# More reach- 1.4 teleconverter or crop body camera?



## Peeb (Aug 31, 2016)

Shooting a D610, which is a lovely camera.  When shooting most things, I love the full frame format; but when shooting wildlife, I miss the 'reach' of crop body cameras.

I was toying with trying out a 1.4 teleconverter to give me the reach of a crop body- but for about the same money, I could buy a refurbished D3200, and I have the 1.5 crop factor plus a backup camera.

Leaning towards the D3200 as the pixel density would be superior to the D610 in dx mode, and the image quality would be superior to the D610 with a TC.

What do you think?  Am I missing anything?


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 31, 2016)

As long as your telephoto lenses have a built in focus motor that would work fine.  Tc's can be a nice addition to fast glass, I use one often with my 70-200 2.8, but not really that great for slower glass.  On a 5.6 lens the af gets iffy in anything other than really good lighting.



Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## ruifo (Aug 31, 2016)

I agree with the DX camera approach, but I'd look for one of the D7x00 models, instead, even if bought used. The D3x00 series only allow you to change ISO by a full stop, no 1/3 or 1/2 stop change like in your D610. Both the D3x00 and D5x00 families won't autofocus with AF lenses, but only with AF-S lenses, differently of your D610. These are deal breakers for me, hence my recommendation. Not sure if these would be issues for you or not. Good luck.


----------



## DarkShadow (Aug 31, 2016)

Imo if  you want to pick up a crop body I would look for a refurb D3300 over a D3200.Shoots faster,has better IQ,lower noise,larger view finder and No AA filter. IMO its the best entry level Nikon to date and it tracks and focuses wonderful even with so few focus points. I had one it rarely ever had a problem if any locking on accurately with authority. Even did some night photography in low light and never struggled one bit and it produced extremely clean and clear images. Just keep in mind focus points are very small and as the view finder compared to your D610.


----------



## goooner (Aug 31, 2016)

I've always been intrigued by this. Would it not be better to crop the full frame goodness, than use a smaller sensor? I always thought pixel size is better than pixel density, but I don't know too much about that. Maybe banana breath can weigh in on how his older crop sensors compared to cropped full frame shots


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 31, 2016)

goooner said:


> I've always been intrigued by this. Would it not be better to crop the full frame goodness, than use a smaller sensor? I always thought pixel size is better than pixel density, but I don't know too much about that. Maybe banana breath can weigh in on how his older crop sensors compared to cropped full frame shots



This sounds like a job for Banana Breath!  

Oh wait.. that's me.  Lol.  Ok, so on the whole I prefer the shots from my D600.  The differences between the two are not huge, by any means.  The D7100 did an outstanding job and I was always very happy with the IQ.  But there are subtle differences that I do notice with the 600, mostly in the background areas of the shot.  

I don't shoot in DX mode, ever.  I use FX mode exclusively, if I want to down sample (which I usually do) I do so in post.  

I do carry and use a 1.4x TC often - I find the IQ loss negligible on my 70-200 mm Sigma.  It makes the sigma a 98-280mm F4 - which as it turns out is a fantastic focal length range for zoo shooting.  

If I really need 2.8 I can remove the TC quickly and store it in any pocket, so it gives me a lot of versatility and I don't have to carry two lenses.  The "downside" of the TC really for me is that it only works well with that one lens, none of the other telephotos I have are fast enough for the TC to really work that well with.  I have a Tamron 70-300mm VC 4.5/5.6, but if I add the TC at it's maximum focal length it goes to F8.  Yes, the 600 will focus at F8.. but only with enough light, so the AF becomes a bit iffy.  

So in those situations carrying a second crop sensor would probably make more sense.  As it is though if I need more reach usually what I'll do is just head back to the car, take a break, swap to a longer lens and then head back. 

