Anyone Shoot their FF in Crop Mode for Specific Situations?

[AKVet]

So what benefit do you get by doing that? Just smaller files?

I use it for reach... it gives me an effective focal length of 800mm when using my 100-500mm.

 

[Archibald]

I use it for reach... it gives me an effective focal length of 800mm when using my 100-500mm.

Switching to crop mode changes the angle of view to that of an 800mm lens, but the pixels recording your subject stay exactly the same. Your viewfinder gets reach, your files don't.

 

[Stephen]

Switching to crop mode changes the angle of view to that of an 800mm lens, but the pixels recording your subject stay exactly the same. Your viewfinder gets reach, your files don't.

Then, what are the benefits of using FF in ordinary condition? If I use a higher pixel density/unit area APSC camera e.g. EOS-R7, would it be better?
(EOS-R7, 32.5MP, 22.3 x 14.8mm Vs EOS-R5, 45MP, 36 x 24mm Vs EOS-R6 II, 24.2MP, 36 x 24mm)

 

[AntonLargiader]

Most people wouldn't consider cropping adding reach because, well, it's just cropping.You could crop the FF image in photoshop (or whatever program you use) for the same result. But it does give you a magnified view as Archibald mentioned.

Adding reach is generally some kind of increased pixels-on-target, like longer FL or greater sensor density. So yes, a higher density sensor (and the R7 is I think the densest that Canon makes) does give you more resolution that way but it's not totally that simple. FF vs Crop is something that has been written about for years upon years now so I don't think I can possibly summarize that history in a single post, but for one thing I think you need good glass to get the best out of the high-density sensors. Otherwise you just have very high resolution of a blurry edge. I have both and am still figuring out what works best.

 

[Archibald]

Then, what are the benefits of using FF in ordinary condition? If I use a higher pixel density/unit area APSC camera e.g. EOS-R7, would it be better?
(EOS-R7, 32.5MP, 22.3 x 14.8mm Vs EOS-R5, 45MP, 36 x 24mm Vs EOS-R6 II, 24.2MP, 36 x 24mm)

I almost always switch to the R7 when shooting birds or bugs. These are very different genres. But in both of these cases, I'm usually reach-limited. By that, I mean that I almost always crop the image, to make the bird or bug look bigger afterwards on the monitor. The pixel density really helps the image quality when you have to crop.

You can use FF for this type of shooting too, for the same or better results, but it is harder. Thus, instead of shooting R7/500mm, you would have to shoot with an actual 800mm lens on the R5. With close-in macro shooting, still using the 100mm macro lens, you would need to use an extension tube to get the same framing, and stop down a stop for the same DOF, and then boost the flash a lot to get the same amount of light. The flash would need to be bigger, otherwise the flash duration becomes longer, and that risks motion-blurring. In short, the macro rig would be much bigger and clumsier. But it would get great results.

That is just some of the technical aspects of it. As Anton mentioned, there is more to it.

For more normal shooting where I don't expect to have to crop much, then the R5 and the fantastic RF 24-105mm L lens is my choice. The R7 isn't very suitable here because Canon doesn't make an L-grade normal zoom (yet) for crop-frame mirrorless cameras.

 

[Only RF]

The RF 24-105 F4 surprised me. Not an R5 but the R62 stood its ground. Cropped in post.

• Canon EOS R6m2
• RF24-105mm F4 L IS USM
• 105.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 400

• Canon EOS R6m2
• RF24-105mm F4 L IS USM
• 105.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 400

 

[Archibald]

Yeah, the EF versions of the 24-105 did not always garner such good reviews, but the RF is amazing.

 

[Stephen]

I almost always switch to the R7 when shooting birds or bugs. These are very different genres. But in both of these cases, I'm usually reach-limited. By that, I mean that I almost always crop the image, to make the bird or bug look bigger afterwards on the monitor. The pixel density really helps the image quality when you have to crop.

You can use FF for this type of shooting too, for the same or better results, but it is harder. Thus, instead of shooting R7/500mm, you would have to shoot with an actual 800mm lens on the R5. With close-in macro shooting, still using the 100mm macro lens, you would need to use an extension tube to get the same framing, and stop down a stop for the same DOF, and then boost the flash a lot to get the same amount of light. The flash would need to be bigger, otherwise the flash duration becomes longer, and that risks motion-blurring. In short, the macro rig would be much bigger and clumsier. But it would get great results.

That is just some of the technical aspects of it. As Anton mentioned, there is more to it.

For more normal shooting where I don't expect to have to crop much, then the R5 and the fantastic RF 24-105mm L lens is my choice. The R7 isn't very suitable here because Canon doesn't make an L-grade normal zoom (yet) for crop-frame mirrorless cameras.

I prefer a high pixel density/unit area camera. For outdoor shooting, I usually carry an EOS-R7 camera and EF 100mm f/2.8 macro IS lens (FF 160mm) as I am a butterfly shooter and recently a bug shooter as well. I seldom shoot birds. The camera surprised me.

One day, we saw two butterflies in mating positions at a great distance. We couldn't come closer as there was a fence and bushes in front of us.
In the EVF, they looked very small, but I still took the picture. I use the x5 magnifier to locate a more precise focus position and wait for the wind to stop blowing.


Uncropped photo

• Canon EOS R7
• EF100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
• 100.0 mm
• ƒ/4.5
• 1/250 sec
• ISO 400

Cropped Photo ( Post-processed: DPP and Topaz Denoise AI)

• Canon EOS R7
• EF100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
• 100.0 mm
• ƒ/4.5
• 1/250 sec
• ISO 400

 

[Archibald]

I prefer a high pixel density/unit area camera. For outdoor shooting, I usually carry an EOS-R7 camera and EF 100mm f/2.8 macro IS lens (FF 160mm) as I am a butterfly shooter and recently a bug shooter as well. I seldom shoot birds. The camera surprised me.

One day, we saw two butterflies in mating positions at a great distance. We couldn't come closer as there was a fence and bushes in front of us.
In the EVF, they looked very small, but I still took the picture. I use the x5 magnifier to locate a more precise focus position and wait for the wind to stop blowing.


Uncropped photo

View attachment 22012


Cropped Photo ( Post-processed: DPP and Topaz Denoise AI)

View attachment 22013

Well done, Stephen. That worked very well, especially since you made sure the focus was accurate.

 

[Stephen]

Thanks. I had failed many times to get the correct focus position for distinct objects. This is learned from mistakes.
For bugs shooting with handheld focus stacking at a magnification of around 1x, I don't use the BBF method, I use the x5 magnifier.
I had failed many times to locate the initial focus position (usually the most important point) using BBF method, I found that the x5 magnifier is more precise.