Is this considered true?

[Fizzbang]

This was taken from another thread...Is the quote.....

"Made the change last year and have never looked back !
I photo wildlife and birds so it's the only affordable (ish) Canon alternative -
a cropped 5D just doesn't have the resolution at the long end.
If you shoot critters -30D is a must
Landscapes and portraits - 5D better"

......Considered true?


http://photography-on-the.net/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: Upgrade from 350D TO 30D?
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotttnz http://photography-on-the.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=2763010#post2763010)
Just wondered if anybody has done this upgrade and can share their experiences.

I've had my 350D about 2 years and am starting to feel limited by it. I have been hoping for a 40D anouncment for PMA, but that is now looking unlikely.

So is the 30D worth the price to upgrade? or do I hold on to the 350D for another six months and hope Canon comes out with a bigger upgrade?

Made the change last year and have never looked back !
I photo wildlife and birds so it's the only affordable (ish) Canon alternative -
a cropped 5D just doesn't have the resolution at the long end.

If you shoot critters -30D is a must
Landscapes and portraits - 5D better
both are the best at their jobs unless you have DEEP pockets for 1 series

I cant see mythical 40D performing any better for me unless they can up the res while keeping the 1.6x crop factor AND keep the noise as low as the 30D in RAW that is.

A neighbour has 400D and I have used it a couple of times. I found it good but noisier than 30D and when aperture gets smaller than f11 the pics get fuzzy earlier - anybody else found this?

[cataclysmcow]

I disagree. I shoot 'critters' with a 20D and a 5D and my 20D isn't seeing much use lately. Even though the 20D has a higher photosite density for it's coverage area I prefer the accuracy of the 5D's sensor. I'll gladly shed 2MPs for the better noise, color and accuracy at the same crop from the 20D. The added AF points help a lot more with tracking too which makes the 5D a better birding/action camera.

[GyRob]

if im reading this right if you crop a 5d to give the field of view that say a 200mm would give on a 1.6crop camera you will get less pixcels on the 5d.
eddit I think you would need around 24mp on a full frame to give about the same i.e 8mp of the 1.6crop -when cropping the full frame to give a 1.6 crop field of view ( all aprox )
Rob.

[RikWriter]

Yes, it's true that cropping the 5D's image in the computer will give you a lower resolution than the 1.6X crop of the 30D. However, personally, the difference in IQ makes it worth my while to just use a longer lens.

[John_B]

No! it isn't true to me.
I shoot critters, insects, birds, and of course landscape fine with my 5D without needing to crop.

Here is a critter with no crop
Chipmunk Buddies
http://johnbdigital.com/wildlife/chipmunk_buddies.jpg
Click for Specs (http://johnbdigital.com/wildlife/chipmunk_buddies.htm)

Here is a macro with no crop
Bug Meal
http://johnbdigital.com/macro/bug_meal.jpg
Click for Specs (http://johnbdigital.com/macro/bug_meal.htm)

Here is a small bird with no crop
Dark-eyed Junco
http://johnbdigital.com/wildlife/junco.jpg
Click for Specs (http://johnbdigital.com/wildlife/junco.htm)

[chris clements]

That's completely true - the two cameras complement rather than compete.

The 5D's images are so amazing partly because of its big receptors. A piece of a 5D sensor with the same surface area as the whole 30D chip will contain about 3 million LESS receptors than the full 30 chip.

Of course, if you can use your feet to get close enough to the critters to fill your 5D frame, or can carry the weight and cost of a new set of long lenses, then you're win/win :)

[KevC]

XTi is the best camera in the Canon lineup in terms of "reach".

I would recommend it to any birder since it costs a fraction of what any of their lenses do (400/2.8IS, 500/4, 600/4...).

[sboerup]

if im reading this right if you crop a 5d to give the field of view that say a 200mm would give on a 1.6crop camera you will get less pixcels on the 5d.
eddit I think you would need around 24mp on a full frame to give about the same i.e 8mp of the 1.6crop -when cropping the full frame to give a 1.6 crop field of view ( all aprox )
Rob.

I think your math is wrong. A crop of 1.6 on a 24mp camera would be way more than 8, like around 14. A crop of 12.8 would be just below 7. People still get all hyped up that more MP is better. IQ is way better in my boat. I'd be happy with a 6mp FF chip if I could get amazingly stellar results. The 5D sensor is considered Canon's best so far.

I can't wait for the 5D's replacement if it has 14 bit sensor it's going to rock, and even the dual digic 3 chips will improve the noise immensly. 12800 ISO anyone?

[chris clements]

XTi is the best camera in the Canon lineup in terms of "reach".


No it's not.
It shares the 'reach' title with the 30D, 20D, 10D, D60, D30, 350D and 300D - all of which have sensors with exactly the same physical dimensions.

