# Why smaller sensors beat full-frame sensors for wildlife photography



## freixas (Jun 11, 2019)

_*Update 6/14/2019: *The article at http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter/ covers the technical issues I brought up about 10,000x better than me. Read that instead.
*
Update 6/13/2019:* Before responding to the long post below (or, more likely, my thread title), read response #63._

I was reading the TechTips columns of the June 2019 issue of Outdoor Photographer. A question was raised about whether it makes any difference if one shoots a scene using an APS-C sensor or using a full-frame sensor and later cropping to APS-C size. When shooting birds, for example, one often fails to come close to filling an APS-C sensor, much less a full-frame sensor.

The TechTips response was incorrect. The authors claimed that a 30 MP full-frame sensor has about the same resolution as a 20 MP APS-C sensor and that a 40 or 50 MP full-frame sensor has more.

There is an easy way to compare: just check the pixel pitch.

The Canon EOS 5D Mark IV has a full-frame, 30 MP sensor. The Canon EOS 70D has an APS-C, 20 MP sensor. The respective pixel pitches are 5.36 µm and 4.09 µm. Therefore, the 20 MP APS-C camera has 1.31x the resolution of the 30 MP full-frame camera.

The Canon EOS 5DS is a 50 MP camera. The pixel pitch for the 5DS is 4.13 µm, still slightly larger than the 70D. A 50 MP full-frame sensor will have slightly less detail than a 20 MP APS-C sensor. A 40 MP full-frame sensor has even less.

Of course, the full-frame sensor will capture more overall detail, which is great for landscapes, portraits and other shots. But we are just looking at an APS-C-sized portion of a full-frame sensor image.

I started thinking about the quality advantage of the bigger pixels and reached some counter-intuitive conclusions.

Let's go back to 30/20 MP comparison and let's say that a bird captured by the APS-C sensor fills a box whose dimensions are 131 x 131 pixels. Shot with the same lens, the bird would fit a 100 x 100 box on the 30 MP full-frame camera. Scale the 130 x 130 image to 100 x 100 and the photon noise should be the same.

Think of photons as drops of water and pixels as buckets. The image area covered by the bird is the same for both cameras; therefore, the total drops of water collected by all the buckets in this area are the same.  In one case, the buckets are smaller, but if we carefully re-distribute the water into the larger buckets, we should get the same water levels as if we had started out with the larger buckets. This is clearest if the buckets are an integral scale different (as in 1 large bucket vs 4 smaller buckets covering the same area--i.e. 2x). So, there isn't even a clear quality advantage for the larger full-frame pixels, at least for photon noise.

I started thinking about other factors as well and sensors with smaller pitch sizes might possibly win.

Each pixel has a color filter in front of it (the Bayer filter). Squares formed of four pixels will have two green filters, one red filter and one blue filter. A demosaicing process tries to determine the actual color at each pixels through interpolation.

Let's say that the pixel pitch of two sensors differs by a factor of 2. The smaller pixels have four filters in the same space that larger pixels have one. If we scale the the image from the smaller pixels to match the larger pixels (i.e. we scale the image by half in each dimension), the color accuracy of the smaller pixels should exceed that of the larger pixels.

Let's consider noise from the electronics. Assume that the electronics are equivalent. Let's say that the ideal pixel value for a particular scene is 100 and that the electronics noise alters that at random by +/- 2. So the actual pixel value will range from 98 to 102, with each of the five possible values (including the ideal value) having a possibility of 20%.

For simplicity, we again consider a 2x pixel pitch difference. For a single large pixel, the pixel will record something in the 98-102 range. If we combine four of the smaller pixels into one large one, we still have the 98-102 range, but the probability distribution is different. To get a value of 98, for example, _all _four pixels have  to be 98, which is 20% times 20% times 20% times 20% or 0.16%. If we were to map all of the possible combinations of values, we would see that the probability of getting the ideal value of 100 has increased, as would the probability of getting closer to the ideal value.

My assumption here is that pixels produces the same signal strength (voltage, presumably) given the same number of photons hitting a given area--i.e. the size of the pixels does not matter. It could be, however, that signal strength is proportional to the total photons hitting a pixel; this would mean that smaller pixels produce a weaker signal that requires a boost to reach the same value as a larger pixel. The increased boost might introduce more noise, negating the advantage I described above.

For example, let's say the signal strength is proportional to the pixel area. The smaller pixels in or 2X scenario would have one quarter the area and would need a 4x boost. This could boost the noise from +/- 2 to +/- 8. For the ideal value of 100, the pixels would now range from 92-108. Someone who is better at probability theory than me could draw the probability distribution resulting from combining the four pixels into one. The error range is clearly wider, but it's not clear if probability of reaching the ideal value is higher or not.

My suspicion is that, at worst, once the data from the smaller pixels are scaled to match the larger pixels, the total noise would be no worse. Feel free to pipe in if you actually know how this works. Alternatively, one could try to determine the difference empirically (shoot the same scene with two cameras; be sure to use the same lens, aperture, exposure, lighting, etc.).

My current camera is a Canon EOS 80D (24 MP) with a pixel pitch of 3.15 µm. To match the resolution, a full-frame sensor would need 9600 x 6400 pixels (about 61.5 MP).

Corrections welcome.


----------



## Soocom1 (Jun 11, 2019)

I am so going to get tarred and feathered for this. 

But there is a factor that I am going to throw out and then let the fight begin. 

Aspect Ratio Distortion. 

Ill let everyone figure that out.


----------



## Braineack (Jun 11, 2019)

simple answer: reach.


----------



## freixas (Jun 11, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> Aspect Ratio Distortion.



I can't see any way in which this is relevant, but then, since you haven't actually explained anything, that is not surprising.


----------



## Soocom1 (Jun 11, 2019)

meaning? 


apply some thought here.


----------



## Soocom1 (Jun 11, 2019)

To be blunt, the argument is academic and non sensicle. 

I am not arguing that great shots can be made with either-or, but here is the reality. 
It doesn't matter. 
Its the photographer, not the equipment. 

In the 1970's there was a guy posting in magazines various very beautiful photographs he took with a 110 film camera. (Instamatic) and had a frame size 1/4 the size of 35mm. 
If you know what your doing, the format size and pixle size is irrelevant. 
As for Aspect Ratio, I guess you have to understand Projection to grasp that.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 11, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> To be blunt, the argument is academic and non sensicle.


I would suggest irrelevant vice non-sensicle, but certainly academic and without any real-world importance.  None of this factors in the single most important factor, which is the lens.  Further, a whole host of other real-world conditions such as lighting, SS, Aperture, ISO, etc are far more relevant to a better image.  While your postulation might be true in a purely theoretical sense, it's real world application, is, IMO, approximately the sum of the square root of fourth fifths of bugger all!


----------



## freixas (Jun 11, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> To be blunt, the argument is academic and non sensicle.
> 
> I am not arguing that great shots can be made with either-or, but here is the reality.
> It doesn't matter.
> ...



Again, I have no idea what you're fired up about, but it sounds completely unrelated to anything I talked about. Who said a thing about "great shots"? I gather that you have  little experience with wildlife photography.

As for your "aspect ration" rant, when using the same lens, the projection of an image onto a portion of a sensor is independent of the sensor size. But you'd have to understand projection to understand that.


----------



## Soocom1 (Jun 11, 2019)

me thinks that the argument is mostly based on some scientific aspects based on cluster grouping of the number of sensors,e tc. 
Fine. 
But again my main aspect is and I have had this learned to me multiple times, is not the equipment overall but the photographer. 
I seem to remember that some info came out that some images in various magazines involving sports had been shot with Fuji Film instamatics. 
Or something to that effect, and no one noticed.


