Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Macro Talk 
Thread started 11 Apr 2017 (Tuesday) 15:25
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Which Canon body for Macro?

 
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
9,547 posts
Gallery: 439 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 22215
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Jun 06, 2017 11:36 |  #76

Wilt wrote in post #18372330 (external link)
CofC's by definition are rather arbitrary in size...the reason being that all of us have different levels of visual acuity. In a continuum of blur, even a single observer might construe a certain blur circle size to be 'acceptable' one day but 'blurred' on another day!
CofC size in the industry assumes a FLAWED and rather POOR visual acuity in an observer of the standard 8 x 10" print viewed from 12" away. Someone with 20/20 visual acuity could look at a photo and say 'blurred' whereas the person with 'manufacturer standard' vlsual acuity would judge "that looks 'in focus' to me".

Agreed.

There is a benefit to having a standard definition of CofC, but we need to realize it is arbitrary.


Sony RX10 IV, Canon 7D2, Canon 90D, assorted Canon lenses
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK
Donate to POTN here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
42,261 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2759
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 2 years ago by Wilt. (3 edits in all)
     
Jun 06, 2017 11:39 |  #77

Archibald wrote in post #18372251 (external link)
Focal length DOES affect DOF, but the differences are insignificant at macro distances, and small at most other distances. The differences become more noticeable at large distances. That's what that equation shows. That's why focal length needs to be in the equation, to account for the effect generally at all distances.

Let me quote a few different sources

https://www.dpreview.c​om …ield-in-macro-photography (external link)
"In macro photography, however, DOF depends primarily on just two factors: aperture value and magnification. "

https://en.wikipedia.o​rg/wiki/Depth_of_field (external link)
"DOF is determined by subject magnification at the film / sensor plane and the selected lens aperture or f-number. "

http://www.cambridgein​colour.com/tutorials/m​acro-lenses.htm (external link)
"Note that depth of field is independent of focal length; a 100 mm lens at 0.5X therefore has the same depth of field as a 65 mm lens at 0.5X, for example, as long as they are at the same f-stop. Also, unlike with low magnification photography, the depth of field remains symmetric about the focusing distance (front and rear depth of field are equal)."

If you simply use this macro DOF calculator, you will see the LACK of any significant effect of FL. Similarly we say that FL does not change DOF for conventional photography when the subject size in the frame is the same, but the reality is 'miniscule differences' in DOF exist.

  • 100mm FL on 50mm extension tube shot at f/16, focus 0.4m results in magnification of 1.5X and a DOF zone of 1.0067mm
  • 50mm FL on 25mm extension tube shot at f/16, focus 0.2m results in magnification of 1.5X and a DOF zone of 1.0067mm

...it is the SUBJECT MAGNIFICATION in the shot that matters, and aperture used for the shot

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
9,547 posts
Gallery: 439 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 22215
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Jun 06, 2017 12:08 |  #78

Wilt wrote in post #18372347 (external link)
Let me quote a few different sources

https://www.dpreview.c​om …ield-in-macro-photography (external link)
"In macro photography, however, DOF depends primarily on just two factors: aperture value and magnification. "

https://en.wikipedia.o​rg/wiki/Depth_of_field (external link)
"DOF is determined by subject magnification at the film / sensor plane and the selected lens aperture or f-number. "

http://www.cambridgein​colour.com/tutorials/m​acro-lenses.htm (external link)
"Note that depth of field is independent of focal length; a 100 mm lens at 0.5X therefore has the same depth of field as a 65 mm lens at 0.5X, for example, as long as they are at the same f-stop. Also, unlike with low magnification photography, the depth of field remains symmetric about the focusing distance (front and rear depth of field are equal)."

If you simply use this macro DOF calculator, you will see the LACK of any significant effect of FL. Similarly we say that FL does not change DOF for conventional photography when the subject size in the frame is the same, but the reality is 'miniscule differences' in DOF exist.

