5d macro photography

Hi, will the full frame of the 5d be better for macro work as the crop is 1.0 compared to 1.3 or 1.6. I know the viewfinder will be bigger and brighter.

It seems to me that it will not be better, as you're losing some of the "telephoto effect" or "cropping effect", or whatever you want to call it.

yes, but the 5D has a sensor with more than 4MP over the 20d and ID mark II.

I would think the higher pixel density (8mp vs 5mp) of the 20D would be prefered for macro work
over the 5D, but the 5D has the bigger/brighter viewfinder for critical macro focusing. Tough
choice.

20D has smaller pixel size which means it'll yeild better detail.

If that is right there will be no point in going for a 12million pixel camera then??

By your logic the Pro-1 out-resolves the lot! I think not. Statements like that generally come from those trying to justify their choice.

Yes thats easy to say with some number crunching used as a formula but I think when you lay prints side by side out of both cameras it wont be the case .

Rod

I'm sure the resolution would be better. Your thinking that since the sensor is larger, that the pixels are spread out over a larger area across your photographs. This isn't really the case. If you take a FF pic of a flower with a 1.6, then take a FF pic of the same flower at 1.0 the pixel density will be the same. (Except for differences in the body's MP's of course...) You'd simply have to change difference between you and the subject.

I would assume that the biggest difference when using a 1.0 body will be that you'll need to move in closer to the subject. Which, would kinda suck. With my sigma 150 at 1:1, I get around 9ish inches of working distance. Having that cut back would totally drive me insane.

(Please correct me if I'm mistaken in anything I just said. )

It all depends on what sort of macro photography you're going to do. Flowers and other inanimate
objects you can get closer to with the FF body and put more MP on target. When you're talking about butterflys, moths, and other insects you want some working distance in order to not
disturb them, that's when the 20D with crop can put it's denser pixels to use.

Same thing regarding prints. Match the FOV and the FF body will win, once you start cropping
the 20D wins.

For some clarification on this thought process, read this article.

http://www.bobatkins.c​om …/canon_eos_5d_o​r_20d.html

Although a 20D and a 1DMkII both have higher pixel density on the sensor than does a 5D, when you take the same subject framing, enlarged to the same dimension print, you'll see that in the case of these two particular sensors, with their stated pixel densities, you invert the advantage when you enlarge to beyond the breakeven size. This is due to the "enlargement ratio" of image sensor size to final print size, which cancels the raw pixels per sq. mm. advantage.

If you would even notice my signature, I don't even own a 20D, so I have nothing to "justify" lol. Pixel size is based upon Dpreview's review.

>For some clarification on this thought process, read this article.
>http://www.bobatkins.c​om/photograph..._5d_or​_20d.html

Excellent article about the pros and cons of the 20D and 5D. Although the writer was
extolling the virtues of the 20d with super teles, I think the real advantage is in the
midrange teles where you can save a huge amount weight and size going the 20D
route. Think about the difference between a 135 f2 and a 200 f1.8, or a 200 f2.8
and a 300 f2.8.

Boy, would it be nice to have a 1D like body with a 1.6x crop sensor.

One other advantage to using a FF sensor for macro work if the ability to use f16 without suffering a visable softening due to diffraction.

Try the same subject with f11 to f22 using something like the Canon 100mm Macro on the 20D. At f11 the depth of field is too narrow for insects but where it is sharp it is really sharp. At f16 there is getting close to enough DoF but none is as bitingly sharp as at f11.

Unfortunately I don't have access to a FF sensor camera to test the difference myself

So unless you are always working at or near the limit IMO the benefits of the FF sensor far outweigh those of the 1.6x crop sensor for macro work.

Getting back to jerry's original question, I have a thought about macro photography and sensor sizes.

Most macro lenses specify a distance from the front lens element at which an object will be replicated full size (1:1) on the focal plane of the attached camera.
Just for grins, let's assume that one was photographing a beetle that was oh, I don't know, 35mm long.
at that lens' 1:1 macro focal length, the focal plane image of that beetle would be 35mm wide.
Keeping the lens at it's 1:1 macro distance:
On a sensor that was 22.5mm wide (20D), you'd have about 2/3 of that beetle in the image.
On a sensor that was 28.7mm wide (1DMkII), you'd have about 3/4 of that beetle in the image.
On a full-frame sensor (36mm) you'd have the whole beetle.
Granted, on the smaller sensors, you have "zoomed" on the beetle by cropping off the ends, but in order to show it all, you must "step back" from the subject, increase the distance from the lens, and use less than the lens' best macro range to see the whole object on the image sensor at once. Of course, if the object is less than 22.5mm (20D) or 28.7mm (1DMkII), you are at 1:1 macro range with the respective camera/sensor.
My only point is that if the lens' field of view matches the sensor at 1:1, you are theoretically getting the best macro capabilities of that lens at that distance, on that sensor.
If you want to print the captured image at sensor size, the 20D wins hands down. It has more (sensor) pixels per (printed) inch at that size than any other Canon DSLR.
A 22.5x14.8mm picture is somewhat less than "wallet size".
As you enlarge the image, things change. At 72mm wide, a printed image from a full frame sensor is only printing at twice the size of the sensor that recorded it. The same size print from a 22.5mm sensor is now at 3.2 times the size of the sensor that recorded it. You are now printing at 48.6 sensor pixels per mm of output print (20D) and 38.12 sensor pixels per mm of output print (5D). Advantage - still goes to the 20D.
A 72mm wide image is just barely beyond "wallet size".
Now, let's get beyond a 72mm wide print to something you might really do.
Maybe you want to print your beetle at 10" wide.
10" is about 254mm. At 254mm of printed output, a 22.5mm sensor image has been blown up to 11.28 times its original width.
The same image from a 5D sensor is now at 7.05 times its original width.
The 20D image is now being printed at 13.8 sensor pixels per mm of printed output.
The 5D image is now being printed at 17.3 sensor pixels per mm o printed output.
Advantage - 5D.
The ratio gets worse the larger you go from that point, and realistically, at anything below about a 9" wide print, the 20D still holds the advantage for pure resolution, even if you have to "back up" to get the "whole beetle" in the image.
If you print any larger, the 5D, or 1DSMkII have the advantage.

Of course, we don't shoot 35mm beetles, and we don't shoot all of our macro shots at the 1:1 sweet spot of our macro lenses. These were selected only to illustrate the comparison using fixed numbers to avoid subjective and arbitrary results.

YMMV