Which camera for macro work

I am selling off most of my EF-S lens but plan on keeping my 60D as back up camera. Would the 60D be better at macro work than my 5D3. I understand that there is a difference in the DOF between the two cameras

I guess the crop factor could help, but only in that you don't have to be as close to the subject. I would think it matters more that you have a macro lens like the 100mm f/2.8, which you do. What do you find limiting you with FF macro?

Lens definitely matters more than body for macro, as in anything. Extension tubes, focusing rails and macro lights are next. All of Canon's bodies are extremely capable--look in the macro photo sharing forum here and you'll see that the body is one of the least critical parts of the equation.

I'm kind of in the same boat, going from a 40D to 5DIII. I haven't had a chance to really use the new camera yet, or make any comparisons, but from the couple shots I've tried (macro), you might need to add some tubes with a FF to fill the frame the same as a crop (assuming you're at 1:1 and MFD with both bodies). I could be wrong.

As far as I can tell there is no difference in the DOF and if there is you can use another F/Stop. The working distance is the same. All that is different is the subject appears to be closer on a crop sensor because it is cropped.

The benefit of the FF at 1:1 comes when photographing larger subjects like Butterflies and Dragons, you are still able to frame them. The downside comes with smaller critters, they can get lost. But you can crop the photo and you will have exactly the same amount of detail as you would with a crop sensor image. Which is darned handy when you are as useless at framing as I am.

Snowyman wrote in post #15325218
As far as I can tell there is no difference in the DOF...

I had always thought there was, but have been reading lately that it's just not the case. I just found this (and other sites), which seem to confirm that there is no difference in DoF between FF and crop. But again, just going by what I've been seeing.

Snowyman wrote in post #15325218
As far as I can tell there is no difference in the DOF and if there is you can use another F/Stop. The working distance is the same. All that is different is the subject appears to be closer on a crop sensor because it is cropped.

The benefit of the FF at 1:1 comes when photographing larger subjects like Butterflies and Dragons, you are still able to frame them. The downside comes with smaller critters, they can get lost. But you can crop the photo and you will have exactly the same amount of detail as you would with a crop sensor image. Which is darned handy when you are as useless at framing as I am.

Gosh, I really don't want to go into this but it really does apply here.

Assuming you are working at 1:1 which is also the MFD of the lens (i.e. you can't get closer to get the framing the same) having an 18MP APS-c sensor will give you more detail than if you crop a 22MP FF sensor. After cropping the FF image you are left with approximately 8.5MP left in the image. If you think that 8.5=18 then I guess your statement is correct. Unless, of course you assume that the person using the crop camera would want to back off to match the framing of the FF camera. Kinda not the point of macro, but whatever.

As far as DOF, this is actually correct. DOF is a factor (primarily) of the lens used. Larger pixel size (which is the general case with a FF camera) has an effect as well but in general if the entire subject is within the DOF of the image taken on the crop camera it will also be so on the FF camera. It is just that the DOF will appear to be narrower on the FF image because it will take up less of the total frame. OK, folks pull out your DOF calculators an show how this is wrong. I know it is coming.

LV Moose wrote in post #15325290
I had always thought there was, but have been reading lately that it's just not the case. I just found this (and other sites), which seem to confirm that there is no difference in DoF between FF and crop. But again, just going by what I've been seeing.

There are two ways of looking at it.

Standing in the same position and using the same focal length and aperture, the crop camera actually has the slightly shallower DoF, because you have to enlarge the captured image more than you would with a FF.

However, we don't shoot like that, as the FF image will have a lot of wasted space around the subject.

If you intend to take the same picture, with the same framing, then you need to move in closer with the FF camera or use a longer lens, both of which will reduce the DoF, so the FF image will have about a stop and a third less DoF than the cropper.

So, those that say the sensor size doesn't change DoF are correct, so long as you keep all the parameters the same. Sensor size in itself does not alter DoF. However, using the longer lens or moving closer to get the same framing DOES alter DoF. So, in the real world, yes a FF camera will give you less DoF than a cropper, that is why point and shoot cameras have such massive DoF.

Copidosoma wrote in post #15325329
Assuming you are working at 1:1 which is also the MFD of the lens (i.e. you can't get closer to get the framing the same) having an 18MP APS-c sensor will give you more detail than if you crop a 22MP FF sensor. After cropping the FF image you are left with approximately 8.5MP left in the image. If you think that 8.5=18 then I guess your statement is correct.

I've seen this explained before, and have to agree.

I think adding extension tubes when using a FF, would be much better than cropping the image to get the same framing as with a crop body.

sandpiper wrote in post #15325350
However.... moving closer to get the same framing DOES alter DoF. So, in the real world, yes a FF camera will give you less DoF than a cropper.

Yes, so adding tubes in order to move closer, you would probably have to go from, let's say f/11 (my favorite for macro) on a crop to f/16 or so on a FF to help with the decreased DoF, correct?

At least I can go with a higher ISO on the 5DIII than I felt comfortable with on my 40D, to get the same shutterspeed (assuming f/11 on the crop, f/16 on the FF)

So many variables

Copidosoma wrote in post #15325329
Gosh, I really don't want to go into this but it really does apply here.

Assuming you are working at 1:1 which is also the MFD of the lens (i.e. you can't get closer to get the framing the same) having an 18MP APS-c sensor will give you more detail than if you crop a 22MP FF sensor. After cropping the FF image you are left with approximately 8.5MP left in the image. If you think that 8.5=18 then I guess your statement is correct. Unless, of course you assume that the person using the crop camera would want to back off to match the framing of the FF camera. Kinda not the point of macro, but whatever..

I'm not entirely convinced that my new to me but dated 5D's 12.8mp FF sensor gives me less detail than my 550D's 18mp sensor. Cramming more pixels on the APS-C may sound like good practice but they've had to do a bit of a fudge to get them all on. It is well known that they do not compete with lesser endowed Nikons.

Snowyman wrote in post #15325444
I'm not entirely convinced that my new to me but dated 5D's 12.8mp FF sensor gives me less detail than my 550D's 18mp sensor. Cramming more pixels on the APS-C may sound like good practice but they've had to do a bit of a fudge to get them all on. It is well known that they do not compete with lesser endowed Nikons.

There are some people who can look at a 35mm slide with a 10x loupe and see more detail than a 22MP digital camera can capture. I don't see it and I can't argue with them because I probably wouldn't change their mind anyways.

Post up an image taken at 1:1 with a FF and APSc camera and let us see the extra detail in the 5D.

Thank you all for the great input. Time to put both bodies to work and see what I come up with.