[Jman13]

A 24MP camera cropped to 1.6x would yield a 9.4 MP image. (6000x4000 pixels is 24MP...divide each by 1.6 and you get a final image of 3750x2500 for a final image resolution of just under 9.4 MP).

[AJSJones]

No it's not.
It shares the 'reach' title with the 30D, 20D, 10D, D60, D30, 350D and 300D - all of which have sensors with exactly the same physical dimensions.

True, physically speaking. However, if you limit yourself conservatively to printing at, say 300 ppi, then it's the number of pixels in the original physical dimension that determines the reach "available in a print". Or, if you always print at 20x30, the more MP you captured the "better" the print quality and therefore the better the "reach" No?

[The Hardcard]

No it's not.
It shares the 'reach' title with the 30D, 20D, 10D, D60, D30, 350D and 300D - all of which have sensors with exactly the same physical dimensions.

Actually you are wrong. Reach comes from pixel density, not sensor size. Reach is about maximizing resolution regardless of distance and given the same lens. Using the same lens at the same distance, the 400D pic will be higher resolution than all the cameras you listed - it has more reach.

The 1Ds Mark II has more reach than the 5D or the 1D Mk II, even though it is full-frame and its sensor is bigger than the 1D Mk II.

[AJSJones]

To the OP's question : it is considered true by many critter shooters; however, it applies primarily when the desired image will not fill the viewfinder of the 5D but will fill the viewfinder of the 1.6x camera. This is usually at the end of the reach with the longest lens on the camera and getting as close to the subject as possible (i.e. without scaring it away!)

[GyRob]

I think your math is wrong. A crop of 1.6 on a 24mp camera would be way more than 8, like around 14. A crop of 12.8 would be just below 7. People still get all hyped up that more MP is better. IQ is way better in my boat. I'd be happy with a 6mp FF chip if I could get amazingly stellar results. The 5D sensor is considered Canon's best so far.

I can't wait for the 5D's replacement if it has 14 bit sensor it's going to rock, and even the dual digic 3 chips will improve the noise immensly. 12800 ISO anyone?
i did say aprox and jman13 seem's to think the way i was thinking at just under 9.4mp .
but its no big deal :)
Rob.

[chris clements]

Actually you are wrong. Reach comes from pixel density, not sensor size.

We perhaps need a new thread for this. I thought 'reach' was just a shorthand we'd coined here to use in AoV /focal length explanations - a word that was both clear to newbies and not too offensive to our 'strict definitions' wing.

Yours is the first posting I've seen that links the word to pixel count in any way. What is your source? And, however authoritative that source may be, can you say that you've ever seen it used in that sense within these forums? I cannot.

[Keith R]

Actually Chris, it's common enough to see people also equate higher pixel count to increased reach, because - the "logic" goes - you've got a bigger image to crop into.

The fact that the physical difference in the size of a 10mp image compared to an 8mp image is pretty small (3888 x 2592 vs 3504 x 2336), tends to be ignored.

But yes, there's a theoretical cropping benefit - though in itself it's possibly the single worst reason to "upgrade".

[RikWriter]

Actually Chris, it's common enough to see people also equate higher pixel count to increased reach, because - the "logic" goes - you've got a bigger image to crop into.

The fact that the physical difference in the size of a 10mp image compared to an 8mp image is pretty small (3888 x 2592 vs 3504 x 2336), tends to be ignored.

But yes, there's a theoretical cropping benefit - though in itself it's possibly the single worst reason to "upgrade".

Why? Wouldn't the worst reason to upgrade be because the voices in your head told you to? Or that you think the UN will outlaw camera in ten days and you want to have one now? :D
Seriously, if you're a wildlife shooter and need more ability to crop, why is that a bad reason to upgrade?

[chris clements]

the "logic" goes - you've got a bigger image to crop into.

Yes, I see the possible linkage - thanks

[red hot sheep]

And the 30d is 5fps while the 5d is 3fps

[RikWriter]

And the 30d is 5fps while the 5d is 3fps

Unless you're a sports shooter, you'll probably never notice.

[Keith R]

Why? Wouldn't the worst reason to upgrade be because the voices in your head told you to?

Frankly, no: I would always listen to the voices in my head before I took notice of some half-baked theory that said a few more pixels is going to improve my life..!

;)

By way of background, as a Nikon user I moved from the D70 (6mp, very acceptable noise/detail performance) to the D200 (10 mp, and a sensor so bloody noisy that the only way Nikon could deal with it was to use really clumsy in-camera NR which smeared out all semblance of fine detail, thereby completely wasting the "supposed" resolution advantage of the 4,000,000 extra pixels in the D200).

That's why I use a 30D now, and why I invariably baulk at the suggestion that an increase in megapixels is inherently a good thing..!

;)

Having more ability to crop is all well and good, but as I say above the difference between 8 and 10 mp is piddling - the cropping "advantage" delivered by 2 extra mps is very small in the real world and not in itself a good reason at all for an upgrade. No identifiable resolution increase either, for any real world usage.