----------



## Original katomi (Jun 11, 2019)

What about defraction at smaller f stops the more smaller pixels the more spillover as I understand it


----------



## Soocom1 (Jun 11, 2019)

freixas said:


> Soocom1 said:
> 
> 
> > To be blunt, the argument is academic and non sensicle.
> ...


Aspect Ratio. 
There is plenty on it. 

No I am not fired up, its simply that the argument that a "better" photo is made with a smaller sensor is at least to my experience, a non issue.


----------



## freixas (Jun 11, 2019)

tirediron said:


> Soocom1 said:
> 
> 
> > While your postulation might be true in a purely theoretical sense, it's real world application, is, IMO, approximately the sum of the square root of fourth fifths of bugger all!



I have no idea if you are talking to me or replying to Soocoom1.

If you are talking to me, then I would say that what I wrote is of practical relevance to wildlife photographers.


----------



## Soocom1 (Jun 11, 2019)

Serious question... Have you ever shot Square format? 

its relevant to the image quality aspect here.


----------



## freixas (Jun 11, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> Aspect Ratio.
> There is plenty on it.
> 
> No I am not fired up, its simply that the argument that a "better" photo is made with a smaller sensor is at least to my experience, a non issue.



When you are dealing with the high levels of cropping that occur in most people's wildlife photographs, you can bet that it is an issue. One can increase resolution or buy a bigger lens. Increasing the lens size is ideal—but: the step size from 400mm to 800mm might be from $1,000 to $20,000. Plus the lenses weigh a ton. 

Again, I think you have no idea what the issues are in wildlife photography.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 11, 2019)

freixas said:


> Again, I think you have no idea what the issues are in wildlife photography.


And I would submit that you are postulating theoretical/academic points, which may be accurate, but have no practical relevance because the real-world, OBSERVABLE difference is undetectable.


----------



## Braineack (Jun 11, 2019)

freixas said:


> but: the step size from 400mm to 800mm might be from $1,000 to $20,000. Plus the lenses weigh a ton.



keep the 400mm lens, shoot 4/3rds.  However, IMHO, the image shot with $20,000 long fast glass on large sensors are superior images.


----------



## Soocom1 (Jun 11, 2019)

freixas said:


> Soocom1 said:
> 
> 
> > Aspect Ratio.
> ...



OK... 
Look.  

35mm is 1.5-1.6 times larger than APS. (Nikon and Canon respectively)
Both 35mm and APS shoot an aspect ration of 3:2. 

There is distortion in all lenses that the further to the edge you get in any lens the more distorted things become. 

The further from the center you go there is distortion and a form of "skewing" where things elongate from the lens aspects. This simply cannot be eliminated. It can be minimized. 

When you are trying to compose an image of say a bird in flight, and your shooting 35mm, while framing the image as close to center as possible, there is going to be an amount outside the center that will regardless of equipment used, get the skewing going on. 
So if you frame the image in the FF sensor to the equivalent of an APS sensor, the image in the 35 (FF) image is less distorted and ergo when the final print comes out is closer in actual proportions than the APS. 

In an APS sensor, that same image is more greatly distorted.  Ergo, the wings if compared (if possible) would not look quite the same as in the 35mm regardless of the cropping. 

The pixle size becomes irrelevant because the distortion factor in relation to sensor (format size) takes the game. 

When I talk about projection, it is a factor found in cartography. 
The further from the center you get, the more distortion takes place because in projection, your representing a 3D object in 2 dimensions. This same effect is occurring in photography because your trying to capture a 3D object into a 2D plain.  

So distortion will exist regardless. One simply does not see that distortion unless one were to shoot the exact same object with diff. format sizes.


----------



## freixas (Jun 11, 2019)

Braineack said:


> freixas said:
> 
> 
> > but: the step size from 400mm to 800mm might be from $1,000 to $20,000. Plus the lenses weigh a ton.
> ...



In the Canon line, it would be APS-C vs full-frame, at least with the cameras I'm most familiar with. I agree with both sentiments. I was considering a full-frame camera, but decided to upgrade within the APS-C family. I don't see a lot of advantage in using a full-frame sensor for most bird photography, which is the point of my post.

The $20,000 lens _will _generate a  better image, but I can't afford one. If it's fast glass (picture an f/2.8 800mm!) it might be too heavy to carry, which can limit photo opportunities. I've seen wildlife photographers using assistants just to carry the tripod to hold their super-duper telephoto. I'm thinking of upgrading to a 600mm, 6 lb lens, but I might try carrying the weight first to see how it feels.

To be clear, if you have a $20,000 lens, my post would compare an APS-C (or 4/3rds or whatever) camera to a full-frame camera , with both cameras using the same $20,000 lens. Of course, if you are close enough to a bird (or have enough zoom) to fill a full-size sensor, the larger sensor wins. That happy circumstance doesn't often happen.


----------



## freixas (Jun 11, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> freixas said:
> 
> 
> > Soocom1 said:
> ...



You need to re-think this. Let's say you shoot a bird in flight with an APS-C sensor and a full-frame sensor, both using  the same lens. You rarely fill the APS-C sensor with the bird, so let's say the bird fits within a 3mm x  3mm box in the center of either sensor. You are using the exact same lens and lens mount, so there is zero difference between the image of the bird in either camera. Skewing will be exactly the same.

If you are using the same lens and expect the images to be in focus, the distance from the lens to the sensor needs to be constant regardless of the sensor size. I think you are confusing this will having the bird occupy the same _percentage_ of the frame. This is impossible when using the same lens (and same focal length, of course). A 400mm lens doesn't know a thing about the size of the sensor that the image will fall on.

Also the "non issue" you mention is a real issue when you go to pay for a camera. An 80D might run $850 (APS-C) vs. $2,000 for a 7D Mark IV (full-frame) that won't actually perform as well for bird photos. If you are rich, maybe it might be a non-issue.


----------



## freixas (Jun 11, 2019)

Original katomi said:


> What about defraction at smaller f stops the more smaller pixels the more spillover as I understand it



Hmmm... Interesting. I'll have to look into this. Thanks for the comment.


----------



## Soocom1 (Jun 11, 2019)

freixas said:


> You need to re-think this. Let's say you shoot a bird in flight with an APS-C sensor and a full-frame sensor, both using  the same lens. You rarely fill the APS-C sensor with the bird, so let's say the bird fits within a 3mm x  3mm box in the center of either sensor. You are using the exact same lens and lens mount, so there is zero difference between the image of the bird in either camera. Skewing will be exactly the same. If you are using the same lens and expect the images to be in focus, the distance from the lens to the sensor needs to be constant regardless of the sensor size. I think you are confusing this will having the bird occupy the same _percentage_ of the frame. This is impossible when using the same lens (and same focal length, of course). A 400mm lens doesn't know a thing about the size of the sensor that the image will fall on.
> 
> Also the "non issue" you mention is a real issue when you go to pay for a camera. An 80D might run $850 (APS-C) vs. $2,000 for a 7D Mark IV (full-frame) that won't actually perform as well for bird photos. If you are rich, maybe it might be a non-issue.



Actually, because I have played this game with 35mm v. Med. Format, there is HUGE difference.

The premise of the argument is based on the scientific minutiae of pixle size to that of format size.
Its academic because the format size is the real determining factor.
35mm v. APS is not particularly wide. So the amount of distortion is minimal in comparison overall, but it is still there.  1.5 to 1.6  for FF v. APS.

4 TIMES for 35 to Med. Format. 

_"You are using the exact same lens and lens mount, so there is zero difference between the image of the bird in either camera. "
_
Actually there will be because of format size. Not pixle count.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 11, 2019)

In the real world a typical two camera setup for top wildlife shooters today is the Nikon D850 and the Nikon D500, And while the Nikon D500 is a good camera, to me I personally think that the 850 shots tend to look better

A few years ago several members here compared Their D800's which is 36MP to their D 7200 . As I recall, in all cases the cropped-down D800
files typically looked just a little bit better than the D 7200 photos.

