cost and on the long side of the shooting spectrum. My 80-400mm lens shots with the equivalent focal length of a 120-600mm lens on my D90, so I appear to get a zoom advantage on long shots (it's not quite that simple though because there is an offset because there are fewer photodiodes on a smaller sensor, so I could regain part of the advantage by cropping my image).

[pnodrog]

Manfred do you ever use the D800 in the DX mode? If so what do you think about the viewfinder?

[Brownbear]

I have a full-frame dSLR [5DMkII] but I don't think I've ever used it for birding. I tend to bring it along when I go birding with the 24-105L on it for landscape shooting while I'm waiting for the birds to show up, but I tend to use a 50D and my 400/5.6L for the birding for the "reach" and AF performance.

What I mostly use my 5DMkII for is for portraits with and without off-camera lighting, landscape shooting, and general walkaround stuff. And for my adapted manual vintage lenses (I have an Oly OM 50/1.2, C/Y Zeiss 100/2, and Leica-R 90 and 35 Summicron (f/2) lenses)--since they were designed for that format, they tend to "behave" better on full frame than on crop.

That is when I'm shooting with my Canons at all. Currently, my most used and always-with me camera is neither my 50D or my 5DMkII, but my Panasonic G3, which is a micro four-thirds camera with a sensor that has a 2x crop factor. I love it. It sucks mightily for birds in flight, but for wildlife that isn't on the wing? It ain't bad.


Pansonic DMC-G3. Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-200 f/4-5.6 OIS. @140mm, iso 160, f/8, 1/320s.

The lens is the biggest difference. Which, with the crop factor, is the equivalent of a consumer-grade Canon EF 90-400 f/4-5.6 IS $250 lens. The camera body, btw, cost me $450 used with the kit lens. And this was a mere 6 months after it debuted ($650 new, iirc). Today, you could pick up a new G3 body from B&H for $250 (it's been replaced by the much higher-specced G5). Mirrorless can churn fast and depreciate like lightning.

I bought the 5DmkII because I missed the FoV from film. I had a lot of designed-for-film lenses, and I was curious about what the larger sensor and higher resolution could do for me, and with the CLP and my dad's broken Powershot S50, it only cost me $1800. At the time, a new 7D body was going for $1700, and the 5Dii went for $2500 new. So, I figured, what the hell? Loved it. The combo of the 5Dii and the 135L for portraits is amazing. And with the 24-105 for walkaround? Or my adapted MF glass? Magic.


5DmkII. Adapted Leica Summicron-R 90mm f/2.

But I also work on a computer all day at my day job. I have carpal tunnel. And there was a point when I realized that my little girl hands with tiny fingers were getting very very fatigued by the weight/size of my Canons. I needed something smaller and lighter. And in the last two years, sensor technology has advanced with leaps and bounds.


Panasonic G3. m.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8. iso 160, f/1.8, 1/4000s. handheld.

To me, I can barely tell there's a difference in sensor performance between my 50D images and my G3 images. Between my G3 and my 5Dii, there's about what I'd characterize as a one-stop difference. One stop better high ISO, one stop less DoF, etc. Noticeable. But not huge. To my mind, I think people overplay the advantages of a larger sensor, mostly because they haven't shot them and the prices are what they're going by. Full frame is good. It has advantages, and there are reasons to go there, but insanely better image quality you can tell at a glance from all those lesser formats is not one of them. Insanely better high ISO, again, to me, is not one of them. It's not like you can suddenly shoot in the dark without any noise issues at all. And when you compare newer sensors against older ones, the performance can be surprising.

Here I am again with my tiny little 2x crop sensor. This is an iso 3200 shot:


G3. 45-200 OIS. @200mm, iso 3200, f/5.6, 1/160s. handheld. Shot RAW, processed in LR with noise reduction.

I could not have done that with my 350D/XT five years ago, despite its having a larger sensor. Size isn't everything. Don't be too overawed by the promise of full frame. Consider renting to find out what the reality of having all your lenses get 1.6x shorter is like, and also what it's like to have the post-processing flow gummed up with 20+ MP resolution images. And above all, consider what it is you really need. I ended up deciding I needed less and went downscale, and I'm exceedingly happy that I did. What is going to fit what you want to shoot?

Full frame is kind of like going to L glass: the difference isn't as large as the price difference would indicate. The difference exists. And it can be crucial. But it's up to you and your wallet whether or no it's worth the money. But to me, the difference is more marginal than hobbyists who are trying to justify the amount of money they spent or pros who have a different set of equipment (and pricetag) expectations might make you think from their comments. To me, between APS-C and full-frame in the same sensor generation, I wouldn't expect more than one stop better.

