do crop sensors really add reach?

[PackLight]

Hi,

Hi,
    Since crop sensor use only the central region of the image circle where the lens perform the best, its should produce sharper image when using an EF lens. So theoretically, when there is enough light, a crop camera with EF 300mm F2.8 will give better IQ (mainly sharper image) compare to a full frame camera with a EF 400mm F2.8 (both will have similar FoV), right?

    Have a nice day.

It would actually be closer to the 500mm with FF. 1.6 x 300mm would be 480mm.

I think if you did side by side examples you would prefer the FF. I know I do. You could test the 85mm vs the 135mm, I have seen where people have done this test and the FF comes out on top.

    Hmm... I just wondering: will image shoot with a crop sensor resolve more details than a full frame camera using the same lens at the same distance?? Meaning will I see details on image shooting with a crop sensor that didn't appear on image shoot with full frame sensor using the same lens at the same distance?

    I'm very interested in this as I'm currently thinking of whether to get a full frame or not for birding. Currently, I'm using EF 400mm F5.6L with 60D. The problem I had with 60D are basically noise (I confess I'm obsess with noise, so I seldom shoot above ISO 1600...  ) and AF at dim light... miss quite a few opportunity at some rare birds when they appear at time when light is low, so I think getting a 6D (when it become available) might improve on this (I can't afford any of the > 400mm lens) and I like the idea of have a GPS coordinate tag with my image...  Also, I can keep my 60D as a backup camera since most of the accessories can be share.

    Have a nice day.

What can you afford?
The 1D IV used would be my first thought. Superb AF system and IQ.
I wouldn't get the 5D II for birding, it is a still camera.
If the AF system of the 5D III is as good as they say but lower frame rate.
The 7D would be the next logical step up if you are looking birding camera. Take the 1D IV leap if you can and it is that important to you.

Edit; I would put more weight in the AF system than the sensors when picking one of these bodies.

[dlleno]

No crop sensors don't add reach, a 400mm is a 400mm no matter what size sensor it is put on.

To be precise,  you are correct in that the sensor itself does not change the optical characteristics of a given lens, but for the purpose of addressing the OPs inquiry, and for understanding the effects of the crop body as a practical matter  -- I believe it is fair to use the term "reach" because this term is applied loosely and refers only to equivalent FOV.  It does not mean "precisely equivalent result,  in every way,  to using a longer lens on a FF body"
[/quote]

[neuroanatomist]

To me end results matter, the rest is just specs and hype that sells cameras. I took both cameras with me in the field and whenever the chance arose I tested both. Armed with actual field knowledge and samples I concluded in the end the benefit is only marginal.

Agreed. 

Real world, same lens, cropped 5DII vs. 7D, no meaningful IQ difference except the number of MP you're left with after cropping.  Real world camera performance, 7D beats 5DII hands down for birds/wildlife. 

Real world, FF camera with better performance (e.g. 5DIII, 1D X) and longer vs. 7D and shorter lens, no contest, 7D loses out.

Real world, can't afford longer lens on FF camera with better performance, shorter lens on 7D is still pretty damn good.

[sawsedge]

Is the crop 7D going to have more reach? Yes of course.  But of course you can just crop the FF image for more reach also.

is the 7D going to yield more pixels vs. the cropped 5D/ yes of Course 

Is it going to yield more detail? Depends if the lens is sharp enough. And the 100-400 is not known for sharpness at 400. So maybe not.

On my 400mm f2.8 IS I, my 7D has way more reach and detail than my 5D II (now III)

My 100-400 is excellent at 400, wide open.  And coupled with my 5D3, the images are much nicer than what came out of my 50D.  I attribute a good part of that to the AF of the 5D3.

So to the OP, you have an excellent lens lineup.  I think good AF is a major factor for wildlife.  I'd go with either a 7D or 5D3 for the AF... or 1D4, 1DX if you can afford such.  If you go full frame, replace the 10-22 with a 17-40 unless you need the extra stop of the 16-35.

[PackLight]

To me end results matter, the rest is just specs and hype that sells cameras. I took both cameras with me in the field and whenever the chance arose I tested both. Armed with actual field knowledge and samples I concluded in the end the benefit is only marginal.

