Full Frame or Crop Frame for Wildlife?

[AB26]

Any advantage in using a crop sensor for Wildlife Photography?

Often I have come across threads where members recommend a crop sensor camera for shooting wildlife. The extra ”reach” of the crop sensor is offered as motivation.

Greg Du Toit, Wildlife Photographer of the year for 2013 ( http://www.gregdutoit.com/index.php ), is now a Nikon ambassador using what? A Nikon D4 and a Df. Both FX – full frame cameras.

It will be interesting to know why the Wildlife Photographer of the year does not shoot crop frame to benefit from the “advantage” of extra reach.

[shreds]

I suppose it depends on the type of wildlife…!

If the opportunity to utilise/test for Nikon 'dream' products in terms of lenses on his D4, then who can blame him. I would do likewise.

[DanK]

Yes, there is a big advantage, and you have named it: reach. Given any focal length, you can be much farther away and still fill the frame with a crop-sensor camera. The alternative is to buy longer--read heavier and much more expensive--lenses for the FF to compensate.

An alternative is to crop the FF image, but assuming reasonably similar pixel counts, the lower density of the FF will give you many fewer pixels on the subject if you crop a FF. I forget the exact arithmetic--I did it ages ago--but I think it is roughly this: with a crop factor of 1.6 and identical pixel counts, a cropped image from a FF will give you about 40% as many pixels as a FF.

Even with a difference in pixel counts, the crop can have an advantage. I have both a 50D (~ 15 MP) and a 5DIII (~22 MP). I sometimes go out in a kayak trying to get photos of water birds, such as loons and mergansers. Even though I now have the 5D, I plan on taking the 50D when I do that this summer. Of course, if someone wanted to donate to me a 400mm L lens, I would reconsider.

[jprzybyla]

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

I would guess that Greg DuToit being a Nikon ambassador is provided his equipment by Nikon so he has the best available.

[AB26]

An alternative is to crop the FF image, but assuming reasonably similar pixel counts, the lower density of the FF will give you many fewer pixels on the subject if you crop a FF.

Dan,

Take note, a D4 and a Df - both 16MP FF cameras, not a 36MP D800.

[ajohnw]

I looked at some of his exif's and found D3,D35 and D300. 550mm on the D3 on one. 400mm on the D300 on another, Maybe the 550mm is via a 2x converter. I wasn't aware that nikon did a 550mm. If they could be found he may also use 2x 400 on crop.

John
-

[Andrew1]

We could fill pages with what we "think" the answer is but it's all just a guess. You'd need to ask him.

The top pro rigs do have benefits for the professional. Rugged weather protection is one of the main considerations for these globe travellers who frequently find themselves in dirty or wet environments. They also carry along a kit full of equipment most of us could only dream of. By the way, if you do some followup Andre you'll find photos on his blog that were taken with a Nikon D2oo. Certainly not at the level you raised in your note. The man has lots of tools to play with.

[Polar01]

Andre that is an easy answer if you think about it. The Df is not a great camera but an above average good camera and if you look at the Nikon ambassadors they are posting using the Df for their work it is one way to get the herd to purchase the newest greatest that is only my opinion.
As for the D4 it still is the best camera out there, great low light, fast auto tracking and focusing, most cameras start to clip highlight at 5 stops the D4 goes to 6, 10fps shooting, weather sealed. Combined that with these people using 400mm-800mm lens with teleconverters to get the images. They do not have to use a cropped camera to get the reach that we lesser mortals have to use to get close.
I see not difference between a sports photographer and a wildlife photographer they both shoot action, that is where you need the high speed frames per second like in Greg's shot with the snake he I think likely shot maybe 2 to 4 second burst then picked the best shot something you would not get with a slower camera.
These people are pro's at the top of their game they use the best, to make their living, that is why the wildlife and sport photographers do not use cropped cameras they do not need to.

Cheers: Allan

[rpcrowe]

Greg Du Toit is a "Nikon Ambassador" and should have the entire Nikon range of lenses at his disposal. Where some humble folks, like me max, out at a 400mm f/5.6L lens (and could benefit from the crop factor in many cases); Greg could use the $18K (USD) 800mm f/5.6E; the $10K (USD) 600mm f/4G; or the $9K (USD) 400mm f/2.8 or any other of the Nikon line of lenses. Additionally since his reason for traveling is to get world class pictures (and to earn money in doing so), carrying a load of gear (and/or paying for the shipment of that gear) is just the cost of doing business...

Additionally, I would also expect that while shooting, he doesn't share the safari vehicle with anyone. This would allow more freedom and would allow him to spend as much time as he desires to get the shot of the animal he desires.

