Canon R5 Crop Mode vs Teleconverters by a Bird Photographer
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 лис 2020
- A discussion of getting "extra reach" from your lenses via in-camera crop mode versus the use of teleconverters. I use the Canon R5 1.6 crop mode as my example for this video.
Links to items used in this video:
Canon 800 f/11: amzn.to/38gcmh4
Canon 600 f/4 : amzn.to/38gcmh4
Canon RF 100-500: amzn.to/2Y0VqcA
Canon RF 1.4x TC: amzn.to/3sWthib
Mossy Oaks Graphics for lens camo: amzn.to/38gcmh4
Canon R5 MILC: amzn.to/3Dlv70H
Link R5 crop mode images: ronaldbielefeld.smugmug.com/R...
Link R5, Canon 600mm f/4 IS II + 1.4x and 2x TC images: ronaldbielefeld.smugmug.com/C...
Link R5, Canon 100-500mm + 1.4x TC images:ronaldbielefeld.smugmug.com/C...
Thanks, Ron. Concise and easy to understand, as usual.
Some great points, one more you might want to add. Based on a little history of my shooting in crop mode (R5 and R6) I can reasonably estimate that even in crop mode I will still have to crop some more in post. This means that when I crop in camera my file size is about 40% of the full frame size.. I would have cropped in post so now I am working with smaller files for faster buffering, more images per card, and faster loading in post. Maybe this is not for everyone but it works for me. Thanks
You can get much the same effect by using CRAW. It changes the "physical" size by around 50%.
If you use EF glass, it might be that it will be a better option to use a EOS 90D with a 32.5 Mpx sensor. You would then have quite a lot of Mpx which can be cropped.
Thanks for clarifying. I now know the difference between shooting in crop mode vs cropping in post vs using a teleconverter.
Excellent points! I've been using the R5 in crop mode WITH the 2x extender though.
Hahaha; awesome!
Thanks for the video Ron! I have always found that the EF 1.4X converter quality is best in version III as all previous versions were not real good. So if you're starting with a 1.4X Canon start with version III...
Excellent presentation - I went out and purchased the RF 1.4X teleconverter for my RF100-500mm lens and stopped using the crop mode on my R5 - Very good results.
Hey, thanks so much for the comment. Glad you are getting good images with the 1.4x
Solid logic. Thanks for the simple video explanation.
Glad it was helpful!
Good video. My 1,4 extender was delivered today. Will try it tomorrow with my 100-500 🙂
A 1.4 almost lives on my 500. Crop or FF body. 2X for very distant birds, IQ good enough for my needs, much better than no shot. Most images get a composition crop in post also. Nice vid. and photos, thanks from the UK.
Thanks so much for the comment. It is always appreciated.
Your videos are very interesting , and you have a good pronunciation . With your video I Improve my photographic skills and my English . Thanks you very much
Except don’t say “asterik”; it’s “asterisk”!
Thank you for much needed information!
Thank you for the comment.
Great vlog buddy, makes sense... 😉👍👌
Thanks a ton. Helps a lot 🙏🏻
That bird really worked with you to create this video. 😁👍🏽
Yep, that was one cooperative bird. I wish all birds were that tolerant. But then I guess they would all be dead from predators. Ha. Thanks for the comment.
Great explanation Ron.
Thanks so much, Mike.
Nice video - thanks. What are your thoughts on 1.4tc and crop mode together ?
The crop mode is actually better used in video, as you aren't using all the megapixels anyhow. The R5's crop mode in video is actually outstanding, because it's oversampled at greater than 4K.
Super, thanks for the comment. Good information for everyone.
Just the answer I was lookin for
Well done...........thanks Ron
Thanks so much.
Good analysis. Thank you
Thanks you so much for your comment. Always appreciated
very informative, thank you
Thank you and thanks for your comment.
Very useful indeed much appreciated you sharing your knowledge I’ve got the R6 hello I am thinking about buying hundred to 500 mil if I can get half the image quality you get for be very happy you are seriously good at your craft thanks for sharing beautiful pictures
Thanks for the very nice and informative video! I hadn't thought that there are differences in optimal fit between same model and brand TCs - makes sense though.
One thing that could cause soft image quality with TCs is the DLA limit. Though it's only a problem with slow lenses used with high pixel density sensors.
With R5 ~45Mp FF sensor the DLA begins to take a very slight effect already at f/6,6. But it really begins to effect at f/8,2 and takes the "full effect" when the airy disc reaches 3x pixel diameter at around f/9,8. So not really a problem for wildlife photography where you normally don't want to use slower apertures than that anyways.