 On the Nikon side, the high-end cameras for over 10 years have offered smaller than full sensor captures. For example in 2005 I bought the Nikon D2X which offered a 12 megapixel 1.5 DX sensor,as well as a 2.0 8.2 frames per second high-speed crop mode. In 24 x 36 mm or FX format cameras, Nikon has long offered would it calls the DX crop mode


----------



## Soocom1 (Jun 11, 2019)

If its any consolation, your also talking to someone who is going to mount a mirrorless APS camera to a Large Format camera. 

Thats the kind of goof ball things I do.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 11, 2019)

in effect Nikon offers a really good full frame camera and a really good crop frame camera in the D850.  Well I am not exactly sure, I believe the 36 megapixel D 800 offered a 16.3 megapixel crop frame capture option, which is not as many pixels as the then current 24 megapixel DX models.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 11, 2019)

Sometimes theory and practice diverge.


----------



## Braineack (Jun 11, 2019)

freixas said:


> Let's say you shoot a bird in flight with an APS-C sensor and a full-frame sensor, both using  the same lens. You rarely fill the APS-C sensor with the bird, so let's say the bird fits within a 3mm x  3mm box in the center of either sensor. You are using the exact same lens and lens mount, so there is zero difference between the image of the bird in either camera. Skewing will be exactly the same.



*Disagree!*

Using the same lens on the APS-C sensor vs. the FF sensor, all other things being equal, if I can fill the frame with a bird with the APC, the bird will NOT fill the frame on the FF sensor.  The images will look different, the FF image will appear further away since the bird will be smaller.

Why would someone using an APS-C sensor "rarely fill the frame"?  It's EASIER to fill the frame using the smaller sensor since it has more length at every given focal length -- all things being equal.


----------



## freixas (Jun 11, 2019)

Braineack said:


> freixas said:
> 
> 
> > Let's say you shoot a bird in flight with an APS-C sensor and a full-frame sensor, both using  the same lens. You rarely fill the APS-C sensor with the bird, so let's say the bird fits within a 3mm x  3mm box in the center of either sensor. You are using the exact same lens and lens mount, so there is zero difference between the image of the bird in either camera. Skewing will be exactly the same.
> ...



Actually, we are in agreement. I'm not sure what you think I said, but it is not what I said.

I said "You rarely fill the APS-C sensor with the bird".  I and many of my bird photographer friends would consider it a lucky day indeed to fill an APS-C frame with a bird. One friend raved about getting a bird at about 80% of the frame. I would also be thrilled.

Regarding "the bird will NOT fill the frame on the FF sensor"—I never claimed it would. In fact, I said the image would fill a 3mm x 3mm box on both sensors. Since a full-frame is 35 mm x 24 mm and APS-C is 24.89 mm × 18.66 mm, a 3mm x 3mm image would be a smaller percentage of a full-frame sensor. So we are in agreement and I am puzzled as to why you thought otherwise.


----------



## freixas (Jun 11, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> So the amount of distortion is minimal in comparison overall, but it is still there. 1.5 to 1.6 for FF v. APS



There is no (zero) difference. Again, the lens has no idea what size sensor it will project on. Format size only matters when you can't fit the entire image of interest (a bird) onto the sensor. A lens that projects a bird as 3 mm x  3 mm on the sensor surface will project the bird identically on sensors of any size. Unless the sensor is smaller than 3mm x 3mm, the sensor size matters not at all. _Any _distortion caused by the lens will be identical within this 3mm x 3mm area.


----------



## Braineack (Jun 11, 2019)

I see what youre saying now, read it wrong.


----------



## Soocom1 (Jun 11, 2019)

freixas said:


> Soocom1 said:
> 
> 
> > So the amount of distortion is minimal in comparison overall, but it is still there. 1.5 to 1.6 for FF v. APS
> ...


Again, wrong. 

The lens is a lens is a lens. 
That is quite true. 
The FORMAT SIZE is what matters in the argument, 
But as I said before, the format size is irrelevant if the photographer knows what they are doing. 


It will project the same exact SIZE (all thing being equal) but the distortion will vary between the two and the image itself will be far different.


----------



## freixas (Jun 11, 2019)

Derrel said:


> In the real world a typical two camera setup for top wildlife shooters today is the Nikon D850 and the Nikon D500, And while the Nikon D500 is a good camera, to me I personally think that the 850 shots tend to look better
> 
> A few years ago several members here compared Their D800's which is 36MP to their D 7200 . As I recall, in all cases the cropped-down D800
> files typically looked just a little bit better than the D 7200 photos.
> ...



As usual, thanks for some useful comments, Derrel. 

As I'm not familiar with Nikon cameras, I don't know their sensor sizes just from the names. I looked that up, but there is also a qualitative difference in the electronics. I don't have a sense of what the technology differences might be. There's been a lot of great development in sensors recently, especially at the high end (D850, I think, falls in this category). My entire analysis is based on comparing _equal _electronics.

In the Canon world, the comparsion between the 80D (3-years old tech) and the brand-spanking new DX1 Mark  II might be interesting. The 80D gives you _a lot_ more resolution, so it would be interesting to see if the more advanced electronics of  the DX1 Mark II would beat it. Two ways to compare: 1) crop the DX1 image to APS-C size and 2) resize the 80D image to 0.56x to match the pixel pitch of the DX1. I'd love to see both.

In looking up some of this, I ran into an article covering the same ground I did: Pixel Pitch on Canon DSLRs - Every Other Shot. The author even makes the same point at the end that pixel pitch comparisons are useful only if all other elements are equal.


----------



## freixas (Jun 11, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> It will project the same exact SIZE (all thing being equal) but the distortion will vary between the two and the image itself will be far different.



Again, 100% wrong. The distortion will be exactly the same. You might want to draw yourself a picture to try to find where this magic distortion difference occurs. Good luck!


----------



## freixas (Jun 11, 2019)

Derrel said:


> Sometimes theory and practice diverge.



Yep. A reality check is always good. If I had a full-frame camera, I'd give it a try.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 11, 2019)

One thing _I did not see_ ( it might be there, had a slight case of TLDNR) is the presence or absence of an anti-aliasing filter; looking at pixel pitch is one thing..if we add 8 to 12 percent in resolving power for a sensor minus an AA filter, I would think that could tip the scales a bit.


----------



## freixas (Jun 11, 2019)

Derrel said:


> One thing _I did not see_ ( it might be there, had a slight case of TLDNR) is the presence or absence of an anti-aliasing filter; looking at pixel pitch is one thing..if we add 8 to 12 percent in resolving power for a sensor minus an AA filter, I would think that could tip the scales a bit.



You didn't miss anything and I appreciate your comment. Something else to consider

Something else I left out is that pixels are not perfectly square and edge-on adjacent to each other. One half the pixel pitch doesn't might not mean four pixels with the same area as one bigger pixel. 

I found an interesting article at The effect of pixel size on noise. The author is more informed than me, of course. His conclusion, though, is that shot noise (photon noise) is the same for one large pixel vs. four smaller pixels, as I theorized. Read noise (what I labeled "electronic noise") is another story; it's worse for the smaller pixels, but the author claims that the difference can be small. He provides some comparison photos to support his claims. He compares the Nikon D850 to the Sony A7S. This is almost exactly a 2x pixel pitch difference (the Nikon has the smaller pixels). He points out that, even downscaled to the same size as the A7S, the Nikon images are more detailed (and you can review the results yourself).


----------



## RVT1K (Jun 12, 2019)

None of this matters if you don't know what you're doing.


----------



## RVT1K (Jun 12, 2019)

freixas said:


> My suspicion is that, at worst, once the data from the smaller pixels are scaled to match the larger pixels, the total noise would be no worse. Feel free to pipe in if you actually know how this works. Alternatively, one could try to determine the difference empirically (shoot the same scene with two cameras; be sure to use the same lens, aperture, exposure, lighting, etc.)..




