Pixel density for bird photography

[Tannin]

In another thread, which I didn't want to drag off-topic .....


Tony wrote:
the D3 & D700 don't have enough reach for bird work

Please explain!!

For bird photography, you need pixel density. Simple as that. The D3 and D700 are very fine cameras, but they have the lowest pixel density of any SLRs sold today, and are generally avoided by people primarily doing bird work. Nearly all bird photographers use cameras that have high-density sensors.

[Tannin]

The vast majority of bird photographs you will see here (or in most other places) have been cropped, quite often heavily cropped, because it is a very rare circumstance for the photographer to find himself as close to the subject as he would really like to be. The more paitent you are, and the more skilled you are - and indeed the luckier you are on the day - the closer you can get, but you just about always would rather be closer still.

Of course, you have already got the longest lens you can afford to buy and/or afford to carry with you for a given task. (Note that as the lens you carry becomes physically larger, heavier, and more cumbersome, you become correspondingly less able to move (or sometimes even sit) inconspicuously enough to achieve a close approach to your subject.)

In the end, no matter how long a lens you carry, most of the time you are going to wind up cropping the shot - i.e., throwing away megapixels worth of effectively useless information and keeping only that part which shows the subject. Obviously, the more pixels you have of actual subject matter, the better the result (assuming only that the pixels in question are of decent quality - recent model P&S cameras need not apply).

Perhaps the clearest way to illustrate this is to work some numbers. I'll take the Canon bodies as my starting point, but the point is equally valid for all other brands.

(Actually, "other brands" pretty much means Nikon - none of the others are used much if at all by serious bird photographers. Even Nikons are rare in the bird photography world. There are several reasons for this, but probably the main four are that (a) it's only been in the last couple of years that Nikon have started manufacturing a reasonably full range of modern, image-stabilised lenses suitable for birding; (b) until about the time the D300 arrived, Nikon sensors were regarded as having inferior high ISO capability (high ISO ability is usually less important than pixel density, but important just the same); (c) most of the cost in bird photography is lenses, and the big Nikon lenses usually sell for a couple of thousand dollars more than the directly equivalent Canon models - I suspect that this puts a lot of people off; and (d) Nikon still don't have a high-density, full-frame professional standard body (we expect this to change any time now, however).)

Assume you have what is probably the most popular birding camera around at present, a 40D. (Or any other 10MP camera/lens combination with the same field of view - that won't change the numbers.) Most people would be fairly pleased to get a shot out of the camera that looks like the one immediately below. We haven't filled the frame, but we have a fair bit of bird in the shot and at least it isn't a tiny dot somewhere in the distance.

http://tannin.net.au/other/ap/pixeldensity/all.jpg

(10.1MP: as shot.)

Obviously, we are going to want to crop it a bit. Let's start by cutting out everything except the bird itself. (Plus some leftover background, because the bird isn't exactly rectangular.)

http://tannin.net.au/other/ap/pixeldensity/just-the-bird.jpg

(2.2MP: just the bird.)

Ouch! We have a 10MP camera and we have less than 2MP worth of actual subject in the frame! Unfortunately, this is the general rule - getting much better than this ratio is the exception, even for skilled photographers with good equipment. Just the same, you wouldn't use so severe a crop in real life, so let's do one that is representative of what most bird photographers would actually wind up using:

http://tannin.net.au/other/ap/pixeldensity/as-printed.jpg

(4.0MP: as printed.)

[Tannin]

Now, let's apply the general rules we have discovered to some different cameras. I'm going to take the "as-printed" crop above - where we wound up with 4.0 usable megapixels from our typical 10.1MP 1.6 crop camera - and see what would happen if we used a variety of alternative cameras.

1.9MP - D3, D700 (1.0 crop, 12.1MP)
2.0MP - 5D (1.0 crop, 12.7MP)
2.5MP - 10D (1.6 crop, 6.3MP)
2.6MP - 1D III (1.3 crop, 10.1MP)
2.6MP - 1Ds II (1.0 crop, 16.6MP)
3.3MP - 20D, 30D (1.6 crop, 8.2MP)
3.3MP - 1Ds III, 5D II (1.0 crop, 21.0MP)
4.0MP - 40D, 400D (1.6 crop, 10.1MP)
4.4MP - D300 (1.5 crop, 12.2MP)
4.9MP - 450D (1.6 crop, 12.2MP)
6.0MP - 50D (1.6 crop, 15.1MP)

Remember, this is taking the exact same shot from the exact same place with the exact same lens. We can't use a longer lens - if that was practicable, we would already have done it. And we can't get any closer - we would have done that too if we could have managed it.

So what we get is what we get. A D3 (or a 5D) give you less than half as many pixels worth of actual picture.

[ricktas]

Very well written Tony, and should be of benefit to all those would be birders out there.

I won't mention the benefit of using an APS-C sensored camera over a full frame, due to the automatic crop factor/perceived distance benefit. Oops, I mentioned it.

[Colinz]

Thanks Tony- very helpful. DP review has added mp/cm2 to the camera specs and the claim has been that the lower this figure is the better the image. So the D3 has 1.4 and the 50D has 4.5 which relates inversely to the cropped image figures you have posted.

What I have found interesting with my FZ28 is that at what is called extended optical zoom set a 3mp ie cropping the sensor, the image is noticeably sharper than the same image at 10mp cropped to the same size. So most of my shots are taken using the cropped sensor.

[arthurking83]

Also, for those that don't realise it but that bird was captured at 700mm!(that'll be 500mm plus 1.4xTC) :eek:

So the importance of Tony's post about how important pixel density(resolution) is to birders is even more important, considering that the majority of average users wil have easy access to a lens of say 300mm, and may want to try their hand with a cheap-ish(~$1-1.5K) xxx-400 or xxx-500mm lens.

Chances are that you will crop quite some and most likely more than Tony has done here!.. so keep it in mind folks :)

Great post Tony.

[Tannin]

Now set the Nikon models aside for the moment (we will keep things simple by just considering one brand at a time) and let's look at what cameras bird photographers actually use most often. Overwhelmingly, the answer is one of the higher density 1.6 crop models: a 40D, a 400D, or something similar. There are two reasons for this. Obviously, not everyone can afford more than a 50D or a 450D. But we can quite easily control for that confounding variable by only considering photographers that also own one of the big whites - we can pretty safely assume that most people keen enough to spend $10,000-odd on a lens are also keen enough to spend a good deal more than $2000 on a camera if that's what they want.

And what do we find amongst bird photograhers who own big whites? They fall into three main groups. I wouldn't like to sound too certain of the exact break-up between the three, but all three are well-represented, and at a guess I'd rank them in the order below:

Very high-density 1.6 crop bodies (40D, 50D, 400D, and 450D, though still a few 30D, 20D and 350D users around as well. 40D is the most common, 50D is catching on fast.)
Medium-low-density 1.3 crop bodies. (1D III, still a few 1D IIs around as well.)
High-density 1.0 crop bodies, (1Ds III, 1Ds II).

What happened to the 5D? Where is it listed? It isn't listed - because practically no-one uses a 5D for bird work.

Why would you want to use a 5D, given that a typical half-decent shot opportunity is only going to give you 2MP worth of bird picture? A D3 or a D700 would give you a pro-build body, faster frame rate, and better high ISO performance (compared to a 5D) but even worse finished-product resolution, at just 1.9MP. All three 12MP full frame cameras, none of them cheap, give you fewer pixels on the bird than an ancient 10D would. All three are very fine cameras, but none are suitable for bird work, except under exceptional circumstances - such as if your name is "Andrew" and your target species is the Laughing Kookaburra. :)

So why, if the crop cameras like the 40D and 50D give you so much more finished-product resolution, do many dedicated bird photographers not use them? Why would you spend all that extra for a 1Ds or a 1D knowing that you are going to have lower finished-product resolution?

Many, perhaps most, of the really, really good bird photographers use a 1Ds because they judge that they are good enough at it to get really, really close and fill that much wider frame up. It's significantly harder work, but if you succeed at it, the results speak for themselves. Also, notice that the latest generation of full frame cameras now have pixel density just as high as the old 20D and 30D had - so that's getting pretty respectable. And, of course, these are cameras with top-class autofocus systems, superb viewfinders, and just about every other possible useful feature - once you use a 1 Series body, everything else seems pretty clunky.

