I have from many years ago a Nikon 80-400 VR lens. It seems to work well with my new Nikon D810. I will be traveling soon and want to be able to take long distance pictures of birds and wildlife. Would the Nikon 200-500 be much better? I think I can use a teleconverter with it, but not with the 80-400. On the other hand the 200-500 is much larger and heavier. Would I really want to take both of them? So my question is would the newer 200-500 be much superior to the older 80-400? thank you for your thoughts...

Here is your relevance:

http://photographylife.com/exposing-to-the-right-explained

And in the majority of my images found here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gene_lugo/

I don't have comparisons because I don't waste time on proving the obvious to myself or others. I use ETTR 100% of the time to get correct exposures. Since I shoot manual exposure, there are times when I shoot a fast moving subject in changing light and make a mistake on exposure because I didn't get a chance to read and adjust in time to get the exposure I needed.

Having shot film for many years, and in particular, cut sheet large format, the opposite - expose to the left, was the rule - to minimize the chance of missing shadow detail.

In digital and with reversal film, there are benefits to exposing to the right. In cases of average or below average contrast, you record more information over the noise level, so shadows are less noisy. In this case you generally lower your exposure in post processing.

When you have high contrast situations, it is the only way you can avoid clipping important highlights (not specular highlights, streetlights in night scenes, etc) - the shadows will be murky and will take more effort in post processing to reduce noise, improve contrast and detail, but the result is usually worth the effort. In high contrast lighting I find that I often need to reduce both the highlights and exposure, and lighten the shadows.

ETTR along with the zone system, are two techniques that are worth mastering. It leaves less to chance.

I was wondering - when a cropped sensor camera crops the center part of an image then magnifies it to fill the frame is there a loss of quality compared to if a full frame camera with a lens of the equivalent greater length (200mm vs 300mm) was used to take the same exact sized image?

If a picture of the moon is taken with a cropped sensor at 200mm and with full frame at 300mm would the images be the same?

And how does a cropped sensor 'upsize' the part of the image it crops so that it 'fills the frame'?

thanks

You actually don't need to do any math at al..., unless you are using both camera formats together or changing formats for some reason.

100mm is 100mm... regardless of what camera it's used upon.

The sensor size (or film frame area) determines how that 100mm lens "behaves"...

- On a large format 4x5" film camera, 100mm is a very wide angle
- On a medium format 6x7cm film camera, 100mm is a standard lens.
- On a "full frame" digital or 35mm film camera, 100mm is a short telephoto.
- On an APS-C film camera or DSLR, 100mm is a moderate telephoto
- On a point-n-shoot digital with a tiny sensor, 100mm would be a super telephoto.

If you only ever use an APS-C camera, none of this really matters. You can buy either type of 100mm - "crop only" or "full frame-capable" - and it will behave as the same 100mm moderate telephoto on your camera.

A common difference is that "crop only" lenses can be smaller, lighter and often less expensive than "full frame" lenses. This is because the crop only lens doesn't need to produce as large an image circle in order to cover the smaller size sensor. Most APS-C cameras can use both. Full frame cameras are limited to full frame-capable lenses only, and those lenses tend to be larger, heavier and more expensive.

So lets consider some examples for a few cameras.

Hi quality sensors with a full well capacity greater than 32,768 electrons are not unusual.