coppertop wrote:
Not going to change my thinking. An APS-C doesn't magically change a 100mm lens into a 160mm lens.

Never said a thing about pixel density or reducing an 18MP image to a 7MP image. My point is that the 7D does not provide more reach. You may interpret all the pixel density crap that way but I don't. Feel free to have a different opinion but it's rude to discount other's opinions as rubbish.

I share your disdain of the term "reach" when referring to the benefits of a higher density sensor. No, it doesn't transform a 100mm lens into a 160mm lens.

But, assuming equal image quality (and good optics), a higher-density pixel array will provide higher resolution (by definition) than a lower-density array, all else being equal. And that is not illusory; it's a very real benefit. This is not a matter of opinion, but of fact.

StarNut wrote:


I share your disdain of the term "reach" when referring to the benefits of a higher density sensor. No, it doesn't transform a 100mm lens into a 160mm lens.




Because I know that the term "reach" means different things to different people, that is the reason why I choose to avoid using the term. Instead, I prefer to explain these issues by talking about pixel density, and I am also very careful to qualify my statements about the advantages of higher pixel density by limiting those statements to situations that are focal length-limited.

Les

The cameras I own which give me the best "reach" are both FF: 1DsMkII (for good light and slow action) and 1DX (for any light, any action).

Then comes 1DMkIIN, and then 7D.

uz2work wrote:
I know that it is difficult for some the behold the concept that there are situations in which an $1800 camera body can outperform a $5000 or a $7000 camera body, but I know from 3 years of experience using the 7D and 1D Mark IV that there are situations in which my $1800 7D does outperform my $5000 1D Mark IV, and there are other situations in which the 1D Mark IV outperforms the 7D.


Which is why it is so surprising that Canon decided to unify the two 1D bodies at this time. The 1D4 and 1DsIII both were providing different things to different users at a very high level. The 1DX does neither.

PetKal wrote:
The cameras I own which give me the best "reach" are both FF: 1DsMkII (for good light and slow action) and 1DX (for any light, any action).

Then comes 1DMkIIN, and then 7D.

That is because a) your long lens collection and typical shooting locations are not likely to make you truly reach limited very often and b) for web posting, even a 3 MP D30 is likely to put enough pixels on the subject to create an image that looks excellent on the web. It is when you want to start printing at, say, sizes of 12x18 inches and larger that not putting enough pixels on the subject is going to result in pictures prints where the image quality is seriously lacking. I suggest the possibility/likelihood that, for many wildlife shooters, their lens collection, their typical shooting situations, and their intended uses of the images might be quite different from yours and that, for them, the low pixel density bodies that you like to use are not going to be the best choices.

To the OP,

To steal a joke from my Jewish friends "Ask 3 FM Canon forum regulars for the best _____ (fill in the blank, doesn't matter), and you'll get 5 answers." Truth is you can take excellent wildlife photos with most any camera. I've got some great ones taken with a G2. Beyond that obvious truth, I'd suggest you buy the fastest focusing, fastest shooting camera you can afford. I currently use a 1DIV and other than the mythical 1Dx, I can't image what would work better. If your budget won't allow a 1DIV then the 1DIII can be picked up at extremely attractive prices.

You mentioned "weight" as a negative for the 1DIV. Truth is the heft of the 1D(s) series cameras makes balancing long teles much easier and over the long run, less tiring. Even a lowly 70-200 on a 60D or a 7D is - to me - unbalanced. Put a 400 anything on a smaller body? For me anyway, there is less control because the balance is poor. Others of course may have different experiences. (If you shoot primarily from a tripod, then this isn't such an issue.)

Also, I'd advise against worrying about "reach." Some people - in defiance of the basic laws of physics - insist that you can get more picture from less sensor.

Robert

hnilsson wrote:
I'd need more information before making a specific suggestion for YOU.

For me, my primary is a 7D and secondary soon to be a 5D Mark III.

OntheRez wrote:
Also, I'd advise against worrying about "reach." Some people - in defiance of the basic laws of physics - insist that you can get more picture from less sensor.

Robert

That is a grotesque distortion of what has been said.

What has been said by Les and others, is:

- To get the best image quality, use as large sensor as possible.

- For a similar sensor area, higher pixel density will give you more resolution than lower pixel density.

It seems that some people just don't want to understand what is being said.

OntheRez wrote:
Also, I'd advise against worrying about "reach." Some people - in defiance of the basic laws of physics - insist that you can get more picture from less sensor.

Robert

, indeed.

To use "the basic laws of physics" to try to refute the notion that a denser pixel array, all else being equal, results in greater resolution, is, uh, ironic.

When my 5D3 is significantly reach limited, so that the critter will also not come close to filling up the sensor of my 7D (using the same lens), I will, every time (assuming decent light; absent decent light, I don't bother trying), get a better, more detailed photo using my 7D than using my 5D3. And that's simply because my 7D has a sensor with about twice the pixel density of my 5D3's sensor.

