Agonizing over full frame vs. crop for next camera

[waterjug]

I shoot mostly nature shots, usually birds, although I'll photograph whatever is around really. I've enjoyed my T2i, but I've outgrown it somewhat. I'm trying to decide between a Canon 70D, and the 6D. I eliminated the 7D from consideration as it's about 5 years old at this point, and just can't match the features of the 70 or 6.

What's hard for me is that both crop & full frame have their advantages. Crop body is almost like having an extender built in to the camera, and has that 'pull' effect to make smaller subjects larger in the frame. I use a 400mm 5.6 lens, so I can't use an actual extender without losing AF (for canon anything above a base of 4 loses AF with an extender). So that's a huge plus for the crop body.

But then the other issue is that full frame usually has much better performance in low light, on account of light sensors on the larger chip or something. This is also a huge issue for me. It's great when a bird sits out on an exposed branch on a sunny day, but honestly with the birds I'm going for (song birds, migrants) that rarely happens. I'm usually in the underbrush, or shooting into the undercanopy of trees. With the T2i, anything above 400 iso starts to look really grainy. I can salvage an occasional 800, but it's rare, and 1600 is pretty much going to be a shot I can only use for ID'ing the bird later, but never posting it or printing.

So therein lies the problem. A lot of the subjects I'm shooting aren't THAT far off, the typical bird I'm getting is between 20' and 25' away from me. With the crop body there's ample 'bird' in the picture for me to work with, I'm just scared that if I step up to a full frame, will there still be enough? But then I think that with the higher iso I could shoot SO much better in the dappled light and shade that I'm usually in, and my shutter speeds would increase as well.

So that's it in a nutshell. Any thoughts?

 

[Spoooon]

It's not like you're going to throw away your current camera, right?

I'm making the jump. I've been saving up for an A7, but may hold off a bit into 2014 to see if any new a-mount full frame cameras are announced.

A random member at Dyxum shot the below with his A99 (ISO 1600, 400mm)

 

[Syborg1211]

I'm not too familiar with Canon so I don't know if your current 400mm lens is a full frame lens or not. I made the jump to full frame just about a year ago, and there are two things that hurt the most with the transition. First off is the wallet, fx glass is freaking expensive. Second is your back. The fx cameras as well as the lenses are larger and heavier, plus it's crazy to think that you're walking around with a bag full of literally thousands of dollars worth of equipment.

I think the zoom of crop lends well to bird shooting. Also consider that sensor technology has come a long ways and I'm guessing the Canon crop you're looking at has significantly better ISO performance than you're used to. Also pay attention to things like frame rate. Often the high end crops can shoot faster than the entry-level full frames, and that could be important to you as a bird shooter if you're trying to capture a bird in flight.

The main draw of full frame is that shallow depth of field. How much do you care about that for nature photography?

 

[iGas]

There are free noise reduction software, and there are such thing as Lightroom that can also help with noise reduction.

There isn't a big different going from a couple of year old APS-C to newer sensor/processor, or to FF sensor. But IMHO, going to faster better glass is more logical than throwing good money at an insignificant camera body upgrade.

Faster glass allow you to shoot at faster aperture, and better glass is sharper wide open than cheap glass. f2.8 is 4 time faster than f5.6 (and often the price reflex the different), hence it allow you to shoot at lower ISO.

A tripod is much cheaper than getting a new camera or fast glass. Tripod allow you to shoot at slower/optimal aperture if you are shooting still object or slow moving subject.

I went directly from point & shoot to a FF Canon 5D mkII, because I had experience with 35mm, medium format, and large format cameras. FF camera will not give me the colour saturation and the DOF (blur/bokeh) of medium/large format but it is a compromise that I can live with going from film to digital, however FF is a heck of a lot better with DOF control than point & shoot and APS-C.

