Full Frame or Crop Frame for Wildlife?

[jcuknz]

The reach argument holds even more true for MFT with its x2 factor.
I organised a 920mm reach but wouldn't do more than play with it becuase with the 'safe' wildlife I occasionally shoot I will get better results with a much shorter lens from a hide.

With Andre being in South Africa I guess he is thinking of 'Un-safe' animals from which you need to keep your distance although if you can entice the animals to near your vehicle then FF and a short lens will be better ... same as me working with APS about 18" from the birds rather than my 950mm reach bridge camera.

The answer I think is how you intend or are able to go about it.

[AB26]

I don't do much wildlife photography, but for me personally, the crop is superior for this purpose.

Dan,

That is my argument – personal opinion – not advice that is in the best interest of the prospective future
Nature/Wildlife/Wedding Photographer of the Year.

Giving advice on what camera will be the best for any “novice” should not be advice based on personal opinion. Advice should be unbiased, guiding the requester to make an informed decision. A decision that will be in the best interest of the supplicant.

An example: A friend of mine, knowing zero, zilts, nothing about Photography asked my opinion on buying a camera. My advice to him: get a Nikon D610 with a 24-70mm lens. Why? Budget is not an issue, he can afford a D4 with a 600mm lens. The D610 renders excellent images with a very wide dynamic range. An in camera flash and full Auto when in trouble. Easy to learn camera settings and an easy to understand menu system. A 24-70 mm lens that you can use for a wide variety of applications, Wildlife, Nature, Portraiture, Weddings. Add an 80-400mm and you can widen the spectrum. It will be a fairly long time for a “novice” to “outgrow” a D610.
If you like Canon better than Nikon, get a 6D – but keep in mind, no in camera flash.

Why did I not advise my friend to get a D4/1Dx? Do you have any idea how a “novice” is going to struggle with a camera without an Auto setting? How long does it take for a “novice” to master the basic principles of photography?
Why not a bridge camera? The day you capture that amazing once in a lifetime image and you want to enlarge it to hang on a wall – you are going to regret buying a bridge camera.
Why not a D7100 crop frame camera? Because he can afford a D610! And the next step up from crop frame is going FF.

Dan, if crop frame was superior for the purpose of Wildlife Photography, Wildlife Photographers would not be using FF cameras.

[ajohnw]

It's pretty clear he uses crop when he wants too. To save a visit to the site to look here is one - right click etc to see the exif. Why does he use crop sometimes - probably because any sensible person would.



Fact is one thing, fiction another.

John
-

[AB26]

we do have to take account of "reality" for most people's wildlife photography.

Manfred,

That is a rational argument with lots of merit.

Maybe my perception of Wildlife Photography is different to that of non Africans. In Africa you will also be shooting Wildlife mostly in National Parks. Our Wildlife is pretty used to humans and you need not to be a mile away to take a shot. In the Kruger Park, Lions will be lying in the road. In Pilansberg you got to be careful the Elephants do not step on your car. In Umfolozi you might trip over a Black Rhino.

Shooting Wildlife from your car is not the best way of doing it but it is the legal way within a National Park. There are plenty of “hides” and water holes where you can wait to shoot from, but you need time and patience to get the shot you would like. You can also go on a guided tour with a Game Ranger, on foot. Not an excursion for the faint hearted as they will take you pretty close to Rhino’s, Elephants, Buffalo and Lions. You are lucky if ever you see a Leopard in the wild.

In some private game reserves you will be allowed to ride your bicycle if they do not have any of the Big Five. Where no hunting takes place the game is relatively tame and you can get pretty close.
The very best of cause is to go on an organised Photo Safari. Okavango, Chobe, Serengeti no matter where, the Photographer guide will have you in the best place at the best time of day to get the shots you have been dreaming of. You will not need the “reach advantage” your crop frame camera offers you.
To the dedicated, passionate amateur photographer the prospects are there to capture the images.

Yes there is the happy snappy “Wildlife Photographer”. I see no reason why they would need anything better than a 50x zoom bridge camera. Image quality, sharpness, focus and WB does not matter to the happy snappy crowd. Recommending a bridge camera to a happy snappy Wildlife Photographer is probably good advice.

It saddens me when a member uses “reach” as motivation to buy a crop frame camera. You want “reach”, buy the appropriate lens and if you cannot afford it get a bridge camera with “reach”. If you have aspirations of capturing the images the Pro’s do, follow their example, get the equipment they use.

[William W]

. . . It saddens me when a member uses “reach” as motivation to buy a crop frame camera. You want “reach”, buy the appropriate lens and if you cannot afford it get a bridge camera with “reach”. If you have aspirations of capturing the images the Pro’s do, follow their example, get the equipment they use.

You must get sad, very easily.