The 1D III is another popular choice amongst this same group of photographers (ones who own big white glass and can thus be presumed able to use whatever camera they want). (There are still some 1D IIs around as well.) On the face of things, this one seems harder to explain - after all, you take a big hit in resolution compared with something in the 40D class. You don't get as much resolution so you arguably need to be even closer than you do with a 1Ds, but you still get all the pro body features like viewfinder and top-class AF system, plus two other things: a very fast shutter repeat rate, and very good high-ISO performance. It's a trade-off. Some people think it's worth it, some don't. (In theory you could take this approach even further and have essentially the same sort of camera but with even better high ISO at the cost of even worse pixel density - that's what the D3 amounts to. Most bird photographers apparently regard this as one bridge too far, and I agree: of all the currently available cameras from Canon and Nikon, I'd put the D3 second last on my wish list, superior for bird work only to the 5D, which is almost equally low resolution but much slower and lacking things like the pro AF system too.)

And, of course, a good many top-class bird photographers with an effectively unlimited choice of gear nevertheless use 1.6 crop cameras, mostly 40Ds and now 50Ds. They would rather work within the limitations of a non-pro body, with non-pro auto-focus and less than stellar feature set, but not have to crop so hard. Yes, the larger cameras deliver better quality pixels, but there is still much more detail available from a real-world crop of a focal-length-limited (e.g.) 50D image than there is from one taken by a lower-density body.

Personally, I think there is merit in all three approaches. I really like the wonderful picture quality delivered by the 1D III (there is a lot to be said for fat pixels), the clarity and rich, subtle colours, the focus speed and accuracy, the ability to push the ISO any time I need to, the big, clear viewfinder, and the all-round handling qualities. In exchange for that, I sacrifice a lot of reach - with the cumbersome 3.9kg 500mm f/4 lens, the 1D III delivers less detail than a 50D does with a little 1.4kg 100-400/5.6. Or, to put it another way, to get an equally detailed picture I have to get just as close to the bird with the 1D III and 500/4 as I do with the 40D and the 100-400, and that can be quite a lot harder. But, most of the time, I think it's worth it. Apart from the focus system, the frame rate, and the richer resulting image, I've got an extra stop of aperture up my sleeve if needed. On balance, this is my preffered strategy.

But there is a lot to be said for using something like a 50D instead, and quite often I do. (Especially since I replaced the rather lack-lustre 40D, which to my mind never really improved much over the old 20D, and certainly didn't deliver any better image quality, with a 50D.) In general, I think it's usually better to use 50D and 1.4 converter than 1D III and 2X converter, and quite often better to use 50D bare lens than 1D III and 1.4 converter. The reach is about the same either way, but the focus is faster (perhaps not quite so accurate) and you have an extra stop of aperture available.

As for the full-frame, high-resolution method, I can't say from practical experience. One day I'll buy a 1Ds III and see for myself ....... except that by the time I can afford one they will be up to the 1Ds LXVII. :(

[JM Tran]

So where does the new A900 fit in? haha

I have used the A900 at the launch with some models provided to test the extreme cropping, and boy the crop results rival that of digital MF backs

wasnt very impressed with the high ISO capability though, for obvious reasons

[dbax]

Thanks Tony, and others, facinating read, great info and plenty of food for thought:)

[arthurking83]

..... DP review has added mp/cm2 to the camera specs and the claim has been that the lower this figure is the better the image. So the D3 has 1.4 and the 50D has 4.5 which relates inversely to the cropped image figures you have posted.

What I have found interesting with my FZ28 is that at what is called extended optical zoom set a 3mp ie cropping the sensor, the image is noticeably sharper than the same image at 10mp cropped to the same size. So most of my shots are taken using the cropped sensor.

Exactly!!(but not exactly too!)

Define 'better image' ?

Some want resolution, other want zero noise, and as alluded too in the other thread there are different feathers for different birds(or something like that) :D

Better images is usually taken to mean better quality of pixel data, and therefore light.

A P&S at 12Mp is no match for a D3, in terms of sheer quality of image when printed large.

If you never print(as I have never seem to have done, but will one day!) this is moot.
You'd never really worry about it.

But if you want the image printed(reasonably large, like an A4 or bigger) you wil see a small improvement in image quality of the D3 over the P&S. As the print gets bigger you see it more vividly.

You can also do a whole lot more(editing) with those larger pixels!!
Here's the point of having those bigger pixels, even though there's less of them!

Each pixel can be stretched to a higher point of processing brightness/darkness/sharpening/color saturation before the quality of that piece of data starts to deteriorate.
Remember each pixel is just a teeny amount of data. But that data had to be captured and converted from a light source(analogue). The better that source of analogue info, the better the ability to process it to the nth degree.

of course technology also increases vastly over time, so you 2Mp camera from years gone by, is still not going to produce as good a quality as a current higher resolution camera can!

And that brings us to another point often brought up(and I think we're going off topic now). As technology improves there's a tendency to want to upgrade to a better camera. Lenses stay static, and take many more years to improve upon, compared to a camera body. Get a great lens that allows you to capture great images from the outset, and it seems to improve the technological durability of your camera body too!
Remember if the quality of the incoming data is good(with good lenses) then the quality of the data you output(regardless of the amount of processing your do) is going to be better too.

Sorry to go OT with that, but it is an important aspect to consider when the topic revolves around resolution.

Hope that makes sense Colin.

It really looks as though the APS-C sensor seems to have reached a saturation point.
DPR's summary of the 50D was something along the lines that it can have worse quality compared to the 40D. Does that imply that 12 or 13 or 14Mp is the realistic limit for an APS-C sensor.
FF still has a long way to go in terms of pixel density, and the issue that's going to play an important role in that arena is one of storage and movement of the impending vast amounts of data from the coming of the 50Mp DSLR!!

[Tannin]

Arthur, you are too quick for me! As I was about to post .....

Actually my example image was taken with a 1D III at 700mm - but that really doesn't matter from the point of view of using it as an example. It's a 10MP image that is a pretty fair representative sample of the sort of 10MP image you could sensibly hope to get with something like a 40D and a 100-400. (If I'd realised how much time I was going to put into this "short" post before I started, I'd have picked an actual 40D & 100-400 shot, instead of just grabbing the first one I saw in the folder I happened to already have open.)

But actually, if you are used to thinking in terms of apparent focal length - what you see when you look through the viewfinder of a 40D or a D300 - we shouldn't think of it as a "700mm" shot. Being taken with the 1D III, it fills the frame in the same way that, from the same spot, you'd fill a 560mm frame on a crop camera. Or, putting it another way, you get almost exactly the same field of view from my 500mm lens on the 1D III as you get with a 400mm lens on a 40D.
happend

By the way, below is how I eventually chose to crop that image for my website. Mostly I prefer a more generous crop than this, but I wanted to get rid of those branches and I didn't have a better view of a White-winged Triller - I always find them a bit challenging.

http://tannin.net.au/upload/08/080106-111318-q2c.jpg

Looking at it again, I think it needs better PP: it's a bit over-bright and could be sharpened a bit more. There is another job to put on my list.

[Tannin]

So where does the new A900 fit in?

Until such time as Sony produce some serious long glass for it, nowhere, I'm afraid.

I doubt they will: it's a seriously expensive undertaking developing that kind of glass and you'd need to sell a good number of them to break even on the investment. Canon sell lots of long glass, Nikon haven't in the past (200-400 VR apart) but have a big customer base that doesn't seem to mind spending buckets of money, so they should do OK. The same goes for Pentax: no current range of modern long glass, and arguably Olympus too. Oly apparently have a very good if rather expensive 300mm unit, but even on a 2.0 crop body that seems a bit too short for birding.

A second factor keeping Pentax, Sony and Olympus out of the wildlife and sport specialties is their in-camera image stabilisation system. For shorter lenses, apparently, in-camera systems work pretty well, and stabilise all your lenses, but the longer the lens (the conventional wisdom goes) the more of an advantage it is to have your IS system in the lens rather than in the camera. I can't really see a Sony or a Pentax developing an in-lens stabilising system just for 400mm and 600mm lenses, and if they introduced (say) a modern 600mm f/4 lens with the latest digital coatings and so on - this would cost around $12,000 retail - who would buy it when Nikon and Canon have direct equivalents with IS/VR?

[Colinz]

So to summarise- get close enough to fill the frame and the lower mp/cm2 produce the best image from any standpoint. Can't get close and the higher mp/cm2 allow for a better crop. There being a limit past which noise becomes the main problem.

