The best camera for macro?

Started Dec 27, 2012 | Discussions thread
bronxbombers4
Senior MemberPosts: 2,767
Like?
Re: The best camera for macro?
In reply to dsjtecserv, Dec 28, 2012

dsjtecserv wrote:

brightcolours wrote:

dsjtecserv wrote:

brightcolours wrote:

Peter too wrote:

What I am interested in is whether a full frame camera would produce a higher IQ than a crop. For example using the 65mm 1-5X would a photograph of a 5mm insect at 3X magnification on a 7D be better or worse than 5X magnification of the same insect on a 5D lll or 6D?

3X on a 7D, and 5X on 6D? Why the difference?

At the same distance, the insect will be BIGGER in the image with a 7D than with a 6D/5D. Exactly 1.6x bigger. More magnification in print with the 7D/60D/650D than with the 5D/6D at the same shooting distance.

No, this is again misleading. At the same distance, the size of image of the insect projected onto either sensor will be the same. The only difference will result from different degrees of enlargement of the sensor image. If you take uncropped frame of either the 7D or the 6D image and enlarge them to the same print size, then the bug will indeed be bigger, but only because you have extra "padding" around the bug in the 6D image, and thus did not enlarge as much. But if you crop the 6D image so that it has the same framing as 7D shot, then the degree of enlargement will be the same, and final bug sizes will be the same. I really just comes down to when you want to do your cropping: on the sensor or on the resulting image file.

Stop this nonsense, you are not correct about your narrow definition of "magnification". What I wrote is in no way misleading. I know very well the difference between the 1:1 magnification from the optics, and other factors that determine the magnification on the IMAGE ITSELF. That you want magnification and enlargement to be two totally different things is your problem, it does not make my post in any way misleading.

There will be no difference in quality, if you take equivalent photos.... (equivalent apertures and equivalent ISO settings). A bit complicated to explain.

There is at least the potential for better detail from the crop sensor image, because the pixel density will be higher, and thus there will be more "pixels per bug" applied. But the other factors affecting overall image quality aren't so easy to parse, and I agree with brightcolours that they are basically a wash.

The obvious difference will be the different field of view with the same lens. The FF cameras will show a wider view (and a smaller insect at same distance).

This boils down to the same argument as "reach" in discussions of long distance photography with cropped or full frame senors. I don't want to get into that, except to ensure that it is understood that the concept of magnification strictly applies to the size of the image of an object projected on the sensor compared to the object actual size, regardless of sensor size.

Nonsense. Magnification is not strictly the projection onto the image capturing plane. yes, lenses are expressed as 1:1 magnification on the sensor/film, because that is how to compare lens magnification. But we are talking images, photos, things that have NO relationship to the sensor size itself anymore after capture. Your narrow idea of what the word magnification encompasses is not complete.

BC, I've provided you with several references to the proper use of the term "magnification". So unless you think that "the whole world is out of step but me" then you really can't dispute that the term applies to the image projected onto and recorded on the sensor. Although you have changed your tune some what since, your original post claimed that the image would be bigger on a crop sensor, which is simply indefensible. No one, including me, would dispute that you can take the same size image from the sensor, and then enlarge it to different degrees and find that one image is larger than the other. Well, duh. But it is precisely to avoid this confusion that we carefully define magnification to refer to the relative size of the recorded image and the actual object. You can continue to use the term incorrectly and inconsistent with the well-documented definition, and I can't stop you, but other folks, including the OP deserve to understand the difference between magnification and subsequent enlargement. I think that has been accomplished.

Dave

although the pixels have no dimension themselves and the only thing about them is they only go as small as a single pixel so the final image, compared by pixel to pixel which is all that matters in the end, would give the extra mag factor if you compare all that matters in the end even if the projected mag doesn't change at all

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow