# EF 500 OR EF 600?



## Mick (Jun 11, 2016)

Hi all. I guess this is a question for EF 600 owners. I own the latest 500 prime and have done for about three years. I used it with a MK4 and the mk3 extender. I wont bore you as you all know its a top of the line performer. I travel around the UK and fly of to Europe on occasion. Since I moved over to full frame a few years ago with the 1DX I notice that the image quality is outstanding but even with the extender I came up short a lot and I am using the 7D2 a lot more. I guess the species I photograph isn't large animals its birds, small mammels, seals, a lot distance stuff. In short with wildlife you do need a lot of reach. I get 700mm with the extender 800mm with the 7D2 and nearly 1200mm 7D2 and extender. As I want to use the 1DX as much as possible my thoughts have moved to the 600. Yes its only 100mm but with the extender its up to 840mm a usefull jump.

Now im not rich, I work hard and save as much as I can to fund my hobby (crap clothes, cheap car, etc) and was wondering, for those lucky enough to have a 600, how do they handle, is the weight a big factor,the angle of view, is that extra reach over a 500 that noticeable and above all, can you get it in an overhead flight bag like my think tank.

I do like my 7D2 but it isn't an x and I really do want to use the X more. Oh, I don't like to crop to much.

Thanks to anyone who can help as I don't want to invest my savings and regret it.

Mick


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 12, 2016)

I bought my 600L from a bird photographer who had bought a 800L. For birds, longer is better. I had the original 600 non IS, it was a monster. 

You will lose any practical ability to handhold a 600. It can be done, but for short periods.

You will be chasing ever longer focal lengths forever, you should probably resist the temptation until the 1000mm f/5.6 arrives. Some waited 10 years for the 100-400mm II, it should not take more than twice that for the 1000


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 12, 2016)

Just get the EF 800 and be done with it.

The 600 works fantastically with the 1.4TC indeed many will say it is as good as the naked 800, but the 800 with a 1.4 is 'better' than the 600 with a 2x and if you are regularly focal length limited get the focal length you need.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=459&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=336&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 12, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Just get the EF 800 and be done with it.
> 
> The 600 works fantastically with the 1.4TC indeed many will say it is as good as the naked 800, but the 800 with a 1.4 is 'better' than the 600 with a 2x and if you are regularly focal length limited get the focal length you need.
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=459&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=336&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0



Just get the 600 II and be done with it. 

Personally, I can handhold the 600 II for routine shooting – I hike reasonable distances with it on a left-side BlackRapid strap, have scrabbled over rocks with it, etc. FWIW, I'm not a big guy or a weightlifter, but I have been frequently carrying a kid in my left arm for >8 years. 

@PBD, your TDP link compares the 800/5.6 with the older 600/4 MkI, both with MkII extenders. The OP has the current 500/4 MkII and 1.4xIII, and presumably would get the 600/4 MkII as well. When you compare the 800 to the 600 II + 1.4xIII, or the 800 + 1.4x (either) to the 600 II + 2xIII, you see that the 600 II is better in both cases, plus the 600 II is lighter (600+1.4 is ~500g lighter than the bare 800), a bit longer FL with the respective TCs, and (at least in the US), the 600 II is cheaper.

IMO, there's no reason to consider the 800mm f/5.6, it offers no significant advantages over the 600/4L IS II. I suppose it could be argued that the AF speed will be faster with the bare 800, but the 600 II + MkIII TCs focuses quite fast, more than sufficient for the birds/wildlife that I shoot with it.


----------



## Mick (Jun 12, 2016)

Thanks fellas. Just wondered if any of you guys fly with the 600? What backpack/case do you use? Can you fit it in a backpack/case for flying? The 800 may be a bit to long for flights.

Mick


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 12, 2016)

Mick said:


> Thanks fellas. Just wondered if any of you guys fly with the 600? What backpack/case do you use? Can you fit it in a backpack/case for flying? The 800 may be a bit to long for flights.



I haven't flown with mine, but the 600 II with hood reversed fits in my Pelican Elite 22" Carry-on (the right panel is the 30", 27" and 22" cases nested).


----------



## iaind (Jun 18, 2016)

I have 600mm mk1 IS and have had acceptable results with 2xIII on 1D4 (1560MM)


----------



## Mario (Jun 18, 2016)

Mick said:


> Thanks fellas. Just wondered if any of you guys fly with the 600? What backpack/case do you use? Can you fit it in a backpack/case for flying? The 800 may be a bit to long for flights.
> 
> Mick



After a long search for a backback that was big enough for the 600 II and still meet the hand luggage dimensions, I bought the Boris model of Mr Jan Gear.

http://mrjangear.com/shop/boris/

Hope this helps,

Mario


----------



## Mick (Jun 19, 2016)

Thanks everyone. Still mulling over selling the 500...decisions decisions (all be it a nice decision). The Boris looks great.

Mick


----------



## RGF (Jun 19, 2016)

Mick said:


> Thanks everyone. Still mulling over selling the 500...decisions decisions (all be it a nice decision). The Boris looks great.
> 
> Mick



I had an old 500 Mk1 and sold it. Got my $ out and bought the 600 II. Much better lens, not that much heavier. than the 500 M1.

Only "pain' is travel. It takes up 1/2 of my Gura Gear 32L backpack. With 500 I had some room left in the side with the lens.


----------



## ERHP (Jun 19, 2016)

Very partial to the 600 II w/1.4X on the 1DX series. Usually enough range for everything from hummingbirds to much larger birds/wildlife. When I fly, everything goes in one of my Mystery Ranch packs, each item covered in at least one layer of neoprene, the 600 and smaller lenses in a second covering. Depending on how you fly, i.e. first, business, etc, if you are scheduling late and end up in scum class, they will try to assist you if your bag/case has wheels by chuckin...err 'checking' them for you. So far with the backpack I have never had to check it as it will fit, even with all that gear, under a seat though I usually have overhead space. 

seatguru.com is usually good for pointing out the problem seats to avoid.


----------



## AdamBotond (Jun 19, 2016)

600 II would certainly give you more reach for your bird photography, but maybe not nearly as much as you hope for. Based on my personal experience, chasing focal length could easily become a never ending story. IMO 600mm (+1,4X III) must be enough reach for even bird photography, if it isn't I would say you are not in an ideal position to photograph from. I would not underestimate the weight differential, either. I'm not familiar with your planned locations, but I can tell its only matter of distance how each and every 100 gramms could become a burden after certain distance. Not long ago, I was carrying a 500 II in a hardcase, my backpack, a tripod through the swamp reaching to my knees in the dark for few hundres meters to approach my position before dusk. I must say after taking few hundred meters with my stuff in the swamp in the dark, I had second thoughts that maybe my 400 5.6 would had been good enough instead of 500 II.


----------



## Eldar (Jun 20, 2016)

Not an easy decision, and definitely not a cheap one. I had the old 500 f4L IS MkI, which was due for retirement. I initially decided to go for a 400 f2.8L IS II, because I could get 640 and 800 with extenders and both respectable IQ and autofocus. Then Canon released the firmware for f8.0 on the 1DX and the 600mm f4L IS II temptation became a bit too much. However, just having the centre point for AF is a bit limiting, so my experience is that I seldom went beyond the 840mm with the 1.4xIII extender. 

I then upgraded to the 1DX-II, which provides (near) full AF functionality at f8.0 and expected to use 1.200mm quite a bit. However, my experience so far is that I keep on using 840mm as the max. 1200mm is OK for static subjects, but a bit long when they start moving around. Another thing worth considering is the effect of humidity and haze. At 1200mm you will often have a lot of air between you and the subject and the images will suffer.

A 1DX/7DII combo, with the 500 you have is very good. The 600, on top of being quite expensive, is larger, heavier and that extra 100mm is not That much. I would rather spend my money on a 1DX-II and/or a 5DSR.

I am crossing my fingers for a 600 f4 DO, or even better, a 1000mm f5.6 DO.


