More reach- 1.4 teleconverter or crop body camera?

[tirediron]

TiredIron hit the nail directly on the head. It's not that a crop body has more reach (like a longer focal length). It just takes the picture you'd have with a full-frame sensor...and then crops it. So if you have a slow shutter speed or poor light, it's going to be a mediocre picture.

My first advice would be to upgrade your lens, especially for wildlife. You need relatively fast glass since the critters don't hold a pose very long and light is often poor. A teleconverter will extend your focal length but also cut some shutter speed for you and I don't think that's a great way to shoot most wildlife.

OP here. Tirediron was correct, but he didn't say anything I didn't already know. I'm not confident that you understand how DX cameras work, however. They don't 'crop' anything, they just have smaller sensors and a corresponding narrower FOV.

A crop body 24MP camera shooting in native DX mode gives you more pixels for better resolution additional cropping than a 24MP FF camera shooting in DX mode, as you DON'T use 24MP of your FF sensor in crop mode- probably closer to 10 or 12. That's what I was referring to.

I'm fairly confident we all know how a crop-frame camera works. It works exactly the same as a full-frame camera, just with a smaller sensor. Yes, you're right there is more "material" to crop, BUT... remember that in order to shove say, 24MP on a crop-frame sensor, they're going to be a lot smaller than on an FF sensor....

 

[PaulWog]

I think it's all a matter of the right tools for the job.

It takes a pretty good telephoto lens for a crop sensor, or teleconverter, to do much.

My 150-600 Contemporary will produce very similar images on a D750 or a D7100. You can just crop in on the file from the D750 and voila, similar results. The reason is because superzooms just don't "use" all the pixels. They're not sharp like a prime. There will be some minute differences I'm sure (if you compare a D750 and D7100 on the same 150-600 lens), but very very minor.

The first step to really getting more reach is investing in the glass. If I did feel the need for a teleconverter, I'd probably pick up a D500 because I'd probably have a 500 f4 or 600 f4 if I did need that teleconverter. The only semi-affordable lens type I can think of that really truly benefits is a 70-200 f2.8 (but that's more a case of needing reach & speed together, on a 'budget').

 

[Peeb]

TiredIron hit the nail directly on the head. It's not that a crop body has more reach (like a longer focal length). It just takes the picture you'd have with a full-frame sensor...and then crops it. So if you have a slow shutter speed or poor light, it's going to be a mediocre picture.

My first advice would be to upgrade your lens, especially for wildlife. You need relatively fast glass since the critters don't hold a pose very long and light is often poor. A teleconverter will extend your focal length but also cut some shutter speed for you and I don't think that's a great way to shoot most wildlife.

OP here. Tirediron was correct, but he didn't say anything I didn't already know. I'm not confident that you understand how DX cameras work, however. They don't 'crop' anything, they just have smaller sensors and a corresponding narrower FOV.

A crop body 24MP camera shooting in native DX mode gives you more pixels for better resolution additional cropping than a 24MP FF camera shooting in DX mode, as you DON'T use 24MP of your FF sensor in crop mode- probably closer to 10 or 12. That's what I was referring to.

I'm fairly confident we all know how a crop-frame camera works. It works exactly the same as a full-frame camera, just with a smaller sensor. Yes, you're right there is more "material" to crop, BUT... remember that in order to shove say, 24MP on a crop-frame sensor, they're going to be a lot smaller than on an FF sensor....

Fair enough, I'll delete the portion of the comment questioning DX/FX acumen.

Good point about pixel size, btw.

 

[Peeb]

A friend of mine has a D800, D4s and a D500. His lens is the same as mine, the 500 F4 VR-g. Guess which body he always shoots with his 500 lens? That should answer your question..

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess- D500?

 

[jaomul]

I'd buy a crop camera over a teleconverter. There are the size disadvantage, being a camera is bigger than a teleconverter but if you need 24mp (for example) on a bird in the distance, a good crop camera and lens will likely give you better image quality than all but the best lenses and expensive Tele on an fx

 

[fmw]

Why do you think cropping by using a smaller sensor is any different than cropping the image in the computer?

 

[PaulWog]

Why do you think cropping by using a smaller sensor is any different than cropping the image in the computer?

Pixel density

 

[fmw]

I understand but that could well be overrated. A D810 using the DX option is roughly a 16mpx camera. The difference between that and 24 mpx is really trivial in my view. I have a 16mpx DX camera and a 24mpx. The difference really is trivial. It isn't a good reason to buy a new camera in my view.

 

[coastalconn]

Why do you think cropping by using a smaller sensor is any different than cropping the image in the computer?

Pixel density

I understand but that could well be overrated. A D810 using the DX option is roughly a 16mpx camera. The difference between that and 24 mpx is really trivial in my view. I have a 16mpx DX camera and a 24mpx. The difference really is trivial. It isn't a good reason to buy a new camera in my view.

The OP does not have a D810, but a D610, so only about 10 MP in the DX area. I think I mentioned it earlier. But I tested my D500 and 500 F4 against the D600 and 500 F4 and 1.4x TC. The D500 won. I'll have to see if I can find my test and upload it at some point.