  • 100mm FL on 50mm extension tube shot at f/16, focus 0.4m results in magnification of 1.5X and a DOF zone of 1.0067mm
  • 50mm FL on 25mm extension tube shot at f/16, focus 0.2m results in magnification of 1.5X and a DOF zone of 1.0067mm

...it is the SUBJECT MAGNIFICATION in the shot that matters, and aperture used for the shot

I agree with you, Wilt. Taking the opportunity to agree when possible! :-)

Just to cite another example:

Crop sensor
Magnification 0.1x
Aperture f/8
CofC 0.02 mm
Same framing.

For a 100mm lens, the DOF is 9.6010 mm; for a 50mm lens, the DOF is 9.6020 mm. So there is a difference, but it is insignificant and would never be apparent in practice.

This kind of result allows some to claim there is NO focal length effect, and others to say that there IS a focal length effect.

I will leave it to those who are interested to decide on the virtues of citing DOF to four decimal places!


Sony RX10 IV, Canon 7D2, Canon 90D, assorted Canon lenses
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK
Donate to POTN here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ECC233
Goldmember
Avatar
4,341 posts
Gallery: 146 photos
Likes: 804
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Switzerland
Post edited over 2 years ago by ECC233. (2 edits in all)
     
Jun 06, 2017 14:54 as a reply to  @ Archibald's post |  #79

I hate to come back in to this firestorm that I have inadvertantly initiated:eek:

Uncharacterstically, I am less concerned with the discussions of DOF and field of view and so on, but more with image quality.

My championing of the 5dsr was simply because imho (which means very subjectively) I can get better IQ and resolution by cropping the FF 50 mp images than from crop factor or micro 4/3. My ultra portable rig is Olympus OM1 mkii with 100mm (200 mm ff equivalent). I am extremely happy with the results, but I also know ("know"?) that I would get cleaner results with the FF and 100 mm.

At the end of the day, we are lucky to have such good choices and the important thing is to get out and use our gear.

Ed


Ed
Galleries at https://bugsrus.smugmu​g.com

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
9,547 posts
Gallery: 439 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 22215
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Jun 06, 2017 15:37 |  #80

ECC233 wrote in post #18372495 (external link)
I hate to come back in to this firestorm that I have inadvertantly initiated:eek:

Uncharacterstically, I am less concerned with the discussions of DOF and field of view and so on, but more with image quality.

My championing of the 5dsr was simply because imho (which means very subjectively) I can get better IQ and resolution by cropping the FF 50 mp images than from crop factor or micro 4/3. My ultra portable rig is Olympus OM1 mkii with 100mm (200 mm ff equivalent). I am extremely happy with the results, but I also know ("know"?) that I would get cleaner results with the FF and 100 mm.

At the end of the day, we are lucky to have such good choices and the important thing is to get out and use our gear.

Ed

What you say is very on-topic and potentially important, for those considering format size for their macro work. But I have to ask you, is your subjective opinion just confirmation bias? Can others tell a difference in A-B comparisons if they don't know which pic was done on the larger format? I would like to know!


Sony RX10 IV, Canon 7D2, Canon 90D, assorted Canon lenses
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK
Donate to POTN here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
42,261 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2759
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 2 years ago by Wilt. (2 edits in all)
     
Jun 06, 2017 16:30 |  #81

Assuming all the equipment in the world were available to choose from at no cost (and not worrying about expensive any system to acquire) I would tend to want to shoot macro in Medium Format (645, x6x) for these reasons


  1. still reasonably portable and easier to position, unlike large formats (6x7, 6x9, 4x5)
  2. Large enough film area/sensor area to permit capture of larger macro subjects at 1:1 size
  3. Largely the same methodogies as shooting with APS-C and FF/135 sizes, but able to capture larger subjects within the frame area at macro magnifications


OTOH medium format digital is attrociously expensive, or badly outdated when it is affordable; and medium format film emulsions are vanishing all too rapidly. My fallback would be to FF size for macro capture...bigger than 4/3 and APS-C for the same advantages of medium format over 135.

