p.3 #2 · Crop sensor vs. full - reverse calculations?
Matt Grum wrote:
Secondly, if you keep shutter speed and aperture constant and reduce the ISO you pictures will look worse (if you correct the brightness during raw conversion). Here is an experiment where I did exactly that:
"Correcting brightness during raw conversion" is NOT "default RAW conversion settings". Your example caption is false and is contradicted by your text. It took a couple of re-readings to figure out what the heck was going on.
p.3 #3 · Crop sensor vs. full - reverse calculations?
Matt Grumm, I understand what you are saying your latest post. I also agree with Pixel Perfect's subsequent comments. What I am dubious of is the comments with regards to deliberately overexposing 3 stops. Overall image look aside, to get the extra 3 stops something has to give; aperature, shutter speed or ISO (or a combination of course). If I am already shooting wide open and have insufficent shutter speed, then I must boost the ISO even more. But I was already beyond the acceptable bounds of the 7D. This is why I said I didn't understand the value of what you are suggesting.
DonM2, I can't disagree with what you or AJSJones say. At this point, I am so P.Oed with what happened on this trip that I have started to take a serious look at Nikon; specifically the D800e. Plus their 300mm 2.8 is $1000 cheaper. Combine that with a Sigma 10-20 that I was leaning towards selling anyways, an old 420EX flash that wouldn't hurt to be upgraded and that I was ready to replace the 7D anyway, and now is as good a time as any to keep an open mind. At a minimum, it has my attention.
p.3 #4 · Crop sensor vs. full - reverse calculations?
Haven't read all of the comments, but I'd highly suggest considering a used copy of the Sigma 300mm f2.8. It doesn't have OS, but it is (at least my copy so far) extremely sharp with very fast AF (and I've used the Canon 400mm f2.8 before). Used they run around $1000-1500 which is a steal for the quality. I've heard good things about it paired with a 1.4x tc as well, though I have yet to get one. The Sigma 120-300 2.8 is an option as well but from what I've read, it isn't really 300mm, and ranges more from a long-end focal length of 260-290mm.
p.3 #5 · Crop sensor vs. full - reverse calculations?
AJSJones wrote:
At 1/320 with f/5.6 you would have had 1/1250 ish with a f/2.8 lens. At that speed, with modest PP NR, you would have been happy - it's the glass you need, not the new camera, ... well ... you could go for both
Yes, it's basically the difference of bringing $2500 worth of gear to the wildlife trip vs. $15,000 worth of gear. Figure up what a 1DX and 5D3 with 400/2.8L II and 600/4L II would cost, plus any "normal lenses", and you are way, way up there in price.
It's not my field, and is a very specialized activity. Getting a 5D3 or 1D mark IV with a 400/2.8 II with 1.4X III (or 500/4), and you would have had more keepers.
It's good you got to take the trip and find out so much technical info. . . and hopefully had a great time otherwise.
p.3 #6 · Crop sensor vs. full - reverse calculations?
Very interesting thread
I also shoot wildlife on a budget with a 7D and 100-400
love both lens and camera its got me some wonderful shots
have also been in the situation of not enough light for an f 5.6 lens no easy answer but a 400 2.8 is way out of my budget but most of the time I manage fine
p.3 #7 · Crop sensor vs. full - reverse calculations?
LCPete wrote:
Very interesting thread
I also shoot wildlife on a budget with a 7D and 100-400
love both lens and camera its got me some wonderful shots
have also been in the situation of not enough light for an f 5.6 lens no easy answer but a 400 2.8 is way out of my budget but most of the time I manage fine
Cheapest option would be a third party 300 f/2.8 + 1.4x TC. Sigma or Tokina. Can be picked up pretty cheap these days.
p.3 #8 · Crop sensor vs. full - reverse calculations?
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Cheapest option would be a third party 300 f/2.8 + 1.4x TC. Sigma or Tokina. Can be picked up pretty cheap these days.