But for higher pixel density sensors - like many APS-C - these limits are much lower. Though using a sensor / TC / lens combo beyond its DLA limit doesn't really make the photos unusable, just soft and you don't get any more resolving power (like when using a crop mode).
Thanks so much for your comment. Yep, diffraction can be an issue. However, in all the years I have been shooting wildlife there are very few instances where I have found it to be an issue where it "ruined" an image. If we are honest with ourselves, most of us are just happy to get an image or two of decent quality when having to stretch way out there with regards to reach. I have found that atmospheric issues such as heat waves tend to get in the way much more often when shooting a subject that needs a lot of reach just to get it acceptably large in the frame. Overall, what we as wildlife photographers have at our disposal, with regards to equipment for making "great" images, I never would have dreamed of when I got started in photographying 40+ years ago.
@@whistlingwingsphotography Yes, all very true. In rare cases when the diffraction becomes a limiting factor it causes kind of analog looking softening which isn't that bad looking. Though it often harms the micro-contrast before the softening otherwise becomes a problem. But good quality lens and TC helps a lot regarding this.
There is one area of wildlife photography where diffraction limit plays a really meaningful part. That's macro photography where you are constantly battling to get more DoF while maintaining sharpness - especially with magnifications > 2:1. But TCs aren't normally used in that genre 😂.
Diffractions not much of an issue with most bird photography because of the practical apertures used. Macro is where it be ones more of a significant issue. Focus stacking is the only way around it.
@@markrigg6623 True, something like up to f/11 doesn't tend to show DLA softening. Well, a little with very sharp lens and high resolution APS-C sensor. But there are people putting 2x TCs to RF 600mm and 800mm f/11 lenses... There also DLA begins to show - though not that much with something low pixel density like R6 sensor.
Thanks so much for your videos . I have the R5 and the 100-500 lens. Am thinking of the teleconverter. Have always cropped and it never occurred to me before that with the teleconverter I get the full 45 megapixels. Is the IQ degredation much on the 100-500? thanks.
Thanks so much for the comment. No, the IQ degradation is very minimal when using the 1.4x TC on the 100-500.
Great video ! Does the depth of field changes while applying in-camera cropping ?
One advantage of crop mode not mentioned is subject acquisition. In bird photography, especially with very small birds (hummingbirds, buntings, etc.), getting that subject in focus with a cluttered background is easier. At a 1.6 crop, you have eliminated much of the clutter and the camera acquires focus more rapidly. Also, a longer lens or using a teleconverter to get the same effect as the crop works against you (image quality) in low light where higher iso and slower shutter speeds might be needed. I find, with my R5, that the 17mp is fine and I appreciate the faster subject acquisition, lower iso, and faster shutter available. I use FULL for most things but the 1.6 crop is just a ready tool in limited situations.
Thanks Ron for the video! I have one question related to the pixel count. You are mentioning in some occasions that there is a huge drop in MP, 45 down to 17. But, isn't it so that these 45MP are distributed all over the picture (i.e. the sensor) in FF mode, and consequently the portion of MP exactly covering the bird is actually not that same drop of 45-to-17. I guess that the portion of pixels the bird is getting in crop mode does not differ that much from the FF mode? I actually calculated the numbers of pixels by square mm for both cases, using the Canon crop sensor size 22.2*14.8mm (which is a guess now in this case) and 17MB total pixel count. The FF has 51807 pixels per square mm, and the crop 52528 respectively. So, really, what comes to the "loss of pixels in the selected area (the bird or what ever inside the crop area), I do not see any loss of pixels? Cheers, Gert
I’ve always felt the same
I was going to make a similar point. A small subject on a 45 MP sensor is not 45 but a small percentage. If you used crop mode at 17MP and filled the frame you might actually have mor MP on the bird. You would also have better autofocus because the eye would be bigger. I think this a correct analysis.
I really need help !!!! Planning buy a big prime but what do you think is best 400 f/2.8 with converter 1.4 and 2X or 600 f/4 . For any type of photography sports and wildlife. Thanks a lot if you can help
Well thought out video Ron.
What are your thoughts on crop sensor cameras for more reach ?
My 7D mark ii gives me more reach but it's sensor is previous generation and only 20mp. It's low light performance isn't great either.