 

[waterjug]

I'm not too familiar with Canon so I don't know if your current 400mm lens is a full frame lens or not. I made the jump to full frame just about a year ago, and there are two things that hurt the most with the transition. First off is the wallet, fx glass is freaking expensive. Second is your back. The fx cameras as well as the lenses are larger and heavier, plus it's crazy to think that you're walking around with a bag full of literally thousands of dollars worth of equipment.

I think the zoom of crop lends well to bird shooting. Also consider that sensor technology has come a long ways and I'm guessing the Canon crop you're looking at has significantly better ISO performance than you're used to. Also pay attention to things like frame rate. Often the high end crops can shoot faster than the entry-level full frames, and that could be important to you as a bird shooter if you're trying to capture a bird in flight.

The main draw of full frame is that shallow depth of field. How much do you care about that for nature photography?

yeah that's very true, the lens is from their "L" series, of performance lenses, it can be used on a full frame, so that's not an issue at least. That's a good point about my current crop, it's technology is 4 years old. The crop I listed in my OP is 2 months old.

 

[waterjug]

There are free noise reduction software, and there are such thing as Lightroom that can also help with noise reduction.

There isn't a big different going from a couple of year old APS-C to newer sensor/processor, or to FF sensor. But IMHO, going to faster better glass is more logical than throwing good money at an insignificant camera body upgrade.

Faster glass allow you to shoot at faster aperture, and better glass is sharper wide open than cheap glass. f2.8 is 4 time faster than f5.6 (and often the price reflex the different), hence it allow you to shoot at lower ISO.

A tripod is much cheaper than getting a new camera or fast glass. Tripod allow you to shoot at slower/optimal aperture if you are shooting still object or slow moving subject.

I went directly from point & shoot to a FF Canon 5D mkII, because I had experience with 35mm, medium format, and large format cameras. FF camera will not give me the colour saturation and the DOF (blur/bokeh) of medium/large format but it is a compromise that I can live with going from film to digital, however FF is a heck of a lot better with DOF control than point & shoot and APS-C.

hmmm...the problem is the 400 5.6 I'm shooting with now is all I can afford lens wise. The next up would be a 400 2.8, which is 13,000, or a 500m f4 which is 8k. Not getting either of those any time soon

I do need a better tripod, but again the birds I'm going for don't stand and pose, they're flitting around and you have maybe 1-2 seconds to get a shot if that. That's what's drawing me towards the FF, that increased iso performance would come in handy. Right now 90% of my shots aren't usable because I have to shoot at 800 or so on a sunny day while I wander around through the woods.

I've used NR in LR but I'm not a big fan of how blurry it makes everything. I wish there was a way to apply NR to only the parts of the picture you wanted, like the background.

 

[iGas]

hmmm...the problem is the 400 5.6 I'm shooting with now is all I can afford lens wise. The next up would be a 400 2.8, which is 13,000, or a 500m f4 which is 8k. Not getting either of those any time soon

I do need a better tripod, but again the birds I'm going for don't stand and pose, they're flitting around and you have maybe 1-2 seconds to get a shot if that. That's what's drawing me towards the FF, that increased iso performance would come in handy. Right now 90% of my shots aren't usable because I have to shoot at 800 or so on a sunny day while I wander around through the woods.

I've used NR in LR but I'm not a big fan of how blurry it makes everything. I wish there was a way to apply NR to only the parts of the picture you wanted, like the background.

Going from 1.6 APS-C to FF will give you 400mm instead of 640mm that you are getting now. And, the 600mm f4 is $13,000 if you prepare to go for FF.

Yes, there is draw back from using NR, but you can use radial filter to reduce noise or sharpen areas that you want. Free NR software will let you mask an area for noise reduction and sharpen, and you can also do that with Photoshop.

 

[elitejp]

Get the new sony a7r. Canon hasnt made any progress with there sensors for the past several years. The a7r with the adapter will net you higher megapixels which will allow you to crop more. So you will still get the extra "reach" or pixels on target that the canon crop would offer. but now you also have probably the best sensor on the market to get nice clear and crisp pictures with some very good dynamic range.

