The best camera for macro?

Started Dec 27, 2012 | Discussions thread
brightcolours Forum Pro • Posts: 14,884
Re: APS-C has an advantage

dsjtecserv wrote:

brightcolours wrote:

APS-C magnifies more. If you have an 1:1 lens, APS-C (due to its smaller sensor) will magnify 1.6x more.

This isn't true.

Of course it is true.

Magnification refers only to the size of the image of an object relative to the actual object.

The image per mm sensor surface. Since a FF sensor is 36mm wide or so, and an APS-C sensor is 22mm wide or so, the APS-C image can be filled with a 22mm small object. The FF image can only be filled with a 36mm wide object. The 22mm wide object will not fill the FF image.

As I said, filling the frame has nothing do do with magnification. Magnification is the ratio of the size of an image of an object to the actual size of the object. That is not, and cannot, be affect by the size of the "canvas" on which the image is projected.

This doesn't change with sensor format; the image of a bug at 1:1 will be the same size as the bug, regardless of the amount of sensor surrounding it.

Not on the final photo. The bug will be bigger on the APS-C photo.

Magnification is concerned with the size of the image on the recording medium. If by "final pciture" you mean a print or monitor screen image, that is a function of enlargement, which is a different process. The bug can appear bigger or smaller in a print, simply depending on how much you choose to enlarge it, which has nothing at all to do with the magnification ratio at capture time. The original question is asking about the best equipment to use for capture, and thus concerned with optimizing the image recorded on the sensor.

Where full frame will allow a 36mm wide subject to fill the frame, APS-C will allow a 22mm wide subject to fill the frame.

Correct, and very useful, but not magnification.

That IS the magnification. The bug will be BIGGER on the APS-C image. More magnified.

The bug will not be bigger. It will occupy a larger proportion of the smaller APS-C frame, but the image the bug will be precisely the same size at 1:1 on any sensor size. And that is what magnification is; the size of the bug relative to the frame is not magnification is is only....framing.

Filling the frame has nothing to do with magnification, it just defines ​how much​ of the subject will be captured at any given magnification.

Of course it has to do with magnification. Magnification is only about how big the bug will be in a photo. Nothing else.

Read the link below.

That's useful in the same way that the longer equivalent focal length of a crop is always useful -- to help isolate the subject, etc. But that's different from magnification.

It is not different at all. The 1:1 magnification only says something about the projected image, not the captured image. Only the captured image is of importance to photographers, not the projected image.

???? I am at a loss for what difference you imagine between the image projected onto the sensor by the lens and the image captured by the sensor. Please read up on the topic in the link below.

And if the sensor has a higher pixel density -- as crop cameras often do -- then the image may be more enlargeable without loss of detail. That also gives a potential advantage to using a crop for macro.

Great pictures, by the way. I hated to delete them!

Thank you, nice to read that you like them!

Here's something to read up on magnification:

"We've seen in the examples above that sensor size can be used to calculate magnification, but the degree of magnification itself depends on focal length and subject distance exclusively (assuming that the lens is not used with any extenders or magnifying filters). Sensor size does not alter magnification. With a fixed focal length and subject distance, an APS-C sensor, for example would just crop the frame compared to a full-frame sensor, not enlarge it. Magnification is a property of the projection, regardless of the size of sensor (or film format) you are using. With a full frame sensor you'd just make calculations using 35mm as the sensor width instead of 22mm, but the subject would then be proportionally larger, cancelling out the sensor size difference." [emphasis added]

You keep thinking the magnification of the lens is the only thing the thing magnification applies to. This is incorrect.

"Magnification is the process of enlarging something only in appearance, not in physical size. This enlargement is quantified by a calculated number also called "magnification". When this number is less than one it refers to a reduction in size, sometimes called "minification" or "de-magnification".

Typically magnification is related to scaling up visuals or images to be able to see more detail, increasing resolution, using microscopeprinting techniques, or digital processing. In all cases, the magnification of the image does not change the perspective of the image."

Indeed, the smaller sensor does provide 1.6x more magnification of the object for the captured image. Whoever wrote that blurb on dpreview is not correct.

The smaller sensor does EXACTLY the same as an 1.6x TC will do. There is no difference. Yet, one thing you do consider "magnification" (the lens + TC), the other you do not consider magnification (lens with smaller sensor). The images will be exactly the same.

It is incorrect, to state that what I wrote is wrong. Magnification is just about how big a subject appears. The subject does not change itself. By shooting with a smaller sensor, and keeping the print size the same, you do magnify more. Same as with "zooming in" on an image on a computer screen... You do magnify more. I did not write that the magnification OF THE LENS would increase by using APS-C, I merely was talking about total magnification as seen on the image captured/printed.

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