do crop sensors really add reach?

[rpt]

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 ;D)

@serendipidy, I hope the picture on top was not the flip side of your $20 bill


@LTRLT, what can I say? You are really rallying the troops aren't you?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I bought the 7D after listening to all of the people that beat the number drums and form the parade to march up and down the street telling everyone how great the 1.6 crop is based on numbers. After all I wanted the best wildlife camera I could get so why not give it a try. 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. No matter how much I wanted to I just couldn’t join the parade. I can’t join the parade today either, sorry.

Well all I can say is my results are different in real world shooting. I notice it shooting birds and such too. And look at what Romy/liquidstone has to say on the matter, he is a famous bird photography from the Phillipines.

I most often do get real world better detail if I use 7D vs 5D2 using the same optics or if I compare using a bare long prime to one with a TC on it.

If you can't get it to work for you in the field then you can't, but that is definitely not the case for everyone.

 

[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 ;D)

@serendipidy, I hope the picture on top was not the flip side of your $20 bill


@LTRLT, what can I say? You are really rallying the troops aren't you?

actually the $20 and $1 were mine, i misquoted (i fixed the post now)
they were the flip sides to my $100 first after I bought a Canon spare battery and second after I added the 24-70 hah

 

[rpt]

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 ;D)

@serendipidy, I hope the picture on top was not the flip side of your $20 bill


@LTRLT, what can I say? You are really rallying the troops aren't you?

actually the $20 and $1 were mine, i misquoted (i fixed the post now)
they were the flip sides to my $100 first after I bought a Canon spare battery and second after I added the 24-70 hah

As long as you have the 20 and the 1 and not two 10.5s you are good...
Have a great weekend (in case I crash...)

 

[PackLight]

I bought the 7D after listening to all of the people that beat the number drums and form the parade to march up and down the street telling everyone how great the 1.6 crop is based on numbers. After all I wanted the best wildlife camera I could get so why not give it a try. 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. No matter how much I wanted to I just couldn’t join the parade. I can’t join the parade today either, sorry.

Well all I can say is my results are different in real world shooting. I notice it shooting birds and such too. And look at what Romy/liquidstone has to say on the matter, he is a famous bird photography from the Phillipines.

I most often do get real world better detail if I use 7D vs 5D2 using the same optics or if I compare using a bare long prime to one with a TC on it.

If you can't get it to work for you in the field then you can't, but that is definitely not the case for everyone.

First, I really don't care what Romy/liquidstone has to say in the matter. He doesn't take my pictures for me. I am sure he is a fine photographer. I have been reading the reviews and comments about the 7D and 5D II since before they were released. I doubt after 3 1/2 years of reading these reviews that anything Romy/liquidstone is going to throw out that is new and cutting edge.

Second, I said from the start the 7D would be the better wildlife camera. Where did I say I couldn't get it to work for me? I am not sure what you are debating other than I said the IQ improvement is marginal in real life situations and somehow to you the term "marginal" just isn't good enough.

 

[dlleno]

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.

well, the OP was asking about effective reach with existing lenses on a FF body, in the context of cropping the FF image to yield equivalent final output of the crop body. For this objective, equivalent FOV and IQ of the final equivalent-size output is the measure of success.

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.

correct; In the paragraph that follows, I point out how different this is from the OP's objecitve.

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

extending the results that have been posted here, the 1.4x TC on high quality native glass will produce a better image than the 7D using the same lens without the TC, even accounting for the necessary crop of the FF image to obtain the same FOV

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

thats the point in question: will the t2i really do better than the 5D2 with the same optical system attached? The point of results posted earlier is that cropping the 5D2 image to produce the same final output size produces IQ that is remarkably similar to the 7D, with perhaps only a small (if any) advantage to the 7D. That result may be debateable, but is the basis of my point.

if he has a 1.4x and not using it, then he is not distance limited. You are only distance limited when the same optical system is used on both cameras. The point of results posted earlier is that when truly distance limited, the FF image can be cropped to the same FOV of the 7D and produce results that are better than the numbers imply.