Just had a look and I see what you mean getting f 2.8 is a lot more affordable than I realised
p.3 #9 · Crop sensor vs. full - reverse calculations?
EverLearning wrote:
If I am already shooting wide open and have insufficent shutter speed, then I must boost the ISO even more. But I was already beyond the acceptable bounds of the 7D. This is whhy I said I didn't understand the value of what you are suggesting.
The problem is with the idea that there is a hard limit to the maximum "acceptable" ISO. This is related to the idea that a higher ISO setting always increases the noise in your finished image. I have demonstrated that this is not the case. So if using a lower ISO and boosting the exposure digitally makes the noise worse, is it really beyond all realms of possibility that increasing the ISO setting and reducing the brightness in post could make the noise better?
Please, don't take my word for it, do an experiment. Find a low contrast Target and shoot two exposures, the camera metered on and then switch to manual and up the ISO three stops. Equalize the exposures in post. I cant gaurantee for a particular camera model that the higher ISO shot will look noticeably better, but I'd be very surprised if it looked worse!
p.3 #10 · Crop sensor vs. full - reverse calculations?
gunzorro, at a personal level I had an amazing time on this trip. Regarding equipment, it was actually the difference between almost $10k of gear vs $25k to $30k (when you consider two bodies, lenses, tripod, cards, etc). On this trip, it just wasn't enough.
Pixel Perfect, interesting comment about the Sigma 300. The Sigma 120-300 would be interesting too if the focal range is what it says it is (need to look closer at that) and the IQ is there (with and without a 1.4x TC).
When a lens is described as being designed for FF, does that mean it is suboptimal for APS-C sensors or just that it is good for both?
What is a reputable, quality site for lens reviews?
Matt Grum, I completely agree with your point comparing an underexposed picture pushed pp vs properly exposed at higher ISO, but you are talking about way overexposed (in the vast majority of situations) at +3 EV. To go to +3 and maintain shutter speed and aperature, you need to go to a much higher ISO. This, compared to a properly exposed picture would be worse. And blown highlights are blown highlights.
p.3 #12 · Crop sensor vs. full - reverse calculations?
Monito, Matt Grum's post at 1:58PM yesterday refers to +3EV. That is the three stops I am referring to. I know we talked about 1600 ISO and other stuff, so it is easy to get the different points mixed up.
p.3 #13 · Crop sensor vs. full - reverse calculations?
EverLearning wrote:
Monito, Matt Grum's post at 1:58PM yesterday refers to +3EV. That is the three stops I am referring to. I know we talked about 1600 ISO and other stuff, so it is easy to get the different points mixed up.
Thanks. I was comparing his 5:31 am post with his demo picture post.
p.3 #14 · Crop sensor vs. full - reverse calculations?
EverLearning wrote:
To go to +3 and maintain shutter speed and aperature, you need to go to a much higher ISO. This, compared to a properly exposed picture would be worse.
Conventional wisdom would certainly say so, but have you actually tried?
And blown highlights are blown highlights.
A brown bear against some grey rocks, what highlights are there to blow in this scene?
p.3 #15 · Crop sensor vs. full - reverse calculations?
EverLearning wrote:
To go to +3 and maintain shutter speed and aperature, you need to go to a much higher ISO. This, compared to a properly exposed picture would be worse.
Matt Grum wrote:
Conventional wisdom would certainly say so, but have you actually tried?
According to your writeup of when you tried it, you did something very different from what EverLearning states. According to you, you underexposed the ISO 100 photo by shooting at the same aperture and speed as the ISO 1600 photo and then boosted the ISO 100 by four stops in Raw conversion. That is four (4) stops underexposure.
EverLearning is talking about +3 overexposure. Have you actually tried overexposure?
EverLearning wrote:
And blown highlights are blown highlights.
Matt Grum wrote:
A brown bear against some grey rocks, what highlights are there to blow in this scene?
When you overexpose that shot by four stops, it is going to have blown highlights.