Agreed. 

Real world, same lens, cropped 5DII vs. 7D, no meaningful IQ difference except the number of MP you're left with after cropping.  Real world camera performance, 7D beats 5DII hands down for birds/wildlife. 

Real world, FF camera with better performance (e.g. 5DIII, 1D X) and longer vs. 7D and shorter lens, no contest, 7D loses out.

Real world, can't afford longer lens on FF camera with better performance, shorter lens on 7D is still pretty damn good.

And the 1D IV vs......

It lost its f/8 edge over the 1D X. 
So now it comes down to an extra stop of usable ISO vs a 1.3 crop factor?
The reasons I haven't upgraded are becoming fewer.
Against the 5DIII I would think the 1D IV would be preferred.

[RLPhoto]

Yes, It does add a bit of reach.

I can Crop far further into my 7D frame than my 5D3 frame, and still get a good image.

[neuroanatomist]

And the 1D IV vs......

It lost its f/8 edge over the 1D X. 
So now it comes down to an extra stop of usable ISO vs a 1.3 crop factor?
The reasons I haven't upgraded are becoming fewer.
Against the 5DIII I would think the 1D IV would be preferred.

For birds/wildlife, I'd take a 1DIV over a 5DIII, and a 1D X over a 1DIV.  Initially, I had been considering replacing my 7D with a refurb 1DIV.  But after shooting for a while with the 1D X, I dont' really see the point...

[jrista]

And the 1D IV vs......

It lost its f/8 edge over the 1D X. 
So now it comes down to an extra stop of usable ISO vs a 1.3 crop factor?
The reasons I haven't upgraded are becoming fewer.
Against the 5DIII I would think the 1D IV would be preferred.

For birds/wildlife, I'd take a 1DIV over a 5DIII, and a 1D X over a 1DIV.  Initially, I had been considering replacing my 7D with a refurb 1DIV.  But after shooting for a while with the 1D X, I dont' really see the point...

And now that the 1D X officially supports 5-pt f/8 AF, the key advantage the 1D IV had over the 1D X is now gone.

[K-amps]

Assuming money was no object, a 1D X with a 600mm f/4 L II IS and a pair of Mark III TC's is definitely the way to go. I don't think money can currently buy a better set of gear for a nature fan. But money...well...it tends to be THE object most of the time for most people,

Even with enough funds... we'd be a the mercy of the Flourite crystals that refuse to grow any faster... 

[insanitybeard]

To me end results matter, the rest is just specs and hype that sells cameras. I took both cameras with me in the field and whenever the chance arose I tested both. Armed with actual field knowledge and samples I concluded in the end the benefit is only marginal.

Agreed. 

Real world, same lens, cropped 5DII vs. 7D, no meaningful IQ difference except the number of MP you're left with after cropping.  Real world camera performance, 7D beats 5DII hands down for birds/wildlife. 

Real world, FF camera with better performance (e.g. 5DIII, 1D X) and longer vs. 7D and shorter lens, no contest, 7D loses out.

Real world, can't afford longer lens on FF camera with better performance, shorter lens on 7D is still pretty damn good.

Amen to that.
The more expensive full frame cameras should perform better- otherwise, why pay all that extra money? I can't afford more than my 7D for the forseeable future but it's good to know that it's performance relative to what it costs is pretty good. YMMV- there are plenty of posts dissing the IQ of the 7D after all, but we can't all afford full frame. It's all relative.

[jrista]

To me end results matter, the rest is just specs and hype that sells cameras. I took both cameras with me in the field and whenever the chance arose I tested both. Armed with actual field knowledge and samples I concluded in the end the benefit is only marginal.

Agreed. 

Real world, same lens, cropped 5DII vs. 7D, no meaningful IQ difference except the number of MP you're left with after cropping.  Real world camera performance, 7D beats 5DII hands down for birds/wildlife. 

Real world, FF camera with better performance (e.g. 5DIII, 1D X) and longer vs. 7D and shorter lens, no contest, 7D loses out.

