i-G12 wrote in post #19208666
OK I admit I’m struggling with this. I have never had a FF camera — always a crop sensor. My 80D was pretty good except in low light.
So I’m trying to understand why I would need the R5 instead of the R6. I don’t do BIF but instead animals in Africa. Not sure I need to shoot in crop mode for African wildlife. Reach is another issue but maybe the 1.4 TC would do me OK.
Jake, you’ve done a fair amount of photography in Africa. What’s you’re opinion sans BIF?
It's all about Equivalence and Field of View I hope this article I put together on the subject may approach the issue. If it seems over-simple for you, take succor in the thought that others may find it useful!
There is an excellent article on this subject from DPREVIEW.COM that expands into a discussion of Equivalence in DoF and ISO:https://www.dpreview.com …nce-and-why-should-i-care
So, what does all this mean for someone considering switching between, say an EOS 90D and a Canon R6, assuming the lenses are the same? The pixel density available after cropping from the FF to the APS-C format will be less by a factor of roughly 2.5 (1.6x1.6). If one wanted to get at least 20MP in a finished image using the cropping feature of the R FF sensors, then the R5 would offer the best pixel density currently - in crop mode it will offer 20MP.
This is why many long lens shooters like me are hoping for an APS-C sensor to replace the EOS 7D, lets call it the R7. If the R7 had an APS-C sensor it's pixel density would be the same as a FF sensor of 2.5 that. Thus, if an R7 had a sensor of 40MP (not outrageous right now), the pixel density would be the equivalent of a cropped image from a FF sensor of 100MP, but would be much cheaper to produce.