neuroanatomist said:
Nininini said:
The Crop vs FF argument is simple for me. Crop wins because of the extra reach. I can get far more reach for far far less weight, size and money on a Crop.
Glad that works for you. You really should get a m4/3 camera, better yet a superzoom P&S – the PowerShot SX60 has a 1365mm lens, much better reach and way smaller/lighter than your dSLR.
Your free lunch comes with a cake you can have and eat, too. It's a win-win!
Try being a bit less nasty and a bit more helpful......
With any lens, with smaller pixels you get a higher density sampling. If everything was perfect it would mean more reach. The problem is, everything is not perfect.
First problem: The lens is not perfect. With twice the sampling density on a perfect lens, you would get twice the reach, but because of imperfections in the lens you get a lesser number. The better the lens, the closer you are to twice the reach, the worse the lens, the closer you are to one.
Second problem: Assuming the same technology, by going to twice the pixel density, you quarter the area of the pixels and that means you get less light on each one. If there is no wasted sensor area (edges of pixels, traces, etc) each pixel gets abut a quarter the light and your sensor performance drops two stops.
Third problem: Read noise.... you would get the same read noise for big or small pixels, but the read noise of the small pixel is compared to a smaller signal and is relatively more significant.
Fourth problem: Movement and vibration. With smaller pixels, any movement blurs the light over more pixels. This can be movement of the camera or movement of the subject. You compensate with higher shutter speeds and that means compromising ISO or aperture settings and pixel quality suffers.
Crop cameras GENERALLY have smaller pixels than FF cameras, but this is not always true.
The best way to sum it up is that by going to smaller pixels you increase the number of pixels on target but the quality and the accuracy of those pixels is reduced. Your resolving power can be increased under some combinations of conditions and it can be decreased under other conditions. There is no definitive answer as the variables are too complex and vary so much on personal choices and conditions.
I have a 5D2, 7D2, and a SX-50. Personally, I find that the 5D2 out-resolves the 7D2 under poor lighting, that the 7D2 is best under good lighting, but under absolutely perfect conditions the SX-50 blows the two of them away, but that's for me and the conditions and subjects that I tend to shoot. The next person will probably get a different answer.
Size is another thing.... Realistically, there is no difference between a 7D2 and a 6D or 5D3 when it comes to size, but go to a Rebel, SL1, or an "M" camera and you are significantly lighter and more affordable.
