EF vs. EF-S and crop

kfreels wrote in post #16853345
They are talking about pixel density. Take the 7D or instance. Suppose I take a picture of a bird with a 200mm lens and I have an image that is 5184 pixels wide x3456 high and I have a bird that takes up 65% of the frame. On a full frame camera with the same lens, to get an image where that bird takes up the same amount of space in the frame, I would have to crop. To crop the image and still have an image that is 5184 x 3456, I would need an image that was (5184*1.6) x (3456*1.6) which means I need to start with an image that is 8294 x 5530 (rounded). This is 45.86 megapixels. At the moment there is no 45MP canon full frame camera out there. If there were, images of that size would not allow for framerates that are desired for such work.

.

There is pretty much no lens you can get that has enough resolving power to match the resolution of a 45MP full frame sensor. And the same holds true for the cropped 7D at this pixel density. Additionally the 7D has quite a strong anti-aliasing filter which also loses resolution. There are very few lenses that need more than 20MP as we can see with lens performance on the D800. The 55mm Zeiss Otus and super telephoto primes are the only lenses that need more than 20MP.
Compared to crop you can achieve just as good results if not better by using a Teleconverter on a full frame body in terms of reach, sharpness and noise. The real advantage of the 7D is frame rate, unless you can afford a 1DX that is.

CollegeKid wrote in post #1685346
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.

Pretty much, never judge capabilities by price tag. As you can see its a superficial way to judge gear.

Note the 7D is generally more popular with wildlife shooters than any other body, due to frame rate and reach.

This thread made me feel like an even bigger newb.. I was under a wacky assumption that the EF-S lenses "uncroptified"(new word) the cropped bodies which is why they were limited and designed specifically for the crops... essentially giving actual focal range to the lens.. silly me

I am so glad I found this place

Mornnb wrote in post #16857678
...
Pretty much, never judge capabilities by price tag. As you can see its a superficial way to judge gear.

Note the 7D is generally more popular with wildlife shooters than any other body, due to frame rate and reach.

Right. Why did I sell my A1100IS? It cost me $129 ten years ago. Neither my $600 used 5D, nor my $1900 6D offered any improvements in 'capabilities'. Yep, cost it totally irrelevant to features, and we know all three produce similar results at ISO 3200.

As far as the 7D being more popular with wildlife shooters goes. I don't buy your claim. As there are lots more Rebels in service, than 7Ds, by virtue of the cost (there is that pesky word, again), I will venture that more wildlife gets shot with Rebels, than with 7Ds. Ditto sports. Soccer-moms with Rebels are legion.

I fully understand that the 7D offers features that make it a better wildlife/sports camera. That does not make the most popular wildlife/sports camera. Why not? Cost (darn, again). The 7D is a better, not more popular, sports/wildlife camera than most Rebels, because it has more to offer, and it costs more.

The crop/ff debate in this thread has been one of which offers the better IQ. Nothing stated so far gives any indication at all that crop wins that contest. Crop allows the shooter to get (let's agree on 95%) of the final IQ available to a full frame shooter, AT SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER COST. A 400 5.6L on a 7D will turn in quite respectable results, I am sure. A 600 f/4L will get much the same shot on a 6D or a 1Dx. But, it will cost 5 times as much.

My guess (purely what it is) is that more professional wildlife shooters are going afield with a full-frame camera than with a 7D. I can't imaging my livelihood depending on results, and going to work with less than the best equipment money (jeez, there it is again) can buy.

dRwOOD wrote in post #16857694
This thread made me feel like an even bigger newb.. I was under a wacky assumption that the EF-S lenses "uncroptified"(new word) the cropped bodies which is why they were limited and designed specifically for the crops... essentially giving actual focal range to the lens.. silly me

I am so glad I found this place

Thanks for setting me straight. I thought the term was "uncropitized".

CollegeKid wrote in post #16857783
My guess (purely what it is) is that more professional wildlife shooters are going afield with a full-frame camera than with a 7D. I can't imaging my livelihood depending on results, and going to work with less than the best equipment money (jeez, there it is again) can buy.

Your guess is a bit misguided and misses a lot of middle ground. Until the 1DX came out (not that long ago) the bulk of series 1 bodies were crop bodies. So there are a lot of crop bodies that are not 7D's, but also not full frame out there in the hands of professional wildlife shooters. But if you compare the performance of the 7D with a 1D3 for instance its hard to make a case for buying the 1D3 purely on IQ and other than the weather sealing on the 1 series its not hard to make the case for the 7D.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16857824
Your guess is a bit misguided and misses a lot of middle ground. Until the 1DX came out (not that long ago) the bulk of series 1 bodies were crop bodies. So there are a lot of crop bodies that are not 7D's, but also not full frame out there in the hands of professional wildlife shooters. But if you compare the performance of the 7D with a 1D3 for instance its hard to make a case for buying the 1D3 purely on IQ and other than the weather sealing on the 1 series its not hard to make the case for the 7D.

I certainly agree with you. There is a lot of middle ground. We haven't been discussing the middle ground. The topic was which format was ultimately going to produce the best outcome. That stills goes to full frame. Nobody is claiming that the 7D is not an excellent piece of hardware, or that it is not really good at what lots of folks use it for. Neither one of those things makes it the best tool for the job.

