Full Frame or Crop Frame for Wildlife?

[klovibond]

Another pro-tog to put into the mix:

Quotes from world renowned pro nature photographer Glenn Bartley (Canada):

On crop-bodies - "For bird photography I prefer to use a crop body. The increase in effective focal length is a tremendous advantage when shooting in "real world" scenarios"

On FF bodies - "If I did a bit more macro or landscape work I would probably pick one up. If I did more work from blinds or controlled shooting scenarios I think I would definitely own one. For field photography though, the full frame body is not attractive to me"

On a personal note, I also have avoided going full-frame as most of my wildlife photography takes place in the field and the extra reach can be a god-send, as my lens of choice is a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 Sports....coupled with a EX 1.4x TC when necessary.

[jcuknz]

It does indeed. So, what you are saying is, if you want reach - get a MFT!

You can get pretty close to the "unsafe" animals as well.

If you are not a highly successful wild life photographer backed by Canikon but paying for your gear yourself as a hobby then MFT does give greater reach, even more so with Nikon's babies [ V and J's ? ], but your advice to the newbie was good assuming he appreciates the use of a hide in its various forms. I have mentioned before my belief that the birds know when you get a tele adaptor[teleconverter] and stay further away It is better to make freinds with them with food or trick them with audio calls than to get reach.

Good advice is based on personal involvement and reading about others experiences which blogs make so easilly available to all these days.

Another angle is how skilled/adventurish one are/is with post processing ... I felt I was rather close with this shot, too close for comfort, even though protected by a mesh fence and a bored animal pacing its enclosure.

93mm equivalent with my Nikon 5700 back in July 2004

[Manfred M]

Andre, your view of wildlife photography and National Parks is similar to my own experience. What is true in Africa is also true in Canada; if you go to one of the National Parks, like Banff or Jasper, that are well known for wildlife or Algonquin Provincial Park, which is closer to home, the wildlife can be spotted right near the roadside. That being said, the numbers of large game animals seem to be much higher in the African Parks (specifically Kruger and Etosha, which I have visited), than any of the Canadian ones.

Here there is no restriction on getting out of your car, I have seen people (rather stupid ones, I might add) pop out of their vehicles and get quite close to bears and elk.

During our trip through Etosha, in late 2011, we had the opportunity to visit the western part of the park, which had been closed to tourism for over 60 years and had been partially opened earlier that year. The animals were definitely not used to humans being around and stayed well away from the road.

That all being said; I do think you have missed the point on the gear. If I were a pro wildlife shooter with an unlimted budget and the ability to get off the beaten track with a ranger (and had some way of transporting all my gear), I would certainly look at shooting full-frame with some very expenisve glass. Same comment goes that if I were a high-end portrait or fashion photographer, I would be out there using a medium format body; just because it is the industry norm (and I would also have a studio that is fully set up for this kind of work).

I am neither; so I will continue to shoot crop frame when I am out on foot somewhere (and in fact am looking at getting a MFT body at some point too) and full-frame when I have a way to carry my gear. These are simply the right tools for the type of photography that I do.

As the old adage goes; the best camera is the one you have with you...


Some of my wildlife shots:


Swimming grizzly bear and two cubs in the Khutzeymateen Grizzly Bear Sanctuary, British Columbia, Canada from an inflatable boat using a crop-frame camera and 200mm focal length.





Leopard stalking impala, taken with a crop frame camera sitting in a truck at 200mm; Etosha National Park, Namibia.




Nile crocodile entering the water, Lake Chamo, Ethiopial full frame camera at 380mm.

[NorthernFocus]

Am I the only one who thinks that generically refering to "wildlife photography" is amusing? Though it may not be intuitively obvious to us all, shooting hummingbirds as opposed to elephants may require different equipment and technique. But I could be over complicating things...

[William W]

No. You are not alone.

WW

[Manfred M]

Am I the only one who thinks that generically refering to "wildlife photography" is amusing? Though it may not be intuitively obvious to us all, shooting hummingbirds as opposed to elephants may require different equipment and technique. But I could be over complicating things...

Actually, I caught a nice shot of a small frog once, using the same gear as I use for larger wildlife...

Point taken - wildlife can span a lot from underwater work through to macro work, and anything in between, but I think most people would probably drift more to Andre's definition.

[Colin Southern]

Hi Kevin,

Generally the crop-factor camera by virtue of it's psudo focal length multiplier wins out, but it's not always that cut and dried. People say "1.6x focal length advantage" (for Canon), but there's really a few things going on here:

- First up, they're talking about the field of view, NOT the amount of information captured. Looking through the viewfinder things will appear closer on a crop-factor camera (same lens etc), but even that isn't necessarily all that it seems in that crop-factor camera viewfinders are typically smaller than their FF equivalents anyway. I'm used to a FF viewfinder now and the other day I looked through the VF of a 30D and I was actually quite shocked at how small it was. A bit like moving from a large bedroom and ensuite to the closet under the stairs.