There is an inherent level of noise in any electronic system, its called the noise floor.
Smaller signals will be closer to this noise floor and have a lower signal/noise ration because of this. Any amplification stage also adds noise.

So a small signal is noisier and boosting it makes it worse.


----------



## freixas (Jun 12, 2019)

RVT1K said:


> freixas said:
> 
> 
> > My suspicion is that, at worst, once the data from the smaller pixels are scaled to match the larger pixels, the total noise would be no worse. Feel free to pipe in if you actually know how this works. Alternatively, one could try to determine the difference empirically (shoot the same scene with two cameras; be sure to use the same lens, aperture, exposure, lighting, etc.)..
> ...



You might benefit from reading this article I found: The effect of pixel size on noise. It includes some real world comparisons. The author shows his calculations of the effects of both upstream and downstream noise with respect to pixel size. There is also some interesting debate in the comments section there.


----------



## RVT1K (Jun 12, 2019)

Noise in an electrical system is noise weather it be in the circuitry of a camera, a radio, a piece of test equipment, or what ever. Smaller signals are closer to the noise floor of any device. 

And maybe its just the way the author chose his words but in my world all noise is random and will not "cancel each other out completely" when combined. 

But I also think a lot of this is a situation where just because you can measure something doesn't mean you can tell the difference. 

We encounter this with the equipment my company makes. We can and regularly do make measurement where we can see "a problem" that has zero effect on what the customer is doing.


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 12, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> freixas said:
> 
> 
> > Soocom1 said:
> ...



I think this disagreement is effectively solved with this sentence; "The FORMAT SIZE is what matters in the argument, But as I said before, the format size is irrelevant if the photographer knows what they are doing."

The format size is what matters and it is irrelevant.

Joe


----------



## freixas (Jun 12, 2019)

RVT1K said:


> But I also think a lot of this is a situation where just because you can measure something doesn't mean you can tell the difference.
> 
> We encounter this with the equipment my company makes. We can and regularly do make measurement where we can see "a problem" that has zero effect on what the customer is doing.



Actually, I agree. I would welcome real-word comparisons. The link I gave includes some. Sadly, the article dates from 2015--I'd like to see a comparison from some more recent cameras.

Keep in mind that my post is regarding wildlife photography (although, honestly, the wildlife I am thinking of is birds). So if I have a thrush 100 feet away and am shooting with a 400mm lens, what I want to know is if I would be better off shooting with a camera with a smaller pixel pitch. I want to know two things: 1) better off without scaling the image and 2) better off if the larger image is scaled to match the smaller.

My post title is a misleading except in the sense that smaller sensors tend to have smaller pixel pitches (not always, of course).


----------



## freixas (Jun 12, 2019)

Ysarex said:


> The format size is what matters and it is irrelevant.



Hi, Joe,

I have no idea if I agree or disagree with you. What I would say instead is "The format size does _not_ matter _and_ is (therefore) irrelevant." When I have a shot of a bird that only fills 3mm x 3mm of a sensor's surface, every pixel outside this zone is irrelevant. I don't care if the sensor size is 3mm x 3mm or 8" x 10".

However, my disagreement with Soocom1 was whether this 3mm x 3mm image of a bird is different when it falls on a small sensor vs. a large sensor. The answer is no: the image is _exactly _the same as it is entirely determined by the lens and the position (not size) of the sensor. As long as the shape and position of a sensor is the same within this 3mm x 3mm area, the projection/distortion is exactly the same regardless of the size or shape of the rest of the sensor. I am assuming that all sensors, regardless of size, are located the same distance from a lens.


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 12, 2019)

freixas said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > The format size is what matters and it is irrelevant.
> ...



I was just noting the problem with logical contradiction there.

I'm not entirely sure what he's saying. I understand how objects in a photo are skewed (shape distorted) toward the edges of the frame relative to the center and I'm aware of this problem occurring with all camera formats i.e. it's a camera problem we've all lived with since day one. So I'm not sure what he's saying about that problem relative to working between different formats. I do find it odd to bring it up at all in this context because the problem diminishes with increasing lens focal length and of all the various sub disciplines in photo those most likely to use the longest of all focal lengths are wildlife photographers who in that context have every other possible thing to worry more about than that.

Joe


----------



## freixas (Jun 12, 2019)

Ysarex said:


> freixas said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



Thanks for the clarification. 

Again, my point is that it really doesn't matter if I stick a wide-angle lens or a telephoto on a camera. The focal length comment is a red herring. If an image fits on an APS-C sensor, then this same image will fit on a full-frame sensor with _exactly_ the same projection and distortion. Let's say that there's a certain amount of light drop-off near the edges of the APS-C sensor. The same image won't be near the edge of  the full-frame sensor, but it will be _identical_, with the same exact light drop-off in the same places.

One way to picture this would be to imagine that we took the full-frame sensor and applied tape (ick!) to cover up the portions of the sensor larger than the APS-C size. The APS-C sensor and the exposed portion of the FF sensor occupy exactly the same space and shape. The lens neither knows nor cares what it is projecting onto (remember, we use the same lens in both cases). Unless you believe in magic, the image formed on either sensor will be exactly the same.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 12, 2019)

I want to see actual cameras compared, with real lenses, comparing Canons with Canons, Nikons with Nikons, Pentaxes with Pentaxes. Be aware that a six-inch mis-focus drops a 50 MP camera down to 4 to 6 MP of "resolution". AF system capability in sometimes overlooked...read the reviews of the latest FF Pentax K1 Mark II... it has slow AF for action work.

Theory is fine, but in-field resolving power is affected by more than just "sensor size".


----------



## freixas (Jun 12, 2019)

Derrel said:


> AF system capability in sometimes overlooked...



Those who think equipment doesn't matter aren't wildlife photographers. And key among the hardware features wildlife photographers look is fast, accurate auto-focus. On my old Canon 70D, I was unable to auto-focus when I used my 1.4x extender with my 400mm lens (it's not one of the pricey lenses). I found my bird photos improved when I took _off_ the extender and got my auto-focus back, despite the reduction in magnification. Small and sharp beats big and fuzzy. One of the key advantages of my upgrade to an 80D is that the 80D_ will_ auto-focus with the same lens and extender.

I, too, would love to see a good comparison, but how would one set it up? Unless you are DP Review or have friends with complementary equipment, it seems like it would be difficult. You need somewhat equivalent cameras and you definitely need to use the same exact lens.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 12, 2019)

freixas said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > AF system capability in sometimes overlooked...
> ...



Exactly... all this theorizing doesn't take into account important issues like AF capability and speed, and real-world issues. Who remembers the Canon 1Ds-III focusing issue of circa 2010? The camera that consistently had trouble focusing? 

As I have read from MANY sources, the Nikon F5 has "uncannily accurate and fast" autofocusing..and the more-or-less same AF setup in the Nikon D500 has an extraordinarily good AF reputation. And as I understand, the D850 has really fantastic AF... but the same was not true of the D800 or D810.

Speaking of better performance..who has seen the D810 compared to the D500 at ISO levels of 3200 and 6400 and 12800?? The ISO can be a BIG factor in many situations, and especially when one needs fast shutter speeds...in MANY action situations, one need 1/800 to 1/1250 second, maybe even higher in some situations.


----------



## JBPhotog (Jun 13, 2019)

One ingredient not included in this argument is budget. Pro wildlife shooters own fast long glass so a DX body with its limitations is not as attractive as say an FX body sporting a 600mm f4 or 800mm f5.6.


----------



## Overread (Jun 13, 2019)

Derrel said:


> Exactly... all this theorizing doesn't take into account important issues like AF capability and speed, and real-world issues. Who remembers the Canon 1Ds-III focusing issue of circa 2010? The camera that consistently had trouble focusing?