So really it comes down to what you shoot and shooting style as to which is going to work better for you.  Having a second camera/lens on hand can let you get shots that you might otherwise miss because the lens you have on your primary just doesn't have enough reach.  For me that isn't really a huge issue, but for others it might be.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 31, 2016)

There is no 'extra reach' afforded by crop-sensor cameras.  There is a smaller field of view which causes the optical illusion whereby because there's less area viewable things appear larger, and the common misconception that the focal-length equivalency multiplier actually changes focal length, but at the end of the day the subject in an image shot at 200mm with a crop-sensor and one shot with the same settings on an FF sensor will be substantially the same.


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 31, 2016)

tirediron said:


> There is no 'extra reach' afforded by crop-sensor cameras.  There is a smaller field of view which causes the optical illusion whereby because there's less area viewable things appear larger, and the common misconception that the focal-length equivalency multiplier actually changes focal length, but at the end of the day the subject in an image shot at 200mm with a crop-sensor and one shot with the same settings on an FF sensor will be substantially the same.








Ok, so quite true.  But of course it's the end result that most folks focus on (no pun intended) so thought I'd just stick with that.


----------



## Gary A. (Aug 31, 2016)

tirediron said:


> There is no 'extra reach' afforded by crop-sensor cameras.  There is a smaller field of view which causes the optical illusion whereby because there's less area viewable things appear larger, and the common misconception that the focal-length equivalency multiplier actually changes focal length, but at the end of the day the subject in an image shot at 200mm with a crop-sensor and one shot with the same settings on an FF sensor will be substantially the same.


While the size of the subject appearing in a FF sensor is the same as it appears in a cropped sensor, often the crop sensor will have more pixels available for image/subject capture than a FF, hence more detail.  In this case a FF D610 has the same pixel density as a cropped D3300, so cropping the D610 to the equilivent frame/size of the D3300 will significantly affect the IQ. 

I have no digital Nikon expertise.  But in general, I'd go for the second body.  I find that in many/most situations, shooting with two cameras is easier, faster and more enjoyable than shooting with one camera. With two cameras you can have a wide angle or macro on the D610 and telephoto on the Dxx00 and now your're ready for a variety of subjects without the hassle of changing lenses.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 31, 2016)

Gary A. said:


> While the size of the subject appearing in a FF sensor is the same as it appears in a cropped sensor, often the crop sensor will have more pixels available for image/subject capture than a FF, hence more detail.  In this case a FF D610 has the same pixel density as a cropped D3300, so cropping the D610 to the equilivent frame/size of the D3300 will significantly affect the IQ.
> 
> I have no digital Nikon expertise.  But in general, I'd go for the second body.  I find that in many/most situations, shooting with two cameras is easier, faster and more enjoyable than shooting with one camera. With two cameras you can have a wide angle or macro on the D610 and telephoto on the Dxx00 and now your're ready for a variety of subjects without the hassle of changing lenses.


S'trewth; and yes, there can be an advantage to shooting a crop-sensor in certain situations, not disputing that, just trying to dispel the still persistent myth that you more reach with a crop-sensor.  Two bodies is ALWAYS better!


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 31, 2016)

tirediron said:


> S'trewth; and yes, there can be an advantage to shooting a crop-sensor in certain situations, not disputing that, just trying to dispel the still persistent myth that you more reach with a crop-sensor.  Two bodies is ALWAYS better!



Two bodies is always better?  Why does that sound like it should start with, Dear Penthouse?

Lol...

Only downside I could see to having two camera bodies would be having to carry two camera bodies, which if your looking at a lightweight lens on at least one wouldn't be a huge deal.

For me probably not the best solution though, since the two lenses I'd want would be the 70-200mm on one and a big heavy telephoto of some sort on the other.  Lol.