----------



## DaveWales (Jun 29, 2016)

I have owned all four versions. First the 600Mk1 but as I travel abroad a lot I had to get a 500Mk1 for air travel if I intended taking the lens as hand baggage. When the Mk2 came out I sold them both to pay for the 500Mk2 but then I sold my crop 1DMk4 to buy a 5D3 then a 1DX. Full frame left me feeling short on reach so I tried a 7D2 but didn't see the benefit and bought a 600Mk2. So yes, I have tried everything!
The 600's 20% extra reach with or without converters vs the 500 is significant. I think both work extremely well with the 2.0x too however, the previous comment about "bad air" is extremely valid. Sometimes distance cannot be overcome by optics no matter how good they are.
If I could own only one of the two lenses though, I'd choose the 500. It is very hand holdable, I find the 600Mk2 which weighs the same as the 500mm Mk1 just a bit too much to hold for more than a few moments.
The Gura gear 32L does hold the 600 and is just above cabin baggage size but it does fit in the overhead lockers and I haven't had a problem so far, provided the airline weight restriction isn't restrictive. 
If budget isn't a problem get both but like me you might wonder if it was really necessary when you have satisfied that bit of lens lust. 
If I were you I would consider trading the 1DX for a 1DX 2 as then you can get better AF performance when using your 2x TC and have the extra reach created by more pixels to play with amongst other benefits.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 1, 2016)

DaveWales said:


> If I were you I would consider trading the 1DX for a 1DX 2 as then you can get better AF performance when using your 2x TC and have the extra reach created by more pixels to play with amongst other benefits.



 Or he could save a few thousand $$$ and just get a 5D Mark III for even more extra reach than the 1DX Mark II   

You know... because there are so many extra pixels.


----------



## DaveWales (Jul 1, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> DaveWales said:
> 
> 
> > If I were you I would consider trading the 1DX for a 1DX 2 as then you can get better AF performance when using your 2x TC and have the extra reach created by more pixels to play with amongst other benefits.
> ...



Presume you are picking up on a bit of grammar. As an owner of the 5D3,1DX2, and until yesterday a 1DX, oh as well as a 500mmMk2 and a 600mmMk2 perhaps my opinion is worth a bit more than a useless comment by a smart arse.


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 2, 2016)

Traveling with the 600 would be the same as the traveling with the 500 with the extender on. It is bigger round so your bag would be fatter with the hood.

Hunting with the version 1 500mm I decided I wanted something lighter. I also decided I didn't want a longer lens because those few inches made it harder to handle in some blind situations. That is why I didn't go with the 600mm when it came out. But I prefer larger game than you described, occasionally I go after birds but that is not my primary.

So for me I believe I would notice the weight. At times I have questioned that decision then I go on a week long trip and come back with the belief I made the right decision.

In the end YMMV and you need to weigh and measure out your decission, literally.


----------



## candc (Jul 2, 2016)

If birds are your primary subject and you are shooting ff the 600ii is the best thing for it. You will be using the 1.4xiii with it a lot.


----------



## Sashi (Jul 2, 2016)

600, unless you have little sissy arms


----------



## tron (Jul 2, 2016)

I have the 500 4 IS II for 3 years. The last year I made 2 trips shooting birds. When I use it from the inside of my car or when using tripod it's OK. But there were some occasions when I had to handhold it while being inside a boat (for periods between 1 and 2 hours). That tired my left hand so after a few times I reverted to my 7DII 400DOII combination. Less magnification, more comfort, easier targeting of flying birds (500II was being used with 7DII too). It feels like a toy with very good IQ 

So the weight of 500II is my upper limit or (depending on the situation) a little over my upper limit. 
In addition the bag difference is that of a 26L Gura Gear versus a 32L. You can check the difference in dimension (actually length, everything else must be equal). I believe 26L can be accepted in airplanes much easier than 32L.

600DO would weigh as much as the 500II and it would be about 7cm shorter (although it would have larger diameter). That could be my next upper limit although a very expensive one.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jul 2, 2016)

My choice was the 500 (Mark II) and for me at least it has proved to be the right one. Several friends have 600s and they need special bags and put a disproportionate amount of effort into carrying them around. It's possible to hand-hold the 600 II (I've tried a friend's) but not very enjoyable and not for a whole session. I wouldn't want the extra weight for just 20% more magnification. In some situations, if I don't need/want to carry a bag at all, I can carry the 500 quite happily on a shoulder strap - again the 600 is just too big for that, in my view (though I do know one person who does it).

