Kenco tubes on FF or Crop for better (Closer) results??

Kenco tubes on FF or Crop for better (Closer) results with a 50mm or any lens??

It's certainly a viable, affordable alternative to buying more lenses. A 20mm tube on your 50mm lens gives you a 70mm lens, and will cost you about 2/3 of a stop of light. A 36mm tube gives you an 86mm lens, and costs you about a stop and a third. It's surely worth a try.

Crop uses less of the lens with the same minimum focus distance, so in theory, it should get you "closer" by putting more pixels on target.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #16355382
It's certainly a viable, affordable alternative to buying more lenses. A 20mm tube on your 50mm lens gives you a 70mm lens, and will cost you about 2/3 of a stop of light. A 36mm tube gives you an 86mm lens, and costs you about a stop and a third. It's surely worth a try.

Thanks.. But I know that. my question is.. Do you get closer with Crop or FF??

robertwsimpson wrote in post #16355391
Crop uses less of the lens with the same minimum focus distance, so in theory, it should get you "closer" by putting more pixels on target.

Ok, cheers

If you're cropping the image down after you take it, it's more about pixel density than sensor size, but as a general rule, crop sensors are more pixel dense than full frame ones.

If you're using the whole frame without cropping the image file, a crop sensor will be closer, because it's a tighter crop of the whole image circle. does that make sense?

Neither. Minimum focusing/ working distances will be identical. And at that distance, the image size on the sensor will be identical.

One difference, as Robert says, is pixel density. FF cameras generally have much lower pixel density, which is what allows them to have larger photosites and lower noise. Because the image size will be identical on the two sensors, this means that the crop will have far more pixels on the subject. I haven't done the arithmetic for a while, but I believe that with a 5DII and 7D, the FF has roughly 40% as many pixels on the subject.

There is a difference in reach, which is another matter. That is, suppose you want to fill the frame with a bug and move closer until you accomplish that. You will be further away with the crop because of the smaller field of view. However, there is no reason to use tubes unless you are near or at minimum working distance, so reach is not relevant then.

paddler4 wrote in post #16355944
Neither. Minimum focusing/ working distances will be identical. And at that distance, the image size on the sensor will be identical.

One difference, as Robert says, is pixel density. FF cameras generally have much lower pixel density, which is what allows them to have larger photosites and lower noise. Because the image size will be identical on the two sensors, this means that the crop will have far more pixels on the subject. I haven't done the arithmetic for a while, but I believe that with a 5DII and 7D, the FF has roughly 40% as many pixels on the subject.

There is a difference in reach, which is another matter. That is, suppose you want to fill the frame with a bug and move closer until you accomplish that. You will be further away with the crop because of the smaller field of view. However, there is no reason to use tubes unless you are near or at minimum working distance, so reach is not relevant then.

huh, I never really thought about that last part. then again, I don't have extension tubes... but I have been lusting after them for a while. Now I can lust less.