Balancing performance: Wildlife, Budget, and Sensor Size

[PaulWog]

I'm curious about the performance of a lens like a 150-600 (Tamron or Sigma) paired with a full frame camera. Every bit of research that I have done indicates that sharpness is significantly better (nearly double) on a full frame camera, since more of the glass is being used for the same number of megapixels. This would lead me to believe that a full frame camera could generally crop in to about what a crop sensor camera gets anyways, given the extra sharpness (but reduced reach). I've been googling, but there's lots to sift through, and too much research (by reading forums) can get boring fast. Given the significantly better ISO performance on a full frame camera, this leaves me wondering if full frame would be better with a 150-600.

 

[astroNikon]

I have the same wonders.
But I also have the d600 and d7000.
I've been trying tests of objects 5-9 miles away then cropping them down.
But the major obstacle is more the light (not necessarily low light either) ability of the sensor.

The d600 seems better all around in this particular extreme situation (super long distance).
It's very difficult though doing a 1-1 comparison of the same object and the same distance considering a lot of these objects are moving at 630 +/- mph.

 

[John Hunt]

I have the Tamron 150-600 started using it on a d5300 then moved to d750. The lens is great on a full frame camera and yes you can do an amazing amount of cropping and still have a good image. Bottom line only you can decide which you prefer.

 

[soufiej]

This probably isn't what you want to hear since none of this involves a FF camera. However, from the simple aspect of placing more glass on more pixels (on the subject), it doesn't require a FF camera to do so IMO. That is what you're saying here I believe, "Every bit of research that I have done indicates that sharpness is significantly better (nearly double) on a full frame camera, since more of the glass is being used for the same number of megapixels. "

Give these photos some consideration, they are from a camera with the smallest available sensor size (but with a single fixed lens system) ...

Favorite Canon SX50 HS Photographs - tonybritton

STOKES BIRDING BLOG Canon SX 50 HS for Bird Photography I love this camera

"Detail is resolved both by getting close (which the wildlife photographer does via technique and/or stealth), and by involving sufficient pixels in its capture (which long focal length lenses and high quality sensors both help to achieve). The size and quality of the sensor and the sharpness of the lens are two important factors, amongst many, in achieving the detail wildlife photography enthusiasts strive for in their images"; SX50 beats all my DSLRs Backyard Birding with Kenn Temple

"Ah, the SX50. It's 'only' 12.1 megapixels, zooms to a nowadays modest 1200mm eq., and yet is still making headlines. None of us at IR expected the SX50 to take the third (and final) slot in our competition (except for our lens specialist Rob Murray, who said 'I told you so' with a conspiratorial wink afterwards)"; Best Superzoom 2014 Conclusions and Winners


Admittedly, those professionals using the SX50 are not expecting the absolute detail of a FF camera. Several of those included comments say exactly that. Possibly, you feel it is absolutely essential to your profession to use a FF camera. And compact cameras do get a bit of the bum's rush on this forum.

Add to that the term "wildlife" leaves a lot of territory to cover. I'm not at all sure what "wildlife" means to you. Are you going out hunting for photos of javalina's in the middle of the night?

Your post rather suddenly includes the ISO performance of FF. And certainly, the disadvantage any smaller than FF sensor will have is low light levels. What you don't tell us is just how low in level you expect the light to be when shooting "wildlife". Are you looking to photograph owls? Or, eagles?

Therefore, there's a lot of undisclosed "need" in your post IMO that can't be answered by us without further input from you.

The Stokes article I linked to does suggest an important point as I see it. While the smaller sensor cannot compete head to head with a $5k rig in total resolution or in low light conditions, how many times do you absolutely need a $5k rig when you can obtain quite exceptional results with a camera costing approximately 1/10 the price?

I suppose gear heads will simply dismiss such an idea, carrying a single $500 camera, out of hand. That isn't exactly what I'm suggesting however.

I own and use an SX50 and this is not to be taken in anyway as an endorsement of that camera. My use of the SX50 as an example is simply due to the fact a lot has been said about that specific camera for wildlife use. And a great many impressive shots have been taken with a discontinued camera that can be had for less than $200 USD on Canon refurbished. Any good superzoom will provide excellent wildlife photos if the conditions are favorable, which mostly refers to available light levels.

The superzoom category has opened up considerably just as has the enthusiast compact market. There are more highly capable camera systems (non-interchangeable lens systems) where performance is being enhanced by the design of each component fitting together with the rest as a holistic system. If the word "budget" is of value in your post, a superzoom bridge camera is going to be much lighter - both to carry and on your budget - than is even a single superzoom lens. Certainly less than a new FF camera.

If you're just itching to get that new FF camera though and want someone's approval ...

 

[Braineack]

I'd rather be using my 150-600 on a D7200 in most cases.

 

[badrano]

I've used the 150-600 on my D7000 and I've gotten some sharp pictures.
The not so sharp pictures I believe come down to technique and minimizing camera shake...I'm new to using such a long range lens.

 

[soufiej]

I'd rather be using my 150-600 on a D7200 in most cases.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

So far, the op don't got 'em.

 

[Braineack]

I'd rather have the extra reach so you don't have to crop as heavily, coupled with an APS-C sensor that can handle itself in low-light and a pretty damn stellar AF module--if my main focus was wildlife photography.