I imagine a newer one like the 90D with 32mp would better and I'm looking forward to the rumoured replacement for my camera the R7 which hopefully will be a big improvement
Cropped sensor cameras, unlike the crop mode, give you full resolution and add thus add extra reach to any full-frame lens you put on the body. So, they can be great for wildlife/bird photography. In the past it was the poor low light performance of crop bodies I did not like. The new mirrorless cropped sensor body rumored to be coming out from Canon may make that past issue moot. We shall see. If it does, the cropped bodies will be a nice addition to a bird photographers kit IMO.
A crop sensor camera using say a 100mm lens gives you a field of view of 160mm the same 100mm lens on a full frame gives you a field of view of 100mm if you put your full frame camera into crop mode you get a field of view of 160mm so no gain in magnification the only way to increase magnification is to use a more powerful lens or tele converter. A 100mm lens on any camera body is 100mm the only difference between crop and full frame is the field of view. Sorry too burst the bubble. Cheers and enjoy your photography
Lots of good information. As more of a video shooter myself the 1.6x crop mode is more useful with less downsides than photography. So for R5 owners shooting *wildlife video* the crop modes are very useful as it allows you to still shoot 4K but the sensor is still oversampling from 5.6K (17MP) without any “overheating timers”. So unless you need to shoot greater than 4K video, I would recommend the in-camera crop mode over teleconverters for *video*.
One positive thing with in-camera crop mode is that your can get much more pictures with electronic shutter 20 fps bursts before buffer is full
Great video and very helpful as I just purchased an R5 three days ago and am super stoked. The question I have is if I use the crop setting and take and picture at 17 mp and then take the same photo at full frame and 45 mp how many pixels will I lose when I crop in post to get the same sized image? Thanks and keep on producing these wonderful videos!
Cropping in camera via the crop mode is the same as cropping in post say in Photoshop for example. If you shoot the same image in crop and full frame modes and you take the full frame image and crop it to the exact same composition in Photoshop you will have 17mp just like the image shot in camera in crop mode. This is why it really does not make sense most of the time to crop in camera as you can do the same thing in post processing. By just shooting the image in full frame mode (i.e., 45mp) you have more flexibility to crop in post to the exact composition you want. If you shoot in crop mode you are stuck with the 17mp composition you took in camera or smaller. You can't decided to back out and do a less tight crop. Hope this helps.
@@whistlingwingsphotography Yep that makes perfect sense, thank you!
@@whistlingwingsphotography Makes sense, unless you want to immediately reduce the size of the files?
Do you also see the crop in the view finder during Shooting?
I would use the crop mode for bird ID, when I just need a sharp but not a beautiful image. That‘s what I use my camera mostly for :P
Thanks for the video!
Yes, you can replicate the composition in post. BUT the number of pixels on your bird remains the same whether shooting full frame, 1.6 crop or cropping in post. So, you do not loose resolution on your bird when shooting crop mode.
You are correct. But the main topic of this video is discussing crop mode vs using a teleconverter to get the same comp in camera and the fact that you do get more pixels on your bird by using a teleconverter vs cropping in camera. For some reason may people don’t understand that.
@@whistlingwingsphotography Great advise about matching a 2x converter with the lens. I have never been completely satisfied with the sharpness of my 600 F4 with the 2x. Your the first I have heard recommend trying a few converters to get the best match. Thanks.
My real question is whether the R5 will AUTO focus past about F9. Sigma says that its 2.0 converters require manual focus, but I’m wondering if this is true for mirror SLR’s but not for the Mirrorless 5900 focus points on the R5. Can you respond to this?
Would love to see direct comparison crop vs TC. Tomorrow my RF 100-500 arrives, not sure about TC yet.
Thanks for the comment. I may do that video in the near future.
Can the crop mode be used in combination with a teleconverter? If so, how much would that degrade the image?
Yes, sure it can. Using the crop mode does not degrade the image beyond what adding the teleconverter does to the full frame image. Using the crop mode is no differnet than cropping the same amount during post-processing. The main reason for me not to crop in camera via the crop mode, but to do any cropping during post-processing, is so I have more latitude to make the crop I want during post-processing.
I am using the x1.4 v.III TC with my 5D IV and EF 100-400 MkII and I do feel that I suffer on the AF speed, which means I try to stay away from using it ;-) I hope to upgrade to the R6 soon, do you think my experience with the TC will get better?
P.S. Thank you for the great videos!