I remember back when the Canon 5D was new it was very much a studio camera and had very pedestrian (by modern standards of its day) AF, whilst the 50D and latter 7D had very powerful AF systems. So wildlife shooters went for the crop sensor as they had better fps rates and far superior AF; even though the 5D had better ISO performance. It wasn't until either the 5D2 or 3 (I forget which now) added a basically identical AF system to the 7D that the 5D fullframe line became within the mid-range bracket for most customers; though even now the superior 5D 4 is very expensive compared to a 7DMII (I think although its been a while since I checked prices). 

Wildlife shooters are oft ones to save on the camera and go more on the lens because whilst you CAN get close with a fisheye and whilst you can be creative with a wide angle for scenic shots; many people are not Steve Irwin and they are not after landscape type wildlife shots all the time, so longer lenses help a lot!


----------



## RVT1K (Jun 13, 2019)

freixas said:


> Those who think equipment doesn't matter aren't wildlife photographers.
> 
> I, too, would love to see a good comparison, but how would one set it up? Unless you are DP Review or have friends with complementary equipment, it seems like it would be difficult. You need somewhat equivalent cameras and you definitely need to use the same exact lens.



While equipment shouldn't be overlooked, I think skills are a huge factor. 

I've been photographing (as an amateur) for a long time and nature is one of my favorite subjects. I've accumulated better and better equipment over the years but I think the biggest improvements came from me learning what to do and actually doing it. One of the things that I've learned is that there isn't an autofocus system on Earth better than my eyes and just because I can see it doesn't mean my camera will focus and grab it. 

I was also thinking about the comparison as I have a D7000 and my (newly acquired YAHOO!) D4. Same manufacturer, one full frame sensor and one a crop sensor. I could put each on a tripod with the same lens mounted, I figured my 70-200 f/2.8 since its probably my best. Set everything the same for both...same ISO, f-stop, and shutter speed. 

But then I though about the fact that all of you have a different monitor that may or may not be calibrated and a whole host of other things that happen between me taking the photos, posting them, and others looking at them. I also thought about the focus issue, a tiny bit off for either camera and the results are meaningless. And let's not overlook that both cameras have different electronics on top of different sensors.


----------



## freixas (Jun 13, 2019)

JBPhotog said:


> One ingredient not included in this argument is budget. Pro wildlife shooters own fast long glass so a DX body with its limitations is not as attractive as say an FX body sporting a 600mm f4 or 800mm f5.6.



I could have sworn I mentioned $$$ at some point. I actually considered the 5D Mark IV (~$2,000) FF vs the 80D APS-C. I chose the latter because of its smaller pixel pitch and the fact that I could still use my EF-S lenses. And it was cheaper.

For the 5D Mark IV to get the same number of pixels for a bird, it would need a 1.3X larger lens. Of course, if I bought the 1.3X larger lens and stuck it on the 80D, I'd be even further ahead. The $$$ equation just comes out worse for the 5D Mark IV. 

Those who haven't read the full thread might wonder why I said 1.3x and not 1.6x. When you want an equal number of pixels for a given object (photographed with the same lens at the same focal length), all you have to do is compare the ratio of the pixel pitch. 1.6x is what you need if you want to match the FOV of the entire sensor.

There's also restrictions that arise as weight increases. If you are rich and can get the 5D Mark IV with its 1.3x larger lens, the images _should _be better (at least in low light), but that lens is going to be heavier than the 80D and its 1x lens. When you're trying to capture a twitchy bird that might hang around for just a few seconds, you need to be fast and maneuverable.


----------



## freixas (Jun 13, 2019)

RVT1K said:


> One of the things that I've learned is that there isn't an autofocus system on Earth better than my eyes



You may photograph nature, but that's not at all the same as wildlife photography. Bird photography (a subset of wildlife) is a specialty and it sounds like you know nothing about it.

I do landscape photos as well (just sold 2 this week). I take my time composing those. I learned long ago that you rarely have a chance to think about composition when photographing birds. You plunk the bird right in the center of the view using a single auto-focus point and hope for the best. Composition comes in post--and usually after cropping.

Here's a photo I took that I had all of about 2 seconds to capture (meaning the bird was there for that long). Good luck trying to do this manually. It's a Scrub Jay, by the way.


----------



## RVT1K (Jun 13, 2019)

Yeah, I got nothing. Except I've posted every one here before.


----------



## JBPhotog (Jun 13, 2019)

Rather than waxing poetic about mine is better than yours, has anyone done an audit of the top dozen wildlife shooters gear?

The results will shed some light on this and maybe a fork is part of he conclusion.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 13, 2019)

That's a good idea about checking the gear used by the dozen top wildlife photographers. 

As of now meaning June, 2019 I'm not really sure what the top wildlife shooters are using


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 13, 2019)

@Derrel from 2018  - Marsel van Oosten See this year's best wildlife photos I found this quote from interview in 121 Clicks interesting in particular the last paragraph:

*Your gear and what role does they play in a wildlife photographer’s career?*
I shoot with Nikon cameras and lenses. I currently shoot with D3s, D4 and D800 cameras, and my lenses include a 14-24/2.8, 17-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8, 105 macro, 200-400/4, and a 600/4.

My gear is important, because they are my tools. Any artist needs good tools to get the best results. However, the importance of expensive, professional gear is highly overrated. A good photographer can take great shots with even the simplest camera. Good pictures are shot with your head.
-----------------------------------------------------
Footnote: As a KIMII user, I would take exception with the slow focus comment earlier, as I've never found that to be an issue with FA, or DA ltd. glass only with certain third party lenses.


----------



## freixas (Jun 13, 2019)

RVT1K said:


> Yeah, I got nothing. Except I've posted every one here before.



All these are feeder shots where the focus can be planned ahead of time and you can wait around for birds to show up. There are other shots where patience helps and focus can be pre-planned. If you want to stick with those, more power to you. The shot I posted was not one of those—the Jay flew from the ground to a tree branch, stayed there for a few seconds and left.



JBPhotog said:


> Rather than waxing poetic about mine is better than yours, has anyone done an audit of the top dozen wildlife shooters gear?



This would be interesting. Check out BogdanBoev on DeviantArt. The camera metadata is shown. Poking around a few of the shots, I see the Canon DX 1 paired with a 400mm lens. I'm not sure how accurate the metadata is—these are amazing shots for a 400mm and the DX1 has large pixels. Sadly, many of the shots don't include metadata.

In his profile photo, if that's a 400mm, I'll eat my hat. Some of his photos list a 600mm lens and I'm not sure if the metadata would list whether he used a 2x extender. That would be more in line with his images.

I ran into a number of other profile shots where the photographer was posed next to a massive lens. Common focal lengths were 400mm and 600mm, although usually these were fast lenses. Most listed extenders.

Poking around, I see an interesting piece of equipment: a blind.

Despite what some people here may assume, I don't think any one factor makes for great wildlife photos. I have a friend who is willing to spend hours (sometimes an entire day!) tracking down one bird. It makes a big difference (he shots on a Nikon crop camera, not sure which, with an inexpensive 600mm lens—and autofocus).

Post what you find.


----------



## freixas (Jun 13, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> My gear is important, because they are my tools. Any artist needs good tools to get the best results. However, the importance of expensive, professional gear is highly overrated. A good photographer can take great shots with even the simplest camera. Good pictures are shot with your head.



Interesting since he both says the gear is important and that it isn't. My wife tried to take bird photos with a point-and-shoot camera without a viewfinder (just the LCD panel on the back). She was not happy. Yeah, you might get a lucky shot here or there, but the equipment will work against you.


----------



## Overread (Jun 13, 2019)

freixas said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> > My gear is important, because they are my tools. Any artist needs good tools to get the best results. However, the importance of expensive, professional gear is highly overrated. A good photographer can take great shots with even the simplest camera. Good pictures are shot with your head.
> ...