I keep harking back to the days (of film) when I learned photography- restricted to iso 25 then 64 so you had to get close and have plenty of light. People of the digital era don't know they're alive! It was so difficult to get a good bird shot that didn't look like it was taken at midnight. I might see if I can pull a couple from my slide archives and post them for interest sake.

PS thanks for the input Tony :)

[JM Tran]

Until such time as Sony produce some serious long glass for it, nowhere, I'm afraid.

I doubt they will: it's a seriously expensive undertaking developing that kind of glass and you'd need to sell a good number of them to break even on the investment. Canon sell lots of long glass, Nikon haven't in the past (200-400 VR apart) but have a big customer base that doesn't seem to mind spending buckets of money, so they should do OK. The same goes for Pentax: no current range of modern long glass, and arguably Olympus too. Oly apparently have a very good if rather expensive 300mm unit, but even on a 2.0 crop body that seems a bit too short for birding.

A second factor keeping Pentax, Sony and Olympus out of the wildlife and sport specialties is their in-camera image stabilisation system. For shorter lenses, apparently, in-camera systems work pretty well, and stabilise all your lenses, but the longer the lens (the conventional wisdom goes) the more of an advantage it is to have your IS system in the lens rather than in the camera. I can't really see a Sony or a Pentax developing an in-lens stabilising system just for 400mm and 600mm lenses, and if they introduced (say) a modern 600mm f/4 lens with the latest digital coatings and so on - this would cost around $12,000 retail - who would buy it when Nikon and Canon have direct equivalents with IS/VR?

well as a full time pro I turn towards Sigma for my long end needs when i was still using Pentax, Sigma probably has the most diverse range of telephotos available at a more affordable pricing than C & N offerings.

So i can imagine in the near future many A900 owners turning towards the Sigma line up, instead of waiting for some rediculously overpriced Sony or Zeiss telephotos to be produced.

true that at the telephoto end SR in my pentaxes never fared as well as the IS in my canon lenses. BUT, in-body still gives me up to 2stops advantage with telephoto - so it works fine, if slightly less effective than IS in-lens for telephoto:)

[Tannin]

It really looks as though the APS-C sensor seems to have reached a saturation point.
DPR's summary of the 50D was something along the lines that it can have worse quality compared to the 40D. Does that imply that 12 or 13 or 14Mp is the realistic limit for an APS-C sensor.

DPR's "review" of the 50D has been (quite correctly) howled down from right, left and centre. DPR is just plain wrong. See for yourself here: http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=18890

The funny thing is, I agreed with your take on this until just after the 50D came out. I was certainly not impressed by the "improvement" that the 400D and then the 40D brought to the table in the wake of the (admittedly excellent) 20D/30D twins. On the whole, I generally prefer the images my 20D makes to those of the 40D, though there isn't a lot in it. (Why then did I buy two 40Ds? Because the image quality was about the same as the 20D and I wanted some of the other features it had, notably sensor cleaning. In any case, I'd promised to give my 400D to a family member and I had to replace it with something.)

But the 50D has changed my mind. It delivers significantly more detail than the 40D (or the 20D), so I was wrong. How much further crop cameras can go than the current high water mark of 15MP remains to be seen, but I thought they had hit the wall at 8MP, so who knows? I'll bet you a bottle of good red medicine that the D400 is 16.something MP, or maybe a little more than that, and produces beautiful images. :)

[I @ M]

Now set the Nikon models aside for the moment ------------ such as if your name is "Andrew" and your target species is the Laughing Kookaburra. :)


Pfffft,

Real men use Nikons ----
Real men don't crop ----
Real men only need 10mm lenses for birds ----

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh294/ImagesAtMarlo/Kooka10.jpg

Sorry Tony, but you did bring it up. :D

Thanks very much for a very clear and concise post on the subject Tony. :th3:

and as an afterthought for anyone thinking about the sort of lens that Tony is using to capture the exquisite images he does ------
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh294/ImagesAtMarlo/DSC_0594.jpg
Tony in background and Princess Col looking "down the barrel" ( image courtesy of Debra Faulkner)

[Tannin]

^^^ Well, I know Col is looking for the little birdie that makes the "clack" sound when I press the big black button - but what am I looking so worried about?

[arthurking83]

So where does the new A900 fit in? haha

I have used the A900 at the launch with some models provided to test the extreme cropping, and boy the crop results rival that of digital MF backs

wasnt very impressed with the high ISO capability though, for obvious reasons

A900 would make a brilliant studio or landscape camera for sure!... but for high speed action, or for birding, it's probably lacking in a lot of areas(feature wise)

Usability at low ISO is definitely it's forte.

Apparently Nikon is supposedly using this same sensor for the D3x(maybe called D4, but highly unlikely!)
There seems to be a huge delay in it's release, and I stil reckon it's due to it's (inherently)higher noise quality.
Word is that Nikon have given a few D3x's to certain photogs in the NPS system to test.
(lots of rumours abound on the net) and considering the way the D3 was introduced, it's highly probable.. but this thread is about hi-res cameras for birding.
Tony points out the features required to maintain that kind of photography, and more to the point, the availability of lenses for that purpose.

I'm glad it was introduced into the equation so as to highlight that it's probably not a camera fit for the purpose of birding due to it's features list(frame rate/focus system/speed/etc) and the lack of birding lenses available for it.
Zeiss do make a fabulous sounding lens in the 135mm f/1.8 though, and I think that points to it's intended market!!!(Portaiture!)

:)

Tony, my point about the lens used(700mm) was simply to point out to the folks that have aspiration for a telezoom, and find themselves looking at (up to) 300mm types. Even on a crop body, it's not realistically enough for great opportunities, as as you said 400mm seems to be the minimum length.
Your use of the 1.4TC highlights something I kind of suspected too, in that you can 'easily' substitute a TC of capable performance(on a equally capable lens of course!) to make up for a lack of pixels.
One thing I've noticed(and Colinz alluded too with his findings on his Panasonic) is that you can sharpen a big pixel more so than you can a smaller pixel(working with available data, if that data is good enough to work with).
One thing that the D300 doesn't tolerate too much is sharpening.. no where near as much as the D70s can, nor the D3(even better!)
Just after the D3 was announced(but not introduced) a while back there were D3 sample images available for download, and the quality of the images were a pleasure to work with (in NX).

So!!

Would you say that having the ability to compensate for the loss of one stop(in using a TC), can be made up for by a better quality pixel(ISO)?

One thing I have noticed is many images of the Nikon 200/2 against the Nikon 300/2.8
(remember I'm Nikon, and research Nikon stuff!)
Both lenses are equally fine lenses, and there is either nothing between them both in terms of IQ, and equally so if you add a 1.4xTC to the 200/2!!(makes for a 280/2.8, which is damned close)

My reply is to ascertain if it's feasible to have your cake and eat it too.
ie. A one camera fits all purposes situation.
A D700 is my ideal camera for what I prefer to do.
A higher Mp sensor will(may??) introduce unwanted noise, and lower DR.
Could I plausibly add a 200-400 f/4 and a few TC's and compensate with using higher ISO(and I'm referring to 1600 to 6400 here!).
I've seen images taken with Nikons TC's on their long lenses that are definitely fit for the purpose.

Sar Nop(what happened to him? :() has posted fabulous images taken with this combo in the past!
If you can't get closer, and you can't crop too much on a D700/D3, then I'd want to use it's larger, more processable pixels, by compensating with TC's.

Colin

[SpaceJunk]

wonderful thread guys, very useful explanations and nicely garnished with the humour, the UWA kookaburra shot always brings a smile to my face :th3: :th3: :th3:

[Kym]

4.9MP - 450D (1.6 crop, 12.2MP)
6.0MP - 50D (1.6 crop, 15.1MP)

So a Pentax K20D or K-7 at 14.6MP and 1.5 crop with a Bigma (500mm) is quite reasonable for birding :D
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3586/3451261635_57d22f1fef_o.jpg
Andrew's 10mm Kookaburra notwithstanding :eek:

[farmer_rob]

Kym, you can take all the shots you want, I am sure Tannin will find a reason why the Canon will remain king :D

Nice pic though - I quite like the "wink". Pity about the gum leaf.

[Tannin]

Very much in the sweet part of the zone, Kym. Using the same (unspecified) lens as the other ones I gave figures for, we get:

4.9MP - 450D (1.6 crop, 12.2MP)
6.0MP - 50D (1.6 crop, 15.1MP)
5.4MP - K20 (1.5 crop, 14.5MP)

The Sigma 500mm lens (of course) adds a bit of extra length (as compared with a typical 400mm lens) at the cost of a slight drop in sharpness (if we are comparing to (e.g.) Canon 100-400, Canon 400/4.6, or Nikkor 80-400) and one third of a stop less light, so that's a swings and roundabouts thing: call it about even. But my comparison numbers are looking only at the camera itself, and assume identical lenses.