In cases of extreme need I use the 500 with a 2x III and on a really solid tripod (Gitzo Series 4) the image quality is pretty good. As others have commented in this thread, the limiting factor at those lengths is often the 'seeing' which hasn't often been good enough in this British so-called summer. 

But I shoot with a 7D2 and an 80D and maybe that's where at least part of the difference lies - I get the extra reach from the smaller pixels.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 2, 2016)

DaveWales said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > DaveWales said:
> ...



Actually, I am happy for you to educate me as to how more megapixels = more reach. That's with or without an extender.

I don't think it does. 

What gear you own doesn't make you the smart boy in class, or right, either. It just means you have some $$$, doesn't it? It also doesn't make your opinion worth anything at all over the next man's opinion. 

Opinion doesn't mean jack. Opinion being better simply because you own nice gear doesn't make it smell any better either. Heck, I own nice gear too, and as anyone here can tell you, it only made me more stupidererly. There are many stupiderer guys with even better gear than you.

There are many people on these forums who claim their crop sensor cameras give more "reach" than a full frame camera because of a narrower field of view and more megapixels on the subject.

Now you are saying that two full frame cameras with the same lens mounted and the same sensor sizes (Not pixel sizes.) have different reach capability. The 5D Mark III has more megapixels than the 1Dx and the 1Dx Mark II so it (5D mark III) has more reach to play with for cropping right? Right? I think that is what you said. Is that what you said?

I disagree.

I'm attaching a chart from "The digital picture" that compares oodles of cameras. BTW, just how many more cropping pixels does the 1DX Mark II offer over the 1DX? And what is the impact on photo quality?

*Disclaimer: I may be completely wrong and unhinged. My friend here called me a smart arse. I take that as a complement as I am widely known as a dumb ass. I'd shake the man's hand and buy him a beer if I could. In the event that I am wrong, and I probably am, I hope to have added to the entertainment value of the forum. It's just that I've never heard the "factoid" that one FF camera with 20 mp has more reach than a FF camera with 18 mp. While I salivate for a 1Dx Mark II, I've learned here that my 5D Mark III has more reach than both the 1DX and 1DX Mark II and that I better upgrade my education and buy a 500mm and 600mm lens combo Magna Cum Laude. Imagine that, I've had the more reachy camera all this time.*  Never should have sold my 70D. Dang it!


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 2, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Actually, I am happy for you to educate me as to how more megapixels = more reach. That's with or without an extender.


the conventional wisdom is that with finer sampling you get more pixels on the target, but those pixels are of lower quality..... 

Also, smaller pixels require a higher shutter speed to combat shake..... and that means loosing flexibility with your aperture settings...

To my experience, the end result is that with great lighting conditions you can get a bit more reach with more megapixels, but it is not a huge difference. With poor lighting, more pixels makes things worse.

This is probably why the 1DX2, designed to get the shot in harsh conditions, is not a high megapixel camera


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 2, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I am happy for you to educate me as to how more megapixels = more reach. That's with or without an extender.
> ...



Completely agree.

But Don, and this is very tongue in cheek, does my 5D III have more reach, with the same lenses and settings, than the 1DX Mark II because of all the extra megapixels?


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 2, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...


I think the difference would be so minimal that people could argue over it for years


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 2, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


 And they do.


----------



## DaveWales (Jul 2, 2016)

I don't wish to continue a negative conversation. I was only pointing out that there are lots of advantages to keeping the 500mm and, instead of spending the extra on a 600mm, he might be better upgrading his 1DX to a 1DX2. Pixels are one small reason, but I have found to be a good reason. The 1DX2 has other benefits such as the ability to use all 61 AF points when using a 2.0X TC on an 500mmf4 lens, a silent shutter which is actually quite silent compared to the 1DX and can also be used at a fairly fast frame rate too.
The cost of upgrading the camera body might be cheaper than upgrading the lens although long term the lens will hold value longer ( just to avoid someone jumping in on that point!)

I like others can only share what we have found to be an advantage or disadvantage. It doesn't necessarily follow that it will be every one's choice.