On the one hand any skilled wildlife photographer with the money will most likely have top end gear. The only times I tend to see them without are:
1) When disability/old age etc.... results in them wanting a lighter setup (since most top end wildlife gear is bigger and heavier)
2) When travel or situational constraints mean that they cannot take the "best gear" with them. 

Otherwise they are all out there with 300mm f2.8; 600mm, 500mm 400mm e tc.... lenses. 


Now why many say that and then say "but it doesn't matter" is mostly because the majority of their reading audience are beginners who are not going to buy those top end lenses. So they've got to justify that sure you can't afford the 400mm f2.8, but a 70-300mm can do well you just have to work within its limitations and understand that often as not the weaker link is you not the gear. 


Better gear won't replace good skills, but similarly bad gear has limitations that will limit what is possible even with a skilled operator.


----------



## RVT1K (Jun 13, 2019)

freixas said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> > My gear is important, because they are my tools. Any artist needs good tools to get the best results. However, the importance of expensive, professional gear is highly overrated. A good photographer can take great shots with even the simplest camera. Good pictures are shot with your head.
> ...




He didn't say his gear wasn't important, he clearly states it is. 

He qualifies his statement by saying the need for top-line equipment is overrated. 

But I also suspect he was speaking of the artistic side of things when he said "Good pictures are shot with your head". Just because something is in focus doesn't automatically make it a good photo.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 13, 2019)

I have long found it interesting that those who own top-level equipment so often downplay the importance of equipment when talking to mid-level and beginning shooters. Listening to the guy that owns a 400/2.8 that costs $10,000 to $13,000, one might think that a 70-200 and some stalking skills could replace that big cannon...


----------



## freixas (Jun 13, 2019)

Derrel said:


> I have long found it interesting that those who own top-level equipment so often downplay the importance of equipment when talking to mid-level and beginning shooters. Listening to the guy that owns a 400/2.8 that costs $10,000 to $13,000, one might think that a 70-200 and some stalking skills could replace that big cannon...



Exactly! Well, it cuts down on competition...


----------



## freixas (Jun 13, 2019)

This thread has wandered far off my original topic. There appear to be some knee-jerk reactions to any comment when comparing equipment:

"It's not the equipment, it's the photographer."
"That's not the only (or even most important) thing to consider."
These are both true, but irrelevant. Unfortunately, I let myself get sucked down that path.

In my OP, I was actually proposing a different way to think about the "crop factor" for a group of people who often don't use all the pixels they have.

When comparing FF to APS-C, I would automatically think that, using the same lens, APS-C gave me a 1.6x "zoom" advantage over FF. Then I realized this is not correct. If I look at specific cameras, say the Canon 5D Mark IV vs the 70D, the 70D's "zoom" advantage is just 1.3x. If I had a 50 MP FF camera, there would be no "zoom" advantage to the 70D.

In a world where magnification is king (wildlife photography), one would tend to lean to smaller pixel pitches (regardless of sensor size). If you are going to crop even an APS-C sensor, then you might as well get a smaller pixel pitch on a smaller sensor and save some money.

All else being the same, there's going to be a quality difference, though, particularly at high ISO levels. Smaller pixels should be noisier. I proposed a theory that one could perhaps match the quality of the bigger pixels in post. That remains to be tested. Also, to be tested is whether the higher resolution and the higher noise increase at the same rate. Resolution increases at the square of the inverse of the pixel pitch; if noise increases at a smaller rate, then we might opt for the greater resolution, at least within some limits for the acceptable noise increase.

Discussions on autofocus, artistry, etc. are great, but just not relevant to the discussion. I regret getting roped in.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jun 13, 2019)

freixas said:


> Interesting since he both says the gear is important and that it isn't. My wife tried to take bird photos with a point-and-shoot camera without a viewfinder (just the LCD panel on the back). She was not happy. Yeah, you might get a lucky shot here or there, but the equipment will work against you.



There once was a photographer here (nzmacro) that had really excellent shots of King Fisher catching prey ... he used a "old" Sony NEX 7 camera with "really old"  long focal length manual focus lenses (Canon FD). It was all about his abilities.


----------



## Designer (Jun 13, 2019)

freixas said:


> I chose the latter because of its smaller pixel pitch ..


All this talk about getting the maximum number of pixels on a bird is pointless without also considering what the camera does with the data.  Each manufacturer, and each model within that line probably has different firmware that will ultimately produce some differences in the image, even presuming the same exact subject and same lens on all of them.  

Marsel van Oosten uses "full size" sensors, for what it's worth.


----------



## freixas (Jun 13, 2019)

Designer said:


> freixas said:
> 
> 
> > I chose the latter because of its smaller pixel pitch ..
> ...



I don't find the discussion pointless. The fact that a "perfect" answer is not possible is not going to dissuade me from thinking about the topic and doing my own investigations and research.



Designer said:


> Marsel van Oosten uses "full size" sensors, for what it's worth.



Probably not worth much with regards to my OP. Pros tend to  use pricier lenses, so we enter the apples-to-oranges area. In any case, my  point was about comparing pixel pitch not sensor size, so knowing van Oosten uses FF sensors doesn't really help.

I know of some wildlife pros using the Canon DX1, a camera with a large 6.91 µm pixel pitch. It would pair up well with my 80D, if I could get my hands on one for testing. The 80D has almost a 2x pitch advantage. If a pro slaps a 2x extender on an f/4 600mm lens, they are still going to beat my 80D/f 6.3 400mm lens combo in zoom power, not to mention low-light performance (from both lens and larger pixels). Hand me their lens, though, and we can have a fair fight.


----------



## JBPhotog (Jun 13, 2019)

Maybe perhaps freixas, one could have chosen a different thread title than "Why smaller sensors beat full-frame sensors for wildlife photography". I don't wish to be critical but the title proclaims to be a fact rather than what it is, an opinion. That could be the reason why it has been derailed? Different horses for different courses, of course.


----------



## freixas (Jun 13, 2019)

JBPhotog said:


> Maybe perhaps freixas, one could have chosen a different thread title than "Why smaller sensors beat full-frame sensors for wildlife photography". I don't wish to be critical but the title proclaims to be a fact rather than what it is, an opinion. That could be the reason why it has been derailed? Different horses for different courses, of course.



Actually, I agree. I'd change it (if the system allows it), but it might make some of the existing responses look a little odd. Some people probably didn't read past the title. Oh, well, what's done is done...


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 13, 2019)

Perhaps you could ask one of the moderators to edit it for you.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jun 13, 2019)

OP's can change title ... but as noted, it may make the responses look odd.


----------



## freixas (Jun 13, 2019)

480sparky said:


> Perhaps you could ask one of the moderators to edit it for you.



I updated the OP, but retained the original title.


----------



## RVT1K (Jun 14, 2019)

In the end, this really is an electronics question. 

Comparing "large" vs. "small" pixels assumes that both are identical except for size. I suspect that, since the sensors are different items and are optimized for their specific function and due to differences in manufacturing, they will not be making a direct comparison impossible. I am quite familiar with all this as my company makes tools used in the semiconductor industry and there is a VB6 electron beam lithography tool about 15 feet behind me as I type. 

Don't cell phones all have a boatload of resolution now? The Samsung website is saying my company-issued S7 Edge has 12 MP camera (the same as my D3). So all of those smaller pixels jammed into that tiny sensor. 

But if we were to assume that everything about the pixels were identical, the smaller signals made by smaller components will be closer to the noise floor and will therefore be"noisier". Isn't this why larger pixels are touted as being better for low light situations? For a given amount of light, they produce a larger signal that is farther above the noise.


----------



## RVT1K (Jun 14, 2019)

Derrel said:


> I have long found it interesting that those who own top-level equipment so often downplay the importance of equipment when talking to mid-level and beginning shooters. Listening to the guy that owns a 400/2.8 that costs $10,000 to $13,000, one might think that a 70-200 and some stalking skills could replace that big cannon...



