Why smaller sensors beat full-frame sensors for wildlife photography

[Derrel]

I have long found it interesting that those who own top-level equipment so often downplay the importance of equipment when talking to mid-level and beginning shooters. Listening to the guy that owns a 400/2.8 that costs $10,000 to $13,000, one might think that a 70-200 and some stalking skills could replace that big cannon...

 

[freixas]

I have long found it interesting that those who own top-level equipment so often downplay the importance of equipment when talking to mid-level and beginning shooters. Listening to the guy that owns a 400/2.8 that costs $10,000 to $13,000, one might think that a 70-200 and some stalking skills could replace that big cannon...

Exactly! Well, it cuts down on competition...

 

[freixas]

This thread has wandered far off my original topic. There appear to be some knee-jerk reactions to any comment when comparing equipment:

• "It's not the equipment, it's the photographer."
• "That's not the only (or even most important) thing to consider."

These are both true, but irrelevant. Unfortunately, I let myself get sucked down that path.

In my OP, I was actually proposing a different way to think about the "crop factor" for a group of people who often don't use all the pixels they have.

When comparing FF to APS-C, I would automatically think that, using the same lens, APS-C gave me a 1.6x "zoom" advantage over FF. Then I realized this is not correct. If I look at specific cameras, say the Canon 5D Mark IV vs the 70D, the 70D's "zoom" advantage is just 1.3x. If I had a 50 MP FF camera, there would be no "zoom" advantage to the 70D.

In a world where magnification is king (wildlife photography), one would tend to lean to smaller pixel pitches (regardless of sensor size). If you are going to crop even an APS-C sensor, then you might as well get a smaller pixel pitch on a smaller sensor and save some money.

All else being the same, there's going to be a quality difference, though, particularly at high ISO levels. Smaller pixels should be noisier. I proposed a theory that one could perhaps match the quality of the bigger pixels in post. That remains to be tested. Also, to be tested is whether the higher resolution and the higher noise increase at the same rate. Resolution increases at the square of the inverse of the pixel pitch; if noise increases at a smaller rate, then we might opt for the greater resolution, at least within some limits for the acceptable noise increase.

Discussions on autofocus, artistry, etc. are great, but just not relevant to the discussion. I regret getting roped in.

 

[dxqcanada]

Interesting since he both says the gear is important and that it isn't. My wife tried to take bird photos with a point-and-shoot camera without a viewfinder (just the LCD panel on the back). She was not happy. Yeah, you might get a lucky shot here or there, but the equipment will work against you.

There once was a photographer here (nzmacro) that had really excellent shots of King Fisher catching prey ... he used a "old" Sony NEX 7 camera with "really old" long focal length manual focus lenses (Canon FD). It was all about his abilities.

 

[Designer]

I chose the latter because of its smaller pixel pitch ..

All this talk about getting the maximum number of pixels on a bird is pointless without also considering what the camera does with the data. Each manufacturer, and each model within that line probably has different firmware that will ultimately produce some differences in the image, even presuming the same exact subject and same lens on all of them.

Marsel van Oosten uses "full size" sensors, for what it's worth.

 

[freixas]

I chose the latter because of its smaller pixel pitch ..

All this talk about getting the maximum number of pixels on a bird is pointless without also considering what the camera does with the data. Each manufacturer, and each model within that line probably has different firmware that will ultimately produce some differences in the image, even presuming the same exact subject and same lens on all of them.

I don't find the discussion pointless. The fact that a "perfect" answer is not possible is not going to dissuade me from thinking about the topic and doing my own investigations and research.

Marsel van Oosten uses "full size" sensors, for what it's worth.

Probably not worth much with regards to my OP. Pros tend to use pricier lenses, so we enter the apples-to-oranges area. In any case, my point was about comparing pixel pitch not sensor size, so knowing van Oosten uses FF sensors doesn't really help.