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Chris.R
Goldmember
2,670 posts
Likes: 107
Joined Jul 2016
     
Jun 06, 2017 16:51 |  #82

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18372205 (external link)
So where exactly does all of this math show up in better macro results from one body vs another again versus all the other more important things like tools/techniques/hardw​are tools like live view, IS/software/lenses, etc? :D

Kinda reminds me of the times we sit around as gearheads at the local hangout, and all these HP and TQ numbers are thrown around with mods that will add to this, and timing advances, different valve clearances, IAT, cam lobes, etc. It's all good and fun, but in the end when we go out to race, all that goes out the window, because it usually comes down to technique, experience, and a few other goodies not found in all those engine equations like type of tires used, shift patterns, etc really wins the race. ;)

I agree. It's just nice to know which direction things are going, or if they make any difference at all. The other 99% is the mushy bit 6" behind the viewfinder...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ECC233
Goldmember
Avatar
4,341 posts
Gallery: 146 photos
Likes: 804
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Switzerland
     
Jun 07, 2017 08:39 |  #83

Archibald wrote in post #18372533 (external link)
What you say is very on-topic and potentially important, for those considering format size for their macro work. But I have to ask you, is your subjective opinion just confirmation bias? Can others tell a difference in A-B comparisons if they don't know which pic was done on the larger format? I would like to know!

You are correct. I will try to put some images up for a blind test. I don't have a crop body at the moment, but I can probably compare OM1 mii with 100mm macro and 5Dsr with 180 mm macro after kludging the images top the same fov. I'll have to link to high res jpegs on smugmug for it to be fair as downrezzed won't help.


Ed
Galleries at https://bugsrus.smugmu​g.com

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ECC233
Goldmember
Avatar
4,341 posts
Gallery: 146 photos
Likes: 804
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Switzerland
     
Jun 07, 2017 08:43 |  #84

Wilt wrote in post #18372586 (external link)
Assuming all the equipment in the world were available to choose from at no cost (and not worrying about expensive any system to acquire) I would tend to want to shoot macro in Medium Format (645, x6x) for these reasons


  1. still reasonably portable and easier to position, unlike large formats (6x7, 6x9, 4x5)
  2. Large enough film area/sensor area to permit capture of larger macro subjects at 1:1 size
  3. Largely the same methodogies as shooting with APS-C and FF/135 sizes, but able to capture larger subjects within the frame area at macro magnifications


OTOH medium format digital is attrociously expensive, or badly outdated when it is affordable; and medium format film emulsions are vanishing all too rapidly. My fallback would be to FF size for macro capture...bigger than 4/3 and APS-C for the same advantages of medium format over 135.

Wilt

I was using a Pentax 645z for about a year for macro. Image quality was outstanding ... resolution the same as 5dsr but with the medium format bokeh. However, it was a right royal pain in the ass to use ..... big, not so many good constructive lighting options, big, limited lense choices without adaptors, big, expensive ... and did I mention that it was big? Pentax retained the body of the film body which made it big and full of empty space. I have been looking over my shoulder (when my wife isn't looking) and the new Fuji ... maybe if they have good lighting and sense options it might be interesting?


Ed
Galleries at https://bugsrus.smugmu​g.com

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
42,261 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2759
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 2 years ago by Wilt. (4 edits in all)
     
Jun 07, 2017 10:16 |  #85

ECC233 wrote in post #18373057 (external link)
Wilt

I was using a Pentax 645z for about a year for macro. Image quality was outstanding ... resolution the same as 5dsr but with the medium format bokeh. However, it was a right royal pain in the ass to use ..... big, not so many good constructive lighting options, big, limited lense choices without adaptors, big, expensive ... and did I mention that it was big? Pentax retained the body of the film body which made it big and full of empty space. I have been looking over my shoulder (when my wife isn't looking) and the new Fuji ... maybe if they have good lighting and sense options it might be interesting?

I know 645 format cameras, including the Pentax 645. I owned and used professionally the Bronica ETRSi and have a very complete system. I do not find 645 all that much larger than a dSLR, particularly if you use a waist level finder rather than a pentaprism (but I know your Pentax 645 does not have that option).

IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/Equipment/Bodysize-2_zpsa8iformi.jpg

...but I understand about the far greater depth of the body! Ergo the mirrorless afficianados vs. dSLR users 'battles' even for same size format.
OTOH, we should not forget that it is the photographer who is, by far, the bulkiest object behind the lens and who blocks the most light.

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

18,202 views & 12 likes for this thread
Which Canon body for Macro?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Macro Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is larrybutler
1272 guests, 344 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.