[ving]

gah! my head hurts...

tony, can you just hit me with the mathematical formula for what you are getting at in this thread?

[mcdesign]

My head hurts too! I give up, far too complicated for my old brain, I will stick to macro and the like or should I have gone Canon in the first place :confused013, don't scream at me :eek: Very interesting all the same and I can see why I can't get perfect images of birds with my equipment.

[feral1]

Geez somewhere I missed this thread, glad I found it. Tony very informative.
As Tony has said 400mm is a good starting lens for bird photoging, that is not to say you cant use a 300 or even if you want a 200mm lens, just means more work. Getting to know your birds habits etc.
I have use a 300mm for quite a bit, a kit lens. I found that using this has helped me to get to know how to stalk my quarry. It would be nice to have a 800mm lens, but I would not have learned what I have by using it straight of the bat.
I have a habit that more than likely will stay with me, I see a bird I want to photograph and it is a bit far for the lens, I still take a shot, then move a bit closer take another shot. Hopeing I can get close enough for nearly a full frame shot. Does not happen too often, but I still got some real good images, as far as a kit lens goes.
Now I have a Sigma 150-500mm lens, same thing applies, just because you have that bit more reach, does not mean you are going to get the image you want straight away. You still have to work at it.

I have posted 2 images I have taken with the 70-300mm lens. 1st image is exact size out of the camera. If you know your species enough, you know what they are more like to react like, waiting long enough they do come closer to you.

The second image is cropped to show that you can still get good images with a shorter lens. If you are close enough, you do not need to crop as hard. If I was further away from the bird, and I tried to crop this amount it would not look as good, pixel pinching. If you can afford go for a 400mm minimum:) .

Enough of my babble.

Handing back to Tony :D

Peter

[Tannin]

OK David.

The basic idea is simple, though the implementation gets a bit tricky. First, we estimate the area of the sensor you cover with a "typical good" bird photograph. Then we apply that area to the various different DSLRs and thus calculate the actual number of usable pixels. Notice that the exact size of that estimated area does not matter, just so long as we use the same area for all cameras. I'm using the area calculated by example at the start of this thread, which is 135mm² but you could use a different one and it wouldn't affect the end result, so long as you were consistent with it, and so long as it was a reasonable estimate of real world practical results - anywhere between about 100mm² and 200mm² would be in the ball park.

So we start with the pixel dimensions and physical dimensions of the sensor (as per manufacturer's specs). E.g., the K20D is 23.4 x 15.6 mm = 365mm². Pixel dimensions are 4672 x 3104 = 14.5MP. This gives us a pixel density of 39,727 pixels per mm². Our usable sensor size (the bit that actually has the bird in it) is 135mm² , so all we have to do is multiply that out to get our final figure of merit - in this case, 5,377,655 useful pixels, or about 5.4MP.

[Kym]

OK David.
The basic idea is simple, though the implementation gets a bit tricky. <snip>

That actually makes sense!

So to improve birding you must fill more of the frame (I think we knew that :rolleyes: )
- either by getting closer (best) or using longer focal lengths (which may have IQ issues).
And if you have a higher pixel density you get more detail and can crop more if needed.

Pixel density raises an issue regarding the limit of diffraction.
But as most birding is f/8 or less LoD is not an issue.
LoD kicks in around f/11 on high density sensors.

LoD explained here and you can compute you LoD for your Camera & Lens combo
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

[RuthJ]

LoD explained here and you can compute you LoD for your Camera & Lens combo
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

Very interesting read.....I had to find my camera's pixel size...it's the smallest of all the Canon DSLRs :eek: ...but not too bad.... I have some area to work with the kit lens between being a little sharper and before diffraction kicks in...f8-11, or stick to the nifty fifty.

[Tannin]

Here is an updated list, with some extra Nikon and Pentax models, and some recent releases

1.9MP - Nikon D700 (1.0 crop, 12.1MP)
1.9MP - Nikon D3 (1.0 crop, 12.1MP)
2.0MP - Canon 5D (1.0 crop, 12.7MP)
2.2MP - Nikon D40 (1.5 crop, 6.0MP)
2.5MP - Canon 10D (1.6 crop, 6.3MP)
2.6MP - Canon 1D III (1.3 crop, 10.1MP)
2.6MP - Canon 1Ds II (1.0 crop, 16.6MP)
3.3MP - Canon 20D, 30D (1.6 crop, 8.2MP)
3.3MP - Canon 5D II (1.0 crop, 21.0MP)
3.3MP - Canon 1Ds III (1.0 crop, 21.0MP)
3.6MP - Nikon D40x (1.5 crop, 10.0MP)
3.6MP - Nikon D60 (1.5 crop, 10.0MP)
3.7MP - Pentax K200D (1.5 crop, 10.0MP)
3.8MP - Nikon D3x (1.0 crop, 24.4MP)
4.0MP - Canon 40D, 400D (1.6 crop, 10.1MP)
4.4MP - Nikon D90 (1.5 crop, 12.2MP)
4.4MP - Nikon D300 (1.5 crop, 12.2MP)
4.9MP - Canon 450D (1.6 crop, 12.2MP)
5.4MP - Pentax K20D (1.5 crop, 14.5MP)
6.0MP - Canon 500D (1.6 crop, 15.1MP)
6.0MP - Canon 50D (1.6 crop, 15.1MP)

[Kym]

Here is an updated list, <snip>
So the top Birding cameras are Canon and Pentax :)
And the best Nikon is the D300 (which Seesee has)
Nice!
BTW the new Pentax K-7 has the same sensor dimensions as the K20D albeit a new design and faster frame rate.

[ving]

hahaha!!! i have one of the worst birding cameras! :D

[I @ M]

hahaha!!! i have one of the worst birding cameras! :D

Me too David, but we know that a good photo achieved by the challenge of the equipment handicap and the skill involved in getting closer to the subject beats one made by technological brilliance. :D :D :D

[ving]

Me too David, but we know that a good photo achieved by the challenge of the equipment handicap and the skill involved in getting closer to the subject beats one made by technological brilliance. :D :D :D
yup, just makes us better than them :p

[Tannin]

So the top Birding cameras are Canon and Pentax.

Well, insofar as pixel density goes, yes. But this isn't the only factor to consider, of course. As you go up the pixel density scale, you gradually get less return on higher resolution. So, yes, there is a difference between (for example) the 40D and the 50D, but it isn't huge.

The biggest factor of all is lenses, which for birding purposes can be rated #1: Canon, #2: Nikon, #3: Pentax. After that, I think you'd probably go for AF performance and pixel density. AF performance is pretty much just a matter of spending lots of money - the best AF performers are all expensive. And pixel density is covered above.

[mcdesign]

It is all a bit over my head but does that mean that the Nikon D90 is OK too as it is the same as the D300?

[Kym]

It is all a bit over my head but does that mean that the Nikon D90 is OK too as it is the same as the D300?

yes!

[mcdesign]

OK, so now I neeeeeeeeeeed a good lens :lens:

[Kym]

Colin has a Tokina 300mm with a 1.4 converter.

Maybe a Sigma APO120-400 F4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM ?

[Sar NOP]

Sar Nop(what happened to him? :() has posted fabulous images taken with this combo in the past!

I'm still alive...too busy in making money...for living.:D

I haven't read all the posts, but interesting point of views.
My obsolete 4Mpx still produces stunning image quality, even with heavy crop (the Nikon D2Hs is the DSLR which has the biggest gap between pixels !).
I have tried both D700 and D300 (birds shooting) : in heavy crop the files from the D700 (FX mode) look better than those from the D300. The high resolution of the D300's sensor requires top quality lenses and perfect techniques if you want to get good quality crop. Otherwise IQ will fall very quickly.
I don't know much about theory but personally I'm always convinced that pixel quality is better than pixel density...for bird photography anyway.

[mcdesign]

Colin has a Tokina 300mm with a 1.4 converter.

Maybe a Sigma APO120-400 F4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM ?

The last is what Andrew has recommended...now to save :(

[I @ M]

The last is what Andrew has recommended...now to save :(

The suggestion of the 120-400 is due to the fact that us poor Nikon owners are faced with a definite lack of choices in relatively low priced lenses that go beyond 200mm.