One might even say that any contrary assertion would be in defiance of the basic laws of physics....

alundeb wrote:
For a similar sensor area, higher pixel density will give you more resolution than lower pixel density.



Anders, that is a tautologu of sorts, similar to saying that once you offload 40 people from a city bus and jam them into a VW Beetle, the latter will carry more passengers per engine displacement. That is a simple physical fact that shouldn't need a debate.

However, what is objectionable is an attempt to equate sensor pixel density with camera effectiveness for wildlife photography. The link between the two is tenuous at best, sometimes even non-existent, depending on the camera as well as wildlife type considered, and it neglects the bigger picture, operating complexities as well as aesthetics of photography.

In my view, that "pixel per duck" thing is similarly flawed to yet another birder forum doctrine which says that one can never have enough FL, yet some of the best craft practitioners shoot proximity shots with only 400mm lenses, and keep serving such images to us almost daily.

In fact, any sort of a narrow prescriptive doctrine can not be very helpful to those who are trying to enter into the craft. Several years ago a fellow from an Asian country posted on FM N&W board a series of bird shots he had taken with his Sony (?) P&S camera. Those shots I thought were very striking and beautiful, and that was not because his camera had a prodigeous sensor pixel density, but because the man must have been gifted with creative vision, and he showed considerable originality and skill in his craft.

PetKal wrote:
Anders, that is a tautologu of sorts, similar to saying that once you offload 40 people from a city bus and jam them into a VW Beetle, the latter will carry more passengers per engine displacement. That is a simple physical fact that shouldn't need a debate.



Sorry Peter, that is not what I said at all. I said something like a city bus will carry more rats than cats

As Romy Ocon said, I am sorry that you had bad luck with the 7D autofocus and didn't get resolution out of those pixels.

OntheRez wrote:
" Some people - in defiance of the basic laws of physics - insist that you can get more picture from less sensor.

There's enough Physics PhDs floating around this forum that I'd be awfully careful before invoking those laws...

particularly when this thread is devolving into one of those technical capability vs. photographic/aesthetic merit arguments.

OntheRez wrote:

Also, I'd advise against worrying about "reach." Some people - in defiance of the basic laws of physics - insist that you can get more picture from less sensor.

Robert

It's not less sensor per area though, it's more, and if the bird only fills up a small area who cares if the FF has tons more sensor stretching out 50' behind the bird to all sides (unless you want that for a particular composition).

coppertop wrote:
uz2work wrote:

Feel free to believe whatever you want, but you are denying reality if you think, in a focal length-limited situation, that you can take an 18 MP 1DX image and crop it down to 7 MP to get the same field of view that you would get with the 7D and the same lens and if you think that the cropped 1DX 7 MP image is going to show the same detail as the uncropped 18 MP 7D image. Take some time to look at the tests done by Skibum here, by Richard Clark on other sites, and by numerous others, and you are likely to change your thinking. The only way that a cropped full frame image is the same as an uncropped APS-C image is if both cameras have the same pixel density. A cropped full frame image is not the same and will not show the same detail as an uncropped APS-C image taken with an APS-C camera with higher pixel density, and that is reality, and claiming that they are the same is, in fact, rubbish.

Les


Not going to change my thinking. An APS-C doesn't magically change a 100mm lens into a 160mm lens.

Never said a thing about pixel density or reducing an 18MP image to a 7MP image. My point is that the 7D does not provide more reach. You may interpret all the pixel density crap that way but I don't. Feel free to have a different opinion but it's rude to discount other's opinions as rubbish.

So by using a longer lens and putting 400 pixels on a vulture instead of 200 pixels on it is magically different than using a densor sensor and putting 400 pixels on a vulture instead of 200 usng a less dense sensor Either way you increase effective reach and get 2x more pixels on your vulture.

(edit obviously there are small catches a blurry lens and a 200MP sensor won't get you nearly the extra reach expected, etc. in normal cases of today it's hits reasonably close though)

skibum5 wrote:

So by using a longer lens and putting 400 pixels on a vulture instead of 200 pixels on it is magically different than using a densor sensor and putting 400 pixels on a vulture instead of 200 usng a less dense sensor Either way you increase effective reach and get 2x more pixels on your vulture.


That is a pretty good way of condensing the "pixel per duck or "reach" doctrine into one sentence.

1D IV

A few weeks ago, I posted an example of using a 2x Extender to get more pixels per buzzard (ppb). Sorry that I can't help with a 'ppv' photo.

jcolwell wrote:
A few weeks ago, I posted an example of using a 2x Extender to get more pixels per buzzard (ppb). Sorry that I can't help with a 'ppv' photo.

Did it work for buzzards too? I thought it only works for vultures (and ducks)!

coppertop wrote:

The 7D? More reach? Nah. Same reach just a cropped field of view.



Not if you are FL limited. We are well beyond having to prove this over and over and over and over again.

Pixel Perfect wrote:
Not if you are FL limited. We are well beyond having to prove this over and over and over and over again.

I agree but there needs to be a better way of describing the influences of a cropped sensor than the camera having more reach.