3 ms·
That's not inconsiderable. I use both a FF and a 1.5x crop APS-C camera, and part of the reason I got the APS-C body at all is because I get 24MP from that ins
by pdpi 7y ago
That's not inconsiderable.
I use both a FF and a 1.5x crop APS-C camera, and part of the reason I got the APS-C body at all is because I get 24MP from that instead of roughly 11 for the equivalent crop from my FF body when I go birding.
- CydeWeys 7y agoInteresting problem to have. I assume you already have the longest possible focal length lens for your camera system?
- pdpi 7y agoPretty much, yeah. I'm using the a7iii and the a6400 with the 100-400 GM. Only way to reach any longer on all-sony is by adding a teleconverter to the mix. At any rate, it's fairly common advice to use e.g. a 7D mk2 for wildlife even if you're mostly a 5D user.
- CydeWeys 7y agoAny reason you don't go for the 1.4X or 2X teleconverter? Would the loss in shutter speed make it a wash for birds, where I assume that actually matters a lot for birds in flight?
- pdpi 7y agoI still have the option to grab the TC at some point and potentially use both the a6400 and the TC in tandem (though I doubt the lens is quite sharp enough to justify that — odds are the 100-400 + 1.4x already has a circle of confusion bigger than the pixel sites on the APS-C sensor) The reasons I went with the APS-C body instead of the TC is that I actively wanted a second body for other reasons. Namely: I wanted a smaller, lighter body that I'm happy to just leave in my backpack all the time, and I wanted the versatility of having two lenses available at all times for some situations. Also, not the most amazing photo ever, but definitely a good example of the sort of sharpness you can get out of this — https://i.imgur.com/p9H42aG.jpg https://i.imgur.com/p9H42aG.jpg