 

[iGas]

Get the new sony a7r. Canon hasnt made any progress with there sensors for the past several years. The a7r with the adapter will net you higher megapixels which will allow you to crop more. So you will still get the extra "reach" or pixels on target that the canon crop would offer. but now you also have probably the best sensor on the market to get nice clear and crisp pictures with some very good dynamic range.

Higher megapixels doesn't mean that it is better at noise control. It mean that it is better at retaining detail, and in the noise department the Canikon fair better than Sony counter part. And, Sony lenses aren't known to be cheap or readily available if such lens even exist.

The 70-200mm is the longest telephoto "zoom" in Sony E mount arsenal which isn't exactly a birding lens on full frame.

The existing only long telephoto Sony 70-400mm f/4~5.6 (require adaptor) can't even hold a candle to the Canon 200-400L let alone going head to head with the 400l f/5.6 prime that is 1/2 of the Sony zoom price.

And the Canon 500L f/4 IS II as well as Canon 400L f/2.8 IS II are sharper that came with IS, than the Sony 500mm f4 prime (require adaptor), and each Canons are $3000 less than Sony 500mm.

Pro DSLR + Cheapo Lens vs "Cheapo" DSLR + Pro Lens

 

[elitejp]

i didnt say that higher mp would make it better at noise control but this sony is better at noise control than what Canon has to offer...at least when compared to the 5d3. And its supposewd to be better than the d800e. What I did say is thqat the high mp will act like what the 70d has to offer because it will put the same amount of mp on target as what the 70d will. So he isnt losing any reach. You really need to read up on the a7r because you obviously havent. Theres an adapter than sony is offering for free that will allow canon or nikon lenses so the OP isnt changing systems. He still gets to use the lenses he already has. No need to buy sony lenses if he doesnt want. In this case scenario Canikon does not fair better...in fact they are left behind....the canon being left far behind.

And just another thought...A full frame Sony that does better than the d800e IQ wise will most definaelty beat the socks off of a 70d crop from canon. If the op goes canon 6d he loses on mp and IQ.

What is there to debate...the a7r is better. The only problem is that the af wont be instant with canon or Nikon lenses but reports are saying that its still quick.

 

[elitejp]

the existing only long telephoto Sony 70-400mm f/4~5.6 (require adaptor) can't even hold a candle to the Canon 200-400mm L let alone going head to head with the 400mm f/5.6 L prime that is 1/2 of the Sony zoom price.

And both Canon 500mm f/4 IS II as well as Canon 400mm f/2.8 IS II are sharper that came with IS, and both are sharper than the Sony 500mm f4 prime (require adaptor), and they are $3000 cheaper.

Good...like i said...the op can use canon lenses

 

[iGas]

i didnt say that higher mp would make it better at noise control but this sony is better at noise control than what Canon has to offer...at least when compared to the 5d3. And its supposewd to be better than the d800e. What I did say is thqat the high mp will act like what the 70d has to offer because it will put the same amount of mp on target as what the 70d will. So he isnt losing any reach. You really need to read up on the a7r because you obviously havent. Theres an adapter than sony is offering for free that will allow canon or nikon lenses so the OP isnt changing systems. He still gets to use the lenses he already has. No need to buy sony lenses if he doesnt want. In this case scenario Canikon does not fair better...in fact they are left behind....the canon being left far behind.

And just another thought...A full frame Sony that does better than the d800e IQ wise will most definaelty beat the socks off of a 70d crop from canon. If the op goes canon 6d he loses on mp and IQ.

What is there to debate...the a7r is better. The only problem is that the af wont be instant with canon or Nikon lenses but reports are saying that its still quick.

Detail != to noise.

Sony Alpha A7r vs Canon EOS 5D Mark III Noise JPEG

Up to 400 ISO both models deliver very clean results, but there's no doubt the Alpha A7r is much crisper with visibly finer details throughout the image - this is particularly evident in the creases on the middle petal and on the vase in the lower left.