Yes, I think there is less loss in AF speed on the new mirrorless Canon bodies than on past DSLRs. However, the 1D series was always better at keep performance high when using TCs. The 5D and 7D bodies on down you see a larger drop in performance. So far with my R5 and the 1.4x TC I don't see a lot of drop in AF performance.
OK, strictly speaking APS-C crop mode is not real reach per se, but the point is sometimes the bird is just way too small in full frame mode to work with. Also, with regards to the R5, that is precisely why I won't buy it because it is not high res enough in crop mode. Take the Sony A7R IV for example, its APS-C crop mode has 26 MP if I am not wrong, in other words much more high res than the R5 which means you won't have to worry about resolution. Just as your video mentioned in one of the supers, that is why some people prefer to use APS-C cameras. Since you are a Canon shooter, you should know there is a huge following on the 7D II exactly because of that reason when it comes to bird photography. Right now I am shooting a 90D which has a 32.5 MP sensor and given I don't want to lose reach when I upgrade to a full frame, the R5 is too low res for me in crop mode at 17 MP. So, even if I were to go the R5 route, I would still rather wait for the high res version of the R5 to come out such as a R5 S for example. One other thing, when it comes to teleconverters, my perception is they don't work well on zooms, the pictures look horrid in my experience. They could look blurred or just downright out of focus. I bought my Sigma 150-600mm with the 1.4x TC as a combo deal and is literally unusable.
great video. i'm only considering using crop mode periodically when the animal is small in the frame for autofocus. i've heard that there is also less rolling shutter with crop mode. is this true?
Hi! Nice video! I have one question, can R5 shoot 1.6 crop mode in RAW or CRAW files? ... I found post that R5 shoot crop mode only in jpeg files, and it’s so strange for me. Thanks for answer.
I shoot crop mode in RAW with the R5.
With my 1.4 III I don’t notice any image quality loss on any of my bodies. The 2x does lose some on the R5 and 5dsr but isn’t to bad on the 1DX2, probably due to being only 20mp.
I’ve always cropped when I had to in post due to composition flexibility but it does make sense to crop in body to help AF, never thought of that before.
Yep, for some reason cropping in body does help the AF on the R5 do a better job and it makes the job of ensuring AF is where you want it easier on the photographer as well. Thanks so much for the comment.
Will the R5 or R6 Mark II allow you to assign crop mode to a rear button, so it can be switched on on-demand?
Question
Does canon r5 works with canon lens 500 mm f4 v1?tk
It does work, but by no means in an optimal manner. The IS and AF is not the best because the lens is too old to communicate well with the new camera. I have the Mk. II and it works extremely well as does the Mk. III. Thanks for watching and commenting.
What about sample images to compare both??!!
The AF modes may cover more of your visible frame in crop mode but they do not cover anymore of the subject. Compare the amount of subject covered by Zone in FF vs Crop mode and you will see it covers the exact same area of the bird. The AF pixels are on the sensor, they don't change when in crop mode. That said, I have found very conclusively that as the subject gets smaller in the frame, using crop mode on the R5 does improve the Animal Eye Detect and it finds the eye easier. In your bunting example the bird is large enough in the FF FOV that it won't make a difference. But when the bird is much smaller it is noticeably more effective in pinpointing the eye when you are in crop mode. Based on what I said in the first couple sentences this actually doesn't make much sense to me. But maybe when the AF system has so much more to evaluate in FF FOV, it doesn't do as well "seeing" the eye when the bird is small??
Also of note is that Wide and Vertical Zone don't follow the rules. They are actually covering more of the scene in FF vs Crop mode.
The other advantage of crop mode is a deeper buffer but this probably doesn't really matter if you are using CFExpress. But if you are using SD card, and especially a slower SD card, then the combination of CRAW and Crop mode can get you a really nice buffer depth.
the frame covers the same area, but the subject is bigger to the photographer so it is easier to try to target the part of the bird, or subject in general, that you want the AF to acquire and determine if you get what you are after. The AF on the R5 does a better job staying on subject when in crop mode. I have tested that by shooting 1000s of images. It just does, for whatever reason.
Hi Ron, I know that the canon RF 800mm f/11 is a pretty good lens for the price but I have a question for you. On the R5 using the 1.6 crop factor would give me a 17mp image with the canon RF 100-500mm. How this image compare to the same subject shot with the RF 800 f/11. With no further cropping in the same situation I believe that the RF 100-500mm would give me a 'better and sharper' image using the crop factor built in the R5 than using the RF 800mm f/11. Am I right ? Please let me know !