Trying to find fault in other peoples postings might be entertainment for some, it seems a few hang around this forum purely to do that. The OP asked for advice on if he should change lenses. I shared my findings trying to keep on topic.


----------



## serendipidy (Jul 2, 2016)

I may be wrong, but I always thought that the "reach" advantage of a "crop" camera was because it basically crops the FF image circle (and then makes the final image the same size as the FF). I also read that with the 5DSR 50 MP FF camera, you can crop the file image a lot, say down to the MP file size of 20 MP, and thus do the same thing as a crop camera does, because of all the extra (but smaller) pixels on target. This kind of effectively gives you more reach...doesn't it? Or I am wrong. Where is Neuro or the other experts in this forum to set us all straight ;D


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jul 2, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I am happy for you to educate me as to how more megapixels = more reach. That's with or without an extender.
> ...


It's much more than conventional wisdom. When you are focal length limited - i.e. you don't have the option of getting closer or using a longer lens - then more pixels will always have the potential to give you more detail. It will never, ever be worse.


> Also, smaller pixels require a higher shutter speed to combat shake..... and that means loosing flexibility with your aperture settings...


But so does a longer lens, so there's no disadvantage compared with the alternative.


> To my experience, the end result is that with great lighting conditions you can get a bit more reach with more megapixels, but it is not a huge difference. With poor lighting, more pixels makes things worse.


Well, that is quite simply not true. More pixels is never worse.


> This is probably why the 1DX2, designed to get the shot in harsh conditions, is not a high megapixel camera


It's a trade off, in particular against speed.

If you are in a situation where you can take full advantage of a larger sensor - you can get closer to the subject, and/or you can use a longer lens, and you can maintain your aperture, then it will always produce a higher quality image. But so often in the real world (my world anyway) you can't do that.

I once stood alongside a friend shooting an owl in a tree. We were using the same lens but he had his 5D3 and I had my 7D2. We couldn't get closer because we would have lost the shooting angle and probably spooked the bird. My shots were *much* better than his. If, on the other hand, he could have switched to a 1.6x bigger lens (with a small adjustment for 22 MP vs 20 MP), he would have obtained the better images. (He has since bought a 7D2.)


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 3, 2016)

Steve Balcombe said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



Your theory doesn't align with empirical observation.

In good light with good technique the smaller pixels are capable of resolving detail without that detail being buried in noise, ergo the crop camera image 'wins'.

However your claim that smaller pixels are never worse is just not true. Up the iso and the the smaller pixels fall apart much sooner than the larger pixels, to the extent that even if you normalise the output the averaged smaller pixels do not out perform the larger pixels in resolution/detail because they are so noisy.

The "crop camera advantage" is largely a myth, in good light with good technique you can sometimes realise the difference, in many more situations the difference is buried in so much noise the larger pixels cropped will give you a 'better' result.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 3, 2016)

DaveWales said:


> I don't wish to continue a negative conversation. I was only pointing out that there are lots of advantages to keeping the 500mm and, instead of spending the extra on a 600mm, he might be better upgrading his 1DX to a 1DX2. Pixels are one small reason, but I have found to be a good reason. The 1DX2 has other benefits such as the ability to use all 61 AF points when using a 2.0X TC on an 500mmf4 lens, a silent shutter which is actually quite silent compared to the 1DX and can also be used at a fairly fast frame rate too.
> The cost of upgrading the camera body might be cheaper than upgrading the lens although long term the lens will hold value longer ( just to avoid someone jumping in on that point!)
> 
> I like others can only share what we have found to be an advantage or disadvantage. It doesn't necessarily follow that it will be every one's choice.
> ...



Actually, David, my original post has a well placed smiley and yes, a few wild eyed looks too. You took it far too seriously and started with the "smart arse" remark. 

You then rattled off your list of gear and implied the list made your opinion more valid than it otherwise would be. :

If you can show that a 2 megapixel difference between the 1DX and the 1DX Mark II should be one of the deciding factors as to whether to have the 500mm or 600mm [because of extra "reach"( croppable megapixels?)] then I am happy to see evidence that there is any real world evidence at all. 