At 800 ISO some noise has become visible on the A7r compared to a smooth result on the 5D Mark III, but the Sony still enjoys comfortably more detail. As the sensitivities increase though the noise on the Sony A7r becomes more obvious than the 5D Mark III and by 3200 ISO I'd say they're delivering similar levels of detail, albeit with more visible noise on the Sony. Beyond here the A7r loses detail more quickly, leaving the 5D Mark III with a small but visible advantage in detail and noise.

So if we're dealing with JPEGs from both cameras and the lenses selected, then the A7r enjoys a clear benefit up to 1600 ISO, but particularly so at 800 ISO and below. Above 3200 ISO though, the A7r suffers from more noise, giving the Canon an advantage.

In my tests with Canon DSLRs before, I've found the in-camera JPEGs with the default settings are often a little soft and can benefit from additional sharpening - I'd certainly expect the crops below to look much better when converted from their RAW originals, and I'll be making that comparison once the Sonys are also supported in Adobe Camera RAW. But in the meantime the Sony's in-camera JPEGs are really making the most of its potential detail.

But what happens when you compare the A7r to a camera with another 36 Megapixel full-frame sensor without an optical low pass filter? Find out on my Sony A7r vs Nikon D800e noise results page, or if you've seen enough, skip to my Sony A7r sample images.

I understand full well that there are adapters that allows bodies and lenses of various camera manufactures adapt to each others, however you will lose AF and/or IS or at the very least lose majority or most of the AF functions/speeds.

And, I stand corrected on the noise front of the A7r vs Nikon 800e.

 

[elitejp]

What about if you shoot raw or whatever Sony calls it? This is an honest question because I dont know.

And I was pretty sure that af and IS would still be useable with the adapter

 

[elitejp]

heres a good review of the d800e vs the 5d3
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1344321
while reviews are saying the sony is better than the d800e

 

[AViking]

If you're doing bird photography you want a crop camera. You can't have the best of both worlds. So unless you're doing low light bird photography go out and get the best crop you can buy.

I've used the Sony A77 and I would not recommend it. It's a good camera but the noise is much higher than I would expect from the manufacturer that produces the sensor in my D600.

I realize finding a crop camera with low noise is kinda challenging but I would put my money towards the camera that is dominating right now. I believe that's the Nikon 7100.

 

[AViking]

If you're going to stick to Canon and go full frame do the math on what a good lens with a TC would cost.

I still wouldn't go Sony. One of the main points of going full frame is for the better low light performance and the Sony keeps getting beat there.

 

[Madwand1]

I shoot mostly nature shots, usually birds, although I'll photograph whatever is around really.

I'm biased towards full-frame. A crop camera is just not as enjoyable to me. I like to have a bigger viewfinder and field of view, etc., and to use the classic lenses in their originally intended role. If "whatever is around" includes much in the way of landscapes, a full-frame camera has an additional justification. If not, then for birding, the crop has another advantage -- higher FPS. That can be very beneficial; you might not know what you're missing until you bump up the frame rate.

You can also look at a full frame as a crop with a lower pixel density and resolution. If you take a full frame image and crop its outer part appropriately, it's the same as would be from a crop camera with the remaining number of pixels. In that way, you could have a full frame and get the "zoom" illusion that crop camera give you, but you wouldn't have quite as many pixels on the subject, and the frame rate would still be lower except on the most expensive models.

Finally, the 7D is significantly discounted at times now (after discount, it's been even cheaper than the 70D at times hereabouts). There will likely be a replacement in the next year. If you've had a T2i for such a long time, maybe the best strategy will be to wait and see what the replacement crop/high FPS might be.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

My advice is to go for the crop, but first do a test....

400mm on FF is equivalent to 250mm on crop. Throw a 250mm lens (e.g. 55-250 zoomed all the way in) on your T2i and see if it's long enough for the shooting that you do.