WW

[AB26]

There are certainly advantages to full frame, larger image, less noise, but the cost of the camera bodies, lenses and other equipment is limiting that to only a few who can afford the thousands of dollars. For those of us who cannot afford the cost of full frame bodies and lenses the crop sensor provides reach for wildlife photography. As an example the my 70-300mm becomes a 105-450mm lens,

Joe,
Cost should be the only rational reason for recommending a crop frame camera.

also only the center part of the glass is used which in most cases is the sharpest.

If I am not mistaken that only applies when using a FF lens on a crop frame camera. If you can afford the FF lens you might as well step up to a FF body as well.

[AB26]

You must get sad, very easily.

WW

Yes Bill, I do. More so when an honest question is asked and the answer is garbage.

[William W]

Statement:

. . . For those of us who cannot afford the cost of full frame bodies and lenses the crop sensor provides reach for wildlife photography. As an example the my 70-300mm becomes a 105-450mm lens, also only the center part of the glass is used which in most cases is the sharpest.

Response (and noted a portion of the quote was taken and also taken out of context)

. . .If I am not mistaken that only applies when using a FF lens on a crop frame camera. If you can afford the FF lens you might as well step up to a FF body as well.

Why is that a confusing comment?
Obviously Joe was referring to the example he clearly gave.
AND (as one other example) buying a 400mm lens instead of a 600mm lens . . . there is a big difference in price.

It occurs to me that you like taking quotes out of context and then manipulating the meaning to suit your responses.

WW

[William W]

Yes Bill, I do. More so when an honest question is asked and the answer is garbage.

Oh.

Manfred's answer didn't appear as "garbage" to me.

In fact I have read many of Manfred's answers and I don't think that I can recount any as "garbage".

But, opinions do vary: and each of us does forge our own opinion of the verbiage which displayed here.


WW

[AB26]

Statement:


Response (and noted a portion of the quote was taken and also taken out of context)


Why is that a confusing comment?
Obviously Joe was referring to the example he clearly gave.
AND (as one other example) buying a 400mm lens instead of a 600mm lens . . . there is a big difference in price.

It occurs to me that you like taking quotes out of context and then manipulating the meaning to suit your responses.

WW

Bill,

READ what Joe has written: “the my 70-300mm lens becomes a 105-450lens, also only the centre part of the glass is used which in most cases is the sharpest”

A 70-300mm lens only becomes an effective 105-450mm lens when fitted to a crop frame camera. If the lens was designed for a crop frame camera the image circle is much smaller than the image circle of an equal FF lens.
If only the centre part of the glass is used, which is the sharpest, Joe must be referring to a FF lens fitted to a crop frame camera.

If Joe is of the opinion that only the centre part of a DX (Nikon) lens is used to ‘project’ the image on a crop sensor he is in the wrong. It will only apply to an FX lens fitted to a crop frame camera.
I believe what Joe is saying is that a 70-300 mm lens is in effect a 105-450mm lens on his camera, a crop frame camera, giving him more reach. To Joe it is an advantage as he is not in the position to afford (For those of us) a FF camera and a “105-450mm” FF lens.

I do not believe I have intentionally manipulated any meaning to suit my response.

For those whom can afford the benefit of cutting out vignetting by fitting a FF lens to a crop frame camera it would make sense to get the FF body as well. (it is obviously not the case for Joe.)

It might be difficult for you to understand Bill. Maybe if I wrote “If one can afford…….one might as well….” but “if you can afford……..you might as well………..” different cultures, different languages. Does ‘you’ only have one meaning in English?

And yes, I am confused as to Joe’s statement. On what lens is only the centre part of the glass used?

[AB26]

Oh.

Manfred's answer didn't appear as "garbage" to me.

In fact I have read many of Manfred's answers and I don't think that I can recount any as "garbage".

But, opinions do vary: and each of us does forge our own opinion of the verbiage which displayed here.


WW

Bill, how do you mix words like “rational with lots of merit” with garbage?

If I am of the opinion Manfred is gargling garbage I would tell him.

Read my response to Manfred within the context of the thread.
Reading Manfred’s post, you will see he really understands what I am saying.

[AB26]

It's pretty clear he uses crop when he wants too. To save a visit to the site to look here is one - right click etc to see the exif. Why does he use crop sometimes - probably because any sensible person would.



Fact is one thing, fiction another.

John
-

The EXIF also reveals that this shot was taken on 20 May 2008, almost six years ago. Interesting, might be a lead to a story.

[AB26]

The reach argument holds even more true for MFT with its x2 factor.

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.

[ajohnw]

The EXIF also reveals that this shot was taken on 20 May 2008, almost six years ago. Interesting, might be a lead to a story.

I wont be going though all of his shots to see if a more recent crop camera has been used but if you think about it apart from pixel size issues when say the wanted bit only fills 1/2 or less of a full 35mm frame 4/3 may as well be used.

If he has used cropped sensors in the past it's a safe bet that he still does. Smaller pixels - not going there as there is too much guff on the web that doesn't explain the problems well at all. Most of the time it needn't matter.