----------



## coastalconn (Aug 31, 2016)

If you are focal length limited, a DX body is the way to go. I Would find a nice cheap refurb D7100 if I were you. The buffer kind of sucks, but you can shoot 12 bit lossless which helps.  I tested the D500 with my 500 F4 against the D600 with my 500 F4 and 1.4x and the the D500 beat the D600 easily.. If you were to downsample the d7100 to the 10 MP of the d600 in DX mode the d7100 will win again.  I am only speaking for Focal length limited wildlife photography...

That's why I went with the 300 F2.8 and D300 instead of a D4.  Gives me a really cheap backup and there is no advantage using anything lower than a D5 for me and then for what I shoot, it would be a 6k ?


----------



## JoeW (Aug 31, 2016)

TiredIron hit the nail directly on the head.  It's not that a crop body has more reach (like a longer focal length).  It just takes the picture you'd have with a full-frame sensor...and then crops it.  So if you have a slow shutter speed or poor light, it's going to be a mediocre picture.

My first advice would be to upgrade your lens, especially for wildlife.  You need relatively fast glass since the critters don't hold a pose very long and light is often poor.  A teleconverter will extend your focal length but also cut some shutter speed for you and I don't think that's a great way to shoot most wildlife.


----------



## Peeb (Aug 31, 2016)

JoeW said:


> TiredIron hit the nail directly on the head.  It's not that a crop body has more reach (like a longer focal length).  It just takes the picture you'd have with a full-frame sensor...and then crops it.  So if you have a slow shutter speed or poor light, it's going to be a mediocre picture.
> 
> My first advice would be to upgrade your lens, especially for wildlife.  You need relatively fast glass since the critters don't hold a pose very long and light is often poor.  A teleconverter will extend your focal length but also cut some shutter speed for you and I don't think that's a great way to shoot most wildlife.


OP here.  Tirediron was correct, but he didn't say anything I didn't already know.  DX cameras don't 'crop' anything already captured, they just have smaller sensors and a corresponding narrower FOV.  However, they have advantages over FX lenses in DX mode (you're right about how TC lower your lens speed by 1 or 2 f-stops, tho).

A crop body 24MP camera shooting in native DX mode gives you more pixels for  additional cropping ability than a 24MP FF camera shooting in DX mode, as you DON'T use 24MP of your FF sensor in crop mode- probably closer to 10 or 12.  That's what I was referring to.


----------



## coastalconn (Aug 31, 2016)

A friend of mine has a D800, D4s and a D500. His lens is the same as mine, the 500 F4 VR-g.  Guess which body he always shoots with his 500 lens?  That should answer your question..


----------



## tirediron (Aug 31, 2016)

Peeb said:


> JoeW said:
> 
> 
> > TiredIron hit the nail directly on the head.  It's not that a crop body has more reach (like a longer focal length).  It just takes the picture you'd have with a full-frame sensor...and then crops it.  So if you have a slow shutter speed or poor light, it's going to be a mediocre picture.
> ...


I'm fairly confident we all know how a crop-frame camera works.  It works exactly the same as a full-frame camera, just with a smaller sensor.  Yes, you're right there is more "material" to crop, BUT... remember that in order to shove say, 24MP on a crop-frame sensor, they're going to be a lot smaller than on an FF sensor....


----------



## PaulWog (Aug 31, 2016)

I think it's all a matter of the right tools for the job.

It takes a pretty good telephoto lens for a crop sensor, or teleconverter, to do much.

My 150-600 Contemporary will produce very similar images on a D750 or a D7100. You can just crop in on the file from the D750 and voila, similar results. The reason is because superzooms just don't "use" all the pixels. They're not sharp like a prime. There will be some minute differences I'm sure (if you compare a D750 and D7100 on the same 150-600 lens), but very very minor.

The first step to really getting more reach is investing in the glass. If I did feel the need for a teleconverter, I'd probably pick up a D500 because I'd probably have a 500 f4 or 600 f4 if I did need that teleconverter. The only semi-affordable lens type I can think of that really truly benefits is a 70-200 f2.8 (but that's more a case of needing reach & speed together, on a 'budget').


