EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Full Frame and Bigger Pixels vs. APS-C and Smaller Pixels - The Reach War« on: August 11, 2014, 10:21:49 AM »
Why? Because the moon covered the same absolute sensor area. There is a difference in pixel count between the two images, but overall, both sensors gathered exactly the same amount of light! That's the key there. There is no advantage to a larger sensor if you are not utilizing that increase in sensor area.
Thanks for the great post! Two additions here from my 60d/6d experience:
1. The more sensor coverage you have (with about the same mp ff vs crop), the more you can profit from future developments in noise reduction. DxO's prime shows the way, and I'm sure there's going to be more developments once even more computing power is available.
2. You're talking of reach for tele shots, with reach for macro there's the aspect of a) flight distance of animals and b) light occlusion by the lens (for available light or flash). That's why I still prefer my 60d for insect macros and the like even over my shiny new 6d. The 100L is as sharp as it gets on crop, so no advantage of ff here.
Are you shooting wildlife at ISO 100 and 200 on a regular basis?
Me, too, esp. because Magic Lantern's +3ev dynamic range boost with dual_iso only works with base iso ... that's why I'm regularly using 100/800 or 100/1600 is for wildlife for shadow/sun, sunrise/sunset or catching specular highlights.