R5, R6, or wait for a crop mirrorless

[John K]

I am an amateur macro photographer who does not focus stack, and I have always shot with crop factor cameras because I can fill the frame with the subject at a lower magnification than shooting full frame. Since actual (not perceived) depth of field in macro is strictly a function of the Fstop and the magnification being able to shoot at a lower than full frame mag gives me more depth of field. Hopefully that is at least as clear as mud...

I normally do not crop in post, having been taught in the late 80s to do all of my framing and composition with the view finder (lots of advantages to not cropping). But due to my technique once I get close to a critter odds are I will not be able to back out and make changes to the camera without spooking the subject. So if I need tighter framing I am better off cropping in post. Recently I discovered that Photoshop Elements 2022 can scale an image to its original pixel count if the aspect ratio of the crop is the same as the original image. So I can crop my 80D photos and not only does the detail hold up but I still have a 24MP image after cropping. The field of view in this example is almost half of the original image:

Tech Specs: Canon 80D (F14, 1/250, ISO 100) + a Canon MP-E 65mm macro lens (set to over 2x) + a diffused MT-26EX RT (E-TTL metering with -1/3 FEC). This is a single, slightly cropped, frame taken hand held. In post I used Topaz Sharpen AI and Clarity in that order.

So now I am sitting here wondering what would be the pros and cons of cropping R5 and R6 images. I could wait and see if Canon releases a crop factor mirrorless camera, or take advantage of the fast AF and tracking of the R5/6 now for those rare times when I shoot natural light closeups.

Tech Specs: Canon 80D (aperture priority F8, 1/800, ISO 800) + a Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II with IS on. E-TTL metering, (-2/3 EV). This is a single, uncropped, frame taken hand held. In post I used Topaz Sharpen AI and Clarity in that order.

So for someone who is gonna crop full frame images to at least a 1.6x crop factor and up-scale them which sensor would give me the best image quality the R5 or the R6? In my head I want to say the R5 since there would be more pixels to scale (17MP verses the R6's roughly 8MP). So maybe I have already answered my own question. If someone has an R5 or and R6 and can crop + up-scale to the original pixel count I would be interested in seeing what the final shots look like.

--
Also known as Dalantech
My New Book: https://www.blurb.com/b/11015692-extreme-macro-the-art-of-patience-volume-ii
My Blog: http://www.extrememacro.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
Macro Tutorials: http://dalantech.deviantart.com/gallery/4122501/Tutorials
Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder...

 

[palane]

The R crop may stay a rumour for a long time, only the insiders know.

Both the bodies are excellent, so if you have the cash, make the splash.

 

[John K]

The R crop may stay a rumour for a long time, only the insiders know.

Both the bodies are excellent, so if you have the cash, make the splash.

Thanks

 

[TukTuk]

The R crop may stay a rumour for a long time, only the insiders know.

Both the bodies are excellent, so if you have the cash, make the splash.

this country runs on credit !

 

[palane]

Ammendment

Cash/Credit card

 

[Bigger]

I am an amateur macro photographer who does not focus stack, and I have always shot with crop factor cameras because I can fill the frame with the subject at a lower magnification than shooting full frame. Since actual (not perceived) depth of field in macro is strictly a function of the Fstop and the magnification being able to shoot at a lower than full frame mag gives me more depth of field. Hopefully that is at least as clear as mud...

DoF is a function of the f/stop of the base lens. So, if you like to work with a 1.6x crop, you could shoot with either the R5 or R6 with a 1.4x TC, which gets you close to the same reproduction ratio (with a little extra room). All the TC does is spread the image out over a larger sensor area, so you can almost fill the full frame with the same subject as a crop sensor.

This will decrease your effective f/stop by 1 full stop, but that doesn't matter because you are still capturing the same amount of light from your base lens, just over more pixels. You will need to double the ISO to compensate, but your final images will have roughly the same noise at the same final image scale because you have captured the same light.

