Pixel density for bird photography

[farmer_rob]

Kym, you can take all the shots you want, I am sure Tannin will find a reason why the Canon will remain king

Nice pic though - I quite like the "wink". Pity about the gum leaf.

[Tannin]

Very much in the sweet part of the zone, Kym. Using the same (unspecified) lens as the other ones I gave figures for, we get:

4.9MP - 450D (1.6 crop, 12.2MP)
6.0MP - 50D (1.6 crop, 15.1MP)
5.4MP - K20 (1.5 crop, 14.5MP)

The Sigma 500mm lens (of course) adds a bit of extra length (as compared with a typical 400mm lens) at the cost of a slight drop in sharpness (if we are comparing to (e.g.) Canon 100-400, Canon 400/4.6, or Nikkor 80-400) and one third of a stop less light, so that's a swings and roundabouts thing: call it about even. But my comparison numbers are looking only at the camera itself, and assume identical lenses.

[ving]

gah! my head hurts...

tony, can you just hit me with the mathematical formula for what you are getting at in this thread?

[mcdesign]

My head hurts too! I give up, far too complicated for my old brain, I will stick to macro and the like or should I have gone Canon in the first place , don't scream at me Very interesting all the same and I can see why I can't get perfect images of birds with my equipment.

[feral1]

Geez somewhere I missed this thread, glad I found it. Tony very informative.
As Tony has said 400mm is a good starting lens for bird photoging, that is not to say you cant use a 300 or even if you want a 200mm lens, just means more work. Getting to know your birds habits etc.
I have use a 300mm for quite a bit, a kit lens. I found that using this has helped me to get to know how to stalk my quarry. It would be nice to have a 800mm lens, but I would not have learned what I have by using it straight of the bat.
I have a habit that more than likely will stay with me, I see a bird I want to photograph and it is a bit far for the lens, I still take a shot, then move a bit closer take another shot. Hopeing I can get close enough for nearly a full frame shot. Does not happen too often, but I still got some real good images, as far as a kit lens goes.
Now I have a Sigma 150-500mm lens, same thing applies, just because you have that bit more reach, does not mean you are going to get the image you want straight away. You still have to work at it.

I have posted 2 images I have taken with the 70-300mm lens. 1st image is exact size out of the camera. If you know your species enough, you know what they are more like to react like, waiting long enough they do come closer to you.

The second image is cropped to show that you can still get good images with a shorter lens. If you are close enough, you do not need to crop as hard. If I was further away from the bird, and I tried to crop this amount it would not look as good, pixel pinching. If you can afford go for a 400mm minimum .

Enough of my babble.

Handing back to Tony

Peter

[Tannin]

OK David.

The basic idea is simple, though the implementation gets a bit tricky. First, we estimate the area of the sensor you cover with a "typical good" bird photograph. Then we apply that area to the various different DSLRs and thus calculate the actual number of usable pixels. Notice that the exact size of that estimated area does not matter, just so long as we use the same area for all cameras. I'm using the area calculated by example at the start of this thread, which is 135mm² but you could use a different one and it wouldn't affect the end result, so long as you were consistent with it, and so long as it was a reasonable estimate of real world practical results - anywhere between about 100mm² and 200mm² would be in the ball park.

So we start with the pixel dimensions and physical dimensions of the sensor (as per manufacturer's specs). E.g., the K20D is 23.4 x 15.6 mm = 365mm². Pixel dimensions are 4672 x 3104 = 14.5MP. This gives us a pixel density of 39,727 pixels per mm². Our usable sensor size (the bit that actually has the bird in it) is 135mm² , so all we have to do is multiply that out to get our final figure of merit - in this case, 5,377,655 useful pixels, or about 5.4MP.

[Kym]

OK David.
The basic idea is simple, though the implementation gets a bit tricky. <snip>

That actually makes sense!

So to improve birding you must fill more of the frame (I think we knew that )
- either by getting closer (best) or using longer focal lengths (which may have IQ issues).
And if you have a higher pixel density you get more detail and can crop more if needed.

Pixel density raises an issue regarding the limit of diffraction.
But as most birding is f/8 or less LoD is not an issue.
LoD kicks in around f/11 on high density sensors.

LoD explained here and you can compute you LoD for your Camera & Lens combo
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...hotography.htm

[RuthJ]

LoD explained here and you can compute you LoD for your Camera & Lens combo
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...hotography.htm

Very interesting read.....I had to find my camera's pixel size...it's the smallest of all the Canon DSLRs ...but not too bad.... I have some area to work with the kit lens between being a little sharper and before diffraction kicks in...f8-11, or stick to the nifty fifty.