Otherwise, I am still    and  Because that is what your "reach" claim lightheartedly deserves.

You are right in your reasoning for keeping the 500mm except, I think, for the "reach" part.

People on this forum challenge the claims (many times unprovable, emotional and completely unsubstantiated claims) of others all the time. 

Why did I bring up the more "reach" argument for the 5D mark III? I used your logic. I have more megapixels on target with a 500mm lens than your 1DX Mark II. However, I am of the belief (I can't prove it and this is just a poor man's _*opinion*_) that the quality of photos taken with the 1DX Mark II are much better than those of the 5D Mark III with a 500mm lens (even though the 5D Mark III has more "reach" or "croppable pixels").

If you find having you claims/opinions challenged to be "finding fault" or get offended by : then maybe you should toughen your skin up a little. Opinions can be right or wrong. Facts stand on their own and have nothing to do with opinion or what is in a man's kit.

By the way, thanks again for the compliment.  Most of a rumors website IS entertainment.


----------



## tron (Jul 4, 2016)

600mm with a 18Mp FF camera gives more resolution than a 500mm lens with a 20Mp FF camera.

Allow me to elaborate.

The difference in magnification of a subject across its diameter (assume the subject is circular for simplicity, say the moon) is 600/500 = 1.2

But Since the total size of a circle is PI*(R^2) (which means doubling the diameter - or radius - quadruples the size) we have to increase the 1.2 in the power of 2 (1.2^2 = 1.2*1.2 = 1.44). Which means a 44% increase in size due to a 600mm lens relative to a 500mm.

This is bigger than the 20M pixel advantage over 18mm = 11%. even when comparing 22Mp to 18Mp = 22% increase.

Having said all that I have opted for 500mm f/4L IS II vs the 600mm version due to size and (mainly) weight reasons...


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jul 4, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Your theory doesn't align with empirical observation.
> 
> In good light with good technique the smaller pixels are capable of resolving detail without that detail being buried in noise, ergo the crop camera image 'wins'.
> 
> ...



Just to respond to the "with good technique" qualifier first - getting optimal results always requires good technique. Using a longer lens requires good technique too.

But the main point is resolution. Please remember I was talking about a very specific situation, i.e. when focal length limited. So all other things are identical and we are cropping to at most the crop sensor area and potentially smaller. So it ceases to be crop camera vs full frame camera and becomes high resolution vs low resolution. Within the practical range (I didn't say that but surely it is always implied), having fewer pixels will always record less data. 

To put it another way, I'm not claiming a "crop sensor advantage", I'm claiming a high resolution advantage.

When you are in a position to take advantage of the additional light-collecting power of full frame it will always 'win', I am not questioning that for a moment. But in these long lens situations you do have to use a bigger lens, otherwise it doesn't work.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 4, 2016)

Steve Balcombe said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Your theory doesn't align with empirical observation.
> ...



Yes and what am saying is in the conditions where the smaller pixels can actually resolve, good light and contrast, high shutter speed, low iso, good lenses, great technique etc then yes, the pixel density of the smaller pixels wil show an advantage in outright IQ.

On that we agree, however where we differ is you are saying even when you don't have those shooting conditions the _"smaller pixels will never be worse"_. That is simply not true. 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Noise.aspx?Camera=963&Test=0&ISO=1600&CameraComp=1041&TestComp=0&ISOComp=1600

Now that example isn't normalised, but even if you do normalise it the smaller pixels are still worse at resolution and noise control. Of course normalisation can take many forms but in this instance, emulating focal length limitations, the best way is to up res the bigger pixels to the same number as the smaller pixels. And that, iso, is only one of the many variables that can impact IQ.

The statement _"smaller pixels will never be worse"_ is not true, even when limiting the discussion to focal length limited situations.

The statement _"having fewer pixels will always record less data"_ is technically true, but only if you consider noise data. If we are talking about useful quality truthful data, your statement is again, false.

Bigger pixels give higher quality data, at some point comparatively low in the iso scale the ability of the small pixels to collect quality data is overwhelmed by their ability to collect noise and they are at an IQ disadvantage to bigger pixels even when normalised.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jul 4, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Noise.aspx?Camera=963&Test=0&ISO=1600&CameraComp=1041&TestComp=0&ISOComp=1600
> 
> Now that example isn't normalised, but even if you do normalise it the smaller pixels are still worse at resolution and noise control.



