Longer Lens or Crop Sensor

[Ferrarimx5]

BrentC, You said:
[/QUOTE] F-stop on crop or FF is the exact same. The DoF may be different at same f-stop but f2.8 on a crop lets in the same light as f2.8 on FF. And larger DoF does not mean image quality will suffer.[/QUOTE]

Did you not watch the video above titled: "Crop Factor, Why you multiply the aperture by the crop factor?"

Perhaps you do not agree with the math as stated in that YouTube video.

The phrase you used "Exactly the same" means it is equal to, it does not mean like or about, it means equal to in all ways possible, it means exactly. If what you are stating is true, then this is how we have gotten misdirected and derailed in our conversation.

We are attempting to define the term "Reach"

What is the reach?
Does a 200 zoom on a full frame camera represent being 4 times closer to a subject compared to using a 50mm lens? The reach could then be described as 4X..
This would not be the same math we would use for a cropped sensor. All parts of the equation have to be considered.

Watch the video above and see if what Tony Northrup is saying is true.

Tony has persuaded me with his scientific approach and his logical method of explanation. If you are right then we are misunderstanding each other because I am persuaded by the math as Tony has presented it

 

[Derrel]

One issue is that reach is often calculated without regard to the DOF or the background blur; the highest-end sports and wildlife/nature shooters often tend to prefer the greater background blur of the big-glass lenses like 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 and 500mm and 600mm f/4 super-teles on larger-sensor cameras, as opposed to the slightly more in-focus backgrounds that come with crop-sensor cameras and commensurately shorter lenses.

Depth of field and Background Blur are two different things; background blur depends on the absolute, physical WIDTH of the lens aperture. A wider aperture, a physically w_i_d_e_r aperture, causes more background blur than a narrower aperture. This is why a 300mm f/2.8 or a 200mm f/2, has such a huge degree of background blurring on a half-body portrait when either lens is set to f/2.8. However, do a half-body portrait with a 50mm lens, from close range even, at f/2.8, and the degree of background blurring is substantially LESS.

The issue of saying "identical images" from a crop-sensor with one lens length and a full-frame sensor with a shorter lens length is NOT accurate...the images are similar, but not identical, with regard to both DOF and background blurring...the degree of background blurring is NOT identical, and that's what Northrup and others are trying to get people to realize.

Bottom line: if you want to totally,totally,totally separate the subject from the background, the larger the capture format, the easier that is to do. Because of the lenses that are offered for sale, there comes a time when the larger sensors have an advantage in achieving large-sized animals or birds or athletes on-sensor, and very,very,very de-focused backgrounds. There are also many times when it is literally impossible for the small-sensor user to open-up the lens an additional two stops or whatever, to achieve parity with the way existing,real-world lenses for full-frame cameras achieve; there do not exist any 300mm f/1.4 lenses, nor 600mm f/2 lenses,etc..

 

[BrentC]

F-stop on crop or FF is the exact same. The DoF may be different at same f-stop but f2.8 on a crop lets in the same light as f2.8 on FF. And larger DoF does not mean image quality will suffer.[/QUOTE]

Did you not watch the video above on Crop Factor: Why you multiply the aperture by the crop factor?

Perhaps you do not agree with the math as stated in that YouTube video.

The phrase you used "Exactly the same" means it is equal to, it does not mean like or about, it means equal to. If what you are stating is true, then this is how we have gotten misdirected and derailed in our conversation. We are attempting to define the term "Reach" What is the reach? is a 200 zoom on a full frame camera represent being 4 times closer to a subject than if you were using a 50mm lens? The reach would be 4X.. This is not the same math for a cropped sensor. All parts of the equation have to be considered. Watch the video above and see if what Tony Northrup is saying is true Tony has persuaded me with his scientific approach and his logical method of explanation. If you are right then we are misunderstanding each other because I am persuaded by the math as Tony has presented it[/QUOTE]


F-stop is f-stop. An f-stop of a lens is based on how much light can pass through the lens, regardless of sensor size or fl. This is fact. Whether on crop sensor or not this does not change. Your saying it does which is false. DoF is based on the fl, f-stop and sensor size. Fl and f-stop does not change, the only variable is the sensor size which determines the D0F.

'Reach', or whatever you want to call it, is how a far off subject appears in the frame. A subject in frame from a 300mm lens on m43 will be the exact same as on a 150mm lens on FF. This is fact.

The only thing that is going effect IQ of image is how good the lens is, megapixels and the sensor itself.

 

[Ferrarimx5]

I agree with you. Although the total light gathered by a full frame sensor is quite a bit more than the light gathered by a cropped sensor. I do now agree with you that the aperture is the same F-Stop and does not change or close when you put it on a Cropped sensor camera.. Point well made.