I normally do not crop in post, having been taught in the late 80s to do all of my framing and composition with the view finder (lots of advantages to not cropping). But due to my technique once I get close to a critter odds are I will not be able to back out and make changes to the camera without spooking the subject. So if I need tighter framing I am better off cropping in post. Recently I discovered that Photoshop Elements 2022 can scale an image to its original pixel count if the aspect ratio of the crop is the same as the original image.

If you are upscaling the image, you are not adding detail (unless you are also using AI, which adds false detail to make the image look better than it is). The aspect ratio is irrelevant to the upscale results.

So I can crop my 80D photos and not only does the detail hold up but I still have a 24MP image after cropping.

You still have a 24Mp image, but it doesn't have a full 24Mp worth of true detail.

 

[robgendreau]

Consider the lenses.

As with any shooting, a 50mm on full frame is like a 35mm on crop. So if you're using a 50mm macro on say your 80D and that gives you enough distance then you might need a 100mm macro on FF (there being more of those than say 85mm macros).

I shoot a lot of macro on M43 for the reasons you describe; sort of the opposite of folks who get a ff and fast lens to get narrower DOF.

Why switch now though? the camera you have is quite nice and should do macro well.

If you want even more macro-ness try something like the Laowa 100mm 2.8 2x EF macro. I just tried it on an R6 and it was a fun lens (I had to return it because it's the chipped version, and the R6 saw it as a crop lens and only shot in crop mode). The 2x macro is quite awesome. The 15mm f4 macro isn't 2x, but is quite unique, given not only super close macro but includes tons of background. The the shift mechanism on it works better on an APS-c.

So I'd wait.

 

[Ozark Bill]

John, after hearing nothing but rumors about a supposed “R7” or cropped sensor mirrorless, I finally had enough and broke down. I picked up an R5 around the new year. So far I’m really enjoying it although it’s not perfect. In general, after following you and your shooting style for years, I think you’d be better off with the R5. Those extra MP will be nothing but a benefit when you’re wanting to crop.

I haven’t tried the kit for macro yet but am looking forward to it.

 

[John K]

I am an amateur macro photographer who does not focus stack, and I have always shot with crop factor cameras because I can fill the frame with the subject at a lower magnification than shooting full frame. Since actual (not perceived) depth of field in macro is strictly a function of the Fstop and the magnification being able to shoot at a lower than full frame mag gives me more depth of field. Hopefully that is at least as clear as mud...

DoF is a function of the f/stop of the base lens. So, if you like to work with a 1.6x crop, you could shoot with either the R5 or R6 with a 1.4x TC, which gets you close to the same reproduction ratio (with a little extra room). All the TC does is spread the image out over a larger sensor area, so you can almost fill the full frame with the same subject as a crop sensor.

This will decrease your effective f/stop by 1 full stop, but that doesn't matter because you are still capturing the same amount of light from your base lens, just over more pixels. You will need to double the ISO to compensate, but your final images will have roughly the same noise at the same final image scale because you have captured the same light.

I am not really looking to increase the magnification because that will cause the depth of field to drop (aperture remaining a constant).

I normally do not crop in post, having been taught in the late 80s to do all of my framing and composition with the view finder (lots of advantages to not cropping). But due to my technique once I get close to a critter odds are I will not be able to back out and make changes to the camera without spooking the subject. So if I need tighter framing I am better off cropping in post. Recently I discovered that Photoshop Elements 2022 can scale an image to its original pixel count if the aspect ratio of the crop is the same as the original image.

If you are upscaling the image, you are not adding detail (unless you are also using AI, which adds false detail to make the image look better than it is). The aspect ratio is irrelevant to the upscale results.

Elements will not upscale unless the aspect ratio of the crop is the same as the aspect ration of the original image. I am not trying to add detail, but simply keep the pixel count high for large prints.

So I can crop my 80D photos and not only does the detail hold up but I still have a 24MP image after cropping.

