5d macro photography

It's funny you shoud bring this up...

I shoot the 1d MkII (1.3"X"- factor) and 20D (1.6 "X"-factor)

And it was just yesterday that I was discussing this with somone..

Never before shooting Macor has the differnece between these two sensor sizes and pixel densities been more apprent to me than when shooting Macro with the same lens...

the 20D allows you to get far more "frame filling" shots with the same lens .. and this is compared to a 1.3X... next to a Full frame?

50% more pixels, about 70% more frame area. If gaps between pixels remain constant, the pixel sizes won't change much.

Smaller pixels can mean more gain-per-pixel, therefore more noise.

Its effectively smaller pixel size given the same FOV.

So; I'd like to see the comparisons first, and strongly suspect significantly lower noise and greater effective detail.

Also; without the crop factor, the perspective distortion on wide angle shots will be less.

I hate that they didn't keep the flash because for casual use one may not have the external flash handy, but otherwise I would upgrade (from my 20D) in a heartbeat if I could affort it (which I can't for a while).

Curious; Does the 5D allow in-camera crop setting?

It will be better for me. I photograph flat art alot on a copy stand. The crop factor meant that it was virtually impossible to shoot anything bigger than about 12x15 on the stand with the 50mm macro. Now I will still be able to to 20 inch subjects on the stand. I'll go back to using the 90 macro for 3D objects to get better perspective.

The interchangeable focussing screens will make manual focussing a lot easier with the 5D.

thanks guys,(and girls) after reading the specs and at last understanding the pixels and equivalent crop factors between the 5d and the 20d i bought another 20d today. i sold my last 20d in anticipation of the 5d. The 20d, for me is still the right camera with the 1.6 crop factor its weight and of course the price!(would have liked a bigger viewfinder though!)

Pixels shmixels. With all respect, this is just a rehash of another post regarding 1.6 vs. FF.

Stop comparing the 20d, a camera I owned and was quite fond of, to a FF professional camera. There is no comparison.

I'd love to see one person here, with even a little bit of knowledge, no matter what kind of photography they engage in, if offered the 20D or a FF Canon, would walk away with the 20D. Come on, give me a break. With due respect to all.

mark

If you understand the pixel comparison and the distance to subject with a given lens comparing the two cameras then the 20d wins every time,especially in macro photography where you shoot live subjects!

20D's smaller sensor makes it more suitable for macro work because you get more DOF at shallower apertures... Also the pixel density is actually higher, so with the same lens you'd theoretically get a better picture.

But once you hit the diffraction limit, the quality is going to degrade significantly. I'd imagine the 60mm macro is going to show diffraction 2 stops earlier than 120mm macro and 4 stops earlier than 180 macro L.

Also, if you're shooting macro butterflies for quality, you'll get much better quality with 5D and 300mm with extension tubes. With 300mm you can stop down to f/32 and still get the same diffraction when shooting at f/5 with a 50mm prime. (read NONE)

Hi Doc, i agree, but in the field i would never be able to use apertures like f/32 because insects butterflies etc do not sit still long enough for long exposures.

That's why god invented flashes

Seriously though, you'll still be able to get better quality shots at lower F stops. And I bet 5D is going to have better high ISO performance than 20D.

The more photons, the more information you get to work with, ceteris paribus. 5D gets 2x the amount of light, hence the conclusion.