That's not a realistic comparison. First as you say it's not normalised, and since that is the very nub of the discussion you can't just cast it aside as an exercise for the reader. Secondly, the 1D X II sensor is considerably more advanced than the 7D2's - I thought it would be unnecessary to state that for a practical test the sensor technology must be reasonably close. And sure enough, if you use the 5D3 instead:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Noise.aspx?Camera=963&Test=0&ISO=1600&CameraComp=792&TestComp=0&ISOComp=1600

Now the difference is considerably less. That's when not focal length limited of course, so the smaller-pixel sensor is not yet showing its potential advantage.

Look at it this way. If you take one square cm of the 5D3 sensor as an arbitrary standard, and compare it with one square cm of one with larger and therefore fewer pixels, the latter will obviously resolve less data. There's no subtlety here, it's simple and obvious and there are no gotchas. Less data collected.

But you also want to have it that one with more, smaller pixels will _also _resolve less data - which means the *_arbitrarily chosen_* 1cm2 of 5D3 sensor is better than any other, _merely because we chose it first_.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 4, 2016)

All things being equal, resolution depends on the linear dimensions of a pixel when it is not diffraction limited. The length of a side of a square pixel = square root(sensor area/number of mpx), where area is in square mm and length is in microns. Accordingly, for sensors of the same size, their relative resolving powers vary as the square root of the ratio of number of pixels. Going from the 18.1 mpx 1DX to the 20.2 mpx 1DX2 increases resolving power by sqrt(20.2/18.1), that is by only 1.056x. A 50.6 mpx 5DS R has sqrt(50.6/20.2) more resolution than a 1DX 2, that is 1.58x.

Of course, if the light is bad, the lens is soft and you shake etc, then you won't reach 1.58x.

The resolving power of a lens, all things being equal of course, depends on its focal length, not the square. A 600mm lens gives 1.2x the resolving power of a 500, not 1.2x1.2 times.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 5, 2016)

Steve Balcombe said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Noise.aspx?Camera=963&Test=0&ISO=1600&CameraComp=1041&TestComp=0&ISOComp=1600
> ...



You clearly haven't owned same generation crop and ff cameras and compared actual images.

I have, Neuro has, Alan F has, Eldar and many others here have. Without exception they tell a very similar story, as soon as the iso goes up any theoretical small pixel advantage disappears and is replaced by noise, making the crop camera (small pixels) worse than a cropped ff camera (big pixels), or, smaller pixels can be worse than bigger pixels and having fewer pixels records better data. Your two comments _"smaller pixels will never be worse" _ and _"having fewer pixels will always record less data"_ are not true.

So here are same generation small pixel and bigger pixel crops normalised set up to maximise the small pixel advantage at 200 iso.

Second image is a greater than 100% crop, over 200% for the bigger pixels, I just don't see that small pixel advantage to any meaningful degree.


----------



## tron (Jul 5, 2016)

AlanF said:


> All things being equal, resolution depends on the linear dimensions of a pixel when it is not diffraction limited. The length of a side of a square pixel = square root(sensor area/number of mpx), where area is in square mm and length is in microns. Accordingly, for sensors of the same size, their relative resolving powers vary as the square root of the ratio of number of pixels. Going from the 18.1 mpx 1DX to the 20.2 mpx 1DX2 increases resolving power by sqrt(20.2/18.1), that is by only 1.056x. A 50.6 mpx 5DS R has sqrt(50.6/20.2) more resolution than a 1DX 2, that is 1.58x.
> 
> Of course, if the light is bad, the lens is soft and you shake etc, then you won't reach 1.58x.
> 
> The resolving power of a lens, all things being equal of course, depends on its focal length, not the square. A 600mm lens gives 1.2x the resolving power of a 500, not 1.2x1.2 times.


Resolving power yes, but not size. But lets revert to resolving power. In that case the bigger lens gives 1.2 resolving power relative to the square root of (20/18) = 1.056 of the camera pixel increase. Still this is in favor of the lens...