You still have a 24Mp image, but it doesn't have a full 24Mp worth of true detail.

I know. But the results, at least with the 80D, look pretty good.

Tracking a moving subject like that one at 2x mag is pretty tough. If I do not have to be precise with the framing I can put more attention into where I am placing the area of acceptable focus.

--
Also known as Dalantech
My New Book: https://www.blurb.com/b/11015692-extreme-macro-the-art-of-patience-volume-ii
My Blog: http://www.extrememacro.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
Macro Tutorials: http://dalantech.deviantart.com/gallery/4122501/Tutorials
Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder...

 

[John K]

Consider the lenses.

As with any shooting, a 50mm on full frame is like a 35mm on crop. So if you're using a 50mm macro on say your 80D and that gives you enough distance then you might need a 100mm macro on FF (there being more of those than say 85mm macros).

I do not understand what you mean. If you are talking about working distance then it will not change between sensors. If you mean the field of view, well, I know that the field of view will change and that is why I am talking about cropping. I have over 3,400 images in my Flickr gallery but only seven of them are cropped...

I shoot a lot of macro on M43 for the reasons you describe; sort of the opposite of folks who get a ff and fast lens to get narrower DOF.

If I could get the same nose performance and dynamic range out of a M43 camera I would get one -great for macro due to the tight crop! But the balance with the MP-E 65mm would be way off.

Why switch now though? the camera you have is quite nice and should do macro well.

There are times when I am shooting at 1x and I need more room. Took me way too many frames to get this little one in the scene without clipping its wings:

If you want even more macro-ness try something like the Laowa 100mm 2.8 2x EF macro. I just tried it on an R6 and it was a fun lens (I had to return it because it's the chipped version, and the R6 saw it as a crop lens and only shot in crop mode). The 2x macro is quite awesome. The 15mm f4 macro isn't 2x, but is quite unique, given not only super close macro but includes tons of background. The the shift mechanism on it works better on an APS-c.

So I'd wait.

Thanks for the advice! I shoot 99% of my insect macro with Canon's MP-E 65mm, occasionally switching to the EF-S 60mm when the MP-E breaks. The working distance of using a longer lens works against me due to needing to get the flash close to the subject (better light quality, easier to freeze motion). I do not get close to everything that I try to shoot, but I either eventually figure out how or I find a cooperative critter. Or I use a syringe to inject some Agave nectar into a flower and offer it to a hungry bumblebee:

Tech Specs: Canon 80D (F13, 1/250, ISO 100) + a Canon MP-E 65mm macro lens (set to about 1.5x) + a diffused MT-26EX-RT, E-TTL metering, -2/3 FEC. This is a single, uncropped, frame taken hand held.

--
Also known as Dalantech
My New Book: https://www.blurb.com/b/11015692-extreme-macro-the-art-of-patience-volume-ii
My Blog: http://www.extrememacro.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
Macro Tutorials: http://dalantech.deviantart.com/gallery/4122501/Tutorials
Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder...

 

[John K]

John, after hearing nothing but rumors about a supposed “R7” or cropped sensor mirrorless, I finally had enough and broke down. I picked up an R5 around the new year. So far I’m really enjoying it although it’s not perfect. In general, after following you and your shooting style for years, I think you’d be better off with the R5. Those extra MP will be nothing but a benefit when you’re wanting to crop.

I haven’t tried the kit for macro yet but am looking forward to it.

Thanks, was thinking the same. Now I gotta decide if I want to spend over 4K on something that is just a hobby or wait, probably toward the end of this year, for an "R7".

I am interested in hearing what you think of using the R5 for macro.

Are you from the Ozarks? I grew up in Mt. Vernon, Mo. It is a town that is about half way between Springfield and Joplin on I-44.

--
Also known as Dalantech
My New Book: https://www.blurb.com/b/11015692-extreme-macro-the-art-of-patience-volume-ii
My Blog: http://www.extrememacro.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
Macro Tutorials: http://dalantech.deviantart.com/gallery/4122501/Tutorials
Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder...