- Second up, we're talking about the field of view, NOT the amount of information captured! (no, not a typo). If one were to take an 8MP crop-factor camera like the 20D and a 24MP FF camera like the 5D3 - take a wildlife photo with the same lens - then crop the FF image to the same field of view as the ("advantaged") crop-factor camera -- then see who has the most pixels in what's left. You do the math, but you might be surprised at the result. In that respect the CF camera enjoys a huge head start, but ultimately the "advantage" enjoyed in terms of resolution also depends on the ratio of the MP between any two cameras. Or in more technical terms it all just comes down to sensor pixel density; whichever is higher will win.

- Third up, higher pixel densities on CF cameras (compared to the same MP counts on their FF counterparts) also equates to less light gathering ability, thus poorer performance for a given generation of technology compared to FF cameras. It's not an issue at low ISOs, but can get significant at higher ISOs needed to freeze motion

- Forth up, a 1.4x converter on a FF camera pretty much compensates for the "FF disadvantage shooting wildlife".

In summary, pop something like a EF 200-400mm + 1.4 Teleconverter lens on something like a FF 1D X and I'll pretty much guarantee that any crop-factor camera will be struggling to produce the same image quality, all things considered.

Not saying CF isn't a good idea - just saying that it isn't as cut and dried as to the focal length thing as many will make out.

[NorthernFocus]

...I think most people would probably drift more to Andre's definition.

My experience here on CIC and on other forums is that most amateur wildlife photographers shoot primarily birds. Which also likely influences the seemingly general opinion, contrary to Anrde's, that cropped format sensors are indeed advantageous. Though that generalization presupposes cropped format equals higher pixel density.

Interestingly, the focus of this discussion has been on the relative merits of sensor size/resolution. But due to their marketing strategies, for many of the other camera body features that are desireable for serious wildlife photogs, the Canikon duo bundle said other features with full frame sensors. There is currently a huge wave of discontent in the Nikon community because the D7100 produces outstanding IQ but is considered virtually unusable by many due to inferior AF performance and a buffer that ony holds 6 frames (RAW). "Wildlife photogs" have been clamoring for a couple of years now for a cropped frame body comparable to the D300/300s.

As Colin pointed out, all other things being equal, higher pixel density yields better photos. Unfortunately, "all other things" are never equal so we are forced to compromise and/or use different cameras for different purposes.

Currently in the Nikon lineup, examples of how different bodies can serve different purposes w/respect to wildlife shooting (assuming appropriate lenses are available to the user):

D4: When? low light conditions, high speed action. Why? Unrivaled ISO performance, fast/accurate AF even in low light, 10fps, effectively infinite buffer capacity. Bonus features; most robust/weatherproof body, most customizable, built in verticle grip.

D800E: When? adequate lighting, slow moving mammalia, large birds, habitat shots. Why? Unrivaled IQ for full frame images. Bonus features: 4x5 and DX crop modes, w/grip shoots up to 6fps in DX mode and can us same battery as D4.

D7100: When? adequate lighting, EDBD birdies. Why? Highest pixel density, no AA filter yields incomparable feather detail, fast AF, 6fps frame rate adequate for static bursts and well timed flight shots. Bonus features: 1.2x crop mode, small/light, same battery as D800.

[DanK]

If one were to take an 8MP crop-factor camera like the 20D and a 24MP FF camera like the 5D3

Why would you? Even when I switched to digital years ago, crops were more than 8 MP.A more reasonable comparison would be contemporaneous cameras, say, the 5DIII and 7D. Here is the math:

APS-C sensor size as a proportion of FF: 0.62^2 = 0.385.

So, the number of pixels in a 5D3 image cropped to 7D dimensions is 0.385*22.2=8.54 MP. That is 47% the number of pixels provided in the same FOV by the 18 MP 7D. Even with a camera one generation older than the 7D, my trusty 15.1 MP 50D, the difference is sizable: the cropped image from my 5D3 provides 57% the number of pixels as my 50D.

Certainly, as you note, there are lots of advantages to FF. That's why I bought one. But the difference in reach--if you compare apples to apples, not current FF to very old crops--is sizable. Whether that is a bigger deal or a smaller deal than the other factors you mention depends on the use and user. That is the question that Andre started with, and I still think that is the answer: a crop gives you a substantial boost in reach.

Re the 1.4X: indeed, but don't forget that you can put that same converter on the crop, which puts you right back where you were. I do. My longest is a 70-200 with a 1.4x, which I routinely use on my crop. To get the same number of pixels from my 5DIII would require a longer lens. No way around it.