Oh - and as a bird photographer, 5fps is often of real value to me: don't run away with the idea that only sports photographers benefit from that.

[RikWriter]

Oh - and as a bird photographer, 5fps is often of real value to me: don't run away with the idea that only sports photographers benefit from that.

I have never felt handicapped by the 3fps on my 5D when I do wildlife photography. I had a 30D and a 5D at one time and I invariably reached for my 5D when doing wildlife photography just because of the superior IQ.

[red hot sheep]

Rik - personally I agree with you. I shoot a bit of wildlife but always shoot in single shot mode (I feel like I have more control) - but it is valuble to some people so worth to bear in mind.

[RikWriter]

Rik - personally I agree with you. I shoot a bit of wildlife but always shoot in single shot mode (I feel like I have more control) - but it is valuble to some people so worth to bear in mind.

I understand that it is valuable to sports photographers, but I think it is a bit overrated with wildlife photographers. They THINK they need it, but I question whether they actually do or if it is simply a perceived need.

[AJSJones]

So, is the difference in "reach" between a 400mm and a 500mm lens as piddling as that between a 8MP and a 10MP sensor? If you had a 500 mm lens pointed at a distant bird and successively took pictures with Canon's recent digital cameras and printed them at 300 ppi, the image would have almost doubled in dimensions between the D30 (95 pixels/mm) and the 400D (Xti) at (175 pixels/mm) Of course more pixels (as long as they're decent "quality") improves reach just like a longer lens does. The issue is one of diminishing returns - and that's a subjective decision :)

[mikeivan]

I find this discussion very informative. If I understand correctly, one could upgrade "reach" by going from a 30D to an XTi. Of course, that is not what I am thinking of, I am completely enchanted by this new Mark III, less "reach" than my 20D but way more IQ.

[RikWriter]

I find this discussion very informative. If I understand correctly, one could upgrade "reach" by going from a 30D to an XTi. Of course, that is not what I am thinking of, I am completely enchanted by this new Mark III, less "reach" than my 20D but way more IQ.

Actually, I am not sure if the 1DMKIII would have less reach than the 20D. The pixel density should be almost the same, so cropping the additional .3 percent might result in the same resolution.

[mrkgoo]

A 24MP camera cropped to 1.6x would yield a 9.4 MP image. (6000x4000 pixels is 24MP...divide each by 1.6 and you get a final image of 3750x2500 for a final image resolution of just under 9.4 MP).

Wait, doesn't the crop value of 1.6 refer to 1.6x the area, not side? so a 1.6x crop of a 24MP image, you just divide by 1.6? If so, then a crop of the 12.8 MP sensor down by 1.6 is....8MP, so it's the same pixel density.

Edit: nope, I'm wrong. Sensor size for 5D is 35.8 x 23.9, and sensor size of 20D (or other 1.6x crop) is 22.5 x15.0mm. Each side of the 20D is 1.6x smaller than the 5D sides. Thus the difference in MP will be about 1.6 squared or 2.5. SO a cropped 5D to 1.6x will be about 5MP.

[KevC]

We perhaps need a new thread for this. I thought 'reach' was just a shorthand we'd coined here to use in AoV /focal length explanations - a word that was both clear to newbies and not too offensive to our 'strict definitions' wing.

Yours is the first posting I've seen that links the word to pixel count in any way. What is your source? And, however authoritative that source may be, can you say that you've ever seen it used in that sense within these forums? I cannot.

Reach is pixel density. High pixel density with a high crop factor gives you more pixels to crop "into".

[Phil Light]

Although this is posted frequently, it might help with some questions in this thread:
http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/cmos/technology-e/size.html

[mikeivan]

Actually, I am not sure if the 1DMKIII would have less reach than the 20D. The pixel density should be almost the same, so cropping the additional .3 percent might result in the same resolution.

Well, you had me going there for a bit, but as another poster has pointed out, 1.6 and 1.3 crop refer to the side lengths of the sensors, not the area, which is the key parameter for pixel density. Sooo, the ratio of the area of a 1.3 crop camera (MarkIII) to a 1.6 crop camera (20D) is about 1.67/2.56=.66. So the MarkIII has a pixel density of .66 X 10.1=6.7MP when cropped to 1.6 sensor size, ie; less reach than the 8.2MP 20D. Now I know the pixels are higher quality, less noise, more dynamic range, but they are not as dense. The XTi is the champion in pixel density. Bear with me here, I am trying to talk myself out of buying a 1DMarkIII. thanks.

[chris clements]

Reach is pixel density.

The debate's currently going my way over here:-
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=281795
So pitch in quick to redress the balance!

[AJSJones]

Done! :)

[gcogger]

Reach is pixel density. High pixel density with a high crop factor gives you more pixels to crop "into".

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but how do you compare the "reach" of, say, a 400D and a 35mm film camera?