Further, very few photos are like brown bears against gray rocks.
p.3 #16 · Crop sensor vs. full - reverse calculations?
LCPete wrote:
Very interesting thread
I also shoot wildlife on a budget with a 7D and 100-400
love both lens and camera its got me some wonderful shots
have also been in the situation of not enough light for an f 5.6 lens no easy answer but a 400 2.8 is way out of my budget but most of the time I manage fine
I think you make the excellent point that we all need to make compromises on our gear, unless we are independently wealthy or it is a commercial career. Then there is the weight, bulk and theft issues of too much of a good thing. Personally, I like to travel as light as I can, and your method has a lot going for it. Throw in a 15-85 IS and a fast lens, and that would be a good kit for me for a general vacation. A photo "safari" is another matter, and I think that is where the choice needs to be made.
Everlearning -- Wow! I didn't know how deep the pockets went! You seem well versed and I'm sure you'll find your way to your ideal gear. Nothing wrong with photo safaris and the beautiful light in those early and late situations. That makes for the most lovely shots and can make your trip for photo-trophies. Glad you had a good time. Could you share a few shots you particularly liked?
p.3 #17 · Crop sensor vs. full - reverse calculations?
Gunzorro, yeah, very deep pockets. I felt like I went to a gun fight with a water pistol! Normally, I don't concern myself with what others have, but on this trip it made a HUGE difference.
I could try to share a few photos I particularly liked, but I don't know if the other photographers would send them to me!
Actually, I'm still working my way through the photos. More 'tears' than 'cheers' unfortunately, but I do have some shots I know I will be happy with. I will try to post something in the not to distant future.
p.3 #18 · Crop sensor vs. full - reverse calculations?
If you're serious about thinking the D800 would have been a better body (in that particular shoot) you may be wrong. I did a lot of research in the spring before buying a 1D4 for my specific needs, and the D800 was what started me on the path of trying to get more pixels on target. The D800 in crop mode (I think it's called DX) is roughly 15 mpixels at a 1.5 X focal length ratio. Since Nikon has fewer good lens options per $ than Canon you may be paying more for less pixels on the subject. The upgrade part that might be an improvement could be a cleaner image at high ISO but I didn't explore that area since I shoot in good light 99% of the time. The Nikon system couldn't meet my needs due to a lack of quality lenses from either them or 3rd parts manufacturers. One must look at the complete system, not just the body before spending big money.
p.3 #19 · Crop sensor vs. full - reverse calculations?
Cicopo, I agree completely. Getting a better racing car with crappier tires hardly improves the overall performance. I am still early in my investigations. What I have seen so far is that the D800 has about the same noise at 6400 as the 7D has 1600 (maybe even better). It also has substantially better DR in the lower ISO range (about 2.8 stops) and even in the higher range is a stop or more better. I have read a fair bit acknowledging Nikon's superiority in AF, although I don't know (yet) how the D800 specifically is.
It looks like everybody raves about Canon and Nikon for their 70-200 and 300 2.8 offerings. Not sure how they are with 1.4x and 2.0x TC on them. I'm not sure how you concluded I may be paying more for less pixels on the subject. For example, the Nikon 300 2.8 is $1000 less than Canon's offering. The D800e is nearly $200 cheaper than the 5D Mark III and less than 1/2 the price of the 1DX.
While I am motivated by the frustration of my most recent experience, I don't plan to make any rash decisions (don't look for my kit on FM for $1,000!).
p.3 #20 · Crop sensor vs. full - reverse calculations?
My post took into account the fact that you are shooting 400 mm's on a 1.6 crop body with 18 mpixels & hoping that the 36 mpixel D800 can get you the same reach. That's not going to happen even with a 300 & 1.4 TC because (if I remember right, I haven't re checked my calculations) a 1.6 crop body has approx 35% of the number of pixels a full frame sensor has. So 35% of 36 is 12.6 mpixels. You're down too many pixels to get by with 420 mm's so you'll need more (fast) glass to finish the swap & accomplish your goal.
