Talk to me pros.

[boneaddict]

I would probably be served by searching on the net or picking up a magazine, but since I have several pro, ex pros and guys who are pros but don't want to admit it here, I thought I'd ask......

SHOOTING WILDLIFE........
which do you think has the advantage, a full sensor in a digital or a cropped one.    The cropped one, you essentially take that nice lens and make it a touch more powerful.   or do you take the larger megapix from the full negative and crop it.   

[huntnphool]

Well this rank amateur prefers the added length the crop gives, throw in the 1.4 and those long shots othertimes missed are now captured. At 8, 10 and 12+ MP are you really gonna notice the difference unless you are making poster size prints, I doubt it. For me I want the extra optical length in wildlife shots.

[Tom Reichner]

Hi, Bone!

I'm not a full time pro, but I do have extensive experience with both a full frame body and a crop body.  What I've used is the 5D (12.8mp, full frame) and the 1D Mark2 (8.1mp, 1.3 crop factor). 

Provided the pixel density is the same, I'd much rather have the full frame.  If you can crop the full frame image down to what you want and end up with the same resolution that the crop sensor would have given you, then what's to lose by using the full frame? 

One advantage to the smaller sensor might be an increase in frames per second.  Because the files are smaller, the processor is able to handle more images quickly.  So, for birds in flight, or other uses where you want to rip off 6 to 10 frames per second, the crop body may be a better choice.  My 1D II gives 8fps, whereas the 5D shoots only 3 fps.  But for most wildlife work, the full frame is a decided advantage.

I think one thing that may separate the true professionals from the amateurs is how hard they work to get close to wild subjects.  Pros are often very specific in what they're out to shoot, and have prepared the area ahead of time to ensure that they will be able to approach the subject and wait it out without being seen or heard.  This means they get significantly closer than the typical wildlife photo hobbyist.  Therefore, pros often don't really need an insane degree of effective focal length.  Nothing is as good as getting in close.

I've shot many images with my full frame 5D in which I just barely fit the subject in.  If I had been using my 1D II crop body, I would have had to awkwardly cut off parts of the animal because it just wouldn't have fit into the frame. 

The Chukar image posted below was taken with the 5D.  I still couldn't fit it in properly.  Oh, I know I could have just not gotten so much of the snow in at the bottom, but keep in mind these subjects are moving around very quickly, and just keeping the active AF sensor on the subject's eye can be a huge challenge.  Trying to perfectly compose an image like this as you shoot is simply impossible.  At least with the field of view that the 5D gave me, I can have this fixed in Photoshop.  It's alot of time, and a real bother, but the image can be "rescued".  If I had been using my 1D II with the 1.3 crop factor, the photo would have been a complete loss - the Chukar's head would have been missing entirely.  More power & magnification is not always better.  I'd much rather capture a little bit more in my image and then crop it out than to ruin an opportunity because I didn't get enough of the subject into the image.

[huntnphool]

There you go Bone, the difference between a rank amateur and a pro

[boneaddict]

    Thats what I want.  Now I am looking for Pope, elkman, Javman and anyone else with experience.   I think for moose I'd like the full frame and for muledeer I'd take the crop factor.  Mule deer don't tend to be stand type animals, at least the ones I am after.  I appreciate your input guys.

[popeshawnpaul]

Honestly, I want one of each.  A full frame camera with my 70-200 on it and my crop camera with a 400 DO on it.  That's heaven on earth right there.  I see advantages to both.  If I could only have one wildlife camera right now it would be the Nikon D300 or Canon 50D.  Probably because I always need the reach and the speed of 6+ frames per second.  I know I would have missed some ram butting head shots if I had not had a fast frame camera.  They are also nice for birds.

However, when I don't need length or am shooting landscape, a 5DII would be nice...

[Timber]

Well Doug, after hearing some expert opinions, I think you better go out and get yourself a full frame camera!

[Ricochet]

I'm no pro so take my opinion for whatever its worth.  The area where I do most of my mule deer photography doesn't allow off road foot traffic, so the pro-style sneak isn't allowed.  I'm personally glad I bought my D300, the extra reach does come in handy at times.  Heck, I couldn't afford a D3 anyway..

[popeshawnpaul]

If it's any consolation, Tony Bynum, a pro uses a D300 crop camera...

Most of the other pros I have shot with or see out there are usually shooting with a 1D series camera.  That is a 1.3x crop. 

[javman]

I'm no pro either, but my vote goes to the cropped sensor. If I was rich, then yeah, I'd probably have a D3x and a 500 or 600 to go with it. You get a more versatility with the full frame, but personally I want that extra reach without having to crop. And full frame with a bigger lens to compensate weighs a whole lot more.

If I won the lottery tomorrow, I'd buy a D3x and a 600mm... and a few days later I'd buy a D300 and a 200-400 zoom, so that I could actually carry it 

[boneaddict]

Good input everyone. THanks!

[huntnphool]

Well Bone, time to step up to the plate and get that D3x, of course since you are shooting Canon right now you will need a whole new collection of lenses to go along with it, but I'm sure the wife won't have an issue with that either

[boneaddict]

I'll just wait for Canon to step up.   

[huntnphool]

I'll just wait for Canon to step up.  

Kinda figured

[boneaddict]

Besides, it takes both arms, neck and back to carry this big lens around, I'd hate to have two setups.  I have my Canon A2E 35mm that I could use if I was serious I suppose about needing a full frame.  ( not sure how that relates to megapixels though.  )