I think that may have a lot to do with the notion that a beginner will not be able to extract the best that high-end gear can provide. The best gear in the world can only go so far in inexperienced hands. 

When I bought my first digital camera, a D40, at some point I also got Nikon's 70-300 f4.5-5.6. I had fun and took some decent pictures. But if you had given me the 70-200 f/2.8 I later acquired back then, I don't think I would have taken significantly better pictures since I wasn't skilled enough to get the best the lens had to offer.


----------



## Designer (Jun 14, 2019)

freixas said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > Marsel van Oosten uses "full size" sensors, for what it's worth.
> ...


That was the premise of this thread, as evidenced in the title.  

Your excuse about pros using pricier lenses is lame, and is completely irrelevant to your original premise.

If you meant pixel pitch, then why would you not say so much earlier?  Can't correct your title?

Furthermore, pixel pitch means very little unless you first define how large your pixels are.  Are all pixels the same size?  Do they all perform equally?  

Rethink and try again.


----------



## freixas (Jun 14, 2019)

Designer said:


> pixel pitch means very little unless you first define how large your pixels are.



Pixel pitch = how large the pixels are.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 14, 2019)

freixas said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > pixel pitch means very little unless you first define how large your pixels are.
> ...



He means 'quantify the difference between the pitch of two sensor pixels'.


----------



## RVT1K (Jun 14, 2019)

freixas said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > pixel pitch means very little unless you first define how large your pixels are.
> ...



The pitch is how far apart they are spaced in the grid that they are arranged in, not how big they are.


----------



## Designer (Jun 14, 2019)

freixas said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > pixel pitch means very little unless you first define how large your pixels are.
> ...


I think you are mistaken about your definition of the term; "pitch".  

The normal definition is more like; 

_*Dot pitch* (sometimes called *line pitch*, *stripe pitch*, or *phosphor pitch*) is a specification for a computer display, computer printer, image scanner, or other pixel-based device that describes the distance, for example, between dots (sub-pixels) on a display screen. In the case of an RGB color display, the derived unit of *pixel pitch* is a measure of the size of a triad plus the distance between triads._

(from Wikipedia)


----------



## RVT1K (Jun 14, 2019)

When we expose wafers, the pitch has nothing to do with the size of the feature being written. It is how far apart they are spaced. For example in a grid pattern with 5nm dots on a 25nm grid, the dot size is 5nm and the pitch is 25nm.


----------



## freixas (Jun 14, 2019)

Designer said:


> I think you are mistaken about your definition of the term; "pitch".



Pixel pitch is the distance between pixels, but since sensor designers don't put dead space between pixels, it's also treated as equal to the pixel size by most of the articles I've seen. The pixel is the entire circuit, not just the light collection area. It is the microlens, Bayer filter, support circuitry and whatever else they've placed on it.

In looking for a reference, I ran into this page: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter/

It's a long article, but covers the topic I introduced about 10,000 times better. So, go there, read it and we can end the discussion here. A couple of extracts from the Conclusions section:

"Small versus large pixels matter less in modern sensors: with the low noise (read noise and camera electronics noise) available in many of today's cameras (circa 2014+) one can synthesize large pixels from a sensor with small pixels obtaining similar (or even better) performance."

"When choosing between cameras with the same sized sensor but differing pixel counts, times have changed. A decade ago, I would have chosen the camera with larger pixels (and fewer total pixels) to get better high ISO and low light performance. Today I would choose the higher megapixel (thus smaller pixels)."

So, go for a smaller pitch and, if you need the higher image quality of the larger pixels, do it in post.

My other point was that, for wildlife photographers, ignore the crop factor. Look instead at the pixel pitch ratio. A 50 MP FF and 20 MP APS-C have about the same pixel pitch. All other things being equal, the APS-C sensor doesn't provide any crop factor advantage--it just means you have fewer pixels to throw away. For a 20 MP FF and 20 MP APS-C, you do indeed have a 1.6x advantage in resolution.


----------



## Original katomi (Jun 14, 2019)

someone asked about real life comparisons would a canon 600d ver canon 70d shots of birds be of use here
18 mp ver 20mp
Pics posted on mid flight thread.


----------



## freixas (Jun 14, 2019)

Original katomi said:


> someone asked about real life comparisons would a canon 600d ver canon 70d shots of birds be of use here
> 18 mp ver 20mp
> Pics posted on mid flight thread.



The difference in pixel pitch is very small (70D: 4.11μm vs. T3i: 4.31μm).  I would guess that the majority of the difference would be in the electronics. My ideal comparison would be around a 2x difference, but I'd be happy with 1.2x or so. The Canon 7D Mark IV vs Canon DX1 Mark II would be interesting (1.22x difference and the electronics might be similar). Among the Nikon and Sony cameras, there might be comparable cameras with even larger pitch differences, but I'm not familiar with those lines.

I could post 70D vs 80D, but it would be the same story. Similar pitch and very different electronics.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 14, 2019)

I alway looked at "pixel pitch" as being number of pixels per millimeter, or "pixel density", rather than pixel SIZE.

I liked Clark's drawing at http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter/http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter/


----------



## freixas (Jun 14, 2019)

Derrel said:


> I alway looked at "pixel pitch" as being number of pixels per millimeter, or "pixel density", rather than pixel SIZE.



Pixel pitch is indeed the spacing between pixel centers. This is close enough to pixel size for practical purposes and for most discussions, including this one.


----------



## coastalconn (Jun 14, 2019)

Derrel said:


> In the real world a typical two camera setup for top wildlife shooters today is the Nikon D850 and the Nikon D500, And while the Nikon D500 is a good camera, to me I personally think that the 850 shots tend to look better
> 
> A few years ago several members here compared Their D800's which is 36MP to their D 7200 . As I recall, in all cases the cropped-down D800
> files typically looked just a little bit better than the D 7200 photos.
> ...


That is exactly where I ended up. D850 and D500.  I'm still in the honeymoon period with the D850 and only around 7k clicks.  But from what I can tell, the D850 does hold up better in IQ.  The AF still is slightly better on the D500.  In good light and fairly low ISO you can not tell a difference between the 2 cameras when you shoot the same subject at the same distance with the same lens and crop both to the same size.  The D850 shines though when you would overstuff a DX viewfinder though.


----------



## freixas (Jun 14, 2019)

coastalconn said:


> hat is exactly where I ended up. D850 and D500. I'm still in the honeymoon period with the D850 and only around 7k clicks. But from what I can tell, the D850 does hold up better in IQ. The AF still is slightly better on the D500. In good light and fairly low ISO you can not tell a difference between the 2 cameras when you shoot the same subject at the same distance with the same lens and crop both to the same size. The D850 shines though when you would overstuff a DX viewfinder though.



The two cameras have almost identical pixel pitches. The D850's pixels are about 1.03x the size of the D850's.  Viewed at 1:1, the same object (shot with the same lens, etc.) should appear about the same size. If the D850's images look better, I would point to a difference in the electronics (which includes the sensor design). The D500 was released in 2016, the D850 a year and a half later. Both are listed as "pro"
cameras. Perhaps someone with more Nikon experience could provide more detail on the potential electronic differences in the two cameras.

Because the pixel pitch is so close, there is no point seeing if the smaller pixels  yield a superior image when down-sampled.

How about a Nikon D850 vs a Nikon D5 (close to a 1.5x difference)?


----------



## coastalconn (Jun 14, 2019)

freixas said:


> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> > hat is exactly where I ended up. D850 and D500. I'm still in the honeymoon period with the D850 and only around 7k clicks. But from what I can tell, the D850 does hold up better in IQ. The AF still is slightly better on the D500. In good light and fairly low ISO you can not tell a difference between the 2 cameras when you shoot the same subject at the same distance with the same lens and crop both to the same size. The D850 shines though when you would overstuff a DX viewfinder though.
> ...


