The first reaction of many looking at this title may likely be - what kind of silly comparison is that?! So here goes... Say you frequently shoot wildlife that more often than not involves cropping - even if you use 400/500 mil lenses. So let's say you use a 5DII (22mb) + 400mm lens @400 ISO to shoot a snow leopard at 100m (you got to be really lucky to get that close) or a Black Necked Crane at say 200m (they don't usually let you come any closer). These are pretty big animals but even so one will end up cropping by maybe 50%. If you are further away, maybe even 75% cropping may be required. If it were to be a Rose Finch even at 25m, maybe the crop would be much more severe. What I'm trying to get across is that most wildlife photography especially in difficult terrain involves heavy cropping. Given this reality, the question for pixel peepers and technically inclined photographers: Will the final image quality from a 5DII shot cropped to say 50% (= 11mb) be better that the image quality of a non cropped image from an 80D utilizing all the 24mb available and more efficient processor? The resulting image and composition of the 2 bodies - 5DII cropped to 50% and 80D non cropped - will be quite similar. However, the resolution and quality should differ. Happy to hear from someone who has really experimented along these lines...
My favorite wildlife photographer, Ahmet Amerikaly by his name on 500px, uses a Canon EOS 1200D (in the past he used an even older Canon camera) and a Sigma 70-300mm lens and his photos are sharp, colorful and with great composition. I think APS-C sensor cameras are more appropriate for wildlife photography
Ce fac Vasile?! Conclusion: It all depends finally on personal definition of 'quality'. As also the final use of the image. The Canon 1200D you mention is very low on the totem pole of Canon's cameras. It may suffice if all one wishes to do is put up images on the internet. If the aim is to enlarge the photo for an exhibition or to publish the photo in say Life magazine equivalent, the sensor quality is markedly indifferent in comparison to many other Canon cameras, let alone Nikon/Sony/Pentax. Ditto the Sigma lens. I seriously doubt intelligent and discerning people will be willing to spend several thousand dollars on Canon 1Dx and 5D MkIV series cameras or the Canon 300/400mm f2.8 if they could achieve similar results with the eqpt you mention. Its not the sensor size that matters so much as the quality and quantity of pixels on that sensor and the processing engine that decide quality. And so on... The best!
I totally agree that for printing and enlargement you need the best resolution you can afford. Canon 5DsR or Pentax K-1 and you are covered regarding resolution. But that man gets the maximum from his equipment, and is doing better for screen than others with full frame and a 400mm lens for printing. I presented him in contrast to the more capable cameras. If for magazine quality prints, an 80D is perfect for wildlife photography if you have the protection equipment and the patience to get a perfect composition for your subject.