This is kind of like shooting at a zoo. If I spend the entire day at the gorilla exhibit, I would probably get better pictures of those animals than if I were just visiting the zoo and hoping that the gorillas were doing something interesting as I passed their exhibit. Yep, I'd get a better shot of the gorillas but, would see very little of the rest of the zoo.

I have a hunch that Greg doesn't need or want to get an overview of a safari trip. I would suspect that he might take enough time (and hire the best guides) to get the best possible shots of specific animals. Where most of us are restricted to a week or less on a photo safari, he probably spends a LOT MORE time than that!

Of course, my guesses about his strategy are simply guesses...

[Manfred M]

I started doing wildlife photography with a film SLR using a 400mm prime lens. The next time I did some serious wildlife shooting, I had a crop-frame camera and a 80-400mm zoom and the last time I was out with a full-frame DSLR and had a 150-500mm zoom along.

I got great shots each time, even though the shooting circumstance varied; from a guided tour, to a small group to solo travel. Yes, a longer lens can get you more reach, but frankly, the longer the lens, the more difficult the shot (especially the framing) unless one is on a tripod or similar stabilizing device. Some of the very expensive, ludicrously long lenses are very difficult to handhold.

As one nature photographer once told me; all you need is a 400mm lens on a full-frame body. If you can't get the shot, you're not close enough.

[benm]

It will be interesting to know why the Wildlife Photographer of the year does not shoot crop frame to benefit from the “advantage” of extra reach.

Wildlife moves, sometimes very fast. So you need really good AF. Camera manufacturers have decided that their best AF module will only go into a full frame camera (and even then the very best AF module may only go into the top-of-the-line full frame - the D4 and the Df use different AF modules.)

[NorthernFocus]

Any advantage in using a crop sensor for Wildlife Photography?

It depends on situation. The reach advantage is only an advantage in as much as shooting conditions support it. Primarily with the current generation of equipment, that means you need better light with cropped sensors than with full frame if high image quality is desired for large prints etc. If ultimate IQ isn't necessary, then full frame sensors lose their appeal.

...It will be interesting to know why the Wildlife Photographer of the year does not shoot crop frame to benefit from the “advantage” of extra reach.

Perhaps because he isn't concerned about equipment costs. If someone is giving you the best and longest lenses available as well as the best full frame bodies to mount on them, why shoot anything else. At some point additional reach becomes a moot point for practical purposes. And interestingly 800mm (effective) seems to be about that point for wildlife.

[AB26]

Interesting replies. As always it is much appreciated.

The object of this thread is to find out WHY some do recommend shooting wildlife with a crop frame camera. Is there any real advantage in shooting Wildlife with a crop frame camera? Is it justifiable to recommend the use a crop frame camera rather than a full frame camera?

I do not believe Greg Du Toit will choose a D4 if the D4 is not the right tool for the job. Nikon Ambassadors are not X- Canon users lured into using Nikon by offering them free top end cameras and lenses. Nikon Ambassadors are dedicated Photographers who are recognized by Nikon for their dedication to Photography: “ this diverse group of individuals has shown a commitment to empowering photographers with knowledge, providing guidance for the imaging community and a mastery of technology and trends. “ They have been using Nikon, buying equipment, to get to where they are.
( http://www.nikonusa.com/en/About-Nik...y-Forward.html )
Personally I look up to these Photographers and ask what they do and how they do it to capture those inspiring images.

Greg Du Toit does not “hire the best guides to get the best shots” : HE IS THE GUIDE. Greg Du Toit is the one who will take you on a Photo Safari teaching you how to capture those amazing images by sharing his knowledge.( http://www.gregdutoit.com/index.php?page=guest_reviews )

I will agree with Manfred: Getting those good shots of wildlife does not depend on the “ extra reach” you can get by using a crop frame camera, but rather the skill of getting close enough. Greg Du Toit studied Nature Conservation and living in the African bush has taught him the skill of knowing when, where and how to get the shot.

I believe that recommending a crop frame camera, due to the “extra reach”, for shooting Wildlife is not an honest recommendation. It might be a recommendation that suits a personal wallet but implying it is a better option than FF seems to be far removed from the truth.
I am not suggesting it is a bad idea to shoot Wildlife with a crop frame camera.

There is more to shooting Wildlife than “reach”. Passion for Wildlife, passion for Photography, dedication, patience, commitment, time spend and understanding the right moment will get you better shots than “reach” only.

