Telephoto macro?

CheleA wrote in post #17510656
Now you got me confused, I was/am under the impression that one "advantage" of cropped sensor cameras was their added reach (1.6x) in relation to a full frame sensor, which is equivalent to 35mm film. I'm new to digital photography but am very familiar with photography in general. At least that is an argument I have seen people use to own a FF and cropped bodies.

Maybe I didn't state it very clearly. A 100mm lens used on a crop camera has a field of view that is equivalent to the field of view of a 160mm lens on a full frame.

Alternatively, a 62mm lens on a crop sensor has a field of view that corresponds to a 100mm lens on FF.

Lenses don't change focal length when mounted on different cameras, just as they don't change in diameter or weight when put on different bodies. A 100mm lens has a focal length of 100mm even when it is not mounted on any camera.

Fair enough, a pound of feathers is the same as a pound of lead, a pound is a pound. What I had meant was the equivalent in focal lengths. It appears we were both looking at it from different angles.

Archibald is correct, in that technically it's field of view equivalents were talking about. But for all intents and purposes you will see 1.6X more "reach" with a crop sensor, and with a macro lens it will seem as though you're getting more magnification. That's why many wildlife photogs and macro photogs like sticking to crop sensor cameras.

I have a crop (40D) and a FF (5DIII). If I crop the images from the FF to the equivalent object size on the crop, it's pretty hard to tell them apart; I believe the number of pixels on target are about the same. I've tried this with everything from moon shots with 150-600 + 1.4X teleconverter on both, to macro with my 100mm (with and without extension tubes). I just happen to prefer working with my 5DIII.

I think the subject has been pretty much resolved but if anybody wants more info on FOV, focal length, etc. There was a thread related to the issue that had some good info, Wilt was one of the members that seemed very knowledgable on the subject. I think one point that didn't get much attention was that lens characteristics, I believe, won't change much from crop to FF. I believe a crop using something around 20-50 would have more distortion and less compression than a FF using 35-80mm. I'm not smart though so please search before believing anything I say!

Nice set Gene

CanopicJar wrote in post #17631693
Nice set Gene

Thanks. I appreciate that. I now have a 'real' macro lens and am learning how to use it. I still tend to shoot larger objects and I hate to crop any of the detail away. No matter, I'm enjoying this new world of detail that has opened up to me.

I've been using the one in my signature today, it was lots of fun.