Question Regarding Full-Frame vs APS-C Sensor: Would I be better off shooting a 400mm on a full frame in RAW and digitally enlarging/ cropping it 50% to get a 600mm equivalent shot, or...

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

Would I be better off shooting a 400mm on a full frame in RAW and digitally enlarging/ cropping it 50% to get a 600mm equivalent shot, or using that same 400mm lens on a top quality APS-C, thereby in effect having the same 600mm effective reach? The full-frame is the Sony A99 (24MP), and the APS-C would be the A77 (also 24MP). Thoughts?

Blue Spark Loc: Sandy Springs, GA

bigger is better - I say use the full frame.

banjonut Loc: Southern Michigan

lukan wrote:

Would I be better off shooting a 400mm on a full frame in RAW and digitally enlarging/ cropping it 50% to get a 600mm equivalent shot, or using that same 400mm lens on a top quality APS-C, thereby in effect having the same 600mm effective reach? The full-frame is the Sony A99 (24MP), and the APS-C would be the A77 (also 24MP). Thoughts?

I would say that you SHOULD get a better photo with the DX since you will have all 24 mp to use, whereas, if you crop the FX photo, you will be losing MP. I sure there will be people lining up to say it isn't so.

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

I think we would all be better off just going out and shooting pictures. You would be hard pressed to tell the differance between the two options you gave - Just My Not So Humble Opinion - Dave

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

wilsondl2 wrote:

I think we would all be better off just going out and shooting pictures. You would be hard pressed to tell the differance between the two options you gave - Just My Not So Humble Opinion - Dave

Really? What I'm specifically asking about is some pretty serious once-in-a-lifetime safari wildlife shots. I've been told to shoot it full-frame and then enlarge it, and I've also been told to shoot it on a crop sensor and go for the higher rez/ higher noise and remove the noise in post-proc. I was wondering if anyone actually had experience in this matter, as I don't necessarily want to buy an A77 if I don't have to ($800), but I will if the images are going to better at the tele-level I was referring to above in this thread.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

lukan wrote:

Would I be better off shooting a 400mm on a full frame in RAW and digitally enlarging/ cropping it 50% to get a 600mm equivalent shot, or using that same 400mm lens on a top quality APS-C, thereby in effect having the same 600mm effective reach? The full-frame is the Sony A99 (24MP), and the APS-C would be the A77 (also 24MP). Thoughts?

If you crop the full frame 24MP images to the APS-C crop sensor size you will have images taken with a 10.8MP sensor. The A77 will give better results in this particular instance.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

MT Shooter wrote:

If you crop the full frame 24MP images to the APS-C crop sensor size you will have images taken with a 10.8MP sensor. The A77 will give better results in this particular instance.

This is a guy who knows! :thumbup:

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

lukan wrote:

Would I be better off shooting a 400mm on a full frame in RAW and digitally enlarging/ cropping it 50% to get a 600mm equivalent shot, or using that same 400mm lens on a top quality APS-C, thereby in effect having the same 600mm effective reach? The full-frame is the Sony A99 (24MP), and the APS-C would be the A77 (also 24MP). Thoughts?

Do some tests both ways and post the results. Click on store original.

Blue Spark Loc: Sandy Springs, GA

MT Shooter wrote:

If you crop the full frame 24MP images to the APS-C crop sensor size you will have images taken with a 10.8MP sensor. The A77 will give better results in this particular instance.

I am curious as to the loss from the inherent cropping with the 1.5 lens reach (DX) Vs. the full, it seems like the lens crop of DX would balance out the full frames picture crop. It still seems to me that a full frame crop would have better resolution.

I wish I had a full framer to test this theory...

TheDman Loc: USA

banjonut wrote:

I would say that you SHOULD get a better photo with the DX since you will have all 24 mp to use, whereas, if you crop the FX photo, you will be losing MP. I sure there will be people lining up to say it isn't so.

I'm lining up to say you are absolutely correct.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

if FF has less noise, then you are better off cropping. That was the experience I had when moving from a D300 to a D700, as both are 12.3 mp. The reason is that with the bigger sensor you have to magnify less for the same print size on the FX camera.

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

TheDman wrote:

I'm lining up to say you are absolutely correct.

If both sensors have the same number of pixels, then obviously the pixels on the full-frame are bigger and theoretically can process more light with less noise than those of the smaller sensor. Will my image be sharper if enlarged (cropped) by 50% on the FF, or cropped by virtue of sensor size, using the same lens at 400mm? I suspect the APS-C image will be of higher quality if I keep the ISO down because I'll have more pixels involved in the image, therefore making it more resolute.

TheDman Loc: USA

lukan wrote:

If both sensors have the same number of pixels, then obviously the pixels on the full-frame are bigger and theoretically can process more light with less noise than those of the smaller sensor. Will my image be sharper if enlarged (cropped) by 50% on the FF, or cropped by virtue of sensor size, using the same lens at 400mm? I suspect the APS-C image will be of higher quality if I keep the ISO down because I'll have more pixels involved in the image, therefore making it more resolute.

You would be exactly right. You're concentrating all 24 megapixels of info in the space you want, rather than only 12 or so. Thus you'll have more detail in the final image.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Lukan - try it and see for yourself - in the real world, it is not unusual to need to use ISO 800 or higher for wildlife or sports - to stop action, get a bit more DOF, etc.

Keeping the ISO down is often not a possibility, so all things being equal - including ISO - a cropped image from a FF camera is likely to have better image quality than one from a cropped sensor camera, if for no other reason that as you make an image larger for print - any imperfections in the original image - noise, lens softness, camera shake, subject movement, etc - will be amplified to a greater degree on the cropped sensor camera. But your best bet is to try it for yourself, since it doesn't seem that you are ready to buy what I am telling you.

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

Gene51 wrote:

Lukan - try it and see for yourself - in the real ... (show quote)

No, Gene, it's not that I'm not buying your input, I was just curious if there was a hard and fast rule that I was unaware of. I don't want to botch an opportunity, and since I already have a FF, I'm actually more inclined to just stay with it rather than go the APS-C route.
I'm trying to learn from experience in this forum, and I greatly value this input, as it can help me come away with better images with less mistakes.