[Tannin]

Here is an updated list, with some extra Nikon and Pentax models, and some recent releases

1.9MP - Nikon D700 (1.0 crop, 12.1MP)
1.9MP - Nikon D3 (1.0 crop, 12.1MP)
2.0MP - Canon 5D (1.0 crop, 12.7MP)
2.2MP - Nikon D40 (1.5 crop, 6.0MP)
2.5MP - Canon 10D (1.6 crop, 6.3MP)
2.6MP - Canon 1D III (1.3 crop, 10.1MP)
2.6MP - Canon 1Ds II (1.0 crop, 16.6MP)
3.3MP - Canon 20D, 30D (1.6 crop, 8.2MP)
3.3MP - Canon 5D II (1.0 crop, 21.0MP)
3.3MP - Canon 1Ds III (1.0 crop, 21.0MP)
3.6MP - Nikon D40x (1.5 crop, 10.0MP)
3.6MP - Nikon D60 (1.5 crop, 10.0MP)
3.7MP - Pentax K200D (1.5 crop, 10.0MP)
3.8MP - Nikon D3x (1.0 crop, 24.4MP)
4.0MP - Canon 40D, 400D (1.6 crop, 10.1MP)
4.4MP - Nikon D90 (1.5 crop, 12.2MP)
4.4MP - Nikon D300 (1.5 crop, 12.2MP)
4.9MP - Canon 450D (1.6 crop, 12.2MP)
5.4MP - Pentax K20D (1.5 crop, 14.5MP)
6.0MP - Canon 500D (1.6 crop, 15.1MP)
6.0MP - Canon 50D (1.6 crop, 15.1MP)

[Kym]

Here is an updated list, <snip>

So the top Birding cameras are Canon and Pentax
And the best Nikon is the D300 (which Seesee has)
Nice!
BTW the new Pentax K-7 has the same sensor dimensions as the K20D albeit a new design and faster frame rate.

[ving]

hahaha!!! i have one of the worst birding cameras!

[I @ M]

hahaha!!! i have one of the worst birding cameras!

Me too David, but we know that a good photo achieved by the challenge of the equipment handicap and the skill involved in getting closer to the subject beats one made by technological brilliance.

[ving]

Me too David, but we know that a good photo achieved by the challenge of the equipment handicap and the skill involved in getting closer to the subject beats one made by technological brilliance.

yup, just makes us better than them

[Tannin]

So the top Birding cameras are Canon and Pentax.

Well, insofar as pixel density goes, yes. But this isn't the only factor to consider, of course. As you go up the pixel density scale, you gradually get less return on higher resolution. So, yes, there is a difference between (for example) the 40D and the 50D, but it isn't huge.

The biggest factor of all is lenses, which for birding purposes can be rated #1: Canon, #2: Nikon, #3: Pentax. After that, I think you'd probably go for AF performance and pixel density. AF performance is pretty much just a matter of spending lots of money - the best AF performers are all expensive. And pixel density is covered above.

[mcdesign]

It is all a bit over my head but does that mean that the Nikon D90 is OK too as it is the same as the D300?

[Kym]

It is all a bit over my head but does that mean that the Nikon D90 is OK too as it is the same as the D300?

yes!

[mcdesign]

OK, so now I neeeeeeeeeeed a good lens

[Kym]

Colin has a Tokina 300mm with a 1.4 converter.

Maybe a Sigma APO120-400 F4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM ?

[Sar NOP]

Sar Nop(what happened to him? ) has posted fabulous images taken with this combo in the past!

I'm still alive...too busy in making money...for living.

I haven't read all the posts, but interesting point of views.
My obsolete 4Mpx still produces stunning image quality, even with heavy crop (the Nikon D2Hs is the DSLR which has the biggest gap between pixels !).
I have tried both D700 and D300 (birds shooting) : in heavy crop the files from the D700 (FX mode) look better than those from the D300. The high resolution of the D300's sensor requires top quality lenses and perfect techniques if you want to get good quality crop. Otherwise IQ will fall very quickly.
I don't know much about theory but personally I'm always convinced that pixel quality is better than pixel density...for bird photography anyway.

[mcdesign]

Colin has a Tokina 300mm with a 1.4 converter.

Maybe a Sigma APO120-400 F4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM ?

The last is what Andrew has recommended...now to save