Therefore, if you are not distance limited for the 7D, and you have a 1.4x in your pocket, then adding the 1.4x to the 5D2 should produce even better results than the 7D because the 5D image requires only a small amount of crop in post to acheive the same FOV.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

well, the OP was asking about effective reach with existing lenses on a FF body, in the context of cropping the FF image to yield equivalent final output of the crop body. For this objective, equivalent FOV and IQ of the final equivalent-size output is the measure of success.

"I worry about losing reach on my wildlife pics. Would I really lose reach or can I just crop all the way down to what I would get with my t2I?"

FOV doesn't matter in this case, pixel density does

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

thats the point in question: will the t2i really do better than the 5D2 with the same optical system attached? The point of results posted earlier is that cropping the 5D2 image to produce the same final output size produces IQ that is remarkably similar to the 7D, with perhaps only a small (if any) advantage to the 7D. That result may be debateable, but is the basis of my point.

From my results yes it definitely would (and others have had the same findings such as Romy) although others, as above have not for whatever reason. You do need to really nail the focus and make sure to keep the shutter speed good.

Therefore, if you are not distance limited for the 7D, and you have a 1.4x in your pocket, then adding the 1.4x to the 5D2 should produce even better results than the 7D because the 5D image requires only a small amount of crop in post to acheive the same FOV.

Yeah, as all have said, if you are NOT distance limited then a 5D2 does better, but he was asking if he'd lose anything, which implies distance limited.

As for the 1.4x TC on 5D2 vs a bare lens on the 7D, I'm not sure. I think the 7D is more like a 1.9x crop factor or so so 1.4x TC would still be a ways off, granted the 7Ds heavy split greens make it a trace softer at 100% for a rtypical 18MP APS-C but I tend to doubt that would make up for that much, but I'd have to check and my numbers may be off, just going by vague recollection.

 

[dlleno]

As for the 1.4x TC on 5D2 vs a bare lens on the 7D, I'm not sure. I think the 7D is more like a 1.9x crop factor or so so 1.4x TC would still be a ways off, granted the 7Ds heavy split greens make it a trace softer at 100% for a rtypical 18MP APS-C but I tend to doubt that would make up for that much, but I'd have to check and my numbers may be off, just going by vague recollection.

if the 7D's crop factor deviates substantially from Canons 1.6x, that would be good to know . That aside, the various different results discussed here are interesting to note. Some are reporting equivalent IQ when the 5D2 image is cropped to match the 7D FOV. Accepting that, the 1.x4x TC on the the 5D2 would easily outrun a 7D with the bare lens, assuming good optics of course, becasue this approach advantages the FF.

I think there is some confusion over terms as well. when I refer to FOV being important in distance limited situations, I refer to the goal of the final output. regardless of the tool employed, if the desire is an 11x14 print of the moose portrait, then you will crop the image in post to whatever level it takes to acheive the right framing and FOV that meets the objective of the photo, and then you will size the final output to 11x14. In this situation the FF image will be cropped to about 39% of the original number of pixels, compared to the 7D. It is astonishing that an 8mp image from the cropped 5D2 can be convincing against the 18mp impage from the 7D.

When you look at numbers, the 7D wins substantially over the cropped 5D2,. when you look at photos, the result is apparently much different.

 

[dtaylor]

Some are reporting equivalent IQ when the 5D2 image is cropped to match the 7D FOV.

At low to mid ISO...nonsense. They're probably sharpening the files the same or not sharpening at all, and basing their judgement on that mistake. And/or getting hung up on photon shot noise that disappears with a light NR pass.

That said...the difference is small to nonexistent unless you both crop further and print large. I've got 20" surfing prints made from 8-10 MP crops out of 7D files. Never would have made it that large with a 5D2, 5D3, or 1Dx (given the same lens). Anyone who questions that the 7D provides extra reach can go ahead and try to make 20" prints from 2-3 MP FF crops. The difference in IQ will be quite obvious.

