Why smaller sensors beat full-frame sensors for wildlife photography

[zombiesniper]

as if the sensor cant deal with limited light, your SCREWED

Most wildlife photographers don't shoot in the dark making your argument really weak.

ALMOST ANY DSLR/Mirrorless camera sensor manufactured in the last 5-10 can handle wildlife shooting with a quality lens. ALMOST NO DSLR/Mirrorless camera can do well shooting wildlife if you have a crap lens. It's a fact that the lens is way more important than the camera when it comes to wildlife. I can take my worst camera with my best lens and I'll always get better shots than my best camera with my worst lens.

Playing with the vivitar lenses won't prove anything other than you need to compensate for a low quality lens. That's all.

 

[greybeard]

Getting back to the original question, is crop frame better for tele/wildlife than full frame? Is a Nikon D500 better for wildlife than a D750? For a time I had a D750 and a D7500 which has roughly the same sensor as the D500. In this case, using a Tamron 150-600, the D7500 was better. But since then I have gotten a D850 and in DX (crop frame) it is every bit as good as the D7500. I ended up selling both the D7500 and the D750 as the D850 does it all. However, I just bought a Z-50 and it is the easiest most fun camera I have ever used.

 

[weepete]

I think it's a bit like saying M4/3rds is better for widlife than aps-c, or 1" is better than M4/3rds etc. Part of this argument makes me wonder, how much resolution is enough? There's bound to be a point of diminishing returns and if getting more ppd (pixels per duck) is the goal then there's more pixel packed sensors than aps-c.

One thing I've learned is photos at the extreme edges of gear capability are very seldom good images. Usually a quality image will be comfortably inside the capability of cameras. If we are really talking major differences in IQ, there's two parameters that really come to my mind: glass quality and distance.

In reality, if you really want a shot and if you really think that the shot is worth it you'll get a hide and camp out relentlessly to get it. That's where woodmanship, field craft and just plain experience come in, which you've tried to negate from your argument. I really don't mean to sound dismissive, and you are right in terms of "bang for the buck".

Personally, I prefer full frame. I shot with a 7D mkI for years. Its good, but me my full frame is the better imager.

Really, the best wildlife shots come from the skilled pink blob behind the camera.

 

[WayneF]

Getting back to the original question, is crop frame better for tele/wildlife than full frame? Is a Nikon D500 better for wildlife than a D750? For a time I had a D750 and a D7500 which has roughly the same sensor as the D500. In this case, using a Tamron 150-600, the D7500 was better. But since then I have gotten a D850 and in DX (crop frame) it is every bit as good as the D7500. I ended up selling both the D7500 and the D750 as the D850 does it all. However, I just bought a Z-50 and it is the easiest most fun camera I have ever used.

That is of course a proper comparison of sensor size. Any advantage of the smaller sensor is simply a perceived illusion, but which is not real.

No one here has looked at all of the obvious real physical facts.

The smaller cropped image is in every case simply a smaller image (cropped). Comparing the smaller image to full frame is 2/3 size if Nikon 1.5 and 5/8 size if Canon 1.6. Speaking of the Nikon 2/3 size, even if it somehow had 3/2 greater sampling resolution (which of course it doesn't), its small size still has to be enlarged 50% more to be viewed (the math of the numbers is 2/3 = 67% size, 3/2 = 150% enlargement). Greater viewing enlargement of 150% size (to compare at the same size) costs viewing resolution being reduced to less resolution in every case of viewing the same size.

Yes, 3000 pixels printed 10 inches is 300 dpi printing reproduction. But there is more to it. Pixel density does NOT create any image detail. Pixel sampling merely attempts to reproduce the original lens detail adequately.

A 1x 36 mm sensor (1.41 inches) enlarged to 10 inches is 7.1x enlargement.
A 1.5x 24 mm sensor (0.94 inches) enlarged to 10 inches is 10.6x enlargement.
A 6x 6 mm sensor (0.23 inches) enlarged to 10 inches is 42x enlargement (6x x 7.1x is 42x)
These are enlargements of the actual original lens image, and enlargement obviously costs viewing resolution.
(1.5x crop specifically means that half again greater enlargement is necessary to view the same size, as compared to full frame size).

That is printing resolution (which is just a reproduction of original lens detail), but it is also enlargement of the original lens image. If comparing properly by using the same lens on both size sensors, the projected lens image itself is of course exactly the same image on either sensor (but simply cropped smaller on one of them). Which is in fact the illusion of a zoomed view from a lower equipment cost. But from the small sensor, it obviously must be enlarged 50% more to view the same size, costing a real loss of resolution of the real actual lens image. Enlargement simply spreads image detail wider, reducing resolution. If the LENS on the small sensor could originally provide 50% greater resolution (and if the pixel density could still reproduce it), the results would come out the same. But that seems extremely unlikely.

My site at Crop Factor and Equivalent Lens Focal Length Explained shows that visually, cropping by the sensor size is the same zoom illusion as cropping by simply zooming the editor view later. The small sensor does have advantage to typically furnish the same pixel count, where as the editor zoom seriously discards pixels, but the zoom illusion is the same in both, caused by the same reason (cropping smaller and enlarging more to view it). It is simply a smaller image, and the only zoom effect that we perceive is simply the greater enlargement necessary for a small image. But of course, we can also enlarge the larger image too (better actually). In either case (smaller sensor or editor zoom), cropping is just a smaller image, but must then be enlarged more to view the same size, which is then perceived as zooming. But enlargement always costs proportional resolution loss (in both pixels per inch terms of paper reproduction, and also in lines per mm terms of lens image creation).

Today, even tiny images from cell phones do surprisingly well, and even seems enough for some of us, but tiny simply doesn't enlarge well to print them large. The TV coverage of the football game shows some views of the sideline photographers, and every one of them is using full frame and a huge long lens. None of them dare to use the smaller sensor with a lesser lens. That is because it is a business, and they hope to sell the image. The TV camera itself is likely using a smaller sensor, but its images are only designed for 1280x720 or 1920x1080 pixels size, only 1 or 2 megapixels (OK, or maybe 4K cameras, 8 megapixels, but far from 24 or 36 mm sensor size).

 

[Soocom1]

What is lost in all of this is the very real fact that most photography hold interest of most viewers for about 30 seconds.

Fakebook and Imag...."x"... software and social media platforms have cut the average person's attention span to that of a jumping cricket.

All in all, except of the obviousness of weight factors, now mitigated by mirrorless, medium format (and if and ONLY if) there was a mirrorless large format,. all this discussion would be academic.

But actual image quality and overall resolution has given way to a disposable image aspect where what was so beautiful and awe inspiring a decade ago is now relegated unfortunately to the trash bin of forgotten photographs.

 

[WayneF]

What is lost in all of this is the very real fact that most photography hold interest of most viewers for about 30 seconds.

Probably it should have been worded as pictures instead of photography. Of the people interested in photography, concern for the best approach can last decades. And even this topic has lasted 10 pages.