 

[blastingcap]

I'm biased towards full-frame. A crop camera is just not as enjoyable to me. I like to have a bigger viewfinder and field of view, etc., and to use the classic lenses in their originally intended role. If "whatever is around" includes much in the way of landscapes, a full-frame camera has an additional justification. If not, then for birding, the crop has another advantage -- higher FPS. That can be very beneficial; you might not know what you're missing until you bump up the frame rate.

You can also look at a full frame as a crop with a lower pixel density and resolution. If you take a full frame image and crop its outer part appropriately, it's the same as would be from a crop camera with the remaining number of pixels. In that way, you could have a full frame and get the "zoom" illusion that crop camera give you, but you wouldn't have quite as many pixels on the subject, and the frame rate would still be lower except on the most expensive models.

Finally, the 7D is significantly discounted at times now (after discount, it's been even cheaper than the 70D at times hereabouts). There will likely be a replacement in the next year. If you've had a T2i for such a long time, maybe the best strategy will be to wait and see what the replacement crop/high FPS might be.

This.

For birding I would actually rather go full frame to get the extra stop before running into too much noise.

 

[Berliner]

I shoot mostly nature shots, usually birds

I would certainly go with crop for birds, so a 70D if you intent to stay with Canon.

Maybe a second, full frame, camera is an option for everything where you do not need the crop advantage, even though I suppose you will be content with the upgrade to the 70D.

 

[waterjug]

If you're doing bird photography you want a crop camera. You can't have the best of both worlds. So unless you're doing low light bird photography go out and get the best crop you can buy.

I've used the Sony A77 and I would not recommend it. It's a good camera but the noise is much higher than I would expect from the manufacturer that produces the sensor in my D600.

I realize finding a crop camera with low noise is kinda challenging but I would put my money towards the camera that is dominating right now. I believe that's the Nikon 7100.

I actually am doing mostly low light bird photography, that's the issue I'm having; I go for warblers/vireos/smaller birds that hide in the bushes and undercanopy of dense forests

My advice is to go for the crop, but first do a test....

400mm on FF is equivalent to 250mm on crop. Throw a 250mm lens (e.g. 55-250 zoomed all the way in) on your T2i and see if it's long enough for the shooting that you do.

I actually had the 55-250 on the T2i and didn't think it was enough, guess that kind of answers the question.

 

[waterjug]

I really wish I knew someone that went from a T2i to either model I am deciding between so that I could ask them about high iso performance

 

[AViking]

You need to do a cost analysis. Going full frame is going to be expensive. Compare that to faster glass on your crop.

If I'm understanding you correctly you have a 400mm F5.6. Well if you go full frame you're going to be buying some serious glass and a TC PLUS the camera.

Your 400mm lens is 600mm equivalent. To get that on a full frame camera the cheapest route is probably a 300mm with a TC but don't quote me on that. That is not cheap. At all. You might be stuck getting a Sigma Bigma instead and not even reaching the 600mm equivelent that you had before. Nevermind the 1.6x that I'm ignoring for easy math.

Just get a camera that has better low light capabilities than your T2i. Your current camera is an entry level camera. Get top of the line crop if you can gain a stop or 2 of performance. The thing that worries me with the 70D is that I don't think the low light performance is that much better. You might get a maximum performance of 1 extra stop of light low performance in crop but you are going to have to really weight that against the cost of going full frame.

If money is no issue than definitively go full frame. I love mine. I would never go crop again but I'm not birding either.

 

[AViking]

You could always use the built in crop mode on a FF camera. Pretty sure canon has that too. Just make sure you're happy with the MP. I personally find it kind of weird but I think it could work just fine for a birder. Not sure how many birders do that but it might make a lot of sense.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

I really wish I knew someone that went from a T2i to either model I am deciding between so that I could ask them about high iso performance

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/T2I/FULLRES/T2IINBI01600.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-70d/FULLRES/E70DINBI01600.HTM

I'm not really seeing any huge differences in the 100% image samples at ISO 1600. They both look pretty darn good to me, actually. The noise reduction in the 70D might be slightly better, but overall they look quite similar. I didn't look at other ISO's; the difference may be more pronounced at 3200 or 6400.