 

[Bigger]

I am an amateur macro photographer who does not focus stack, and I have always shot with crop factor cameras because I can fill the frame with the subject at a lower magnification than shooting full frame. Since actual (not perceived) depth of field in macro is strictly a function of the Fstop and the magnification being able to shoot at a lower than full frame mag gives me more depth of field. Hopefully that is at least as clear as mud...

DoF is a function of the f/stop of the base lens. So, if you like to work with a 1.6x crop, you could shoot with either the R5 or R6 with a 1.4x TC, which gets you close to the same reproduction ratio (with a little extra room). All the TC does is spread the image out over a larger sensor area, so you can almost fill the full frame with the same subject as a crop sensor.

This will decrease your effective f/stop by 1 full stop, but that doesn't matter because you are still capturing the same amount of light from your base lens, just over more pixels. You will need to double the ISO to compensate, but your final images will have roughly the same noise at the same final image scale because you have captured the same light.

I am not really looking to increase the magnification because that will cause the depth of field to drop (aperture remaining a constant).

No, DoF is set by the base lens, not the extender behind the lens, other things equal. You are not really increasing the effective magnification with TC+FF because the sensor is also getting bigger. The circle of confusion gets bigger along with the projected image on the sensor, so that cancels out in the final image.

I normally do not crop in post, having been taught in the late 80s to do all of my framing and composition with the view finder (lots of advantages to not cropping). But due to my technique once I get close to a critter odds are I will not be able to back out and make changes to the camera without spooking the subject. So if I need tighter framing I am better off cropping in post. Recently I discovered that Photoshop Elements 2022 can scale an image to its original pixel count if the aspect ratio of the crop is the same as the original image.

If you are upscaling the image, you are not adding detail (unless you are also using AI, which adds false detail to make the image look better than it is). The aspect ratio is irrelevant to the upscale results.

Elements will not upscale unless the aspect ratio of the crop is the same as the aspect ration of the original image. I am not trying to add detail, but simply keep the pixel count high for large prints.

So I can crop my 80D photos and not only does the detail hold up but I still have a 24MP image after cropping.

You still have a 24Mp image, but it doesn't have a full 24Mp worth of true detail.

I know. But the results, at least with the 80D, look pretty good.

Tracking a moving subject like that one at 2x mag is pretty tough. If I do not have to be precise with the framing I can put more attention into where I am placing the area of acceptable focus.

If you are happy with the results, that's what really matters. But don't fool yourself into thinking you can make something from nothing. Whatever detail was captured in camera is all you have to work with in post (AI aside).

BTW, another reason to go with R5/R6 is focus bracketing. That would let you try focus stacking since it makes the capture side effortless. But even if you decide that you don't want to do focus stacking for artistic reasons, having the focus bracket will let you pick the area of acceptable focus in post. The R5 (and I assume the R6) actually racks in a few micro-steps before racking out however many steps you program. It's all done instantly and silently with the electronic shutter. So, you only need to set the focus plane approximately, and the camera will give you a range either side to pick from later.

 

[Mike Engles]

With your kind of photography, you will use the EVF a great deal and not necessarily take a of of shots. At the best setting, my R5 uses 1% battery every minute. For the lower refresh, it uses half that. If you use Canon lenses and use manual, you will get all the focus aids, but not if you magnify. Basically you will have to use the camera as you use your present camera. My R5 produces very fine files, but is noisy after 1600, unless you fill the frame.To use cropped or all the frame in essence, is I think no different from cropping in post and you have some margin for aesthetic reasons. You can use cropped mode that mimics a cropped camera

This is a very un exciting uncropped R5 frame at 3200 using a LED light and a 38mm Olympus macro with a 65 115 tube at F11 and a RF adaptor for OM.