Any half way decent quality telephoto lens has quite a bit of weight to it and if hand holding is needed they become a strain very quickly. An optical stabilisation system then becomes a must have item to supplement high shutter speeds.

As I see it the most viable way to get to 400mm ends up being a compromise between lenses along the lines of the 100-300 F/4 and a 1.4x converter which then gives you a 140-420 lens with a max aperture of 5.6 all the way and no stabilisation but at a weight of around 1550 grams or the 120-400 with stabilisation and a weight of 1750 grams.

The other alternative is the Nikon 300mm F/4 AFS with a 1.4x converter but they are pricey new and fairly thin on the ground secondhand. :(

[mcdesign]

Sounds like I will have to give up this idea and stick with what I have got, the weight might just be a problem.

[Kym]

<snip>
As I see it the most viable way to get to 400mm ends up being a compromise between lenses along the lines of the 100-300 F/4 and a 1.4x converter which then gives you a 140-420 lens with a max aperture of 5.6 all the way and no stabilisation but at a weight of around 1550 grams or the 120-400 with stabilisation and a weight of 1750 grams.<snip>

FWIW the bigma 50-500 is 1840 grams.
Which means with the K20D+grip and Flash - 3kgs (near enough) - which even I notice.

BUT the bigma does not have SR/OS/IS/VR - but Pentax do have SR in the body.
I have got away with 1/50th at 500mm with the tripod and SR on (which everyone says don't do - but seems to work with Pentax in body SR, I get sharper images with it on).

In fact the only times SR should be off is panning and long exposures (which it turns off SR anyway).

So... what about Canon et. al. without OS/IS/VR ... Well either a tripod or monopod are an almost must!

Then should OS/IS/VR be on when using support? Tannin???

[Riverlander]

I will stick my bb in and see how I go. :) I do get better pics with it off when I use a tripod.

IS on a Canon lens should be turned off when using a tripod - in fact I understand that the very new IS system will turn itself off if it "senses" it is on a tripod.

[Kym]

I will stick my bb in and see how I go. :) I do get better pics with it off when I use a tripod.
IS on a Canon lens should be turned off when using a tripod - in fact I understand that the very new IS system will turn itself off if it "senses" it is on a tripod.

I guess I'm trying to figure if in body SR and lens based IS need to follow the same rules. They are quite different technologies.
Pentax (and I think Sony) don't do any in body SR until you press the shutter (and therefore use negligible power).
I've googled this and there seems to be mixed views.
Personally I find that in body SR works with a tripod.

[DzRbenson]

Havent posted in this thread yet, However with the IS and onboard Stabilization, I use a Sony Alpha and if mounted on a Tripod IS should be off.

Sony themselves have advised this, if mounted then turn this off.

[Tannin]

In-lens stabilisation uses a gyroscopic sensor to detect and measure motion, then moving some of the lens elements in the opposite direction to correct for it. There are four different Canon IS systems.

1st generation

28-135/3.5-5.6 (1998)
75-300/4-5.6 (1995)

Fussy. About 2 stops of stabilisation, slow start-up (about a second), no tripod mode, not supposed to be used for panning. You can pan with one of these, but you have to start the pan before you engage the IS and stop the IS before you stop moving the camera - otherwise the IS system attempts to compensate for that big sudden stop and goes crazy. IS should be switched OFF when using a tripod because the system doesn't like not having any movement to compensate for.


2nd generation

300/4(1997)
100-400/4.5-5.6 (1998)

Same as 1st generation but adds a switch for panning mode. This apparently turns off the correction on one axis, retains it for the other axis. Still not tripod-safe. In practice, 2nd-gen IS lenses are OK with a tripod as there is almost always a little bit of movement. If your tripod is really, really good and there is no wind, then it can degrade sharpness by introducing "correction" for movement that isn't there. (Edit: I should say that I've practically never used my 100-400 with a tripod, nearly always hand-held. But come to think of it, I've posted shots here taken with a tripod and the 100-400, some of those close-ups of Belinda's birds drinking from March this year were 100-400 and tripod. I almost certainly forgot to switch the IS off.)


3rd and 4th generations

All other Canon IS lenses

Tripod-safe. Provide 3-stop stabilisation. 4th-gen models have faster start-up and lower manufacturing cost. 3rd & 4th gen IS lenses still have a panning switch, but other than that just use as you please, the electronics are smart and will figure out what to do.

By the way, a monopod counts as hand-holding: you can use a monopod with any IS lens.

Many people say you should switch IS OFF for birds in flight, others disagree. I haven't been able to detect any particular difference, so I usually just leave it on.

I don't know where the other stabilisation systems are up to, but you'd guess that Nikkors are similar to the Canon ones. The in-body systems .... no idea.

[Kym]

Pentax new 400mm f/4 lens with the new K-7 would be a pretty good birding setup!
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=31980

[Tannin]

Updated again, with new models in bold.


1.9MP - Nikon D700 (1.0 crop, 12.1MP)
1.9MP - Nikon D3 (1.0 crop, 12.1MP)
2.0MP - Canon 5D (1.0 crop, 12.7MP)
2.2MP - Nikon D40 (1.5 crop, 6.0MP)
2.5MP - Canon 10D (1.6 crop, 6.3MP)
2.6MP - Canon 1D III (1.3 crop, 10.1MP)
2.6MP - Canon 1Ds II (1.0 crop, 16.6MP)
3.3MP - Canon 20D, 30D (1.6 crop, 8.2MP)
3.3MP - Canon 5D II (1.0 crop, 21.0MP)
3.3MP - Canon 1Ds III (1.0 crop, 21.0MP)
3.6MP - Nikon D40X (1.5 crop, 10.0MP)
3.6MP - Nikon D60 (1.5 crop, 10.0MP)
3.7MP - Pentax K200D (1.5 crop, 10.0MP)
3.8MP - Nikon D3X (1.0 crop, 24.4MP)
4.0MP - Canon 40D, 400D (1.6 crop, 10.1MP)
4.2MP - Canon 1D Mark IV (1.3 crop, 16MP)
4.4MP - Nikon D90 (1.5 crop, 12.2MP)
4.4MP - Nikon D300, D300s, D90 (1.5 crop, 12.2MP)
4.9MP - Canon 450D (1.6 crop, 12.2MP)
5.4MP - Pentax K20D (1.5 crop, 14.5MP)
6.0MP - Canon 500D (1.6 crop, 15.1MP)
6.0MP - Canon 50D (1.6 crop, 15.1MP)
6.0MP - Canon 50D (1.6 crop, 15.1MP)
7.2MP - Canon 7D (1.6 crop, 17.9MP)

[Helen S]

Thanks for the update Tony, I was wondering where the 7D would fit in with all of these and had hoped it would come out of top (it's hubby's dream camera to go with my 100-400 he keeps "borrowing").

You must like the 50D, I see it made it into the list twice. ;)

[wiggles]

Thank you Tony I'm stoked to see that the 50D is becoming more popular in the birding world :D

[Kym]

Updated again

1.9MP - Nikon D700 (1.0 crop, 12.1MP)
1.9MP - Nikon D3 (1.0 crop, 12.1MP)
2.0MP - Canon 5D (1.0 crop, 12.7MP)
2.2MP - Nikon D40 (1.5 crop, 6.0MP)
2.5MP - Canon 10D (1.6 crop, 6.3MP)
2.6MP - Canon 1D III (1.3 crop, 10.1MP)
2.6MP - Canon 1Ds II (1.0 crop, 16.6MP)
3.3MP - Canon 20D, 30D (1.6 crop, 8.2MP)
3.3MP - Canon 5D II (1.0 crop, 21.0MP)
3.3MP - Canon 1Ds III (1.0 crop, 21.0MP)
3.6MP - Nikon D40x (1.5 crop, 10.0MP)
3.6MP - Nikon D60, D3000 (1.5 crop, 10.0MP)
3.6MP - Pentax K10D, K200D (1.5 crop, 10.0MP)
3.8MP - Nikon D3x (1.0 crop, 24.4MP)
4.0MP - Canon 40D, 400D (1.6 crop, 10.1MP)
4.2MP - Canon 1D Mark IV (1.3 crop, 16MP)
4.4MP - Nikon D90, D5000 (1.5 crop, 12.2MP)
4.4MP - Nikon D300, D300s, D90 (1.5 crop, 12.2MP)
4.5MP - Pentax K-x (1.5 crop, 12.4MP)
4.9MP - Canon 450D (1.6 crop, 12.2MP)
5.4MP - Pentax K20D, K-7 (1.5 crop, 14.5MP)
6.0MP - Canon 500D (1.6 crop, 15.1MP)
6.0MP - Canon 50D (1.6 crop, 15.1MP)
7.2MP - Canon 550D (1.6 crop, 18MP)
7.2MP - Canon 7D (1.6 crop, 18MP)

[ving]

thanks kym, dont forget d3000 and 5000 :p

[Cage]

Great thread, relieved to see my K20D featuring prominently.