----------



## Peeb (Sep 1, 2016)

tirediron said:


> Peeb said:
> 
> 
> > JoeW said:
> ...


Fair enough, I'll delete the portion of the comment questioning DX/FX acumen.

Good point about pixel size, btw.


----------



## Peeb (Sep 1, 2016)

coastalconn said:


> A friend of mine has a D800, D4s and a D500. His lens is the same as mine, the 500 F4 VR-g.  Guess which body he always shoots with his 500 lens?  That should answer your question..


I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess- D500?


----------



## jaomul (Sep 1, 2016)

I'd buy a crop camera over a teleconverter. There are the size disadvantage, being a camera is bigger than a teleconverter but if you need 24mp (for example) on a bird in the distance, a good crop camera and lens will likely give you better image quality than all but the best lenses and expensive Tele on an fx


----------



## fmw (Sep 3, 2016)

Why do you think cropping by using a smaller sensor is any different than cropping the image in the computer?


----------



## PaulWog (Sep 3, 2016)

fmw said:


> Why do you think cropping by using a smaller sensor is any different than cropping the image in the computer?



Pixel density


----------



## fmw (Sep 4, 2016)

I understand but that could well be overrated.   A D810 using the DX option is roughly a 16mpx camera.  The difference between that and 24 mpx is really trivial in my view.   I have a 16mpx DX camera and a 24mpx.  The difference really is trivial.  It isn't a good reason to buy a new camera in my view.


----------



## coastalconn (Sep 4, 2016)

PaulWog said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you think cropping by using a smaller sensor is any different than cropping the image in the computer?
> ...





fmw said:


> I understand but that could well be overrated.   A D810 using the DX option is roughly a 16mpx camera.  The difference between that and 24 mpx is really trivial in my view.   I have a 16mpx DX camera and a 24mpx.  The difference really is trivial.  It isn't a good reason to buy a new camera in my view.


The OP does not have a D810, but a D610, so only about 10 MP in the DX area.  I think I mentioned it earlier. But I tested my D500 and 500 F4 against the D600 and 500 F4 and 1.4x TC. The D500 won. I'll have to see if I can find my test and upload it at some point.  

With that said. I don't think the OP mentions what lens they have currently?


----------



## fmw (Sep 5, 2016)

Your 500 f4 isn't a DX lens.   I Thought we were talking about using an FX sensor with half of its pixels.  No need to use the FX camera in DX mode.  I fail to see how it is relevant to my question.  I don't doubt you had a winner in your test but I would suggest I would probably view the difference as trivial as well.


----------



## PaulWog (Sep 5, 2016)

fmw said:


> Your 500 f4 isn't a DX lens.   I Thought we were talking about using an FX sensor with half of its pixels.  No need to use the FX camera in DX mode.  I fail to see how it is relevant to my question.  I don't doubt you had a winner in your test but I would suggest I would probably view the difference as trivial as well.



It's all about how much detail you can get on your subject. For general birding, I'd take a D500 over any full frame when using a 500 f4 lens. In the case of birding, you're almost always cropping in even with a DX camera.

The same isn't quite as true with lesser lenses like a 150-600 though. I prefer full frame in the case of a 150-600, since it doesn't resolve enough on a DX sensor.


----------



## Peeb (Sep 5, 2016)

fmw said:


> Your 500 f4 isn't a DX lens.   I Thought we were talking about using an FX sensor with half of its pixels.  No need to use the FX camera in DX mode.  I fail to see how it is relevant to my question.  I don't doubt you had a winner in your test but I would suggest I would probably view the difference as trivial as well.


That's not at all what I said in the OP. The question is whether to use my fx lens on my D610 with a TC or whether I put my fx lens on a 24mp Dx body.