Was thinking about this concept as well the last couple of day.
A quick question. How did you do setup to be able to change so quick from the different autofocus points. Like the way it shows in VF.
based on the scrolling it looks like its setup on the M-Fn button and wheel. I set the AF Type, Eye On/Off, and center point to the 3 buttons in the back for quick access
Actually, I have AF method selection set to the "action ring" on my RF lenses and EF-RF converter. Thus, I can scroll through them very quickly without having to push any buttons first.
@@whistlingwingsphotography thanks very much. Jip that looks much easier.
Given that there is always some degradation in optical clarity using teleconverters, I would be extremely interested in seeing you do a comparison between taking wildlife photos with X Zoom lens at max Y focal length using 1.4x RF TC vs same zoon lens at max focal length without RF 1.4x TC and then attaining equivalent Focal length in post production by zooming in on photo. Bottom line, is I would like to know what gives the better IQ between the 2 approaches?
Yes would be nice to see this. Also heard that you would still get better image quality if cropping in on full frame to get cropped version equivalent.
I've attempted to test that sort of thing many times on a variety of lenses/TCs from Canon, Nikon and Sony. It is a tricky thing to test and so far I've never come to a clear conclusion on which way is better. A few things that have to be considered when trying to test this are:
1) What variable are you going to change to account for the stop of light loss with the TC? Most times for bird photography we are always fighting to get enough SS at a low enough ISO and usually having to shoot wide open just to get those other two variables reasonable. When I've done my testing I've always left the lens and lens/tc at wide open and done separate tests with lowering SS and raising ISO. I think the most real-world scenario is likely having to raise ISO. When we raise ISO it now starts to skew the results based on how much light you are testing in. If you are having to go to 6400 from 3200 vs going to 800 from 400 that can swing the results in favour of the no-TC/crop further situation. But with better light, the results swing to using the TC and upping the ISO to 800 with very little hit on noise.
2) What is your intended output? Are you just wanting 1400-1600 px wide for the web? Are you wanting a 40x60 print? I feel that the lower your output requirements the more in favour the results skew to not using the TC. Of course now we have programs like Gigapixel AI that can change the results in favour of no TC even for a large print.(but I haven't experimented with that type of program in my testing so far).
3) How much are you having to crop to get your final framing? If you are already going to have to crop way into the with-TC shot then I find that the with-TC option is often better. But if your with-TC framing is about perfect and therefore you aren't having to crop your no-TC shot as drastically it can start to favour the non-TC shot.
But bottom line is it is very close any way you look at the results. The typical way I did it was to adjust the ISO for the TC, then crop both files to my ideal framing of my test subject (usually a stuffed bird) and then output both files at 1600px wide, reload the jpegs back into LR and evaluate side by side. Most times I needed to view at about 300% (3:1) to even see any differences. Therefore I've sort of come to the conclusion that I will use TCs when light is good, crop when light is poor (or just go home ;-)) and not worry too much about it either way.
Nice summary. I agree with most of it. Whether you go with a TC or not also depends on the lens you start with. If you are starting with a 600f/4 such as Canon's then using TCs is a good option most of the time. If you are starting with a slower or poorer quality lens then shooting the lens naked is probably the best way to good even if the light is fairly good.
You hit on the most important thing, and that is what is your intended use for the image. If posting in sociail media is all my images would ever be used for I would never use a TC and I would not pay 13K for a lens. But, if you want to do things like enter prestegious photography competions then you will need to get your composition right in camera to the extent you can, because these competitions to not like large crops and they want to see maximium detail in image subjects.
In the end, it all depends on what you want and if you like what you are seeing in your images once you are done processing them. If you are happy with your photography then keep doing what you are doing. if you are not satisfied, then you need to change something to help you get to your happy place.
If you are not limited on storage, buffer size, image transfer speed, computer processing etc, than obviously shooting full frame and cropping in post makes sense. Howeveer, if thats not true and you are cropping down to less than 17 mp, shooting in crop may make sense. I do not own an r5. Can i have the viewfinder full frame and still have a box showing the crop center? If so the acquisition is like full frame but the file size is more efficient. If the camera is autofocusing anyway on a point, can I have only a section of the viewfinder frame saved? Maybe not always the center of the sensor, but maybe the left middle? I don't think cameras do the latter, maybe they should.
What camera is this video recorded on, please? Is the R5 or something else? Looks realy nice!
Go Pro Hero 8. Thanks for the comment.
