Macro on FF Vs APS-C

[FlyingPhotog]

Sorry, no pics so Mods feel free to move this at will but I wanted to ask the Macro community a question:

I have the EF 100mm f/2.8 and I'm wondering do you get more 'effective' Macro magnification on a crop body (40D) than you do on a FF (5D?)

Thanks in advance...

[Jon]

Not really, no. The lens will still give 1:1 magnification at closest focus on either; the only difference will be in the area the different sensors cover.

You'd get the same area results by cropping a 5D image to match the 40D sensor size. Any difference in enlargeability will be due to pixel density differences. The 40D will give you more pixels per mm^2, but you may capture more lens aberrations and sensor noise in the process.

[Wilt]

For some people, classically 'macro' means photographing something to a specific level of magnfication on the captured image (film)....like 1/2 size is 1:2 reproduction ratio, so that a 1" tall object fills 1/2" of the frame height. In that case, the FF image has some space around the 1/2" tall object, while the APS-C image has no space around the same 1/2 tall object!

For other people (usually novices) 'macro' usual only means 'very close up' and the precise magnification ratio is meaningless. So they would mount the 100mm lens, and get the 1" tall object to fill half of the 1" tall FF sensor, or they would mount the same 100mm lens and stand 1.6x farther back so that the same 1" tall object fills 1/2 of the 15mm tall APS-C sensor (precise mag factor be dammed!)

[FlyingPhotog]

Thank You both very much...

[John_B]

FlyingPhotog,
Here is a quick example that shows the difference between a 5D FF and 10D 1.6 with 100mm f/2.8 lens

5D at 1:1


10D at 1:1

[FlyingPhotog]

Thanks for that John.

[rehype]

Originally Posted by John_B

FlyingPhotog,
Here is a quick example that shows the difference between a 5D FF and 10D 1.6 with 100mm f/2.8 lens

5D at 1:1


10D at 1:1

Thanks for that john!That totally just cleared up the difference between FF Vs. Crop for me.

[simak]

Originally Posted by John_B

FlyingPhotog,
Here is a quick example that shows the difference between a 5D FF and 10D 1.6 with 100mm f/2.8 lens

5D at 1:1


10D at 1:1

so the question is - will be the photo from 10D better, than if you crop 5D photo to same size?
P.S. i just want to buy 5d2, and thinking sell or keep my 40d (for macro and fast shooting)

[Wilt]

Originally Posted by simak

so the question is - will be the photo from 10D better, than if you crop 5D photo to same size?
P.S. i just want to buy 5d2, and thinking sell or keep my 40d (for macro and fast shooting)

I'll let YOU run the numbers...Calculate the number of pixels per sq.mm using the 10D sensor vs. the 5D sensor vs the 5DII sensor vs the 40D. Assume that all four use the identical lens; that way the only difference is the sensor used.

Assuming that all four are identically positioned from the subject, and the on-sensor repro ratio is 1:1, 1 sq mm of the subject is reproduced on 1 sq mm of the sensor...so which of the four has the highest density of pixels per sq mm, providing the highest quality of sensor resolution?

[simak]

Originally Posted by Wilt

I'll let YOU run the numbers...Calculate the number of pixels per sq.mm using the 10D sensor vs. the 5D sensor vs the 5DII sensor vs the 40D. Assume that all four use the identical lens; that way the only difference is the sensor used.

Assuming that all four are identically positioned from the subject, and the on-sensor repro ratio is 1:1, 1 sq mm of the subject is reproduced on 1 sq mm of the sensor...so which of the four has the highest density of pixels per sq mm, providing the highest quality of sensor resolution?

so 10d has 19950
40d has 32012
5d has 15390
5d2 has 25462
And you want to say, that the picture from 40d in equal situation (same position with same lens) will be better, then all others?
It can`t be so easy, is the pixel density (in equal situation again) - main thing in determining the quality of picture?

[Wilt]

Originally Posted by simak

so 10d has 19950
40d has 32012
5d has 15390
5d2 has 25462
And you want to say, that the picture from 40d in equal situation (same position with same lens) will be better, then all others?
It can`t be so easy, is the pixel density (in equal situation again) - main thing in determining the quality of picture?

Well, there is the topic of noise, but that primarily manifests at high ISO.