----------



## coastalconn (Sep 5, 2016)

fmw said:


> Your 500 f4 isn't a DX lens.   I Thought we were talking about using an FX sensor with half of its pixels.  No need to use the FX camera in DX mode.  I fail to see how it is relevant to my question.  I don't doubt you had a winner in your test but I would suggest I would probably view the difference as trivial as well.


Who said anything about my 500 being a DX lens?  Nobody actually asked about a D810 which is quite different than a D610 in terms of 15.2 MP in DX vs 10.2 MP in DX mode.  You have to view it as being focal length limited especially for wildlife, which, correct me if I am wrong, you have very little experience with?  My answer to the OP was relevant as I have compared the same lens with a 21 MP DX camera vs a 24 MP FX camera.  To get the same field of view you need to add a 1.4x TC to which, adds a stop, slows down AF and also takes a hit in IQ.  If you were to compare the same scene without a TC, when you downsize a DX camera to the same 10.3 MP of the D610, you will have more detail with the DX camera (providing you have a decent lens) and the noise will actually look better when it is downsampled.


----------



## PaulWog (Sep 5, 2016)

Peeb said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > Your 500 f4 isn't a DX lens.   I Thought we were talking about using an FX sensor with half of its pixels.  No need to use the FX camera in DX mode.  I fail to see how it is relevant to my question.  I don't doubt you had a winner in your test but I would suggest I would probably view the difference as trivial as well.
> ...



*24mp (I think that was just a typo). I think a glass upgrade is better than a D500 though.

When I purchased my D750, I did so knowing one of my main lenses is a 150-600. The upside to a full frame sensor on something like a 150-600 is that you get significantly better pictures when you don't need to crop; when you do need to crop, it's almost a wash between FX and DX, since the lens just isn't good enough at 600mm to take advantage of a DX sensor's pixel density. A side-by-side comparison will show an extremely slight advantage for a DX sensor on a crop. The bigger advantage of a D500 on a 150-600 is the focusing system.

Where DX and teleconverters shine is the tele primes. I think you'd have to spend quite a bit of money to really truly benefit from a switch to DX. An 'older' 500mm f4 from Nikon comes in at $6400 on B&H  (which is 'only' a little over twice the price of a D500).


----------



## Peeb (Sep 6, 2016)

PaulWog said:


> Peeb said:
> 
> 
> > fmw said:
> ...


You're right- it was 24, not 34.  Typo fixed.  Thanks!


----------



## fmw (Sep 6, 2016)

coastalconn said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > Your 500 f4 isn't a DX lens.   I Thought we were talking about using an FX sensor with half of its pixels.  No need to use the FX camera in DX mode.  I fail to see how it is relevant to my question.  I don't doubt you had a winner in your test but I would suggest I would probably view the difference as trivial as well.
> ...



You are wrong.  I used to own a Nikkor 500 f4.  My difference of opinion with you is that I view the difference between 10mpx and 15mpx to be fairly trivial.  I do agree with you about the TC.  But the TC is softer, not because of the sensor but because of the glass.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 6, 2016)

fmw said:


> You are wrong.  I used to own a Nikkor 500 f4.  My difference of opinion with you is that I view the difference between 10mpx and 15mpx to be fairly trivial.  I do agree with you about the TC.  But the TC is softer, not because of the sensor but because of the glass.



Fred, I think there is a piece of the equation your missing here, and that's distance to the subject.

When you can control the distance from the subject, as you can in the types of photography that you mention that you do, then yes the difference between 10mp and 15mp might seem trivial.  If you need to move closer to your subject to improve your shot, you can.  Problem solved.

However for the type of photography that some of us like Coastal does, that luxury doesn't exist.  He has to take whatever shot he can get at the time, he has very little control over how far away his subject is and in most cases cannot move any closer.

As a result he has to crop most of his images - and that is when the difference between 10mp and 15mp becomes a huge difference.  That's also when things like pixel density really come into play.

