EF vs. EF-S and crop

wyntastr wrote in post #16853289
Pardon this noob question, but in terms of pixel density in the case of your birding example above, how much much importance does megapixels factor into the final image? For instance, 12mp sensor vs. 20mp. I ask because I've got a 1d Mk II n on the way and it's "only" got an 8.2mp sensor, yet the pics I've seen this body produce are fantastic. There is a crop factor involved, albeit smaller than the ef-s compatible bodies.
Thanks

Megapixels dont really improve image quality per se so the images you see from an 8.2 mp sensor camera can be great. In fact an argument can be made for fewer larger pixels rendering better IQ as you get less noise. But megapixels do improve your ability to crop an image and still maintain quality.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16853390
Megapixels dont really improve image quality per se so the images you see from an 8.2 mp sensor camera can be great. In fact an argument can be made for fewer larger pixels rendering better IQ as you get less noise. But megapixels do improve your ability to crop an image and still maintain quality.

Ok, so while it's obviously ideal to fill the frame as much as you can with the image no matter what the sensor, less megapixels in the sensor would make this more of a priority. Either by distance from subject, or with better, longer reaching lenses. Correct?

Maybe I am still a bit confused. Pixel density relates to 'enlargeability', right? The crop camera in that situation will have more pixels on the subject, no doubt. That seems to suggest that the crop camera is better than the full frame camera for such applications. That is where I go over the edge. Where do the larger pixels and more light-gathering ability of the full frame sensor come in?

I bought my 6D (and am quite happy with it) for its ability to give me cleaner images than I could get with a crop at ISO 3200, and sometimes higher. But I am usually shooting 50mm and shorter lenses. I think the telephoto thing is outside my comfort zone. I just don't get that a smaller sensor is better for anything. It makes no sense to me.

Let me try this. Pro wildlife shooter has a choice between a 70D (latest crop) and a 5D3 (latest FF). I see that he would need a 600mm f/4 IS II to pair with the 5D3, and could get similar shots with the 70D and a 400 f/5.6. The FF setup is going to cost a TON more money. Is the crop setup going to turn in results nearly indistinguishable from, or even better than, the FF equipment? I can't get my brain to accept that.

CollegeKid wrote in post #16853466
Let me try this. Pro wildlife shooter has a choice between a 70D (latest crop) and a 5D3 (latest FF). I see that he would need a 600mm f/4 IS II to pair with the 5D3, and could get similar shots with the 70D and a 400 f/5.6. The FF setup is going to cost a TON more money. Is the crop setup going to turn in results nearly indistinguishable from, or even better than, the FF equipment? I can't get my brain to accept that.

As mentioned before all pixels are not created equal. The 5DIII would have less noise than the 7D at a given ISO. The 5DIII also has a better focusing system so its not all down to pixels in terms of features. But with that said if you need reach, its cheaper to go with less glass and a crop sensor.

CollegeKid wrote in post #16853466
Maybe I am still a bit confused. Pixel density relates to 'enlargeability', right? The crop camera in that situation will have more pixels on the subject, no doubt. That seems to suggest that the crop camera is better than the full frame camera for such applications. That is where I go over the edge. Where do the larger pixels and more light-gathering ability of the full frame sensor come in?

I bought my 6D (and am quite happy with it) for its ability to give me cleaner images than I could get with a crop at ISO 3200, and sometimes higher. But I am usually shooting 50mm and shorter lenses. I think the telephoto thing is outside my comfort zone. I just don't get that a smaller sensor is better for anything. It makes no sense to me.

Let me try this. Pro wildlife shooter has a choice between a 70D (latest crop) and a 5D3 (latest FF). I see that he would need a 600mm f/4 IS II to pair with the 5D3, and could get similar shots with the 70D and a 400 f/5.6. The FF setup is going to cost a TON more money. Is the crop setup going to turn in results nearly indistinguishable from, or even better than, the FF equipment? I can't get my brain to accept that.

Actually, the 600 mm still doesn't quite get you there. You need about 640mm.

But I think you're overthinking it. It just depends on what your objectives are. The FF is going to give you, depending on the cameras of course, about an extra stop of ISO that you can work with. Also, using the same aperture you'll get a narrower DOF with the FF because you are magnifying the image more to get the same framing. So yes, the FF is certainly not going to be outshined by a crop sensor. But in these situations the differences are marginal and one has to decide how much they are willing to pay for that. And when it comes to wildlife, many people will gladly accept a 1 stop loss in ISO and a slightly wider DOF in exchange for a load that is 4-5 pounds lighter. Often you aren't trying to shoot with the narrowest DOF possible anyways and an 8 lb lens is a bear to shoot with. But for some people, those things are worth the extra money so they pay it. It's just a question of preference and the specific results you are after.

kfreels - Thanks for the detailed explanation. All of that stuff is a bit removed from what I do with my 6D. I will be content in knowing that I just don't understand it. That's OK. I don't understand people who don't like Glenlivet, either.