I know of some wildlife pros using the Canon DX1, a camera with a large 6.91 µm pixel pitch. It would pair up well with my 80D, if I could get my hands on one for testing. The 80D has almost a 2x pitch advantage. If a pro slaps a 2x extender on an f/4 600mm lens, they are still going to beat my 80D/f 6.3 400mm lens combo in zoom power, not to mention low-light performance (from both lens and larger pixels). Hand me their lens, though, and we can have a fair fight.

 

[JBPhotog]

Maybe perhaps freixas, one could have chosen a different thread title than "Why smaller sensors beat full-frame sensors for wildlife photography". I don't wish to be critical but the title proclaims to be a fact rather than what it is, an opinion. That could be the reason why it has been derailed? Different horses for different courses, of course.

 

[freixas]

Maybe perhaps freixas, one could have chosen a different thread title than "Why smaller sensors beat full-frame sensors for wildlife photography". I don't wish to be critical but the title proclaims to be a fact rather than what it is, an opinion. That could be the reason why it has been derailed? Different horses for different courses, of course.

Actually, I agree. I'd change it (if the system allows it), but it might make some of the existing responses look a little odd. Some people probably didn't read past the title. Oh, well, what's done is done...

 

[480sparky]

Perhaps you could ask one of the moderators to edit it for you.

 

[dxqcanada]

OP's can change title ... but as noted, it may make the responses look odd.

 

[freixas]

Perhaps you could ask one of the moderators to edit it for you.

I updated the OP, but retained the original title.

 

[RVT1K]

In the end, this really is an electronics question.

Comparing "large" vs. "small" pixels assumes that both are identical except for size. I suspect that, since the sensors are different items and are optimized for their specific function and due to differences in manufacturing, they will not be making a direct comparison impossible. I am quite familiar with all this as my company makes tools used in the semiconductor industry and there is a VB6 electron beam lithography tool about 15 feet behind me as I type.

Don't cell phones all have a boatload of resolution now? The Samsung website is saying my company-issued S7 Edge has 12 MP camera (the same as my D3). So all of those smaller pixels jammed into that tiny sensor.

But if we were to assume that everything about the pixels were identical, the smaller signals made by smaller components will be closer to the noise floor and will therefore be"noisier". Isn't this why larger pixels are touted as being better for low light situations? For a given amount of light, they produce a larger signal that is farther above the noise.

 

[RVT1K]

I have long found it interesting that those who own top-level equipment so often downplay the importance of equipment when talking to mid-level and beginning shooters. Listening to the guy that owns a 400/2.8 that costs $10,000 to $13,000, one might think that a 70-200 and some stalking skills could replace that big cannon...

I think that may have a lot to do with the notion that a beginner will not be able to extract the best that high-end gear can provide. The best gear in the world can only go so far in inexperienced hands.

When I bought my first digital camera, a D40, at some point I also got Nikon's 70-300 f4.5-5.6. I had fun and took some decent pictures. But if you had given me the 70-200 f/2.8 I later acquired back then, I don't think I would have taken significantly better pictures since I wasn't skilled enough to get the best the lens had to offer.

 

[Designer]

Marsel van Oosten uses "full size" sensors, for what it's worth.

Probably not worth much with regards to my OP. Pros tend to use pricier lenses, so we enter the apples-to-oranges area. In any case, my point was about comparing pixel pitch not sensor size, so knowing van Oosten uses FF sensors doesn't really help.

That was the premise of this thread, as evidenced in the title.

Your excuse about pros using pricier lenses is lame, and is completely irrelevant to your original premise.

If you meant pixel pitch, then why would you not say so much earlier? Can't correct your title?

Furthermore, pixel pitch means very little unless you first define how large your pixels are. Are all pixels the same size? Do they all perform equally?

Rethink and try again.

 

[freixas]

pixel pitch means very little unless you first define how large your pixels are.

Pixel pitch = how large the pixels are.