When I upgraded from the 16mp D5100 to the 24mp D5200 I didn't really notice a huge difference on those shots that I didn't need to crop.  However on the stuff that I did have to crop, the difference was night and day.  If I shot mostly in a studio where I could control my distance to the subject, then you'd be right, the differences wouldn't be much to write home about.  But not all of us shoot in a studio...


----------



## coastalconn (Sep 6, 2016)

PaulWog said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > Your 500 f4 isn't a DX lens.   I Thought we were talking about using an FX sensor with half of its pixels.  No need to use the FX camera in DX mode.  I fail to see how it is relevant to my question.  I don't doubt you had a winner in your test but I would suggest I would probably view the difference as trivial as well.
> ...


I think you are right that @Peeb best choice would be a new lens.  However that might not be economically feasible.  Also a 1.4x TC on the 70-300 lens will not work well.  I've tried that.  The D32000/3300 might also be very frustrating because the frame rate is extremely slow with no buffer.  I would recommend saving money until you can afford a new lens, maybe the 150-600 G2 pending reviews..
@PaulWog The Tamron 150-600 does OK on the D500, I shot it a few days before I got my lens selection squared away..



George Jr. flight with Baby Bunny 6_15 by Kristofer Rowe, on Flickr

Heavily shaded and only 1/250th wide open...



George Jr. with Baby Bunny 6_15 1 by Kristofer Rowe, on Flickr




fmw said:


> You are wrong.  I used to own a Nikkor 500 f4.  My difference of opinion with you is that I view the difference between 10mpx and 15mpx to be fairly trivial.  I do agree with you about the TC.  But the TC is softer, not because of the sensor but because of the glass.


Again, the OP never asked about your D810 the question was about  D610 and a 24 MP DX, so 10 vs 24 MP or a linear increase of 6000 vs 3936 which is roughly 50%



robbins.photo said:


> Fred, I think there is a piece of the equation your missing here, and that's distance to the subject.
> 
> When you can control the distance from the subject, as you can in the types of photography that you mention that you do, then yes the difference between 10mp and 15mp might seem trivial.  If you need to move closer to your subject to improve your shot, you can.  Problem solved.
> 
> ...


Exactly!  Focal length limited is the key difference.  If you can fill the frame on a FX camera then there is pretty much no debate.


----------



## zombiesniper (Sep 6, 2016)

fmw said:


> My difference of opinion with you is that I view the difference between 10mpx and 15mpx to be fairly trivial.


50% difference is pretty huge in my opinion. Hands up for anyone willing to throw away 50% of their MP........nobody? 
With that type of statement we should all be using 2005 FF cameras.


----------



## fmw (Sep 6, 2016)

zombiesniper said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > My difference of opinion with you is that I view the difference between 10mpx and 15mpx to be fairly trivial.
> ...



A difference in 50% of the resolution would be fairly noticeable.  That would require a doubling of the number of or more than 20 mpx.  A difference in 50% in the number of pixels isn't that noticeable.  As always, the size of the final product is what determines the importance.  A lot of great professional photography was done with 2005 cameras.


----------



## zombiesniper (Sep 6, 2016)

fmw said:


> A lot of great professional photography was done with 2005 cameras.


Yes and in 2005 that argument would be valid...but it's not.
A lot of professional races were won with cars from 2005.......bet they wouldn't today.
50% MP difference is noticeable.


----------



## zombiesniper (Sep 6, 2016)

To the OP if you can find a crop body with a similar quality sensor I would go with a second body.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 6, 2016)

fmw said:


> zombiesniper said:
> 
> 
> > fmw said:
> ...


Fred, again your assumption only holds if you can control your distance to the subject.  If you can't then it simply falls flat.  

Not everyone shoots products in a studio and can simply grab the camera and move it while the subject stays in the exact same place indefinitely.



Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## Peeb (Jan 17, 2017)

A bit of thread necromancy....