[Brev00]

Andre,

That is more than one so much better. Still not a survey. But, that is probably not needed because the majority of my response deals with the overall meaning of the word reach as something indicating a cost savings. I clearly admitted that taking away considerations of cost and weight and any other side variable, a full frame camera will provide better image quality than the cropped cousins. I don't think that conclusion is controversial or new. So, professionals who are in a wolf eat wolf business are going to do what is needed to maximize the quality of their images. However, most people who are buying cameras and lenses for purposes of capturing wildlife are not relying on their images for their livelihood and would like to go home to their wives with some of their savings in the bank. A lot of people also enjoy the weight savings. So, ideally it is true that the larger sensor is better. In reality, there are compromises which means that ultimate image quality is not always the final determinant of one's camera purchase. For me, photography is not an objective pursuit where I try to accumulate the 'best' gear. Rather, it is a hobby which provides a creative outlet. What is better is irrelevant. What I am doing is what matters.

[Manfred M]

My experience here on CIC and on other forums is that most amateur wildlife photographers shoot primarily birds.

The birders I know look at themselves as birders, not wildlife photographers. Perhaps that is just a local thing where I live (I have some birder friends) and serious birders seem to have some of the fastest, most expensive glass around.

[flashback]

Full Frame vs. Crop Factor
how much $ do I have to spend vs. how much $ do I want to spend.
I bought a D7000, easily affordable but reaching for a FF would have not been prudent for me.
So the discussion of FF vs. CR (to me) is moot.

Its starting to remind me of *locker room* discussions vis a vis *does size matter*.

My signature basically sums it up (for me, at least)
'It's a poor carpenter who blames his hammer." [a corollary - do the best you can with the tools at hand]
P.s. when the discussion turns to *art* vs. *documentary* I'll chime back in.

[Colin Southern]

Why would you? Even when I switched to digital years ago, crops were more than 8 MP.A more reasonable comparison would be contemporaneous cameras, say, the 5DIII and 7D. Here is the math:

I'm just trying to draw ones attention to the fact that in terms of information resolved there's more to the equation than just the "1.6" bit.

That is the question that Andre started with, and I still think that is the answer: a crop gives you a substantial boost in reach.

Yes - it does - I agree. But I still think it's important to paint the entire picture; the higher pixel density give advantages to reach, but has potential drawbacks in other areas -- and I think it's important for people to know what they are so that they can make the right decision. Extra psudo-reach doesn't necessarily equate to better image quality all of the time.

Re the 1.4X: indeed, but don't forget that you can put that same converter on the crop, which puts you right back where you were.

I agree, but whether or not it "puts you right back where you were" isn't important -- what is important is "with a 1.4x teleconverter attached to a lens on a FF camera does it now allow you to get the reach that you need for the shot?" If the answer is "yes" then I'd definitely be taking a closer look at that combination before buying. Not saying I'd necessarily swing that way (maybe yes, maybe no). I just think it's important for people to realise that there's no such thing as a "free lunch" with CF - what you gain in one area you lose in another. Whether that loss is significant depends.

[NorthernFocus]

...Its starting to remind me of *locker room* discussions vis a vis *does size matter*....

There are more valid reasons for the argument. And indeed it's not size but density that matters. There are low light shots that simply can't be made at usable quality with cropped sensors. Spoken from experience, not simply in theory

[Colin Southern]

There are more valid reasons for the argument. And indeed it's not size but density that matters. There are low light shots that simply can't be made at usable quality with cropped sensors. Spoken from experience, not simply in theory

And similar problems can be experienced at high ISO for the same reason. Why would one be using a high ISO I hear everyone ask? - perhaps to keep the shutterspeed up to freeze motion and reduce camerashake (not forgetting that the "1.6 crop-factor focal length advantage" turns into a "1.6x higher shutterspeed required to negate camera shake and minimise subject motion".

And if FF and CF cameras compared the CF sensor is only gathering 39% as many photons during exposure.

[AB26]

My D4 has full auto mode.

Your D4 is the once off Rockwell edition. There is a good chance it came from the trash of KR after the announcement of the new D3300. (KR also trashed a D800 after the D600 was announced.)

[AB26]

Its starting to remind me of *locker room* discussions vis a vis *does size matter*.

Jack,

One of the realities in life is that size does matter.
Size of the budget = the size of the sensor.

The bigger the hammer the harder it can hit.

[Colin Southern]

Jack,

One of the realities in life is that size does matter.
Size of the budget = the size of the sensor.

The bigger the hammer the harder it can hit.

One of my little observations in life is that when someone says "it's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game" you can generally conclude that they just lost. So when they say "size isn't important" you can generally conclude ...

[AB26]

Another pro-tog to put into the mix:

Quotes from world renowned pro nature photographer Glenn Bartley (Canada):

On crop-bodies - "For bird photography I prefer to use a crop body. The increase in effective focal length is a tremendous advantage when shooting in "real world" scenarios"

On FF bodies - "If I did a bit more macro or landscape work I would probably pick one up. If I did more work from blinds or controlled shooting scenarios I think I would definitely own one. For field photography though, the full frame body is not attractive to me"

But this is what he has to say about a 1Dx

"If money was no object to me , I would definitely own this camera. At this point for me though the price is not justified. Furthermore I like to use crop bodies."

[AB26]

"it's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game"

That is what we have to hear every time the Sprinboks return from NZ.