But...I've only rarely had to both crop further and print large. If you're just trying to match APS-C's reach...not any further...then the differences just won't matter, especially when printing 8x10, 11x14. But even at 20" you can get away with it. Wildlife and sports do not stress resolution like a landscape. It might sound hard to believe, but 8 vs. 18 MP isn't that big of a deal in a 20" print of a surfer or deer, given proper post processing.

So yes, crop sensors really do add reach. But the differences are only apparent under extreme circumstances.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

As for the 1.4x TC on 5D2 vs a bare lens on the 7D, I'm not sure. I think the 7D is more like a 1.9x crop factor or so so 1.4x TC would still be a ways off, granted the 7Ds heavy split greens make it a trace softer at 100% for a rtypical 18MP APS-C but I tend to doubt that would make up for that much, but I'd have to check and my numbers may be off, just going by vague recollection.

if the 7D's crop factor deviates substantially from Canons 1.6x, that would be good to know . That aside, the various different results discussed here are interesting to note. Some are reporting equivalent IQ when the 5D2 image is cropped to match the 7D FOV. Accepting that, the 1.x4x TC on the the 5D2 would easily outrun a 7D with the bare lens, assuming good optics of course, becasue this approach advantages the FF.

I think there is some confusion over terms as well. when I refer to FOV being important in distance limited situations, I refer to the goal of the final output. regardless of the tool employed, if the desire is an 11x14 print of the moose portrait, then you will crop the image in post to whatever level it takes to acheive the right framing and FOV that meets the objective of the photo, and then you will size the final output to 11x14. In this situation the FF image will be cropped to about 39% of the original number of pixels, compared to the 7D. It is astonishing that an 8mp image from the cropped 5D2 can be convincing against the 18mp impage from the 7D.

When you look at numbers, the 7D wins substantially over the cropped 5D2,. when you look at photos, the result is apparently much different.

No I meant the 7Ds actual how many pixels per duck crop factor vs the 5D2 is more than a 1.4x extender, I think more like a 1.9x TC.

From what I've seen it does win noticeably over the 5D2 when distance limited and I'm not the only one to say that. If some don't see it what can I say, either they don't notice a difference until it is super big, like more than using a 2x TC big or something is going wrong or who knows what.

 

[jrista]

As for the 1.4x TC on 5D2 vs a bare lens on the 7D, I'm not sure. I think the 7D is more like a 1.9x crop factor or so so 1.4x TC would still be a ways off, granted the 7Ds heavy split greens make it a trace softer at 100% for a rtypical 18MP APS-C but I tend to doubt that would make up for that much, but I'd have to check and my numbers may be off, just going by vague recollection.

if the 7D's crop factor deviates substantially from Canons 1.6x, that would be good to know .

Hmm, as far as I know, it is a 1.6x crop factor. The sensor in the 7D is 22.3x14.9mm, vs. the 36x24mm of a FF sensor. As a matter of ratio of diagonals: 7D diagonal = 26.82, 5D II = 43.27 -> 43.27/26.82 = 1.6133, or a crop factor of ~1.6x.

From a pixel density standpoint, the 5D II has 6.4 micron pixels, while the 7D has 4.3 micron pixels. You can fit 1.488, or ~1.5 7D pixels into each 5D II pixel. Seems, from a pixel standpoint, the 7D is approximately like a 1.5x TC vs. the 5D II, which is a little better than an actual 1.4x TC. As a ratio, the 7D gets you about 7% more reach.

Oops, forgot to square the 7D's pixel ratio. You can actually fit about 2.25 7D pixels (1.5^2, since it is a matter of area, not simply scalar pixel pitch) into each 5D II pixel. So, I guess that means the 7D has a reach similar to a 2.25x TC? As a ratio, the 7D gets you about 60% more reach (which sounds a hell of a lot better than the 7% I came up with a moment ago!! ) So the 7D does indeed offer a hell of a lot more detail for any given lens than the 5D II does.

The 7D's FoV is indeed a 1.6x crop FoV. The 7D's intrinsic reach, thanks to its pixel density, is roughly the same as a 2x TC.

 

[TexPhoto]

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.