The Toyota Camry is a fine automobile. Lots of folks drive them, without incident, on a daily basis. That does not make the Camry a BMW 765i, or a Bentley, or a GT500, or even a White Freightliner. Better tools exist, depending on the intended use. The same argument applies to the 7D.

Does anyone know what kind of equipment is used by the big boys at National Geographic or Outdoor Photographer? I don't know any of them personally, but my guess is they are using top-shelf hardware.

CollegeKid wrote in post #16858071
I certainly agree with you. There is a lot of middle ground. We haven't been discussing the middle ground. The topic was which format was ultimately going to produce the best outcome. That stills goes to full frame. Nobody is claiming that the 7D is not an excellent piece of hardware, or that it is not really good at what lots of folks use it for. Neither one of those things makes it the best tool for the job.

The Toyota Camry is a fine automobile. Lots of folks drive them, without incident, on a daily basis. That does not make the Camry a BMW 765i, or a Bentley, or a GT500, or even a White Freightliner. Better tools exist, depending on the intended use. The same argument applies to the 7D.

Does anyone know what kind of equipment is used by the big boys at National Geographic or Outdoor Photographer? I don't know any of them personally, but my guess is they are using top-shelf hardware.

National Geo is a bit of an outlier as they are one of the few magazines that still have a staff of shooters. Most of the other mags rely on freelancers who make their choices based on the same economics you do. And a lot of them are using crop gear.

CollegeKid wrote in post #16858071
Does anyone know what kind of equipment is used by the big boys at National Geographic or Outdoor Photographer? I don't know any of them personally, but my guess is they are using top-shelf hardware.

I've known one shooter for them and he had several different cameras and would choose based on what he was doing. Sometimes weight was really important and he would pack a 50D. Other times he would take a 1Ds or 5D mk2. I haven't spoken to him in years but I don't expect that has changed much. He probably has a 7D in place of that 50D by now and a 1DX and a 5D3.

For me, the FF/crop debate is an exercise in semantics. I had to push my budget to (past?) the limit to get a 6D. I will likely never have a 1Dx or 5D3. And I still rely heavily on my 60D when shooting things that move. Certainly, I'll never see the last 5% of performance in crop or FF. I can't afford the best glass in either category. The best lens I own is my 35mm f/2 IS USM, and that, too was a budgetary stretch. Like most of us, I bought the best I could afford, and I am happy with that. But that doesn't stop me dreaming of a 1DX and a bag-full of L-primes!

CollegeKid wrote in post #16859019
For me, the FF/crop debate is an exercise in semantics. I had to push my budget to (past?) the limit to get a 6D. I will likely never have a 1Dx or 5D3. And I still rely heavily on my 60D when shooting things that move. Certainly, I'll never see the last 5% of performance in crop or FF. I can't afford the best glass in either category. The best lens I own is my 35mm f/2 IS USM, and that, too was a budgetary stretch. Like most of us, I bought the best I could afford, and I am happy with that. But that doesn't stop me dreaming of a 1DX and a bag-full of L-primes!

Yeah, well most of us feel that way.....except those that already have a 1DX and a bag full of L primes. lol

An acquaintance of mine shoots top-shelf Nikon stuff. I think it is a D3s or something like that. He paid more for his kit than I paid for my car. He makes money with his stuff. He offered to let my shoot a bit the last time we crossed paths at an event. I was too scared of messing something up! 14 fps sounds really cool, though!

CollegeKid wrote in post #16857783
Right. Why did I sell my A1100IS? It cost me $129 ten years ago. Neither my $600 used 5D, nor my $1900 6D offered any improvements in 'capabilities'. Yep, cost it totally irrelevant to features, and we know all three produce similar results at ISO 3200.

Actually, there is some truth to your sarcasm. Despite huge price difference, 6D, 5D3 and 1DX all produce much the same images at ISO 3200.

I'm not talking about soccer moms and people with their first cameras... but pros and serious amateurs.

The 7D does a really great job for wildlife with it's reach, AF and frame rate. You will find pro sports and wildlife photographers will consider the 5D3 an inferior choice due to it's slow frame rate of just 6FPS.
Essentially, it's a choice between the 7D with L glass and 1DX with very expensive super telephoto glass. This is a matter of $4 000 vs $20 000, not even all pros can afford a 1DX set up.

The person with the 7D and the 400m 5.6 is turning out better results than the person with the 6D or the 5D3 and the 600mm f/4 simply due to frame rate and greater probability of getting the money shot, the 1DX is the real alternative but it has disadvantages.


Also take a look at this youtube video, wildlife photographers going through gear.
https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=Hbli8lh9Pcw

Mornnb wrote in post #16859065
The person with the 7D and the 400m 5.6 is turning out better results than the person with the 6D or the 5D3 and the 600mm f/4 simply due to frame rate and greater probability of getting the money shot, the 1DX is the real alternative but it has disadvantages.

Not to mention the weight and bulk of getting the same shots with a full frame. Sometimes you are limited on the size and weight of the gear you can haul to your chosen site.

That's correct... A 1DX with a super telephoto like a 600mm f/4 is a huge set up that needs a monopod, and is very difficult to handle while hiking through the bush and attempting to find wildlife. Many wildlife photographers will pick a 7D+400mm 5.6 simply because it can be used handheld and get comparable results.

that 600/4 is a beast. I have trouble lugging it around a wild animal park. i cant even imagine taking it on an actual safari. Just so weighty especially when you wont be using the f4 much at all at that FL.