More reach- 1.4 teleconverter or crop body camera?

[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.

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.

You are wrong. I used to own a Nikkor 500 f4. My difference of opinion with you is that I view the difference between 10mpx and 15mpx to be fairly trivial. I do agree with you about the TC. But the TC is softer, not because of the sensor but because of the glass.

 

[robbins.photo]

You are wrong. I used to own a Nikkor 500 f4. My difference of opinion with you is that I view the difference between 10mpx and 15mpx to be fairly trivial. I do agree with you about the TC. But the TC is softer, not because of the sensor but because of the glass.

Fred, I think there is a piece of the equation your missing here, and that's distance to the subject.

When you can control the distance from the subject, as you can in the types of photography that you mention that you do, then yes the difference between 10mp and 15mp might seem trivial. If you need to move closer to your subject to improve your shot, you can. Problem solved.

However for the type of photography that some of us like Coastal does, that luxury doesn't exist. He has to take whatever shot he can get at the time, he has very little control over how far away his subject is and in most cases cannot move any closer.

As a result he has to crop most of his images - and that is when the difference between 10mp and 15mp becomes a huge difference. That's also when things like pixel density really come into play.

When I upgraded from the 16mp D5100 to the 24mp D5200 I didn't really notice a huge difference on those shots that I didn't need to crop. However on the stuff that I did have to crop, the difference was night and day. If I shot mostly in a studio where I could control my distance to the subject, then you'd be right, the differences wouldn't be much to write home about. But not all of us shoot in a studio...

 

[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.

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.

I think you are right that @Peeb best choice would be a new lens. However that might not be economically feasible. Also a 1.4x TC on the 70-300 lens will not work well. I've tried that. The D32000/3300 might also be very frustrating because the frame rate is extremely slow with no buffer. I would recommend saving money until you can afford a new lens, maybe the 150-600 G2 pending reviews..
@PaulWog The Tamron 150-600 does OK on the D500, I shot it a few days before I got my lens selection squared away..
George Jr. flight with Baby Bunny 6_15 by Kristofer Rowe, on Flickr

Heavily shaded and only 1/250th wide open...
George Jr. with Baby Bunny 6_15 1 by Kristofer Rowe, on Flickr

You are wrong. I used to own a Nikkor 500 f4. My difference of opinion with you is that I view the difference between 10mpx and 15mpx to be fairly trivial. I do agree with you about the TC. But the TC is softer, not because of the sensor but because of the glass.

Again, the OP never asked about your D810 the question was about D610 and a 24 MP DX, so 10 vs 24 MP or a linear increase of 6000 vs 3936 which is roughly 50%

Fred, I think there is a piece of the equation your missing here, and that's distance to the subject.

When you can control the distance from the subject, as you can in the types of photography that you mention that you do, then yes the difference between 10mp and 15mp might seem trivial. If you need to move closer to your subject to improve your shot, you can. Problem solved.

However for the type of photography that some of us like Coastal does, that luxury doesn't exist. He has to take whatever shot he can get at the time, he has very little control over how far away his subject is and in most cases cannot move any closer.

As a result he has to crop most of his images - and that is when the difference between 10mp and 15mp becomes a huge difference. That's also when things like pixel density really come into play.

When I upgraded from the 16mp D5100 to the 24mp D5200 I didn't really notice a huge difference on those shots that I didn't need to crop. However on the stuff that I did have to crop, the difference was night and day. If I shot mostly in a studio where I could control my distance to the subject, then you'd be right, the differences wouldn't be much to write home about. But not all of us shoot in a studio...

Exactly! Focal length limited is the key difference. If you can fill the frame on a FX camera then there is pretty much no debate.

 

[zombiesniper]

My difference of opinion with you is that I view the difference between 10mpx and 15mpx to be fairly trivial.

50% difference is pretty huge in my opinion. Hands up for anyone willing to throw away 50% of their MP........nobody?
With that type of statement we should all be using 2005 FF cameras.

 

[fmw]

My difference of opinion with you is that I view the difference between 10mpx and 15mpx to be fairly trivial.