All I need now for that perfect bird shot is a you-beaut telephoto, a co-operative subject, perfect lighting and conditions, the ability to utilise all the aforesaid, and a lot of luck.

Don't you just love photography? It's adictive. That 'once in a lifetime' shot could be just one or two clicks away................. or maybe not, but Hell, I feel I'm getting closer.

Cheers :food04:

Kevin

[stillie]

Geez somewhere I missed this thread, glad I found it. Tony very informative.
As Tony has said 400mm is a good starting lens for bird photoging, that is not to say you cant use a 300 or even if you want a 200mm lens, just means more work. Getting to know your birds habits etc.
I have use a 300mm for quite a bit, a kit lens. I found that using this has helped me to get to know how to stalk my quarry. It would be nice to have a 800mm lens, but I would not have learned what I have by using it straight of the bat.
I have a habit that more than likely will stay with me, I see a bird I want to photograph and it is a bit far for the lens, I still take a shot, then move a bit closer take another shot. Hopeing I can get close enough for nearly a full frame shot. Does not happen too often, but I still got some real good images, as far as a kit lens goes.
Now I have a Sigma 150-500mm lens, same thing applies, just because you have that bit more reach, does not mean you are going to get the image you want straight away. You still have to work at it.

I have posted 2 images I have taken with the 70-300mm lens. 1st image is exact size out of the camera. If you know your species enough, you know what they are more like to react like, waiting long enough they do come closer to you.

The second image is cropped to show that you can still get good images with a shorter lens. If you are close enough, you do not need to crop as hard. If I was further away from the bird, and I tried to crop this amount it would not look as good, pixel pinching. If you can afford go for a 400mm minimum:) .

Enough of my babble.

Handing back to Tony :D

Peter

Hi

I am looking to take up on your advice on the lens you use , but some confusing wording I need clarified as I have underlined in the quoted text above.
My understanding is that the kit lens is 75-300mm but you then talk about using a 70-300mm lens for these photos which is a totally different lens. Which lens did you then use to take the bird photos?
Thanks
Alan

[bindi]

Me, I would have cropped to have the birds eye in the 2/3 cross top right so it is looking into the photo....other that, nice sharp, well exposed shot!

[Kym]

The new 16.5mp APS-C 1.5 crop on the Pentax K-5, Sony A55 and Nikon D7000 should be good

[DAdeGroot]

So... what about Canon et. al. without OS/IS/VR ... Well either a tripod or monopod are an almost must!

Then should OS/IS/VR be on when using support? Tannin???

Depends on the lens really. The Canon 400mm f/5.6L has no image stabilisation, but in good light with good technique, it's very usable hand-held. In fact most of my birding is done with this lens on a 5DII, hand-held. The 5DII is definately a challenge for birding, having relatively poor AF and being a 1.0 crop body) but when you can get close, the image quality results are fantasitc.


Updated again, with new models in bold.

3.3MP - Canon 5D II (1.0 crop, 21.0MP)
4.2MP - Canon 1D Mark IV (1.3 crop, 16MP)


Aha, so my planned second body upgrade will give me a little more cropping wriggle room (as expected) :)

[exwintech]

Wow...! Now, lessee..... (Not Totally Serious...) From those Lists - 'Birding Camera' - must be CaNikon - minimum $5k body - and for birds, minimum 500mm - another $5k, for a "usable" one. Maybe "properly" means a D3x and 1200mm + a 2x TC..... :):D

- Can't do it, this week....

Or, for cheapskates like me - a Pentax body 2007 or before - scrub K-X - K-7 - K-R - K-5.....? Nope - so I'm an "ooooops" on that-lot, too....!

Hang-on, though - somebody earlier said "Canon" is okay for Brand-Name - and 10Mpix is enough.....

Okay, then - 10Mpix Canon....

- Ahem...... ;)

Dave.

[Tannin]

From those Lists - 'Birding Camera' - must be CaNikon - minimum $5k body
Wrong. No-one said this. And your price estimate is roughly 300% too high.


and for birds, minimum 500mm - another $5k, for a "usable" one
Wrong. 400mm is generally regarded as the starting point for serious birding, which means about $1500, or around one-quarter as much as you state. And if you do want a good 500mm lens, then your estimate is 50% too low.



Maybe "properly" means a D3x and 1200mm + a 2x TC.....
Certainly not!


Okay, then - 10Mpix Canon....
A decent tool, perfectly capable of delivering good results. Of course, in the hands of a really good photographer, a much inferior camera can nevertheless deliver truly great results. But a good photographer will always try to do as much as is reasonably possible to improve his shots, which is why (if he can) he will select the best available tool at the camera shop, rather than a not-so-good tool. This thread exists to help him choose well.


Not Totally Serious
Just as well!

[exwintech]

Tannin - I'm surprised that anyone took any of those "pretend figures" seriously....

The post was just a tease-dig for the "Bird Forum" folk.... :)

There is a funny side to it - some of us, on fixed low-income - take quite some time to be able to "select the best available tools" at the camera-shop. Which in turn forces "us inferior folk with our inferior tools" :D - to just plod-on and do the best we can with them.... (Note: - Joking..... )

Which is both entertaining and educational - though, sometimes if one is having a joke at one's self - it can backfire - somebody will take it seriously - which is funny....

> Okay - I won't do it again.... Shall remain verrry-serrrious..... ;)

Regards, Dave.

[Kym]

The new D7000 and K-5 have 4.75 µm pixels. (23.7 x 15.7 16 Mpx (4992 x 3284))
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/%28appareil1%29/680|0/%28appareil2%29/676|0/%28appareil3%29/619|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Nikon/%28brand2%29/Pentax/%28brand3%29/Canon

Using Tannin's formula its 44058 px / mm² x 135mm² (cropped area) = 5.947Mpx

1.9MP - Nikon D700 (1.0 crop, 12.1MP)
1.9MP - Nikon D3 (1.0 crop, 12.1MP)
2.0MP - Canon 5D (1.0 crop, 12.7MP)
2.2MP - Nikon D40 (1.5 crop, 6.0MP)
2.5MP - Canon 10D (1.6 crop, 6.3MP)
2.6MP - Canon 1D III (1.3 crop, 10.1MP)
2.6MP - Canon 1Ds II (1.0 crop, 16.6MP)
3.3MP - Canon 20D, 30D (1.6 crop, 8.2MP)
3.3MP - Canon 5D II (1.0 crop, 21.0MP)
3.3MP - Canon 1Ds III (1.0 crop, 21.0MP)
3.6MP - Nikon D40x (1.5 crop, 10.0MP)
3.6MP - Nikon D60, D3000 (1.5 crop, 10.0MP)
3.6MP - Pentax K10D, K200D (1.5 crop, 10.0MP)
3.8MP - Nikon D3x (1.0 crop, 24.4MP)
4.0MP - Canon 40D, 400D (1.6 crop, 10.1MP)
4.2MP - Canon 1D Mark IV (1.3 crop, 16MP)
4.4MP - Nikon D90, D5000 (1.5 crop, 12.2MP)
4.4MP - Nikon D300, D300s, D90 (1.5 crop, 12.2MP)
4.5MP - Pentax K-x (1.5 crop, 12.4MP)
4.9MP - Canon 450D (1.6 crop, 12.2MP)
5.4MP - Pentax K20D, K-7 (1.5 crop, 14.5MP)
5.9MP - Nikon D7000 (1.5 crop, 16.3MP)
5.9MP - Pentax K-5, (1.5 crop, 16.3MP)
6.0MP - Canon 500D (1.6 crop, 15.1MP)
6.0MP - Canon 50D (1.6 crop, 15.1MP)
7.2MP - Canon 550D (1.6 crop, 18MP)
7.2MP - Canon 7D (1.6 crop, 18MP)

But the ISO performance of the K-5 and D7000 means you can shoot 2 or 3 stops faster !! (to be proven at this stage)

[Tannin]

the ISO performance of the K-5 and D7000 means you can shoot 2 or 3 stops faster !! (to be proven at this stage)

You would expect some improvement insofar as they have newer sensor designs but somewhat lower density. 2 to 3 stops improvement? Where did that number come from? It sounds utterly ridiculous - a fair-dinkum 1 stop increase would be a very big improvement indeed. Remember that, these days. we already have the big improvements - low-noise CMOS, on-chip interpretation, on-chip NR software, full-coverage microlenses - as standard in all new(ish) cameras. So where are they going to pull 2-3 stops from? Out of their bottoms might be the only option. :shock:

But note - depends a bit on what you measure from - the 7D is quite a bit better, noise-wise, than the old 50D. Maybe half a stop, maybe a bit more, I haven't seen figures but certainly noticable. It wouldn't be hard to get one clear stop over the 50D. But three stops? Tell 'em they're dreamin.