John
-

[Brev00]

You still have mentioned only one wildlife photographer using full frame equipment. I am pretty sure there are more but where is the survey? Using one person to make an argument over a class of cameras is not persuasive to me. I think when people mention 'reach' as the advantage of dx, they are assuming within that word the cost savings that is entailed by using a crop sensor camera. Otherwise, the word makes no sense since lenses of additional focal length are available. If you remove the cost savings and assume everyone can equally afford each system outfitted for wildlife with appropriate lenses, I think most people would agree with you that the added quality of the full frame sensor wins the prize. But, then, you have altered the meaning of reach as people are using it--not just a focal length but a cost savings, too. So, budget is entirely the issue here. Given unlimited funds, full frame is better. In the real world, dx will be better for a great number of photographers.

[NorthernFocus]

...Why not a D800? As most of the Pro's will tell you - file size. Why shoot a D 800 if you can afford a D3s/D4?
Do a little research on Nikon cameras and you will find out that the D3/D4 render excellent low light, quality images. Nature and Wildlife Photographers do lots of shooting in LOW LIGHT conditions. It is something most amateurs do not understand - seeing the light...

Kudos, Andre. You have an astounding level of knowledge of camera bodies that you've never used. And clearly based on the extensive wildlife photography experience that you're willing to share in text, you must have an impressive portfolio of imagery that you've neglected to share with us here. Those of us who aspire to improve our wildlife skills would likely benefit were you to do so.

I must thank you for posting here in CIC. This truly is a learning forum. For example:

...Why did I not advise my friend to get a D4/1Dx? Do you have any idea how a “novice” is going to struggle with a camera without an Auto setting? How long does it take for a “novice” to master the basic principles of photography?...

This was very informative. I was unaware until now that Nikon apparently markets different models of their cameras in different countries. My D4 has full auto mode. Perhaps if you friend is as well heeled as you indicate he can order one from the USA.

But overall, I must say that the cumulative effect of your posts in this thread have been a blow to my ego. I'll have to list my D7100 for sale I suppose. I am an aspiring wildlife photographer and wouldn't want to be seen shooting a cropped sensor at wildlife and thereby immediately recognizable as a rank amateur. Which is a shame because although it has its downsides, to my untrained eye, the image quality under good lighting conditions seemed to rival that of any other camera that I've used.

I was also unaware that to the true professional, file size trumps image quality. But that may be another regional difference. I know many pros in the US include D800 bodies in there kit. But perhaps computer hardware is cheaper here than in SA so they don't have quite the same worry.

So thanks again for sharing. You're a veritable walking encyclopedia on camera gear. Or at least on Nikon which is what I also shoot. And though just an amateur, by following your sage advice, someday maybe I too will learn to "see the light" both literally and figuratively

[AB26]

You still have mentioned only one wildlife photographer using full frame equipment. I am pretty sure there are more but where is the survey?

Chem Compion – Nikon D700
Suzi Esterhas – Canon 5DMK3
Hannes Lochner - Nikon D3s
Morkel Erasmus - “ there are images I would never have been able to take had I not used the Nikon D3s which I absolutely trust to get good quality in poor light”
Marsel van Oosten – “I currently shoot with D3s, D4 and D800 cameras,”
Fritz Hoogendijk – “high ISO capabilities and speed of the D4 camera being offset against the high resolution of the D3x, or nowadays the D800”
Austin Thomas – “and then to the Canon 1D Mark IV that I use today.”
Danny Green – Canon 1Dx
Grant Atkinson – “I do most of my shooting these days with the 5Dmk3 and 1Dmk4”
Wim Van Den Heever – Nikon D3s

How many more do you want, Larry?

[ajohnw]

http://www.morkelerasmus.com/#!/the-photographer/gear

At least this one is honest. Taken at random.

None of this could possibly relate to advertising or sponsorship could it. Of course not.

The truly important aspect seems to be that they all look to use mac's going on my sample of 3.

If some one wants a full frame camera and the weight I suspect a real one like Colin's or the Nikon equivalent will easily be the best bet providing people use a Mac. Unfortunately these don't come with a free weightlifting course to get peoples strength up.

Curious how only older shots on their web sites have exif info. Maybe they are all moonlighting and trying to hide that they have switched to Olympus. I know for a fact that if some one can do something that may be useful to them they are likely to send you one FOC - as would all of the others.

John
-

[Saorsa]

As far as wildlife is concerned, if you aren't there, with your finger on the shutter, at the right time, with the right settings, you ain't got nuthin'.

[DanK]

I find this thread disturbing. It started out with what seemed like a straightforward question--is there an advantage to a crop in shooting wildlife--in response to which several people took the time to offer answers. It has become a string of nonsequiturs and unsubstantiated overgeneralizations, peppered with nasty language.

Cost should be the only rational reason for recommending a crop frame camera.

Nonsense. there are several other reasons: reach, weight, pixel density, and lighter and cheaper lenses for a given FOV. That you don't think these important doesn't make them irrational.

If you can afford the FF lens you might as well step up to a FF body as well.

Except for all the other reasons that you have discounted.