(Megapixels) War...what is it good for....

[Joel Eade]

Getting it "right" in camera has definite advantages and huge crops often degrade image quality.

I use cropping for creating a more pleasing composition and I suspect this is a very common practice but if it degrades the quality much I will either not crop it or delete it entirely.

With bird photography my goals are to get a good pose, good background as well as properly exposed and very sharp image in camera.

Extreme cropping is not an issue for most of my bird pictures because with my set up I have complete control of my distance to subject so I will not require a large crop.

In the field this is not always possible and in this situation it may be beneficial to have more megapixels or a longer lens or both!

[Fast Glass]

In the field this is not always possible and in this situation it may be beneficial to have more megapixels or a longer lens or both!

Absolutely, if I had the means I be using a 800mm L and 1200mm L with a 1DX III and a high resolution FF. Maybe even a high res 1.6 for nutty reach. Probably Mirrorless because of the killer EVF for manual focusing with really dark apertures.

[Kayaker72]

Extreme cropping is not an issue for most of my bird pictures because with my set up I have complete control of my distance to subject so I will not require a large crop.

Actually Joel, I have been admiring even what I consider to be subtleties of your set up. For example, I have a longish stick mounted to the vertical rod of the bird feeder. My issue, I never know what part of the stick they are going to land on. Probably 70% of the time when they do land on it, I do not even get a shot off as I by the time I recompose slightly, they've already jumped to my feeder. Also, I am impressed by how many birds notice my even slight movements. The female cardinal in particular does not like it.

But, your current set up, a nice point. Subtle, but I am already thinking of how to incorporate it into my set up.

[Joel Eade]

I run into the same issue, especially with horizontal perches, where it can be hard to predict where birds will land.

Additionally they often immediately jump to the feeder or to the ground leaving no time to move the camera and get a shot.

One technique that works for horizontal perches.... use a limb with lots of small branches and trim a few to create a space for perching where you want it.

Vertical perches are a bit more predictable as birds like to land at the top but the woodpeckers often land lower, scurry quickly to the top and then jump to the feeder. Also the woodpeckers often hide on the far side of the vertical perch and just peek out. Every so often one will perch in a good position and be still for a few moments. ( I use a couple of cheap plastic Christmas tree holders for my vertical perches )

Leaning a vertical perch will encourage birds to land in a favorable position as well.

You are correct about motion ... Cardinals here are also very sensitive to motion.

Another trick (which I have not done for a while) is to drill a small hole and fill it with seed or suet .... birds will of course perch there to feed.

I have about 4 acres of woodland and a small creek behind the house so there is an ample supply of perches laying on the ground close by.

[Fast Glass]

Boy, we sure got derailed! First we
were talking about high MP and then moved on to more fun things. Birding. Haha.

[Joel Eade]

Guess we did stray a bit from the original thread .... too much fun to discuss gear and birds

[Kayaker72]

Just updating this table with the actual R5 pixel counts. Only a very minor change.

Camera	Megapixels	Horizontal Pixels	Vertical Pixels	Horizontal PPI at 24 inches	Horizontal PPI at 24 inches	Horizontal inches at 150 ppi	Vertical inches at 150 ppi	Horizontal inches at 300 ppi	Vertical inches at 300 ppi
5DIII	22.3	5760	3840	240	160	38.4	25.6	19.2	12.8
5DIV	30.4	6720	4480	280	187	44.8	29.9	22.4	14.9
1DX III	20.2	5472	3648	228	152	36.5	24.3	18.2	12.2
R5	45	8192	5472	341	228	54.6	36.4	27.3	18.2
Rumored High MP	82.7	11136	7424	464	309	74.2	49.5	37.1	24.7
7D	18	5184	3456	216	144	34.6	23.0	17.3	11.5
M3	24.2	6000	4000	250	167	40.0	26.7	20.0	13.3
M6 II	32.5	6960	4640	290	193	46.4	30.9	23.2	15.5
G7X II	20	5472	3648	228	152	36.5	24.3	18.2	12.2

With small birds, I am finding myself some of the time cropping down to ~1/9th of the frame. Smaller than that, regardless of the number of pixels, AF precision and the grain/size of noise becomes more of an issue. So, I also played with those numbers:

Camera	Horizontal Pixels	Vertical Pixels	Megapixels	Horizontal PPI at 24 inches	Vertical PPI at 24 inches	Horizontal inches at 150 ppi	Vertical Inches at 150 ppi	Horizontal Inches at 300 ppi	Vertical Inches at 300 ppi
5DIV	2240	1493	3.3	93	62	14.9	10	7.5	5
R5	2731	1821	5	114	76	18.2	12.1	9.1	6.1
Rumored R"HP"	3712	2475	9.2	155	103	24.7	16.5	12.4	8.2
1DX III	1824	1216	2.2	76	51	12.2	8.1	6.1	4.1
M6 II	2320	1547	3.6	97	64	15.5	10.3	7.7	5.2

So, take it as you will. I think, if I do get a new camera, my next camera will be more about AF speed/tracking/precision. Personally, it really would take something extreme like the rumored "High MP" camera to make much of a difference to me in terms of megapixels. If Canon could pull that camera off with even 5 or 6 fps, then you could still get a 24x16 inch print at 150 ppi when taking 1/9th of your frame, which is amazing. Granted. I only have about 8 of prints the size of 24x16 around my house and most where taken with either my 7D or 5DIII.

I also have to say, I am appreciating the M6 II more and more, which is why I am willing to take it as my second camera to Yellowstone. If you want pixels on target, it is hard to beat.

[Joel Eade]

I also have to say, I am appreciating the M6 II more and more, which is why I am willing to take it as my second camera to Yellowstone. If you want pixels on target, it is hard to beat.

Excellent point. I suspect being a 1.6 crop sensor helps out in this regard.

I think number of pixels on subject is one key to rendering great details in bird photography.

I wonder how the R5 and R6 will compare when shooting in 1.6 crop mode?

Everything I have seen so far shows the AF tracking to be stellar with the R lenses.

[Kayaker72]

Excellent point. I suspect being a 1.6 crop sensor helps out in this regard.

I think number of pixels on subject is one key to rendering great details in bird photography.

I wonder how the R5 and R6 will compare when shooting in 1.6 crop mode?

Everything I have seen so far shows the AF tracking to be stellar with the R lenses.

Yes, everything that I am seeing is very positive. While I apply the marketing grain of salt, people are legit excited and AF is getting mentioned a lot as a big surprise. Playing with the M6 II, it is impressive. I am going to do a little comparison thread as soon as I am ready.

I am most curious about the file size in "crop mode." If it is ~20 MB, that is interesting. But, what I've seen from other crop modes, even the "S" modes, is they do not save all that much memory. File sizes are still large. I do appreciate CRAW. From what I have seen, little to no image degradation and a significant reduction in file size. If file size is a factor, seems like a reasonable alternative. More memory savings that I typically see when I've tried the smaller memory sizes.

But, yes, the pixel density of the M6 II is equivalent to 82.5 MP in a FF camera. So, in terms of pixels on target, it is a significant difference and I am seeing some nice results.

[Joel Eade]

But, yes, the pixel density of the M6 II is equivalent to 82.5 MP in a FF camera. So, in terms of pixels on target, it is a significant difference and I am seeing some nice results.

Have you tried the 500mm with an adapter on the M6II ?