[Kym]

Stops... (see some of the real world samples over on Pentax Forums)

D7000 ISO 4000 http://s1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff516/Akanian/?action=view&current=DSC_0162.jpg

D7000 ISO 25,600 http://i52.tinypic.com/142e8nc.jpg (Topaz Denoise applied)

K-5 ISO 51,200 http://www.bertin.ca/tmp/K-5/ISO/K5__9935_MED_1.jpg (Topaz Denoise applied)

My K-5 is due in today (fingers crossed)

So instead of shooting ISO 400 I'm hoping to get similar results at 1600 or even 3200 - I'll let you know

[Kym]

Another one http://www.bertin.ca/tmp/K-5/K-5_ISO6400_ACR6_MED.jpg 6400

[Kym]

@Tannin: To back up my assertion that 2-3 stops faster shooting will be possible with the K-5 (for the same noise)

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/11/the-new-number-one.html

Featured Comment by Dan Bridges: "The DxO DR tested performance of the K-5 is amazing. It has the same DR at ISO800 that my K20D has at ISO100. If you use the 'Print' tab on the DxO charts to get a normalised 8 MP result which is useful for comparing sensors with dissimilar MP, at ISO80 there is an impressive 14.1 stops of DR.
I know he is saying DR, but also look at the DxO noise charts esp. SNR 18%. I'll know fairly soon as mine was due in yesterday - hopefully today.

[Tannin]

Oh. Well, I was\ prepared to take this seriously until you mentioned DxO. DxO reckons the unloved Nikon D200 has lower noise than a 5D! (Or was it some other absurdity? Can't remember. In any case, there are lots of them.)

* Warning. The above post is designed to be provocative. This is something I learned from a bloke named Kym. I am actually quite prepared to look at this seriously when I get a minute, but (obviously) I'll disregard any "evidence" presented by DxO.

[Othrelos]

I really don't pay a huge amount of attention to DXO ratings. It's true the Leica M9 has a below-par score compared to other full frame DSLR's when it comes to High ISO. But when you have the use of a 50mm f/1.0 lens, it isn't such a big issue.

Sigma 100-300mm F/4 APO EX DG On a Pentax k10
Using good glass is essential if you're going to be cropping.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/gallery/images/15921/1__IGP3437-2.jpg

[larrywen]

How about Canon 7D?
Opps, I just found the answer in page 3

[Sarge]

The new 16.5mp APS-C 1.5 crop on the Pentax K-5, Sony A55 and Nikon D7000 should be good

5.9MP - Sony A55 (1.5 crop, 16.7MP)

It's good. I wish Sony had the long glass like Canon/Nikon and the excellent AF system I have heard the 7D has. :rolleyes:

[davearnold]

So what do you do on a quiet day at work, you read threads that make your head hurt ..... was interesting seeing my old 450D as a contender for a good bird camera ( a long time ago) .. a good thread, and I think I learnt something.

[Dug]

Just an up date for the hell of it :)

Using Tony's formula, check my figures though.

1.9MP - Nikon D700 (1.0 crop, 12.1MP)
1.9MP - Nikon D3 (1.0 crop, 12.1MP)
2.0MP - Canon 5D (1.0 crop, 12.7MP)
2.2MP - Nikon D40 (1.5 crop, 6.0MP)
2.5MP - Canon 10D (1.6 crop, 6.3MP)
2.6MP - Canon 1D III (1.3 crop, 10.1MP)
2.6MP - Canon 1Ds II (1.0 crop, 16.6MP)
3.3MP - Canon 20D, 30D (1.6 crop, 8.2MP)
3.3MP - Canon 5D II (1.0 crop, 21.0MP)
3.3MP - Canon 1Ds III (1.0 crop, 21.0MP)
3.6MP - Nikon D40x (1.5 crop, 10.0MP)
3.6MP - Nikon D60, D3000 (1.5 crop, 10.0MP)
3.6MP - Pentax K10D, K200D (1.5 crop, 10.0MP)
3.6MP - Canon 5Dmk3 (1.0 crop, 23.4MP)
3.8MP - Nikon D3x (1.0 crop, 24.4MP)
4.0MP - Canon 40D, 400D (1.6 crop, 10.1MP)
4.2MP - Canon 1D Mark IV (1.3 crop, 16MP)
4.4MP - Nikon D90, D5000 (1.5 crop, 12.2MP)
4.4MP - Nikon D300, D300s, D90 (1.5 crop, 12.2MP)
4.5MP - Pentax K-x (1.5 crop, 12.4MP)
4.9MP - Canon 450D (1.6 crop, 12.2MP)
5.4MP - Pentax K20D, K-7 (1.5 crop, 14.5MP)
5.7MP - Nikon D800 (1.0 crop, 36.5MP)
5.9MP - Nikon D7000 (1.5 crop, 16.3MP)
5.9MP - Pentax K-5, (1.5 crop, 16.3MP)
6.0MP - Canon 500D (1.6 crop, 15.1MP)
6.0MP - Canon 50D (1.6 crop, 15.1MP)
7.2MP - Canon 550D (1.6 crop, 18MP)
7.2MP - Canon 7D (1.6 crop, 18MP) I get 7.7mp
9.2mp - Nikon 3200 (1.5 crop, 24.4mp)

[hee]

Thanks to Tannin for that splendid post - clear and informative.
Just a (newcomer) query though. Extrapolating from the figures given, my 18MP 7D would give a 7.15MP picture compard with the 3.3 MP from the much more expensive, full frame 1Ds 111.
I assume that you can't just deduce from this that the 7D is twice as good as the 1D for bird photography so where do the APS-C cameras lose out compared to full frame cameras?

[arthurking83]

when the light gets lower and the need to push ISO higher.

the larger format will usually look nicer, more detailed or have produced better colour.*


*(unless you crop heavily instead of using the correct lens for the situation, or shoot at the right moment)

[Jimv8]

It would be very interesting to see this thread revived in view of the newer cameras and lenses that have come onto the market since the discussion was started, I am thinking along the lines of the 5D 111, the D800 and the likes of Sony's A99

[I @ M]

It would be very interesting to see this thread revived in view of the newer cameras and lenses that have come onto the market since the discussion was started, I am thinking along the lines of the 5D 111, the D800 and the likes of Sony's A99

The figures have been calculated and posted in post #72 for a couple of newer camera models. :)

[ricktas]

It would be very interesting to see this thread revived in view of the newer cameras and lenses that have come onto the market since the discussion was started, I am thinking along the lines of the 5D 111, the D800 and the likes of Sony's A99

I would be interested is seeing some of your photos, rather than a post every few months just to revive your inactive account. I was thinking along the lines of some photos for CC and perhaps giving some cc to the likes of other members. :D

[Tannin]

Jim, I think things have changed quite a bit since my original post, which was quite a few years ago now. I haven't tried to quantify this, nor have I performed any formal tests to prove it, but over the last few years I have come to the conclusion that we have reached the practical limit on smaller and smaller pixels, at least for the time being, and at least so far as the purposes of this thread are concerned. Even way back then it was clear that the results to be obtained from very high pixel densities (at that time only to be found in point and shoot cameras) were quite poor. Today, I think that DSLRs are also hitting those limits.

The 7D, as an example, is a wonderful old camera and I still use mine regularly, but it is generally outperformed by the 1D IV even when we are focal length limited. The higher density of the 7D, in other words, is not enough to overcome the other qualities of the 1D IV. I'm open to discussion of the reasons for this, but I suspect that the primary driver is the delivery of significantly lower noise at birding ISOs coupled with reasonably good pixel density. Compare with the 5D II to illustrate this: it has even lower noise, but the IQ under FLL conditions is inferior to the 1D IV and the 7D as well. Presumably, this has mostly to do with its low pixel density (about 24,000 per mm2) but we should also be aware of the huge difference in AF systems - how often do we discount the quality a 5D II image because it's slightly out of focus rather than because of something to do with sensors and density? Perhaps we should consider the 1D III instead.