I wish Canon would release a crop sensor mirrorless based on the 32 mpx sensor they have in the 90D dslr. Because its a dslr and not mirrorless, the sensor that's in the 90 D hasn't got much attention. But I have one and its in my opinion the finest sensor, relative to what it is, that Canon have ever made. The amount of pixel density it has equates to an 80 odd mpx sensor at full frame. So it has the most reach of just about any camera. And the noise performance and dynamic range are astounding, even more so when you consider how small the pixels are. So for extreme reach, the 90D is what I pick up. On my 200-400 f4 , with the built in teleconverter, it gives awesome image quality.
That would be an amazing camera! I certainly would buy that. Do you have any sample work with the 90D?
@@sswildlifevideos No sorry I don't have any online photos, I'm a print person.
@@markrigg6623 is the m6ii a mirrorless with the same sensor?
So crop mode is not the same as a cropped sensor camera? (Maybe the rumored R7). I think the R5 will be still my next camera and for extra reach the 1.4 extender for birds on the ground (further away). For birds in flight, f/10 will be to slow i think. thanks again.
Yes it is the same, so long as you are keep the pixel size the same in your comparison.
So the next obvious question - would you buy a 25-30mp APS-C version, the rumored R7?
Awesome thank you
Crop mode is great if you are shooting things far away and you are going to take a lot of photos. For example a pack of wolves for off in the distance in Yellowstone. Yes, you can crop later, but why fill up your CFexpress card with 45 MP stills if you don't need to. It is also a lot better in movie mode where there is really little down side to it if you are filming in 4K and you are reach limited. You are just throwing away less pixels for your 4K video, and it doesn't overheat like 8k.
Very informative video! Interesting Canon only offer the 1.6 as a 1.3 would also be nice for those interested in using the mode with less crop. Iv not tested my 2x as a don’t use it that much but it’s a good shout to see if one is satisfied with the IQ and if not, find another copy. I think however the mark iii are better and some later L lenses are fine tuned to work better with them
Glad it was helpful! The later TCs are def. better especially with maintaining AF performance and IQ.
I'm a newbie, with my first long prime (600) .... I'm curious how much vibration with single point mount(foot) on a tripod, especially with converters plays into image regardless of IS. A 600 with a 2x is a long ways, and little things become big things quickly.
It all depends on what system you are using. If you are using a newer camera and lens combo with good in lens stabilization and/or In Body Image Stabilization and you have it set correctly you can get a way with a lot of movement. If you are using a tripod and have IS/IBIS you should be able to get sharp images of static subjects at fairly slow shutter speeds at 1200mm shooting electronic shutter. If you are using a DSLR and not a mirrorless then shutter shock can cause issues at slow shutter speeds. On a mirrorless on ES shooting 20fps bursts I have gotten tack sharp images at 1/30s at 1200mm. But... for the most part until you figure out what your can manage with your system, shooting high shutter speeds is the way to go to get sharp images at 1200mm. Say 1/3000s. There are a lot more factors that can come into play that I am not covering here. It is best to go out and shoot with 1200mm and experiment to see how slow you can go and still get good shots.
@@whistlingwingsphotography Thanks for reply. Its a 600F4 ii, on an R5; which I am old school tripod guy, so very clumsy and inconsistent with this so far- a big learning curve. Great channel btw ! Helps a lot !
I have to put an adapter on my R5 since I use lenses with an EF mount. If I used a teleconverter with the adapter would it screw up focus?
Nope. Works great with TCs.
@@whistlingwingsphotography Thank you!
Thank you
Your welcome and thanks for the comment.
This got me thinking about why the heck many of us interested in birding and photography go to the expense of buying spotting scopes. Leaving aside the issues discussed here that relate to photography, isn't my Canon R5 with an RF 100-500, a 2x teleconverter, and crop mode activated, a perfectly adequate tool for observation? The megapixels on the bird probably are not all the important for pure observation as opposed to photography. Also, unlike my Kowa scope, my camera has image stabilization.
It's optical zoom v digital zoom. Optical is always better obviously. Crop mode would be more important when it comes to video. If the R5 could give you pixel on pixel crop as opposed to line skipping to achieve a 4k image it's going to be great. The crop would add huge reach. 120fps cropped with the rf lens will be fantastic in video as the rf lens will allow for handheld video via dual ibis. When shooting video you can use much slower shutter too as you'll want some motion blur in the shot anyway. However, the video file will be less robust than a still image (.cr3) file when it comes to adding exposure in post production.