----------



## Act444 (Jul 5, 2016)

My personal experience with crop and FF cameras bears out PBD's talking points - at higher ISOs, although the 7D2 image appeared larger, the 5D3 image is sharper and even had an edge in detail in many cases. In addition, 5D3 images seem to be able to withstand more cropping than 7D images, cutting into the "reach advantage" of the 7D...

The only exception to this was some shots of birds I took out in the sun - now this is base ISO, comparing shots I took with both cameras, I'm hard-pressed to tell which camera took which shot. If reach-limited, the 7D2 clearly has an advantage in this situation...however, move into the shade (or wait until the sun begins to set) and as the ISO (correspondingly) goes up, that advantage vanishes. I was never happy with the 7D's detail capture ability above 800, but the 5D3 maintains respectable results all the way up to 3200...


----------



## GlynH (Jul 5, 2016)

Woooooooosh! 

-=Glyn=-


----------



## tron (Jul 6, 2016)

Act444 said:


> My personal experience with crop and FF cameras bears out PBD's talking points - at higher ISOs, although the 7D2 image appeared larger, the 5D3 image is sharper and even had an edge in detail in many cases. In addition, 5D3 images seem to be able to withstand more cropping than 7D images, cutting into the "reach advantage" of the 7D...
> 
> The only exception to this was some shots of birds I took out in the sun - now this is base ISO, comparing shots I took with both cameras, I'm hard-pressed to tell which camera took which shot. If reach-limited, the 7D2 clearly has an advantage in this situation...however, move into the shade (or wait until the sun begins to set) and as the ISO (correspondingly) goes up, that advantage vanishes. I was never happy with the 7D's detail capture ability above 800, but the 5D3 maintains respectable results all the way up to 3200...


I agree on that. I try to use my 7D2 in good sun (when I can). But which combination would you prefer: 

7D2 + 500mm f/4 IS II or 5D3 + 500mm f/4 IS II + 1.4XIII

You see I am only referring to Focal Length limited situations. 

Slightly off topic (but still a consideration of mine) I value your info on 5DsR and if I didn't have a 7D2 maybe I would bite the bullet. But I already have 7D2 in addition to two 5D3 cameras. So in the light of new announcements it would be too much to get a 5DsR. So it is one of the above mentioned combinations for me for the time being... Please do commend on that since I know you have much experience in cameras/long telephoto combinations.


----------



## Act444 (Jul 13, 2016)

I have zero experience with extenders so I will defer to someone who has used them before. If AF tracking and speed is critical, the 7D2/500 _may_ be more responsive, however that's just a guess...

But I will say that the thought of a 5D3/500/1.4 combo enters my mind occasionally as well. As if the cost barrier wasn't enough to overcome, there's also the weight/transport barrier as well! The largest/bulkiest lens I have handled up to this point is the 28-300L (a lens I no longer have), and I understand the "great whites" are in a totally different category otherwise...Constraint: I need something I can handhold.


----------



## tron (Jul 13, 2016)

Act444 said:


> I have zero experience with extenders so I will defer to someone who has used them before. If AF tracking and speed is critical, the 7D2/500 _may_ be more responsive, however that's just a guess...
> 
> But I will say that the thought of a 5D3/500/1.4 combo enters my mind occasionally as well. As if the cost barrier wasn't enough to overcome, there's also the weight/transport barrier as well! The largest/bulkiest lens I have handled up to this point is the 28-300L (a lens I no longer have), and I understand the "great whites" are in a totally different category otherwise...Constraint: I need something I can handhold.


Sorry I thought I was replying to Alan who has experience with many combinations! But all opinions are welcome. To tell the truth I do have these combinations but never manage to make comparisons. I have used mostly 7D2 with 500 (with some AFMA). 1.4XIII needs also the same amount of AFMA and ... a tripod.

The 500 works fine with my 5D3 . But I have not tried 5D3 with 500 + 1.4XIII up to now.

Now back to handholding: 7D2 + 400DO IS II is an excellent (and handholdable) combination. I have tried that many times when I was getting tired of holding the 500 (So I guess 600 is out of the question for me!)


----------