In short, my view is that for any given level of technology, there is an optimum pixel density for FLL work, just as there is an optimum density for other tasks. Usually (always?) the FLL optimum will be higher than the general-purpose density.

Two key questions remain:

1: are any of the new breed of ultra-high density DSLR-size sensors worth using for bird work, or do they sacrifice too much noise and DR? Sony seems to like them, Canon thinks very poorly of them. Not sure what Nikon is up to these days.
2: is the large downgrade in resolution introduced by the 1DX justifiable for FLL use because of other improvements? It sounds very unlikely to me - indeed I went out of my way to find a 1D IV to upgrade my 1D III to rather than a low-res IDX, but I haven't tried the newer model for myself.

[Tannin]

As posted some years ago above, I no longer see more pixels as translating directly into more reach. Ten years ago that was certainly true, but the state of the art has changed a lot since then. I'm not sure that I would be rushing to draw too many conclusions from the scores in this list.

Nevertheless, I find value in being able to see at a glance (for example) that my go-to birding camera today (a 1D IV) delivers the same pixel density as the 40D I used back when I started this thread. When pushed for reach, however, I often switch to a higher-density body (7D until recently, now a 7D II). Similarly, I can see that (all else being equal) the 5D IV I've got my eye on will have only a little more reach than a 40D, and noticeably less than a 50D or an ancient Pentax K-5.

Anyway, I've updated the list with some representative current Canon and Nikon bodies, and if members think it's of interest, I'll plug in the numbers for whatever the current leading models are in other brands.



0.94 - Nikon D1, D1S (1.53 crop, 2.6 MP)
1.14 - Canon1D (1.34 crop, 4.1 MP)
1.25 - Canon D30 (1.62 crop, 3.1 MP)
1.47 - Nikon D2H (1.55 crop, 4.0 MP)
1.70 - Canon 1Ds (1.01 crop, 11.0 MP)
1.85 - Nikon D3, D700 (1.00 crop, 12.1 MP)
1.94 - Canon 5D Mark 1 (1.00 crop, 12.7 MP)
1.97 - Canon 1D II (1.26 crop, 8.2 MP)
2.10 - Nikon D1X (1.53 crop, 5.9 MP)
2.13 - Nikon D70 (1.52 crop, 6.0 MP)
2.15 - Pentax K100D (1.53 crop, 6.0 MP)
2.16 - Pentax *ist D, *ist DS (1.53 crop, 6.0 MP)
2.16 - Nikon D50, D40 (1.53 crop, 6.0 MP)
2.17 - Nikon D100 (1.52 crop, 6.1 MP)
2.42 - Canon D60, 300D (1.59 crop, 6.3 MP)
2.46 - Canon 10D (1.60 crop, 6.3 MP)
2.48 - Nikon D4S (1.00 crop, 16.2 MP)
2.48 - Nikon D4 (1.00 crop, 16.2 MP)
2.53 - Canon 1D III (1.28 crop, 10.1 MP)
2.53 - Canon 1Ds II (1.00 crop, 16.6 MP)
2.73 - Canon 1D X (1.00 crop, 17.9 MP)
2.84 - Olympus E1 (1.95 crop, 4.9 MP)
3.04 - Canon 1D X II (1.00 crop, 20.0 MP)
3.17 - Nikon D5 (1.00 crop, 20.7 MP)
3.19 - Canon 350D (1.62 crop, 8.0 MP)
3.20 - Canon 20D, 30D (1.60 crop, 8.2 MP)
3.21 - Canon 1Ds III, 5D II (1.00 crop, 21.0 MP)
3.37 - Canon 5D III (1.00 crop, 22.1 MP)
3.55 - Nikon D200, D60/80/3000, D40x (1.52 crop, 10.0 MP)
3.57 - Sony A100, A200 (1.53 crop, 10.0 MP)
3.58 - Pentax K10D, K200D, K-m (1.53 crop, 10.0 MP)
3.59 - Pentax 645D (0.77 crop, 39.5 MP)
3.70 - Nikon D750 (1.00 crop, 24.2 MP)
3.70 - Nikon D610 (1.00 crop, 24.2 MP)
3.73 - Nikon D3X (1.00 crop, 24.4 MP)
3.73 - Sony A900, A850 (1.00 crop, 24.4 MP)
4.04 - Canon 40D, 1000D (1.62 crop, 10.1 MP)
4.06 - Canon 1D IV (1.29 crop, 16.0 MP)
4.32 - Pentax K-x, K-r (1.52 crop, 12.2 MP)
4.32 - Nikon D300, D90, D5000 (1.52 crop, 12.2 MP)
4.32 - Panasonic DMC-L1 (1.96 crop, 7.4 MP)
4.32 - Olympus E330 (1.96 crop, 7.4 MP)
4.33 - Nikon D2X (1.52 crop, 12.2 MP)
4.40 - Sony A700 (1.54 crop, 12.2 MP)
4.59 - Canon 5D IV (1.00 crop, 30.1 MP)
4.68 - Olympus E300, E500 (1.96 crop, 8.0 MP)
4.91 - Canon 450D, 1100D (1.63 crop, 12.2 MP)
4.96 - Sony A350, A380, A390, A290 (1.52 crop, 14.0 MP)
5.07 - Sony A550 (1.54 crop, 14.0 MP)
5.24 - Pentax K20D, K-7 (1.54 crop, 14.5 MP)
5.24 - Nikon 3100 (1.56 crop, 14.2 MP)
5.53 - Nikon D800, D810 (1.00 crop, 36.2 MP)
5.53 - Nikon D810 (1.00 crop, 36.2 MP)
5.73 - Sony A580 (1.53 crop, 16.0 MP)
5.76 - Nikon D7000, D5100 (1.53 crop, 16.1 MP)
5.81 - Pentax K-5 (1.54 crop, 16.1 MP)
5.85 - Olympus E3, E410/20, E510/20, Panasonic DMC-L10 (1.96 crop, 10.0 MP)
5.97 - Canon 50D, 500D (1.61 crop, 15.1 MP)
7.11 - Canon 7D, 60D, 550D, 600D (1.61 crop, 17.9 MP)
7.14 - Olympus E3, E30 (1.96 crop, 12.2 MP)
7.38 - Nikon D7500 (1.53 crop, 20.7 MP)
7.68 - Canon 5Ds (1.00 crop, 50.3 MP)
7.83 - Canon 7D II, 70D (1.60 crop, 20.0 MP)
8.63 - Nikon D5500 (1.54 crop, 24.0 MP)
8.63 - Nikon D7100 (1.54 crop, 24.0 MP)
8.63 - Nikon D5600, D3400, D7200, D5500 (1.54 crop, 24.0 MP)
8.63 - Nikon D7100 (1.54 crop, 24.0 MP)



Previously, I have quoted the manufacturers' nominal crop. This time I've let the software calculate its own more accurate crop, based on the manufacturer's specifications for sensor size. It is interesting how much variation we see from the nominal 1.5 and 1.6 crops usually cited.

[Cage]

Tony, I've just had a read through this thread again, and while it didn't make my head hurt like it did nine years ago, it still leaves me with some unanswered questions.

It seems to be the general consensus that at the same time, same place, same good light, same lens, same subject, same camera settings, the crop sensor is going to capture more detail due to it's higher pixel density.

I'm assuming we are talking 'good light' here, and that is not only subjective, but variable, depending on the subject.

For example, a Blue Wren in open sunlight is going to be a challenge for any camera and settings, trying to cope with that highly reflective plumage, while striving to get some detail in the dark and light feathers. :eek: BTDT ! An exercise in frustration.

And when that same wren hops into some heavy shade, or a cloud covers the sun, or both, does the pendulum then swing toward the extra light gathering ability of the full frame's bigger pixels, or will today's sensors, with their better control of noise at higher ISO settings still enable the crop sensor to win out.

When I look back at my bird shots over the last nine years, I'm hard pressed to find many stand-outs taken in direct sunlight, and most keepers seem to have been taken under the canopy, or when cloudy, or both.

My jury is still out on the best type of birding camera for me, but my gut feeling is that for my usage a 35+MP FF is the way to go. Shame I can't afford a $10K lens to get the best out of it. :(