50% difference is pretty huge in my opinion. Hands up for anyone willing to throw away 50% of their MP........nobody?
With that type of statement we should all be using 2005 FF cameras.

A difference in 50% of the resolution would be fairly noticeable. That would require a doubling of the number of or more than 20 mpx. A difference in 50% in the number of pixels isn't that noticeable. As always, the size of the final product is what determines the importance. A lot of great professional photography was done with 2005 cameras.

 

[zombiesniper]

A lot of great professional photography was done with 2005 cameras.

Yes and in 2005 that argument would be valid...but it's not.
A lot of professional races were won with cars from 2005.......bet they wouldn't today.
50% MP difference is noticeable.

 

[zombiesniper]

To the OP if you can find a crop body with a similar quality sensor I would go with a second body.

 

[robbins.photo]

My difference of opinion with you is that I view the difference between 10mpx and 15mpx to be fairly trivial.

50% difference is pretty huge in my opinion. Hands up for anyone willing to throw away 50% of their MP........nobody?
With that type of statement we should all be using 2005 FF cameras.

A difference in 50% of the resolution would be fairly noticeable. That would require a doubling of the number of or more than 20 mpx. A difference in 50% in the number of pixels isn't that noticeable. As always, the size of the final product is what determines the importance. A lot of great professional photography was done with 2005 cameras.

Fred, again your assumption only holds if you can control your distance to the subject. If you can't then it simply falls flat.

Not everyone shoots products in a studio and can simply grab the camera and move it while the subject stays in the exact same place indefinitely.



Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[Peeb]

A bit of thread necromancy....

This dude says crop body ftw:

 

[Peeb]

Must admit, however, in comparing a D610 (full frame) to a D5500 (crop body) using the identical lens from the identical location shooting the identical subject, I find the differences between the full D5500 image and the cropped D610 image to be pretty negligible.

 

[Drive-By-Shooter]

Must admit, however, in comparing a D610 (full frame) to a D5500 (crop body) using the identical lens from the identical location shooting the identical subject, I find the differences between the full D5500 image and the cropped D610 image to be pretty negligible.

Did you view or print the comparison at an 8x10 equivalent (possibly a minimum requirement) or larger?

I had a Nikon 1.7x for a 70-200 for a while, but found the degradation to be a bit too much.

Purchased a D3300 for my wife a year ago and sold the kit lens for a net outlay of under $300, due to the sale at the time. Great camera for the price, indeed.

Regarding some other posts in this thread:
zombiesniper:
An increase of 50% (pixels or anything else) represents a 33% decline (going in the other direction), not 50% per your post. (This is why people who lost 50% in the stock market crash of 2008 had to double their money to get it back.)

Since you need 4 times the pixels to double the resolution, losing a third of your pixels means a loss of resolution of 19%. (Someone correct my math if I'm wrong, thanks.)
Studies have shown that people don't perceive changes of less than 10%, sometimes won't notice 15%, but will notice 19%,.
Fred is only correct that it won't be noticed if the pic size is small enough that downsampling eliminates the perceivable resolution difference.
This is why the size of comparison is everything!

robbins.photo :
I'm enjoying you're posts and when you correct you're use of this, your going to appear more intelligent.
So, there, their, they're you have it! ;-)
(Yes, I know that I often fail to capitalize so I can type faster, but it is a conscious decision, not an accident.)

 

[robbins.photo]

robbins.photo :
I'm enjoying you're posts and when you correct you're use of this, your going to appear more intelligent.
So, there, their, they're you have it! ;-)
(Yes, I know that I often fail to capitalize so I can type faster, but it is a conscious decision, not an accident.)

Shhh.. everybody in the back seat be quiet. I've just been pulled over by the grammar police....

 

[Peeb]

 

[astroNikon]

Just buy one of each.

If you can afford a nice FX, then you can pick up an inexpensive DX like a used D5300 (or used d3x00 series) body. Just use all your FX lenses, reserve UWA to your FX and you're fine.

Then you can do your own experiments.
I've tested 16mp, 20mp, 24mp DX vs 24mp FX on distant subjects with 1.4, 1.7 and 2.0 TCs
It varies.

 

[pixmedic]

sent by synchronized cardioversion