 

[soufiej]

Yeah, but the op doesn't seem interested in a ASP-C sensor size. Maybe I'm mistaking his post. He has the D5200 and sorta sounds like he wants to buy a FF.

To each their own but, given sufficient light, I can't argue with the results some photographers are achieving with the fairly inexpensive superzooms. They're light, no lenses to change and relatively fast so they're almost always ready for the shot. That's a point Stokes makes often.

It seems to come down to how many pixels you can actually use in the frame more than how many pixels you can crop away and discard out of the image. Britton's photos are only Jpegs (though many of the superzooms are now offering RAW capture) and I'm impressed.

Most of the current bridge cameras also do a very acceptable macro shot. If the op's "wildlife" includes little, tiny critters with weird eyes; bridge camera for wildlife



Some people work for the shot in the camera and some people work for the shot they can get from their computer. To each their own IMO.

Still don't know what "wildlife" means to the op. Could be just a Friday night into Saturday morning party for some.

 

[Braineack]

and as someone with a FF camera with the same lens he wants, I'm saying I'd prefer to use a D7100 or D7200 over it if I were shooting wildlife primarily.

that 600mm lens effectively acts like a 900mm lens, putting more pixels on the subject in question and requiring less cropping if any. The D7100 and D7200 can still hold its own in crummy light, just not as well, but we shouldn't be shooting such long, slow lenses and crummy light either.

 

[PaulWog]

Huh? I have the 150-600 Sigma. I'm just curious about the full frame end of things.

(directed at a number of posts above)

 

[Derrel]

From comparisons I've seen here on TPF....the best sensor last year for resolution and a clean image was the D800, or D800e. Even cropped, to get a similar image size as the D7100, the D800 was just a bit better than the D7100....so, I think today, June 2015, the D810 would probably be the best imager, across the normal ISO spectrum. Don Kondra did some backyard bird crops of the D800 vs D7100, as I recall....and was it Kris (coastalconn.com) who also did some?

We had some posts put up here about a year ago of the D800 versus the D7100...I personally thought the full-frame images had higher technical quality than the D7100 images--although BOTH cameras did pretty well, even when the D800 FX images were cropped down to get the same size image as the D7100 images had from the start.

"Sharpness" is a sort of subjective impression of a number of things, like resolution, freedom from chromatic aberration, contrast, acutance, and so on.

Budget-wise, used D800's have dropped a long ways in price...to below what a new D750 costs...

The problem with this topic is there's no budget layed out here...no real, actual framework in which to discuss anything, so we've got a Canon point and shoot with a 1200mm lens on one end, and a big d-slr and a Nikon super-tele on the other end,and everything in-between. And the term "wildlife"....what does that mean? It often means birds, but there's other stuff that has different needs.

 

[MSnowy]

I also have a Tamron 150-600 that I use with a 7100 and D3s. I personally prefer the D3s over the 7100 when shooting wildlife. Especially when taking pictures of wildlife that is moving. I find myself taking most wildlife pictures in less than great light. Most of the time I'm usually out late day or early mornings when most wildlife are more active. Plus I go out on rainy and snowy days a lot.

 

[sm4him]

I have no scientific research to back it up, no photo-by-photo comparison that I've broken down and analyzed, but as someone who has done a LOT of shooting with a Sigma 150-500 and D7000 combo, and got pretty decent results, and has recently moved to a D800 with the same lens:

I like the results I'm getting with the D800 better than the results I was getting with the D7000. Even with having to crop more heavily, to my eye, the results are simply sharper on the D800. In fact, I've had photos that I've been able to crop way MORE than I would have done on the D7000, proportionally, because I can crop away more and still end up with a completely acceptable result.
Not to mention that the D800's low light performance has meant that I could shoot with the not-incredibly fast Sigma 150-500 f/5-6.3 in lighting situations that, with the D7000, I'd learned to just not even attempt, not for close-up bird shots anyway.

 

[PaulWog]

So I read through all the comments: Thanks for the insight everyone (and sorry for the confusing thread -- I was thinking more things than I touched on, hence a bit of an off-topic title). Last paragraph in this post deals with wildlife... that was my main concern with this thread.

Here's the deal: I have a D5200, 18-35 Sigma Art, and 10-20 f4-5.6 (and my 50 and 85 primes, and 150-600). I am considering selling the 18-35 Sigma Art first, and picking up a D750 or D610. Then I'll sell my 10-20 and D5200 in as timely a manner as I can. Then, eventually, I'll pick up a full frame UWA lens. The plan is to use my 50mm 1.8G as my primary walk-around lens, paired occasionally with my 85 and/or a FF UWA lens. I was looking into the 150-600 performance with full frame to justify some of this.

I've enjoyed my 18-35 Art, but really haven't gotten a ton of use out of it. I've found the range is excellent, but when I shoot wide I like to go *really* wide... like, 15-16mm full frame wide. I do love the performance of the 18-35. I'm still considering sticking with it -- the lens is nuts. They always say invest in glass first, but I'm thinking more about just the whole package, getting that viewfinder, full user interface, getting away from crop bodies, better ISO performance.

I am truly concerned about wildlife performance though. It's something I'm enjoying a lot. The more I look into it (and read here), the more I think the 150-600 Sigma lens will perform as well, or even better, even if I need to crop in more to get the same framing from the same distance as I would with a crop camera.