Cropping-in vs. Longer Lens?

[S_J_P]

I'd like your participation in a little fun test please!

After a day of fettling, testing, and generally musing on photographic issues, I have just gone outside and shot two images of a cooperative Starling on a chimney stack. One is shot with a Sigma 150-500 at 500mm, the other is shot with a 70-200mm at 200mm and then cropped-in to give approximately the same field of view. I've then processed them both almost exactly the same in Lightroom, and then output them as attached (without the EXIF!).

Now, my question to you is : At typical screen-resolution is there an obvious difference between the two, and if so, which is "better"?
No.1:-

No.2:-


EOS 6D AV mode, ISO400, f/8, 1/1,000 & 1/750

[anderson.council]

Re: Cropping-in vs. Longer Lens?

OK I'll jump in feet first no doubt.

Veiwing on iPad 10 inch model. The detail on the chimney looks identical, possibly slightly more detail on the bird in the second shot but that may just be because it is showing more detail by pointing in a different direction (so maybe not a Co-op but common Tesco Starling ).

Scott

[Wayne Els]

Re: Cropping-in vs. Longer Lens?

I don't think there is a whole lot in it but I'd give the nod to number 2 too. Although saying that I think 1 has marginally better contrast. Very close though.

[jk224]

Re: Cropping-in vs. Longer Lens?

Nope, can't see any difference.

[AndyMulhearn]

Re: Cropping-in vs. Longer Lens?

The detail over all looks very similar but the bird is in a clearer position in the second so perhaps makes it look a better shot that it is at first glance. Looking again, I can't really see much difference between the two which is interesting in it's on right.

[Alan_H]

Re: Cropping-in vs. Longer Lens?

Can't see any obvious difference No2 is my choice but nothing in it

Alan

[tesarver]

Re: Cropping-in vs. Longer Lens?

Ok, in looking at the 2 images, the 2nd image the sky is a brighter/lighter blue. That being the case, the little grass on the left side of the image on top of the chimney, you see more of it in the 2nd image than the 1st. Also the bird has more detail in the 2nd image than the 1st. Base on that, I would vote for the 2nd image.

Tom

[colin C]

Re: Cropping-in vs. Longer Lens?

I go for number 2, but only because it is a more pleasing image.

[wayne2418]

Re: Cropping-in vs. Longer Lens?

Have to agree with the above ..its no 2 for me too.

[Nathaniel]

Re: Cropping-in vs. Longer Lens?

My nod too is for #2 mainly because of better feather details and colour. #1 is almost black if you notice. Having said that I would keep cropping to a minimum & Iam looking at a crop camera body as well- useful for certain types of pics such as small birds, BIF etc.

[Hereford_EOS]

Re: Cropping-in vs. Longer Lens?

#2 here too

[djguk47]

Re: Cropping-in vs. Longer Lens?

#2. The sky is a "truer" blue to my old eyes

[Montana 5]

Re: Cropping-in vs. Longer Lens?

Definitely no 1 for me...

The moss and lichen on the brickwork is sharper top to bottom.
Detail in the rust on the old TV Aerial hardware is clearer.
The sky is a slightly darker shade of blue.
On the top course of brickwork, the moss hair like spores are more definable against the blue sky.

Doug.

[S_J_P]

Re: Cropping-in vs. Longer Lens?

That's an interesting result!

The preferred second image is the Sigma 150-500's image, BUT I think the majority of people chose it because the Starling looks "nicer", and as Scott said, the chimney detail is almost identical in both images on-screen.

When viewed in Lightroom without Flickr's or the forums processing taking place, there is a difference in sharpness with the Sigma being softer on the lower three courses of bricks, but the bird is similarly detailed and sharp in both shots.

It surprises me that even a relatively extreme crop can yield results which are all but indiscernible on-screen

Not particularly scientific, but interesting nonetheless!

Thanks for participating!!

[Dave_S]

Re: Cropping-in vs. Longer Lens?

Hmm

VERY marginal Steve, if there's any difference at all that is.

If I had to choose, I would say that there is finer detail showing in No.2, but that's not conclusive, as the bird is at a different angle.

Dave