Yep. Thanks for the comment.
First class again.
When cropping in camera, isn’t the original raw file still available at the 45 megapixels? On the Canon 5DSR the original raw file is still (full frame image) available even though it was cropped in camera.
Nope, when you shoot RAW in crop mode you get a 17MP image that is about 11mb in file size on the card. That is it. There is no 45MP image available. Given cropping in post gives you more flexibility in composition that is what I do.
I concur, better to crop in post. The cropped mode works different on the Canon 5DSR, you always have access to the original raw file. Take Care!
Is the quality bad with 1.6x ?
Crop mode is merely digital zoom. What you get is based on totally on the lens and pixels on the sensor. It is clearly NOT the same as using a TC.
Yeah, though you need to be careful with adding a TC to a slow lens when using a high pixel density sensor, so the DLA limit isn't coming the limiting factor for resolving power.
With R5 ~45Mp FF sensor the DLA begins to take a very slight effect already at f/6,6. But it really begins to effect at f/8,2 and takes the "full effect" when the airy disc reaches 3x pixel diameter at around f/9,8. For higher pixel density APS-C sensors these limits are much lower.
When you shoot sports commercially using jpg you don't use 45mp anyway. We use medium jpg for prints. Using crop mode gives you native AF and more "reach" without sacrificing aperture. Shoot raw and crop if you have that leisure or use an extender if outright af speed and aperture don't matter.
I've always thought the same why crop in camera when you can get the perfect crop in post
Yep, thanks so much for your comment.
Smaller file size,more focus points maybe?
@@419tommy Yes, smaller file size for sure. It is a complicated issue when it comes to AF and whether you gain anything when in Crop mode. For me it seems like the AF does better staying on the bird in Crop mode, but that could be me doing better panning with the bird because it is bigger in the frame.
@@whistlingwingsphotography I can only think of one reason that AF might be better in crop mode. With fewer pixels you've got fewer AF points, but there could be more processing power available because of all the unused pixels and AF points. I don't know how important processing power is relative to the actual hardware, but it seems possible. As for the bird being larger in the viewfinder I wouldn't really expect that to help with tracking because the bird can be out of the viewfinder (or just farther from center) by moving a shorter distance; it's the same as using a longer lens in FF mode. To some extent I think the space around (or in front of) the bird may help to anticipate where it's going, but that brings in psychology and our expectations and maybe the negatives of that tighter view can make us work closer to the limit of our tracking ability. Or maybe it's the opposite, and when we see that extra space we relax because it's easier to keep the bird in the frame.
Smaller file size, so better buffering.
@7:26... most of the time. But on occasion, with a nice blurred BG, and a very close, full framed subject, I have been able to 'easily' paint in a little more blurred BG on any side (or multiple sides) of the image. Using this method, I have created a few 50 and 55mp BIF images, with my 45mp camera :) I call these reverse crops ! And I think its bad a$$ when I can make it happen ;)
@14:50 I like to use an actual feather, for my test shots. What could show you the actual feather detail you might get better, than an actual feather ? I even thought about trying to get a really tiny "eyeball" (from like an arts and crafts place) to glue to the feather. Then you could use the EAF with this as well ;)
Finally, I just wanted to say, I am a MP freak ! And I hate the idea of dropping to 17mp in crop mode. This is NOT, why I bought a $3900, 45mp camera ! However, "what if" my bird is so small, and maybe skittish too, that I'm going to have to crop the image from 45mp's, down to 10 or 15mp's anyway ? Granted, I'm barely thinking about IF shots today. If I could get a good perched shot of my target bird, Id be pretty thrilled :)
thanks i fully agree. Bernhard
Thank you and thanks for your comment.
100% facts. I never use crop mode on my R5.
No comparison pics with the tele? Huh!
The best part is NOW you get crop factor with a 2X converter with AUTO FOCUS that works...compare that to the 7D Mark II...which DID NOT have good focus with a 2X converter...so Crop factor is good if you need to reach out for something you will not get otherwise
I've used teleconverters in the past but the loss in IQ when shooting with a TC is pretty darn close to the loss in IQ from cropping the same amount. I get the resolution argument but using a TC causes a loss in IQ similar to a loss of resolution in my experience.