Real world, can't afford longer lens on FF camera with better performance, shorter lens on 7D is still pretty damn good.

Amen to that.
The more expensive full frame cameras should perform better- otherwise, why pay all that extra money? I can't afford more than my 7D for the forseeable future but it's good to know that it's performance relative to what it costs is pretty good. YMMV- there are plenty of posts dissing the IQ of the 7D after all, but we can't all afford full frame. It's all relative.

I agree with that, too. The 7D only really wins in focal-length limited situations. The larger your pixel, the better the native output is going to be, regardless. I wasn't trying to say the 7D was better than the likes of the 5D III or anything from the 1D series. Simply that it doesn't get the credit it deserves for what it DOES offer, and its pretty good all things considered...in a focal-length limited scenario.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Of course there is more detail because the dollar is bigger in the photo. If you use a microscope there will be TONS of more detail...
get what i mean? Such test photos only make sense when the final output is the same.

7D just gives u more detail in aka you dont have to move closer to the subject to get the field of view you want. 80mm lens on 5D and 50mm lens on 7D should give equal results. But not EXACTLY cuz the bokeh will also look different etc.

Yeah but the dollar bill is bigger because it gives more reach, which is the whole point!
You only care about reach when you can get any closer and in that case teh 7D tosses more details on your subject than the 5D2/5D3, for instance. OTOH, if you are framing some landscape shot or if you can get close enough to the bird or whatever to frame as you wish on FF then the 5D2/5D3 do better than the 7D and, in fact, I used my 5D2 for a lot more total shots then I did my 7D, but, real world too yes, my 7D put better detail on subjects when I was distance limited.

[rpt]

Like somebody said earlier in this thread you need to factor in pixel density. Otherwise you can't really say if you got more reach or not...

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Top and bottom bills= Before tax
Middle two bills= After tax   

and they turn into this:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8327/8082002857_bd58157188_o.jpg

after you get the 24-70 II (or basically any new Canon product, even a lens cap  )

[LetTheRightLensIn]

And the thing is, if you say the 7D has no reach advantage over a 5D2 then you must also agree that usage of TCs is always a waste....

First of all, the money shots   there can't be compared meaningfully because they are not the same FOV, and therefore do not target the same output result.   For the purpose of advising the OP we are talking about the final output IQ of a 5D2 image that has been cropped to match the FOV of the 7D or t2i.  One has to ignore the pixel count and pixel densities, because these numbers by themselves do not meaningfully predict the outcome of such as test. 

No, the OP is asking about reach, what he can do when distance limited, nobody cares about your FOV when you are distance limited, FOV is meaningless when you are distance limited.

He wasn't asking about what lens to use to get a certain landscape shot to give him the same FOV shot from the same spot.

secondly, I have to admit I'm struggling a bit to see the equivalence of using optical multpliers versus cropping the final image.  The comparison is interesting, to be sure, and valuable in its own right, but is not nearly as simplistic as stated. To be sure, optical multiplication introduces side-effects of its own but these are heavily dependant on the TC itself and the native lens to which it is attached.  Taking those into account, the advantage is that with careful choices one can present a larger image magnification to the sensor,  decreasing the FOV opticallly while taking full advantage of the sensor's native resolution and IQ.  This technique will advantage the FF body, and represents a very different test case than the OP has presented.   For example, take a photo, properly exposed and framed of course,  with the t2i and a 300 f/2.8 lens.  Then add the 1.4 III to the lens and mount the combination on the 5D2 body and crop the resultant image to match the 1.6 crop factor of the t2i.  is there any doubt as to which will produce a superior result in more situations?  To take the experiment further -- mount a 2x III to the 300 f/2.8 and take a photo with the 5d2, then take the TC off and take the same photo with the t2i, croping the result to match the FOV.  5D2 wins.

a single 1.4x TC won't even quite make up for teh 7D reach advantage and here is the point if you can manage to get close enough to the subject with whatever lens and TC you have then you are not reach limited

when you are limited then he just pops the 1.4x or 2x TC on his 300 2.8 and shoots with his t2i and then does better than his 5D2 with that same combo being shot on his distant bird or moose or t rex or whatever