More reach- 1.4 teleconverter or crop body camera?

[greybeard]

I've always been intrigued by this. Would it not be better to crop the full frame goodness, than use a smaller sensor? I always thought pixel size is better than pixel density, but I don't know too much about that. Maybe banana breath can weigh in on how his older crop sensors compared to cropped full frame shots

If you crop a 24 MP FF picture down to a crop frame size, you will have an effective resolution of about 10 MP. So, a crop frame camera will have more than twice the resolution than a FF cropped down to APS-C.

 

[Drive-By-Shooter]

I always thought pixel size is better than pixel density,

my wife says density is more important than size.
wait, let me get my glasses...oh, he typed "pixel"...nevermind

 

[fmw]

I don't think either is the answer. In my experience you can get just as good an image or sometimes better by cropping than you can with a TC. Putting a long lens on a crop sensor camera doesn't increase "reach." it simply crops the image. You can do that in post process.

 

[Peeb]

I don't think either is the answer. In my experience you can get just as good an image or sometimes better by cropping than you can with a TC. Putting a long lens on a crop sensor camera doesn't increase "reach." it simply crops the image. You can do that in post process.

But as you crop, your number of pixels goes down. If you take a 6000 x 4000 full frame image and crop it down, your pixels go down. If you have the 'cropped' view in a native 6000 x 4000 crop body camera- aren't you better off?

 

[greybeard]

A bit of thread necromancy....

This dude says crop body ftw:

This guy got it right and he has the data to back it up. Another video he did compared using a crop body compared to cropping a FF body. Same conclusion, the crop body will produce higher IQ than a FF body cropped to APS-C.

 

[greybeard]

I am better off keeping my D7000 and using it for my tele stuff than selling it and doing everything with my D750. Well, I may sell it and get a refurb D7100, (maybe) I have tried the 70-300 vr with a 1.4. Slow to focus and really soft at 300mm. (420mm) Not a good combination.

 

[fmw]

I don't think either is the answer. In my experience you can get just as good an image or sometimes better by cropping than you can with a TC. Putting a long lens on a crop sensor camera doesn't increase "reach." it simply crops the image. You can do that in post process.

But as you crop, your number of pixels goes down. If you take a 6000 x 4000 full frame image and crop it down, your pixels go down. If you have the 'cropped' view in a native 6000 x 4000 crop body camera- aren't you better off?

Sure and sometimes cropping isn't the best approach. I have a Nikon 7100 with 24 mpx sensor. I have taken crops so severe that the resulting crop is 1/20 of the raw file. Yet the crop could be displayed as 8X10 and look just fine on a computer screen. If I were to take such a severe crop of an image taken with a TC, I would most likely see the softness in the result. TC's do soften the image. It may or may not be bothersome but it is there. You have to remember that, not all that long ago, professionals were making images for publication using 2 mpx cameras. I was one of them. We passed the point where pixel density really matters some time ago.

 

[fmw]

I am better off keeping my D7000 and using it for my tele stuff than selling it and doing everything with my D750. Well, I may sell it and get a refurb D7100, (maybe) I have tried the 70-300 vr with a 1.4. Slow to focus and really soft at 300mm. (420mm) Not a good combination.

I have both a 7000 and a 7100. The 7100 has a few features I like such as the built in level that I use for leveling it when it is mounted on a tripod. But frankly I can't imagine why someone would move from a 7000 to a 7100. 98% of the 7100 is already in the 7000. The difference in resolution is very close to being meaningless.

 

[greybeard]

I am better off keeping my D7000 and using it for my tele stuff than selling it and doing everything with my D750. Well, I may sell it and get a refurb D7100, (maybe) I have tried the 70-300 vr with a 1.4. Slow to focus and really soft at 300mm. (420mm) Not a good combination.

I have both a 7000 and a 7100. The 7100 has a few features I like such as the built in level that I use for leveling it when it is mounted on a tripod. But frankly I can't imagine why someone would move from a 7000 to a 7100. 98% of the 7100 is already in the 7000. The difference in resolution is very close to being meaningless.

Thank you, my mind is finally settled.

 

[greybeard]

There is no 'extra reach' afforded by crop-sensor cameras. There is a smaller field of view which causes the optical illusion whereby because there's less area viewable things appear larger, and the common misconception that the focal-length equivalency multiplier actually changes focal length, but at the end of the day the subject in an image shot at 200mm with a crop-sensor and one shot with the same settings on an FF sensor will be substantially the same.

It is about pixel density. A d610 image cropped down to dx format will be roughly 10 mp compared to a 24mp dx. My 105 micro 2.8 nikkor has the same reach on dx as a 155mm on FX while maintaining pixel density and no loss of F/stop. (imho) DX is the better choice for wild life and close up bug photography while FX is definitely the way to go for anything requiring wide angle.

Picture quality (resolution) between DX and FX: Beginners Questions Forum: Digital Photography Review

Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.

www.dpreview.com