This dude says crop body ftw:


----------



## Peeb (Jan 17, 2017)

Must admit, however, in comparing a D610 (full frame) to a D5500 (crop body) using the identical lens from the identical location shooting the identical subject, I find the differences between the full D5500 image and the cropped D610 image to be pretty negligible.


----------



## Drive-By-Shooter (Jan 19, 2017)

Peeb said:


> Must admit, however, in comparing a D610 (full frame) to a D5500 (crop body) using the identical lens from the identical location shooting the identical subject, I find the differences between the full D5500 image and the cropped D610 image to be pretty negligible.


Did you view or print the comparison at an 8x10 equivalent (possibly a minimum requirement) or larger?

I had a Nikon 1.7x for a 70-200 for a while, but found the degradation to be a bit too much.

Purchased a D3300 for my wife a year ago and sold the kit lens for a net outlay of under $300, due to the sale at the time.  Great camera for the price, indeed.

Regarding some other posts in this thread:
zombiesniper:
An increase of 50% (pixels or anything else) represents a 33% decline (going in the other direction), not 50% per your post.  (This is why people who lost 50% in the stock market crash of 2008 had to double their money to get it back.)

Since  you need 4 times the pixels to double the resolution, losing a third of your pixels means a loss of resolution of 19%.  (Someone correct my math if I'm wrong, thanks.)
Studies have shown that people don't perceive changes of less than 10%, sometimes won't notice 15%, but will notice 19%,.
Fred is only correct that it won't be noticed if the pic size is small enough that downsampling eliminates the perceivable resolution difference.
This is why the size of comparison is everything!

robbins.photo :
I'm enjoying you're posts and when you correct you're use of this, your going to appear more intelligent.
So, there, their, they're you have it!  ;-)
(Yes, I know that I often fail to capitalize so I can type faster, but it is a conscious decision, not an accident.)


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 19, 2017)

Drive-By-Shooter said:


> robbins.photo :
> I'm enjoying you're posts and when you correct you're use of this, your going to appear more intelligent.
> So, there, their, they're you have it!  ;-)
> (Yes, I know that I often fail to capitalize so I can type faster, but it is a conscious decision, not an accident.)



Shhh.. everybody in the back seat be quiet.  I've just been pulled over by the grammar police....


----------



## Peeb (Jan 19, 2017)




----------



## astroNikon (Jan 19, 2017)

Just buy one of each.

If you can afford a nice FX, then you can pick up an inexpensive DX like a used D5300 (or used d3x00 series) body.  Just use all your FX lenses, reserve UWA to your FX and you're fine.

Then you can do your own experiments.
I've tested 16mp, 20mp, 24mp DX vs 24mp FX on distant subjects with 1.4, 1.7 and 2.0 TCs
It varies.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 19, 2017)

Peeb said:


>






sent by synchronized cardioversion


----------



## greybeard (Jan 20, 2017)

goooner said:


> I've always been intrigued by this. Would it not be better to crop the full frame goodness, than use a smaller sensor? I always thought pixel size is better than pixel density, but I don't know too much about that. Maybe banana breath can weigh in on how his older crop sensors compared to cropped full frame shots


If you crop a 24 MP FF picture down to a crop frame size, you will have an effective resolution of about 10 MP.  So, a crop frame camera will have more than twice the resolution than a FF cropped down to APS-C.


----------



## Drive-By-Shooter (Jan 21, 2017)

goooner said:


> I always thought pixel size is better than pixel density,


my wife says density is more important than size.  
wait, let me get my glasses...oh, he typed "pixel"...nevermind


----------



## fmw (Jan 25, 2017)

I don't think either is the answer.  In my experience you can get just as good an image or sometimes better by cropping than you can with a TC.  Putting a long lens on a crop sensor camera doesn't increase "reach." it simply crops the image.  You can do that in post process.