With that said. I don't think the OP mentions what lens they have currently?

 

[fmw]

Your 500 f4 isn't a DX lens. I Thought we were talking about using an FX sensor with half of its pixels. No need to use the FX camera in DX mode. I fail to see how it is relevant to my question. I don't doubt you had a winner in your test but I would suggest I would probably view the difference as trivial as well.

 

[PaulWog]

Your 500 f4 isn't a DX lens. I Thought we were talking about using an FX sensor with half of its pixels. No need to use the FX camera in DX mode. I fail to see how it is relevant to my question. I don't doubt you had a winner in your test but I would suggest I would probably view the difference as trivial as well.

It's all about how much detail you can get on your subject. For general birding, I'd take a D500 over any full frame when using a 500 f4 lens. In the case of birding, you're almost always cropping in even with a DX camera.

The same isn't quite as true with lesser lenses like a 150-600 though. I prefer full frame in the case of a 150-600, since it doesn't resolve enough on a DX sensor.

 

[Peeb]

Your 500 f4 isn't a DX lens. I Thought we were talking about using an FX sensor with half of its pixels. No need to use the FX camera in DX mode. I fail to see how it is relevant to my question. I don't doubt you had a winner in your test but I would suggest I would probably view the difference as trivial as well.

That's not at all what I said in the OP. The question is whether to use my fx lens on my D610 with a TC or whether I put my fx lens on a 24mp Dx body.

 

[coastalconn]

Your 500 f4 isn't a DX lens. I Thought we were talking about using an FX sensor with half of its pixels. No need to use the FX camera in DX mode. I fail to see how it is relevant to my question. I don't doubt you had a winner in your test but I would suggest I would probably view the difference as trivial as well.

Who said anything about my 500 being a DX lens? Nobody actually asked about a D810 which is quite different than a D610 in terms of 15.2 MP in DX vs 10.2 MP in DX mode. You have to view it as being focal length limited especially for wildlife, which, correct me if I am wrong, you have very little experience with? My answer to the OP was relevant as I have compared the same lens with a 21 MP DX camera vs a 24 MP FX camera. To get the same field of view you need to add a 1.4x TC to which, adds a stop, slows down AF and also takes a hit in IQ. If you were to compare the same scene without a TC, when you downsize a DX camera to the same 10.3 MP of the D610, you will have more detail with the DX camera (providing you have a decent lens) and the noise will actually look better when it is downsampled.

 

[PaulWog]

Your 500 f4 isn't a DX lens. I Thought we were talking about using an FX sensor with half of its pixels. No need to use the FX camera in DX mode. I fail to see how it is relevant to my question. I don't doubt you had a winner in your test but I would suggest I would probably view the difference as trivial as well.

That's not at all what I said in the OP. The question is whether to use my fx lens on my D610 with a TC or whether I put my fx lens on a 34mp Dx body.

*24mp (I think that was just a typo). I think a glass upgrade is better than a D500 though.

When I purchased my D750, I did so knowing one of my main lenses is a 150-600. The upside to a full frame sensor on something like a 150-600 is that you get significantly better pictures when you don't need to crop; when you do need to crop, it's almost a wash between FX and DX, since the lens just isn't good enough at 600mm to take advantage of a DX sensor's pixel density. A side-by-side comparison will show an extremely slight advantage for a DX sensor on a crop. The bigger advantage of a D500 on a 150-600 is the focusing system.

Where DX and teleconverters shine is the tele primes. I think you'd have to spend quite a bit of money to really truly benefit from a switch to DX. An 'older' 500mm f4 from Nikon comes in at $6400 on B&H (which is 'only' a little over twice the price of a D500).

 

[Peeb]

Your 500 f4 isn't a DX lens. I Thought we were talking about using an FX sensor with half of its pixels. No need to use the FX camera in DX mode. I fail to see how it is relevant to my question. I don't doubt you had a winner in your test but I would suggest I would probably view the difference as trivial as well.

That's not at all what I said in the OP. The question is whether to use my fx lens on my D610 with a TC or whether I put my fx lens on a 34mp Dx body.

*24mp (I think that was just a typo). I think a glass upgrade is better than a D500 though.

When I purchased my D750, I did so knowing one of my main lenses is a 150-600. The upside to a full frame sensor on something like a 150-600 is that you get significantly better pictures when you don't need to crop; when you do need to crop, it's almost a wash between FX and DX, since the lens just isn't good enough at 600mm to take advantage of a DX sensor's pixel density. A side-by-side comparison will show an extremely slight advantage for a DX sensor on a crop. The bigger advantage of a D500 on a 150-600 is the focusing system.

Where DX and teleconverters shine is the tele primes. I think you'd have to spend quite a bit of money to really truly benefit from a switch to DX. An 'older' 500mm f4 from Nikon comes in at $6400 on B&H (which is 'only' a little over twice the price of a D500).

You're right- it was 24, not 34. Typo fixed. Thanks!