I'm sure your 100-400 is great. I used one before and it's a really nice lens. It's an excellent lens for what it costs. But if you are not seeing more detail from significantly higher pixel density, either one camera is focusing incorrectly, or you reached the lens's ability to resolve detail with the lower density camera. I don't have a 50D and can't speak to it's focusing ability, but it does not not have the ability to tweek focus, your 5DIII does. Correcton, the 50D does have focus adjust. Did you use it?

The 100-400 does not compare well with prime lenses in the same focal lengths

http://thedigitalpicture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=327&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

 

[Loswr]

I don't have a 50D and can't speak to it's focusing ability, but it does not not have the ability to tweek focus, your 5DIII does.

Actually, the 50D does have AF Microadjustment, although the 60D does not.

 

[PackLight]

So there we have it, then 7d isn't just a little better than the cropped 5d II. It, not only 1.6 better, not only 1.9 times better, not only 2x better, it's a full 2.25 times better.

But wait, can it even be better than that? Well yes, you see it's frame rate is double the amount of frames the 5D II will do, so 2 times as many pictures at 2.25 times the resolution means you get an average of 4.5 the resolving power of the 5D II.


How in the world did I not notice such a wide advantage when I was using it?

 

[jrista]

So there we have it, then 7d isn't just a little better than the cropped 5d II. It, not only 1.6 better, not only 1.9 times better, not only 2x better, it's a full 2.25 times better.

But wait, can it even be better than that? Well yes, you see it's frame rate is double the amount of frames the 5D II will do, so 2 times as many pictures at 2.25 times the resolution means you get an average of 4.5 the resolving power of the 5D II.

Nice!

How in the world did I not notice such a wide advantage when I was using it?

Camera shake? Tripod shake? The 7D has one of the smallest DSLR pixel pitches, only surpassed by Sony's 24mp APS-C sensors (which are actually 1.5x crop, so the difference is not as much as it sounds.) Like people have been saying about the D800: It really shows the lack of quality in your glass. Same goes for the 7D, only more so. At 100% crop, while the 7D WILL have more detail than the 5D II, unless you have the best glass money can buy that offers an MTF to match, it'll appear a bit soft. I don't think it has anything to do with an overly strong low-pass filter. I think it is simply that you need an order of magnitude better camera stability (along with a great lens) to produce ultracrisp 100% crop output like the 5D II can. The 5D II, with its 2.25x larger pixels, is somewhat forgiving. The 7D is entirely unforgiving. Normalize image size, either direction, in a focal-length limited scenario and the benefits of the 5D II IQ will largely disappear (although not entirely...it definitely has better very high ISO performance...i.e. ISO1600+ performance).

I own the EF 100-400mm lens and use it for my bird photography. I also rented the new EF 300mm f/2.8 L II IS a couple months ago. Even with a 2x TC attached, the 300mm lens (@ 600mm w/ 2x) blew my 100-400 to smithereens. There was zero contest...Canon's latest glass is almost an unholy level of good. With the 1.4x TC for 420mm, it was like a match made in heaven with the 7D. The results were unbelievable. I used to blame the 7D for my IQ problems. Now, I blame the 100-400mm lens. Don't get me wrong, it is a great lens, but its an old lens, and its age most definitely shows when used on the 7D. I'd say any lens not a recently released (post-2009 release) and a Mark II generation with 4-stop IS at least (if it has IS) will show its age with a 7D.

It is up to each individual to decide if THAT particular trait of the 7D, its unbelievable demand on lenses, is a positive or a negative. The 7D has the potential to trounce even the 1D X for reach and detail, but you would need a kit so expensive you'd probably feel like a twit using the 7D with that kit. ;P

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

So there we have it, then 7d isn't just a little better than the cropped 5d II. It, not only 1.6 better, not only 1.9 times better, not only 2x better, it's a full 2.25 times better.

But wait, can it even be better than that? Well yes, you see it's frame rate is double the amount of frames the 5D II will do, so 2 times as many pictures at 2.25 times the resolution means you get an average of 4.5 the resolving power of the 5D II.


How in the world did I not notice such a wide advantage when I was using it?