Thank you Kathy, for sharing your knowledge and experience in such great detail, you've given me a lot to think about. Your photos are amazing, and amazingly helpful in illustrating your points. I love your pelican shot, and that flower shot with the Panosonic G3 is amazing, and equally helpful is to see the portrait shot at 1S0 1600, which I could not do with my Nikon D80.

And yes, I've learned that the weight of the camera and in particular the lens is important to me.

Thank you. I adore your photos!

[Brownbear]

Thank you Manfred, for your clear and detailed explanation which highlights the advantages and disadvantages very nicely. Extremely helpful. Thank you.

There is a bit of a misunderstanding in what full-frame does for the photographer versus a crop frame. I shot both a Nikon D90 crop-frame and a Nikon D800 full-frame camera.

While in theory, a larger sensor will give you better quality, that only really comes into play when make very large prints of the images. I regularly do 17" x 22" (432mm x 559mm) prints from images I shoot with the D90. The only time I find that the larger format gives me better prints is if I crop the shot fairly heavily.

The comments about lower noise at higher ISO is true is if the sensor pitch is larger. This refers to the spacing between individual sensor diodes. The 16.2MP D7000 (crop frame) has about the same sensor pitch as my 36.2MP D800, so one would expect roughly the same high ISO performance. BUT, as the D7000 is older technology, the high ISO noise performance is not as good as the D800. The 16MP D4 has the same size sensor as my 36MP D800, but has a larger sensor pitch, so its low light performance is better; both cameras are the same generation.

In my view there are a couple of really important advantages to a full-frame camera. First of all, the viewfinder is larger, so I can see pretty well the entire shot without contortion. The other major advantage is that its ultra-wide angle performance is much better than with a crop frame due to the availability of lenses. In ultra-wides, every additional mm really does count, and with a 1.5 crop factor, my f/2.8 14-24mm lens gets a wider shot than even the 10-24mm DX lens.

Another advantage is that you can do more with shallow depth of field when shooting fast lenses on a full-frame sensor.

Of course, the pro glass has been designed for these sensors, but you are paying a lot of money for the pro glass; somewhere in the order of $2000 for each of the /f2.8 12-24mm. f/2.8 24-70mm and f/2.8 70-200mm lenses. It is definitely better than the mid-range lenses, but the improvement is not linear (i.e. paying twice as much money does not give you an image that is twice as sharp).


There are downsides as well. A larger sensor means a larger (and heavier) camera body. Because the sensor is physically larger than a crop frame (about 2.35 times larger on for current Nikon sensors) the sensor is a lot more expensive to produce, so that is reflected in the total camera cost.

The upside of crops frame is in camera cost and on the long side of the shooting spectrum. My 80-400mm lens shots with the equivalent focal length of a 120-600mm lens on my D90, so I appear to get a zoom advantage on long shots (it's not quite that simple though because there is an offset because there are fewer photodiodes on a smaller sensor, so I could regain part of the advantage by cropping my image).

[inkista]

Thank you Kathy, for sharing your knowledge and experience in such great detail, you've given me a lot to think about. Your photos are amazing, and amazingly helpful in illustrating your points. I love your pelican shot, and that flower shot with the Panosonic G3 is amazing, and equally helpful is to see the portrait shot at 1S0 1600, which I could not do with my Nikon D80.

You're welcome! And thanks for the compliments. And yeah, we have the tendency to assume that the technology we use is what we're going to find in the current cameras, and that simply isn't the case. If you were to pick up a D7000, chances are good, you'd be blown away by the high iso performance. A lot has changed in the last two or three years, and even P&S sensors can get up to usable 1600 pretty well these days. I was shocked the first time I pumped up the iso on my itty bitty Powershot S90.


Powershot S90 (1/1.7" format sensor), @6mm (28mm equiv.) iso 1600, f/2, 1/125s. handheld. Vignette added in post; no flash.

Maybe bring a memory card with you into a camera store and mess about with the display models.

[Manfred M]

Manfred do you ever use the D800 in the DX mode? If so what do you think about the viewfinder?

I have no real need to do so as I own an full set of FX lenses (going from 14mm to 500mm). I have mounted a DX lens to see what it does and while it looks a bit strange with the frame lines, it doesn't look too hard to get used to. I seem to remember Leica does something similar with its M series viewfinders.

I think the only shots that I did with a DX lens was with my cheap, non-CPU Samyang 8mm fisheye and the results are rather bizarre. The camera doesn't know what to make of the lens, so it treats is as a FX lens (sometimes?). This means it shows much of the image circle and picks up the built-in lens hood as a bit of an interesting vignette. It might be fun to do some crazy things with once the weather clears up a bit.