For the most part that has not been my experience. However, I may have taken a different approach to using TCs than many other people. First, yes, there is always some loss in IQ, but the amount varies and varies based on the copy of the TC used. For my Canon system, I tried out three 1.4x and four 2x TCs for use with my 600mm f/4 and camera bodies before I found one of each that I felt paired well with my lens and bodies. As most people understand, TCs, unless they are built into the lens, are not made specifically for any particular lens or body, and their construction varies. By doing the aforementioned legwork I was able to minimize loss of IQ when using TCs. Especially with the 1.4x TC, the loss of IQ was basically inconsequential to my work. Moreover, some images just are not achievable by cropping, but only by using a TC, because a crop in the situations to which I am referring (small subjects too far away to afford a crop to achieve the desired composition) would result in an image that is so reduced in resolution on the subject that IQ is basically shattered. In addition, I often used TCs to get my subject huge in the frame to maximize detail, not to just get it big enough in the frame to make a decent composition. Under this scenario, at least for me, IQ remains excellent if I do my job, in part because I am not cropping on top of using a TC. So, as is the case with many subjects discussed, it depends on the photographer and the shooting scenarios they find themselves in most as to what is the best approach. Thanks so much for the comment.
@@whistlingwingsphotography Interesting point about finding a TC that works well with a specific lens. I've not heard that before and perhaps that's why I was so unimpressed with my canon 1.4TC.
@@fatbaldandhappy I know of a few close friends that have done the same and it has made a difference for them as well. I used Lens Align and Focus Tune software to help me test each TC to find the one that worked most consistently with my gear. Now with Mirrorless cameras I am not sure, yet, how this change in systems will affect TC use.
TCS have a tendency to perform best with prime lenses. Zooms things get a bit more finnicky.
Crop mode does not make the bird bigger, in term of pixel, ,but makes the files smaller.
But the flipside to this debate is when using full resolution your would still have to crop that image to the same field of view as with the 1.6 crop setting. So I may be all wet here but at the end of the post processing crop does the same thing, as you said but all other reviewers of the R5 and R6 report softer images when using a teleconverter. So what comes first chicken or egg or deep pockets of a professional photographer, and all the advantages that brings. At the end of the day without big dollars for long glass, you take a hit, as your like to say. That said I ask the question, what is your target audience, enthusiast or professional photogs???
You missed one comparison.
Test 1.4x with crop mode.
Especially against far away subjects.
1. 500mm
2. 500mm plus 1.4x extender
3. 500mm crop mode
4. 500mm plus 1.4x plus crop mode
It seems that if a bird is far away, say an eagle or hawk, where at 500mm
it is still very small, postprocess cropping struggles.
1.4x, crop mode, or 1.4x and crop mode gives a larger bird image,
with some ability to crop in post processing. Try it….
Why can't they give us a 1.2x, 1.3x, or 1.4x crop mode? Would be more useful! Would be still getting a 30 - 40 mp image
I prefer a high-res APS-C camera. Hopefully, Canon will release an RF APS-C camera next year with 30-40MP.
Good point or wait for the high res version of the R5 to come out which is in the pipeline. The rumour is it will have double the resolution of the R5 at round 90 MP. So, in APS-C crop mode, I reckon it should have about 35 MP which is more than the 90D already. Also, there is only so much resolution that you can cramp into an APS-C sensor, it will be pretty tough to use in low light as the noise level will be huge.
Yep, a cropped sensor body is def an option and Canon will have one out next year from what I have heard.
But a converter remains 45mp whilst crop mode gives you about 20mp...
It's like people actually think(the people who email you) that an APC-C sensor actually increases your focal length, it doesn't, it's literally just cropped. Lol.
Yes, there are many misconceptions out there about crop modes in cameras. Crop mode does not magically take all the pixels on a full frame sensor and pack them all into a 1.6x crop area of the sensor, thus giving you all the res of the full frame sensor and "extra reach." Using the crop mode on the R5 is no different then making the crop later in post processing. For me, the advantage of cropping in post is it gives you more flexibility to crop as you need to. Whereas an in camera crop is what it is. You cannot decide in post that you want less of a crop then the camera gave you. If you want extra reach and at the same time keep the full resolution of the camera you either need a longer lens or to add a teleconverter.
R7.
omg , real eye opener. Thanks for de-mystifying
Glad you found the information useful
In my limited experience I choose glass over other means, you drop off megapixels you will come to blur 2x faster, the image just deteriorates
when blown up. Celebrating the use of extender and crop together is celebrating mediocrity.
Who cares if you lose pixels when using better focus with a lower iso. You need to compare this with upscaling and denoise of the crop. Teleconvertors are old tech for film and low mpx cameras that all make iq worse.