And it also cost less than the 5D2 and is a newer model and 7 is a larger prime number than 5 so it is actually 197.2x the resolving power of a 5D2 when not distance limited and 10,371.032x the resolving power when distance limited.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

So there we have it, then 7d isn't just a little better than the cropped 5d II. It, not only 1.6 better, not only 1.9 times better, not only 2x better, it's a full 2.25 times better.

But wait, can it even be better than that? Well yes, you see it's frame rate is double the amount of frames the 5D II will do, so 2 times as many pictures at 2.25 times the resolution means you get an average of 4.5 the resolving power of the 5D II.

Nice!

How in the world did I not notice such a wide advantage when I was using it?

Camera shake? Tripod shake? The 7D has one of the smallest DSLR pixel pitches, only surpassed by Sony's 24mp APS-C sensors (which are actually 1.5x crop, so the difference is not as much as it sounds.) Like people have been saying about the D800: It really shows the lack of quality in your glass. Same goes for the 7D, only more so. At 100% crop, while the 7D WILL have more detail than the 5D II, unless you have the best glass money can buy that offers an MTF to match, it'll appear a bit soft. I don't think it has anything to do with an overly strong low-pass filter. I think it is simply that you need an order of magnitude better camera stability (along with a great lens) to produce ultracrisp 100% crop output like the 5D II can. The 5D II, with its 2.25x larger pixels, is somewhat forgiving. The 7D is entirely unforgiving. Normalize image size, either direction, in a focal-length limited scenario and the benefits of the 5D II IQ will largely disappear (although not entirely...it definitely has better very high ISO performance...i.e. ISO1600+ performance).

I own the EF 100-400mm lens and use it for my bird photography. I also rented the new EF 300mm f/2.8 L II IS a couple months ago. Even with a 2x TC attached, the 300mm lens (@ 600mm w/ 2x) blew my 100-400 to smithereens. There was zero contest...Canon's latest glass is almost an unholy level of good. With the 1.4x TC for 420mm, it was like a match made in heaven with the 7D. The results were unbelievable. I used to blame the 7D for my IQ problems. Now, I blame the 100-400mm lens. Don't get me wrong, it is a great lens, but its an old lens, and its age most definitely shows when used on the 7D. I'd say any lens not a recently released (post-2009 release) and a Mark II generation with 4-stop IS at least (if it has IS) will show its age with a 7D.

It is up to each individual to decide if THAT particular trait of the 7D, its unbelievable demand on lenses, is a positive or a negative. The 7D has the potential to trounce even the 1D X for reach and detail, but you would need a kit so expensive you'd probably feel like a twit using the 7D with that kit. ;P

yeah the 300 2.8 even with TCs is great on the 7D for that sort of thing

 

[Cannon Man]

I'm confused about most the comments here.
Comparing a REBEL and a 7D to 5D II or 1DX is just not happening.

I have used all cameras and i would much rather crop pictures from a 5D II because of one simple reason.
The image quality from a rebel is simply put A LOAD OF CRAP. Doesn't matter how much reach you get if you only get to keep 1% of the pictures because of poor imqge quality. You can zoom in with 5D II pictures a whole lot and the image quality is still awesome!

 

[tapanit]

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.

Money is not the only limitation. I use my 7D a lot in wilderness hikes, and the key limitation there is weight. Added to camping gear, food &c, 7D with 100-400 and one or two smaller lenses and light-weight tripod I end up carrying over 30kg in my back for a week - while I just might be able to cope with a 1DX, there's no way I could take a 600mm f/4.

 

[heptagon]

I'm confused about most the comments here.
Comparing a REBEL and a 7D to 5D II or 1DX is just not happening.

I have used all cameras and i would much rather crop pictures from a 5D II because of one simple reason.
The image quality from a rebel is simply put A LOAD OF CRAP. Doesn't matter how much reach you get if you only get to keep 1% of the pictures because of poor imqge quality. You can zoom in with 5D II pictures a whole lot and the image quality is still awesome!

And why exactly are your pictures shot with a rebel so bad? Is it because of the sensor or because you can't focus right?