[Manfred M]

Andre - while I agree with what you have written, we do have to take account of "reality" for most people's wildlife photography. Getting closer is not necessarily an option for anyone on a "safari", as these generally take place in National Parks, which have some pretty severe restrictions on members of the general public's ability to "get close", by keeping them in their vehicle on the roads and tracks that run through these parks. Those traveling in private game reserves may have fewer restrictions or could be out in smaller vehicles, but then, they are on a "tour" that runs like clockwork and are at the whims of other passengers and the guide who may have a different agenda.

A professional photographer can get special permits to allow access to areas normally restricted to park staff, so they do have the opportunity to get much closer to the wildlife.

All that being said; the pros should use the best equipment that they can get, which means long speciality lenses and high end camera bodies. For most amateurs, a crop frame is likely to be more appropriate.

[DanK]

There is more to shooting Wildlife than “reach”. Passion for Wildlife, passion for Photography, dedication, patience, commitment, time spend and understanding the right moment will get you better shots than “reach” only.

Certainly true. However, the thread has drifted. We started with a very different question:

Any advantage in using a crop sensor for Wildlife Photography?

The answer is yes, a big advantage, which is reach. Some disadvantages too, such as inferior low-light performance and, in the Canon line-up, no crop AF systems as good as those in the top two FF lines.

I don't do much wildlife photography, but for me personally, the crop is superior for this purpose. I don't want to lay out the cash for very long lenses, and my no-longer-young back appreciates my efforts to limit the weight of the stuff I have to haul on it. This was one of my two major hesitations before I took the plunge into FF. (The other has to do with pixel density in 1:1 macro work.) For other people, the tradeoffs may of course be different.

[Saorsa]

Interesting replies. As always it is much appreciated.

Greg Du Toit does not “hire the best guides to get the best shots” : HE IS THE GUIDE.

And, as such he has access to areas denied to others and can take paid tourist photographers along.

Quite a few well known wildlife photographers actually make most of their income from being guides. I live quite near some of the Florida wildlife hotspots and more than once have had someone try to set up a tripod directly in front of me. When I objected, I was told "I'm with the <name> group".

If you want to shoot wildlife, you need to go out and spend time in the woods and learn what you are shooting. That's true of virtually every branch of photography. You don't get to be a good sports photographer without knowing the game.

[NorthernFocus]

...I believe that recommending a crop frame camera, due to the “extra reach”, for shooting Wildlife is not an honest recommendation. It might be a recommendation that suits a personal wallet but implying it is a better option than FF seems to be far removed from the truth...

Andre, it seems you are just looking for a good argument

And since your mind is clearly already made up, I won't attempt to confuse you with facts. But being a why kind of guy, let me pose a couple of additional questions. Why do you suppose the subject professional is using D4 and Df but not D800, 800E, 610, or D3X? Those are all full frame bodies currently in Nikon's lineup. So why just the two? D800 is fairly widely acknowledged as producing higher image quality than D4 or Df with broader dynamic range and better color rendition. So why just those two? Why? WHY?

[Brev00]

A very interesting thread with a lot of great answers. My first reaction is based more on the logic of your premise. You name one particular highly gifted wildlife photographer as an example of the intrinsic benefit of shooting full frame. But, this is an extremely small sample of highly gifted wildlife photographers. What are the rest of the published and respected wildlife photographers using and recommending? It is certainly one thing for average enthusiasts to recommend a crop sensor camera for reach and it is a good idea to go further and see what pros are using in the field. But, drawing conclusions from one person seems like you are cherry picking to prove a point. You could have possibly isolated one great pro using a crop sensor set up and argued the other way around. I have no idea what the average above average person is using. The question is what best suits an individual's needs. The various benefits of crop sensor cameras have been mentioned: size, weight, cost, reach. These are substantial if not really specifically relevant to image quality. Full frame will always have the advantage there but it may require added cost in lenses and/or an added knowledge of one's subject with excellent stalking ability. I wouldn't mind being outfitted with his gear but I would really benefit from his company to learn all the tricks that go with excellent wildlife photography that are independent of the gear involved.

[ajohnw]

From his pages he shoots from hides and knows the area rather well. It's possible to check the exifs on some of the shots and see exactly what he has used on some of them.

John
-

[AB26]

Why do you suppose the subject professional is using D4 and Df but not D800, 800E, 610, or D3X?

Assumptions you are making. Did I not post a link to his website? You can read more about the man on his own site.
The winning image was shot from an Elephant hide in Botswana, with a Nikon D3s. The D4 is an addition to his collection of cameras. D4, D3, Df no matter it is full frame.

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.

Dan, book yourself an African Photo Safari, with a company supplying all the camera equipment. All you take back to Alaska with you is a memory card filled with amazing images and lots of joy in your heart. ( It will set you back less than $ 10 000.00. )