CollegeKid wrote in post #16854052
kfreels - Thanks for the detailed explanation. All of that stuff is a bit removed from what I do with my 6D. I will be content in knowing that I just don't understand it. That's OK. I don't understand people who don't like Glenlivet, either.

Everyone has their own preferences on things. Every camera and lens has it's own advantages and disadvantages and sometimes the differences can be very subtle. Photography is all about trade-offs. For stuff that requires a lot of reach, a crop can accomplish the goals of shooting for a fraction of the cost of the full-frame equivalent while only sacrificing a small amount of capability in ISO and DOF. And if a user isn't going to utilize those things that make the full frame "better" then it's senseless to spend the extra money. It's really not any more complicated than that. All that really matters is that you're happy with your stuff.

Glenlivet is ok for cooking. Now any of the Islay malts especially Laphroaig or Lagavulin then we'd be having a good time!! Sensor density is a big help when cropping images. Sometimes even the 800mm is to short on a low density sensor such as found in FF cameras. The 22 Mpix models have just about the same pixel density as the old 20D. The 1Dx is about the same as the 10D/300D. If the 800mm lens is not long enough you have very little other choice. I don't think the EF1200 f/5.6 is a particularly practical proposition even if you can afford the house like price tag.

Alan

kfreels wrote in post #16854649
... a crop can accomplish the goals of shooting for a fraction of the cost of the full-frame equivalent while only sacrificing a small amount of capability in ISO and DOF...

That kind of sums up how I feel about crop vs. FF. FF is superior, marginally, but that last bit of performance is expensive. The individual determines if it is worth it to them.

BigAl007 wrote in post #16854651
Glenlivet is ok for cooking....

Sacrilege!
Glenlivet for sipping. Chivas Regal for water and/or OTR. (Can you tell I'm American?)

CollegeKid wrote in post #16854671
Sacrilege!
Glenlivet for sipping. Chivas Regal for water and/or OTR. (Can you tell I'm American?)

Yes and that you REALLY need to try some REALLY good single malts. As I said the Islay's are particularly good. Or there's Talisker from the Isle of Skye, that's another good recommendation. Highland Park from Orkney is another of my favourites. I did once consider a bottle of Laphroaig bottled from a single cask that had been aged for 30 years, and had been laid down in 1964, making it as old as I am. The only minor niggle was that it was over £600 a bottle (twenty odd years ago). You would really want two bottles too, and what if it was merely OK as single malts go? What a potential disappointment. I definitely prefer the various island/Islay malts to those of the highlands. For the serious fans the merits of the various distilleries is probably more contentious than even the Canon/Nikon debate between photographers.

Alan

Down somr jack and rumplemintz, no sissy drinks.

BigAl007 wrote in post #16856525
Yes and that you REALLY need to try some REALLY good single malts. As I said the Islay's are particularly good. Or there's Talisker from the Isle of Skye, that's another good recommendation. Highland Park from Orkney is another of my favourites. I did once consider a bottle of Laphroaig bottled from a single cask that had been aged for 30 years, and had been laid down in 1964, making it as old as I am. The only minor niggle was that it was over £600 a bottle (twenty odd years ago). You would really want two bottles too, and what if it was merely OK as single malts go? What a potential disappointment. I definitely prefer the various island/Islay malts to those of the highlands. For the serious fans the merits of the various distilleries is probably more contentious than even the Canon/Nikon debate between photographers.

Alan

Please excuse the off-topic. Thank you for the suggestions. I shall try them all, eventually. So far my most exotic samples have been JW Blue (I love that one) and JW Green, (not worth $300/bottle, IMHO).

Back to camera stuff, please.

BigAl007 wrote in post #16856525
I definitely prefer the various island/Islay malts to those of the highlands.

Highland and Speyside for me. If I want to experience the joys of the Islay malts I can always stir in a spoonful of compost.

When staying on Skye my friend and I spent one evening trying a few malts (interrupted by watching an otter eat its supper about 15m away). She finished the evening by treating me to a glass of 30 year-old Talisker. IIRC it cost £1 per year!

hollis_f wrote in post #16857370
Highland and Speyside for me. If I want to experience the joys of the Islay malts I can always stir in a spoonful of compost.

When staying on Skye my friend and I spent one evening trying a few malts (interrupted by watching an otter eat its supper about 15m away). She finished the evening by treating me to a glass of 30 year-old Talisker. IIRC it cost £1 per year!

Lordy, that sounds like heaven!

The Macallan, the Rolls Royce of single malts.

It's not just me saying this, just Google 'Macallan Rolls Royce' and see how many quotes you'll get, not by the same author.

I normally keep an 18 yr old bottle in the premises, but now that I am in Houston I downgraded it to 12-yr old... the heat here is not conducive to Scotch...

A rare but less expensive alternative used to be Glendronach, if you could find it. I had a subordinate engineer (who was a Scot, and taught me a lot about single malts) get me one occasionally (in the nineties). Then they became more commercial, more available and a hint of less consistent...

I am with Hollis, the exagerated moss and peat is not for me.