The answer is simple. The D850 is a BSI sensor.  However on paper if you view Bill Claff's photons to photos, the D500 has a greater PDF than the D850 or D5 in crop mode.  

However I was referring to the title of this thread.  I was a die-hard DX shooter however the D850 changed that because I loose 1 FPS and the AF drives my 500/4 and 300/2.8 slightly slower with a slightly lower hit rate, the IQ is better when you have to lift shadows and in general with PP.  I always felt the D500 could get a little "crunchy" at times with IQ.

And if your curious what Nikons I have shot with the list is very long starting with a D40 up to a D4 with all D8xx models also.  I think my flickr page is still in the link and I tag all images with camera and lens, fyi...


----------



## freixas (Jun 15, 2019)

coastalconn said:


> freixas said:
> 
> 
> > The two cameras have almost identical pixel pitches. The D850's pixels are about 1.03x the size of the D850's.  Viewed at 1:1, the same object (shot with the same lens, etc.) should appear about the same size. If the D850's images look better, I would point to a difference in the electronics (which includes the sensor design). The D500 was released in 2016, the D850 a year and a half later. Both are listed as "pro"
> ...


Thanks for the insight.



coastalconn said:


> However I was referring to the title of this thread.



The title could use some work.  A more appropriate title might be "Why smaller pixels beat larger pixels for wildlife photography--_all other things being equal and for smaller pixels that aren't too small_". 

The D850's pixels aren't really all that big. The thing I learned from the article at ClarkVision (link is now at the top of my OP) is that, if you want bigger pixels, you might be able to do that in post. By choosing smaller pixels, you can opt for either more resolution or less noise. Photon noise is unavoidable--it increases as pixel size decreases. The S/N ratio for the electronics, though, is being raised every year.

Someone like Roger Clark could probably calculate (or maybe has already calculated) the theoretical minimum pixel size (assuming downstream noise is 0) as a function of maximal acceptable noise and available light.


----------



## Original katomi (Jun 15, 2019)

The tech speak went over my head about five pages ago. I decided that if when I ever change from canon 600d then it would have to be to med format as I have pushed my kit to the limit.. and it’s pushed back


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 15, 2019)

Pixel pitch.  Noise. S/N ratio.  Crop factor.

Pffft... just grab a camera and go shoot something.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 15, 2019)

One thing to keep in mind is that from both Canon and Nikon,The full frame cameras offer in-camera size reduction.


----------



## Original katomi (Jun 15, 2019)

480sparky said:


> Pixel pitch.  Noise. S/N ratio.  Crop factor.
> 
> Pffft... just grab a camera and go shoot something.


Now that I do understand


----------



## Original katomi (Jun 15, 2019)

Derrel said:


> One thing to keep in mind is that from both Canon and Nikon,The full frame cameras offer in-camera size reduction.


I have enough trouble getting all that I want in the frame 
Ok joking aside my current trend for panaramas means that I am taking 20 shots to male 1 photo
 I have looked at FF and the advantage for me is minimal I would have to move to Med format
So big pixels small pixels... I work with what I have


----------



## freixas (Jun 15, 2019)

Original katomi said:


> I have enough trouble getting all that I want in the frame



Then I would have to say that this thread is not for you.  

Seriously, this topic was intended for people who don't use all of whatever sensor size they have. I just went out doing some bird photography at a local wetland and  there might be one or two photos that I don't crop (and that's shooting with an APS-C camera and a 400mm lens with a 1.4x extender).


----------



## freixas (Jun 15, 2019)

480sparky said:


> Pixel pitch. Noise. S/N ratio. Crop factor.
> 
> Pffft... just grab a camera and go shoot something.



No one is forcing you to pay attention to any of these things. Do you feel some need to put down those who do?


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 15, 2019)

freixas said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Pixel pitch. Noise. S/N ratio. Crop factor.
> ...



Sorry you feel 'put down'.  Perhaps if you concentrated on taking photos instead of sweating bullets over such minutiæ....


----------



## freixas (Jun 15, 2019)

480sparky said:


> Perhaps if you concentrated on taking photos instead of sweating bullets over such minutiæ....



And another put down from someone who knows nothing about me. Some of us can do more than one thing at a  time...


----------



## Original katomi (Jun 15, 2019)

I exit stage left


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 15, 2019)

freixas said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps if you concentrated on taking photos instead of sweating bullets over such minutiæ....
> ...



Perhaps your next gear purchase will be based on increasing dermatological thickness.........


----------



## DanOstergren (Jun 15, 2019)

freixas said:


> Original katomi said:
> 
> 
> > I have enough trouble getting all that I want in the frame
> ...





Original katomi said:


> I exit stage left



Ok this is screwed up.


----------



## greybeard (Oct 7, 2020)

It really depends on the cameras.  Using say a 300mm lens on an ff nikon and a crop frame, both 24mp.  The 300mm on the crop frame will have the same magnification as a 450mm on the full frame.  So, many people like a crop frame for birding etc. because of the added reach.  The D850 with its' 45 mp full frame sensor can shoot in crop mode and still have around 19mp of resolution.  Roughly the same as a D500.


----------



## Space Face (Oct 8, 2020)

I much prefer a high res full frame camera for wildlife (mainly birds).  I find the cropping options, iq and detail better.  I've gone from 1.6x crop sensor bodies to ff, tho I still use a 1.3x crop as this body has a higher fps shoud I need it (not very often tho).


----------



## freixas (Oct 8, 2020)

greybeard said:


> It really depends on the cameras.



It always depends on the cameras because the sensor's pixel pitch is an attribute of the camera. For two cameras with the same number of pixels, the magnification ratio matches the crop factor because the ratio of the pixel pitch is the same as the ratio of the crop factor.

For two cameras with the same pixel pitch, the magnification is equal--the size of the sensor doesn't matter. In fact, if the sensor tech is identical and the same lens is used, one camera may capture more of the scene, but the portion captured by both will be identical in IQ, detail and whatever else you want to measure.



Space Face said:


> I much prefer a high res full frame camera for wildlife (mainly birds). I find the cropping options, iq and detail better.



Full-frame cameras generally get the best tech, so they are likely to have better IQ. How would a crop sensor with a smaller pixel pitch but equal tech compare? Hard to say--you're trading spatial resolution for light gathering. In good light, the smaller pixels might do just as well and provide greater magnification.

Generally, people aren't comparing apples to apples. Even related cameras from the same manufacturer may have differences beyond pixel pitch and sensor size that make real comparisons impossible. And I find that the people who have FF cameras for birding also seem to have expensive lenses to go with them.

As I like to maximize magnification, my ideal camera would have a pixel pitch as small as I could get away with given my lens's ability to resolve detail. Whether this ideal camera would be FF or not would depend on whether I could afford a FF version and had the space for the larger files.

One place FF is a clear winner for bird photos is birds in flight. For any given lens, a FF has the biggest FOV, which makes it easier to keep a flying bird in view.

It's a good thing we have choices!


----------



## freixas (Oct 12, 2020)

C. M said:


> perhaps it doesnt matter in the end.  you still have to find the bird to photograph. If you cant do that, it doesnt matter what the hell you use to take photos.



In the 8 pages before your comment, many others derailed the discussion in the same way. What you're saying may be correct, but it's irrelevant. Assume the bird has been found. The discussion begins there. Finding the bird is a topic for another thread.


----------



## Soocom1 (Oct 13, 2020)

Meh...


----------



## zombiesniper (Nov 2, 2020)

independentshooter said:


> 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 (Nov 5, 2020)

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 (Nov 6, 2020)

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 (Nov 13, 2020)

greybeard said:


> 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 (Nov 13, 2020)

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 (Nov 13, 2020)

Soocom1 said:


> 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.


----------