You often hear of 'reach advantage' to APS-C for detail in shooting small birds...that advantage is via the greater pixel density, because more pixels are used to capture the same bird at identical size on the sensor. Analogous to an advantage seen by using fine grain film emulsion vs a faster larger grain emulsion. If you were to blow up those pixels by 1.6x more to achieve same final print size (yes, subject would be 1.6x larger on the APS-C print), (divide the pixels per sq.mm by 2.56, to assess on-print pixel density), the 40D has fewer pixels per sq.mm on the final print, compared to the 5D. But if you crop the 5D image down and print the subject at the same magnification, the 40D beats even the 5DII.

Run the same calculation on the 50D and compare that.

[simak]

Originally Posted by Wilt

Well, there is the topic of noise, but that primarily manifests at high ISO.

You often hear of 'reach advantage' to APS-C for detail in shooting small birds...that advantage is via the greater pixel density, because more pixels are used to capture the same bird at identical size on the sensor. Analogous to an advantage seen by using fine grain film emulsion vs a faster larger grain emulsion. If you were to blow up those pixels by 1.6x more to achieve same final print size (yes, subject would be 1.6x larger on the APS-C print), (divide the pixels per sq.mm by 2.56, to assess on-print pixel density), the 40D has fewer pixels per sq.mm on the final print, compared to the 5D. But if you crop the 5D image down and print the subject at the same magnification, the 40D beats even the 5DII.

Run the same calculation on the 50D and compare that.

Hmmm....
So for what i wanna buy 5d2 then ?(it seems better only for portraits and landscapes +( high iso + video (which maybe will do the next 60d)) ) . maybe i`d need to wait 60d and see what will be there (maybe it will better then 50d).
Need to think more - before spend so much money. or buy 5d2 and after upgrade 40d->60d if it will be good. Ohhh god i stucked(get confused i mean)...
P.S. sorry for offtopic.

[LordV]

Simak - can only say i'm capturing far more detail with my 5D mk2 than I ever did with my 40D. Even shots cropped to 1.6X still seem to look better, but i am using it with an MPE-65 macro lens which obviously lets me zoom the magnification.
Brian v.

[Wilt]

Originally Posted by simak

Hmmm....
So for what i wanna buy 5d2 then ?(it seems better only for portraits and landscapes +( high iso + video (which maybe will do the next 60d)) ) . maybe i`d need to wait 60d and see what will be there (maybe it will better then 50d).
Need to think more - before spend so much money. or buy 5d2 and after upgrade 40d->60d if it will be good. Ohhh god i stucked(get confused i mean)...
P.S. sorry for offtopic.

These discussions oversimplify! In this case, we examine ONLY the factor of how many pixels capture an amount of subject. But an additional factor to always keep in mind is how large of a print you want to create...remember that FF camera will always be able to make a 1.6x larger print yet not tax the lens performance any greater than seen in the smaller print made from APS-C sensor with the identical lens. If you make big prints, size matters! But if you are like many amateurs who never make larger than 13x19" print, size does not matter!

The other thing to keep in mind is that in normal usage you do not use an identical camera position with the same lens...you back up 1.6x farther to frame the shot identically with APS-C as with FF dSLR. And in that situation, total pixel count becomes a factor once again, not pixel density per sq.mm

[simak]

Originally Posted by simak

so 10d has 19950
40d has 32012
5d has 15390
5d2 has 25462
And you want to say, that the picture from 40d in equal situation (same position with same lens) will be better, then all others?
It can`t be so easy, is the pixel density (in equal situation again) - main thing in determining the quality of picture?

so 1000D has 32012 too.
so 1000D > 5d2 . No way.
P.S. joking

Originally Posted by LordV

Simak - can only say i'm capturing far more detail with my 5D mk2 than I ever did with my 40D. Even shots cropped to 1.6X still seem to look better, but i am using it with an MPE-65 macro lens which obviously lets me zoom the magnification.
Brian v.

Heh. I think that the deal is not only in pixel desity, too.

Originally Posted by Wilt

These discussions oversimplify! In this case, we examine ONLY the factor of how many pixels capture an amount of subject. But an additional factor to always keep in mind is how large of a print you want to create...remember that FF camera will always be able to make a 1.6x larger print yet not tax the lens performance any greater than seen in the smaller print made from APS-C sensor with the identical lens. If you make big prints, size matters! But if you are like many amateurs who never make larger than 13x19" print, size does not matter!
The other thing to keep in mind is that in normal usage you do not use an identical camera position with the same lens...you back up 1.6x farther to frame the shot identically with APS-C as with FF dSLR. And in that situation, total pixel count becomes a factor once again, not pixel density per sq.mm

I understand it all. I think that even if you print A4 size - 40d is enough for that. Thanks for help and discussion.
I just need to buy it (5d2) and that is all . I will love it - i know it