In the old days (~Canon 5D mark 1, 1Ds Mark II), the point of going full frame was less noise and better DOF (higher focal length/big aperture lenses have better DOF than equivalent field of view on crop cameras).You could also get better wide angle lenses from full frame cameras.

Nowadays, I don't feel there's much to get out of full frame other than bling. Since your subject is mostly sports, you probably need more "reach" from a crop frame and shutter rate. Modern sensors are so good nowadays that measurebating on pixel-pixel noise and lens sharpness is irrelevant compared to the emotion evoked by the rest of the image.

A full-frame sensor will give you better images when shooting in low-light conditions. If you primarily shoot in daylight, you may not need a full-frame camera.

I have both full-frame (Canon 5D Mark III) and crop sensor (Canon SL1) cameras. In bright light, you'd be hard pressed to find a difference in the images.

Also, a full-frame camera is likely to have features and capabilities that a crop sensor camera doesn't. My SL1, for example, has a shutter speed limit of 1/400 sec., while my 5D Mark III can go 1/2000 sec. (When you're shooting, for example, boats going 120+ mph less than 30 yards away, you need that faster shutter speed.)

What do you mean by "reach" from a camera body?

I really, really like the term "measurebating." Because that's exactly what I do haha.

PM ggeiger. He's a full-time triathlon photographer. If he doesn't see this thread, I would encourage you to reach out to him for this type of technical advice.

---

DFL > DNF > DNS

When I say "reach".
Take a Nikon 70-200mm at 200mm.
The angle of view at 200mm looks different on a D7000 (1.5x crop factor) vs a D700 (full frame).
On the crop factor, you'll appear closer than on the full frame with the same lens.

Canon has a good comparator tool.

https://www.learn.usa.canon.com/...fov-comparator.shtml

So, you get more "reach" with a crop camera than an equivalent focal length on a full frame.

You can achieve the same affect taking a full frame image and cropping in. But, more noise, loss of resolution, yadda yadda.

If you want validation to spend money, do what makes you happy :)

I say this as a former photo nut, turned wedding photographer to get people to pay me for my hobby. Then I got into tri, and nobody will pay me to get better at Tri :(

Ahhh yes, ok. Yea I rented an 80-400 this past weekend in Whistler and that was not a great choice. Too many people all over the place for long, zoomed shots (esp. with the crop factor) and couldn't really take in the landscapes at all. Need to learn better working around a walking zoom...ha

I think for Tri/cyclists, the hot shots are from the side. Maybe that is true for runners too.

It's too easy to get people from the front, with helmet number/bin number in view. But those aren't very interesting perspectives.

The shots that sell are from the side.

If you can get in a nice position with an interesting background, and sun behind you (to light your subject), you'll get shots that sell or at the minimum look really cool.

Fast lenses (f/2.8 or lower) are a must to get stop motion, especially if your subject is under shade. The fast lenses also usually autofocus faster. Being able to meter light manually helps consistency between your shots (an athlete in all black vs an athlete in all white will fool your camera meter).

Have fun!

Depending on the camera, less noise at higher ISO and better resolution.

When they talk about "reach" as in 35mm equivalent angle of view for a given focal length, keep in mind that you can also crop down the FF image to get a similar angle of view, particularly because it is likely to be higher resolution - not always but in general terms this is why you would use a larger sensor. It's just like going medium or large format for film. So, if I was a wildlife photographer shooting photo's of bears half a mile away, I could chose a smaller sensor camera and have smaller and lighter lenses and a smaller image circle on the sensor, or FF with bigger, more expensive lenses. But a 500mm lens creates the same image in camera whether you put it on a FF or APS camera, the difference being that the APS camera only uses a part of the image (for a FF size lens) and then when you view it is is blown up. Assuming the same pixel density of the sensors, the APS camera is just cropping the image, which you could do with the FF image if you wanted as well.

As for less noise at higher ISO, the real advantage for sports shooter is that you can shoot at a narrower aperture which will give more depth of field. I would not want to be shooting bike riders at F2.8 because it creates focus challenges and potentially only part of the rider will be in focus. By moving to a higher ISO you can still run a fast shutter speed but increase the depth of field to where focusing is much easier or not even critical. Of course PRO level cameras are pretty good at focusing so it isn't written in stone.

From a practical standpoint....it makes you feel superior to the other photographers with their toy camera...you've got the PRO stuff so you are automatically better than them. People will know your a pro by the size of your camera gear.

I shoot Olympus m43 and it is perfectly adequate for everything I do. My best photos get printed no larger than 22x17 and m43 sensors are perfectly fine for that, and the lenses are much smaller, if not cheaper.

More good info, thanks. This all helps me understand the "crop factor" quite a bit better. I knew of the term and the effect before, but could never really understand why it was happening...

Interestingly, I felt like a Fred on Monday after the awards ceremony for Canada (Ironman) as I had my little body and a big lens and this guy asked me to take a photo of him and his family with his full frame Canon with a 35mm lens on it. I don't know Canon well enough to know what body it was, but it felt massive and awesome compared to my little D7000.

Totally agree, side pictures are definitely the go-to on the bike. But, depending, frontal pictures can actually be really cool. One of my favorite pics of me racing (yes, vanity) is a head on shot from a 70.3 a couple of years ago. The longer zoom lenses (like that 80-400 I mentioned) felt MUCH slower than the 2.8 I had a month ago. The autofocus wasn't as fast and the fact that the zoom wasn't contained within the lens (I don't know how to describe what I mean, but the 80-400 had the zoom move the lens in an out but the 70-200 was all within the lens) were both noticeable and kind of annoying.

Of course, that 70-200 was a 3500$ lens (which isn't even THAT much compared to the super lenses). A body is "easier" to buy than a lens like that. But yea, mostly what I need is practice. Over a day of racing I "only" took about 500 pics. Need to take more and experiment more..

Take it from a pro who shoots with full frame and crop sensor bodies - crop sensor is still my go-to for anything sports. Nothing like a 1.6x (I am a Canon Professional Services member) factor to help tighten up the subject or blow out the background. It would shock my pro contemporaries, but I shoot most sports in AV (Aperture Priority) at F4-5.6 depending on the background, and set my ISO depending on the sport. I am not really concerned with noise from ISO, because in Canon's case the higher ISO's (3200-12000) have decent grain structure that can help the photo in some shots.

As you can imagine, I run into a lot of amateurs while shooting, who ask "Should I buy this?" or "Should I buy that?" Many of them (it may be because I live around Research Triangle Park and they have disposable income) feel that they have to have the latest full frame 14 fps 4k body with a giant white 300mm, 400mm or 600mm F2.8 lens to get those great shots. Let me tell you, I have had those big lenses and in the case of the body which I have, you won't even come close to using it as it was designed to. I bought one of those Pro bodies recently thinking I needed all those bells and whistles, and I don't use 1/2 the features that I thought I would. My point it, get to know the equipment you have - it's just like training, where the more you do it, the better you become at it. At the point where you feel you have progressed, then go buy a low-mileage pro-sumer or pro body if you have the coin. Personally, I would buy whatever Nikon's pro line of lenses is in a 70-200 or a straight 300, but not in the F2.8 version - the F4 or F4-5.6 or even F6.3 are just as good and much, much cheaper! You will immediately see a difference in focus speed when you step up to that line of lenses.