----------



## Peeb (Jan 25, 2017)

fmw said:


> I don't think either is the answer.  In my experience you can get just as good an image or sometimes better by cropping than you can with a TC.  Putting a long lens on a crop sensor camera doesn't increase "reach." it simply crops the image.  You can do that in post process.


But as you crop,  your number of pixels goes down.  If you take a 6000 x 4000 full frame image and crop it down, your pixels go down.  If you have the 'cropped' view in a native 6000 x 4000 crop body camera- aren't you better off?


----------



## greybeard (Jan 26, 2017)

Peeb said:


> A bit of thread necromancy....
> 
> This dude says crop body ftw:


This guy got it right and he has the data to back it up.  Another video he did compared using a crop body compared to cropping a FF body.  Same conclusion, the crop body will produce higher IQ than a FF body cropped to APS-C.


----------



## greybeard (Jan 26, 2017)

I am better off keeping my D7000 and using it for my tele stuff than selling it and doing everything with my D750.  Well, I may sell it and get a refurb D7100, (maybe)  I have tried the 70-300 vr with a 1.4.  Slow to focus and really soft at 300mm.  (420mm)  Not a good combination.


----------



## fmw (Jan 26, 2017)

Peeb said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think either is the answer.  In my experience you can get just as good an image or sometimes better by cropping than you can with a TC.  Putting a long lens on a crop sensor camera doesn't increase "reach." it simply crops the image.  You can do that in post process.
> ...



Sure and sometimes cropping isn't the best approach.  I have a Nikon 7100 with 24 mpx sensor.  I have taken crops so severe that the resulting crop is 1/20 of the raw file.  Yet the crop could be displayed as 8X10 and look just fine on a computer screen.  If I were to take such a severe crop of an image taken with a TC, I would most likely see the softness in the result.  TC's do soften the image.  It may or may not be bothersome but it is there.  You have to remember that, not all that long ago, professionals were making images for publication using 2 mpx cameras.  I was one of them. We passed the point where pixel density really matters some time ago.


----------



## fmw (Jan 26, 2017)

greybeard said:


> I am better off keeping my D7000 and using it for my tele stuff than selling it and doing everything with my D750.  Well, I may sell it and get a refurb D7100, (maybe)  I have tried the 70-300 vr with a 1.4.  Slow to focus and really soft at 300mm.  (420mm)  Not a good combination.



I have both a 7000 and a 7100.  The 7100 has a few features I like such as the built in level that I use for leveling it when it is mounted on a tripod.  But frankly I can't imagine why someone would move from a 7000 to a 7100.  98% of the 7100 is already in the 7000.  The difference in resolution is very close to being meaningless.


----------



## greybeard (Jan 26, 2017)

fmw said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > I am better off keeping my D7000 and using it for my tele stuff than selling it and doing everything with my D750.  Well, I may sell it and get a refurb D7100, (maybe)  I have tried the 70-300 vr with a 1.4.  Slow to focus and really soft at 300mm.  (420mm)  Not a good combination.
> ...


Thank you, my mind is finally settled.


----------



## greybeard (Apr 26, 2022)

tirediron said:


> There is no 'extra reach' afforded by crop-sensor cameras.  There is a smaller field of view which causes the optical illusion whereby because there's less area viewable things appear larger, and the common misconception that the focal-length equivalency multiplier actually changes focal length, but at the end of the day the subject in an image shot at 200mm with a crop-sensor and one shot with the same settings on an FF sensor will be substantially the same.


It is about pixel density.  A d610 image cropped down to dx format will be roughly 10 mp compared to a 24mp dx.  My 105 micro 2.8 nikkor has the same reach on dx as a 155mm  on FX  while maintaining pixel density and no loss of F/stop.  (imho) DX is the better choice for wild life and close up bug photography while FX is definitely the way to go for anything requiring wide angle.




__





						Picture quality (resolution) between DX and FX: Beginners Questions Forum: Digital Photography Review
					

Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.




					www.dpreview.com


----------