 

[Ysarex]

BrentC, You said:
[/QUOTE} F-stop on crop or FF is the exact same. The DoF may be different at same f-stop but f2.8 on a crop lets in the same light as f2.8 on FF. And larger DoF does not mean image quality will suffer.

Did you not watch the video above titled: "Crop Factor, Why you multiply the aperture by the crop factor?"

Perhaps you do not agree with the math as stated in that YouTube video.

The phrase you used "Exactly the same" means it is equal to, it does not mean like or about, it means equal to in all ways possible, it means exactly. If what you are stating is true, then this is how we have gotten misdirected and derailed in our conversation.

We are attempting to define the term "Reach"

What is the reach?
Does a 200 zoom on a full frame camera represent being 4 times closer to a subject compared to using a 50mm lens? The reach could then be described as 4X..
This would not be the same math we would use for a cropped sensor. All parts of the equation have to be considered.

Watch the video above and see if what Tony Northrup is saying is true.

Tony has persuaded me with his scientific approach and his logical method of explanation. If you are right then we are misunderstanding each other because I am persuaded by the math as Tony has presented it

I've been reluctant to get caught up in this one, but what the heck. Braineack has this one solid: reach is real.

Tony's language is really sloppy and he says all kind of things that just make you cringe. A 45mm f/1.8 on a M4/3 body is a 45mm f/1.8. It is not and it does not magically become a 90mm f/2.8. It will never be a 90mm f/2.8 for as long as you use it. That video is responsible for a lot of confusion.

Brent is correct that f/X = f/X no matter the lens and camera system. F stop values normalize exposure over all lenses and camera systems. That's the point and that's why we have them. And so if a scene is correctly exposed at ISO 400 with a shutter speed of 1/250 sec and f stop value of f/8 on a 4x5 view camera using a 300mm f/5.6 Sironar then that scene is likewise correctly exposed at ISO 400 with a shutter speed of 1/250 sec and f/stop value of f/8 on a M4/3 Olympus using a 45mm f/1.8. F/8 as an exposure value is f/8!

Different format cameras produce different results based on the size of the recording media -- it's simple. When we compare the same photo between cameras with different format sizes, DOF increases as the recording format gets smaller. In the digital world larger format sensors have a low-light advantage over smaller format sensors. So this is easy: When looking at the issue of "reach" and comparing two different format cameras DOF and low-light performance should be considered to the extent they're a factor. In the case of FX versus DX sensor cameras used for images that the OP noted (sports and wildlife) I'd rank the DOF variance and low light performance pretty low in making a decision. Note that (and Tony did mention this) there's a tendency for those two factors, DOF and high ISO performance, to somewhat cancel each other. More DOF from the smaller format camera means you may be able to use a wider aperture which means you may be able to use a lower ISO. I'd be more inclined to make my decision based on this:

Joe

 

[Ferrarimx5]

Joe,
Now that totally makes sense!
Well worded, focused and seems to be the best way to view this subject.
I agree that the most cost effective and sensible answer to the OP's question would be to get a modern cropped camera with a high quality lens.

In my case this meant ordering the 7DM2 with the EF 70-300mm (F-4 to 5.6) IS II USM lens.
This investment will cost me less than two grand total and will meet 90 percent of my immediate wildlife needs.

Many would suggest upgrading to a better quality Canon L series lens and this is also a good option. Wish I could afford to add one to the mix, In my opinion the 7DM2 will be a very serviceable way of meeting the OP's need for more reach with a camera that will provide many other desirable options.

Now, there is nothing wrong with the 80D, but my choice was made because of the faster, more accurate high speed focus and the 10 frames per second captures.. So many great choices out there for lenses, but the fast quality of the new 70-300 Nano IS II fit my budget.. As with all things, budget was my deciding factor.

a 2x teleconverter seems to offer great benefits, but also adds some compromise. Premium glass is expensive.. Hard to make a total commitment without accepting some compromises.

I entered this thread with the thought of adding some humor with a light hearted comment to the seven pages of banter, but ended up really digging deeper into the decisions I made this week on upping my game. (My 60D decided to no longer turn on when I flipped the switch) Hoping the 7DM2 lives up to the Marketing Hype. Regardless, there is always a better tool and always a lot more to learn. The biggest improvements are found in gaining experience using the tools we have been allocated.

 

[photoflyer]

Hoping the 7DM2 lives up to the Marketing Hype.

Make sure you let us know. I have only heard good reports about the 7D M II.

 

[Ferrarimx5]

Hoping the 7DM2 lives up to the Marketing Hype.

Make sure you let us know. I have only heard good reports about the 7D M II.

Hmm.. Perhaps I should give you some examples, but my 60D overall took noticeably better pictures. I am hoping this is just a learning curve kind of difference, but I've felt a bit disappointed.. I might load a few examples in another thread and let you decide. Different day, different types of shots, same lens, but just not the same feeling..