Mag is about 2+, I used x6 mag in the EVF to focus.No sharpening, Default LR 6 noise reduction. To be able to magnify the EVF is really good, even though I find in general that the EVF comes no where near a OVF in terms of quality.

PS DPP crops all images

You do get IBIS which seems effective.

 

[A_Mist]

I actually find it better to do macro with crop sensor. Eventhough I do have new RF 100mm macro lens, I still shoot a lot with m43 (E-M5.3 and M.Zuiko 60mm f2.8 macro lens). One of the reasons has to do with DoF, one is longer FL - and one is the huge difference between size and weight.

 

[John K]

I am an amateur macro photographer who does not focus stack, and I have always shot with crop factor cameras because I can fill the frame with the subject at a lower magnification than shooting full frame. Since actual (not perceived) depth of field in macro is strictly a function of the Fstop and the magnification being able to shoot at a lower than full frame mag gives me more depth of field. Hopefully that is at least as clear as mud...

DoF is a function of the f/stop of the base lens. So, if you like to work with a 1.6x crop, you could shoot with either the R5 or R6 with a 1.4x TC, which gets you close to the same reproduction ratio (with a little extra room). All the TC does is spread the image out over a larger sensor area, so you can almost fill the full frame with the same subject as a crop sensor.

This will decrease your effective f/stop by 1 full stop, but that doesn't matter because you are still capturing the same amount of light from your base lens, just over more pixels. You will need to double the ISO to compensate, but your final images will have roughly the same noise at the same final image scale because you have captured the same light.

I am not really looking to increase the magnification because that will cause the depth of field to drop (aperture remaining a constant).

No, DoF is set by the base lens, not the extender behind the lens, other things equal. You are not really increasing the effective magnification with TC+FF because the sensor is also getting bigger. The circle of confusion gets bigger along with the projected image on the sensor, so that cancels out in the final image.

DoF, in macro, is strictly a function of Fstop and magnification. By macro I mean actually shooting at 1x to 10x magnification as determined by the size of the subject when projected onto the sensor. At the same magnification and Fstop I get the same depth of field with every macro lens and every sensor. Circle of Confusion does not make much of a difference in macro.

I normally do not crop in post, having been taught in the late 80s to do all of my framing and composition with the view finder (lots of advantages to not cropping). But due to my technique once I get close to a critter odds are I will not be able to back out and make changes to the camera without spooking the subject. So if I need tighter framing I am better off cropping in post. Recently I discovered that Photoshop Elements 2022 can scale an image to its original pixel count if the aspect ratio of the crop is the same as the original image.

If you are upscaling the image, you are not adding detail (unless you are also using AI, which adds false detail to make the image look better than it is). The aspect ratio is irrelevant to the upscale results.

Elements will not upscale unless the aspect ratio of the crop is the same as the aspect ration of the original image. I am not trying to add detail, but simply keep the pixel count high for large prints.

So I can crop my 80D photos and not only does the detail hold up but I still have a 24MP image after cropping.

You still have a 24Mp image, but it doesn't have a full 24Mp worth of true detail.

I know. But the results, at least with the 80D, look pretty good.

Tracking a moving subject like that one at 2x mag is pretty tough. If I do not have to be precise with the framing I can put more attention into where I am placing the area of acceptable focus.

If you are happy with the results, that's what really matters. But don't fool yourself into thinking you can make something from nothing. Whatever detail was captured in camera is all you have to work with in post (AI aside).

BTW, another reason to go with R5/R6 is focus bracketing. That would let you try focus stacking since it makes the capture side effortless.

Stacking is not possible with the subjects that I photograph since most of them are in motion, or will not stick around long enough. Plus I like to use key and fill lighting and it causes too many stacking artifacts.

--
Also known as Dalantech
My New Book: https://www.blurb.com/b/11015692-extreme-macro-the-art-of-patience-volume-ii
My Blog: http://www.extrememacro.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
Macro Tutorials: http://dalantech.deviantart.com/gallery/4122501/Tutorials
Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder...

 

[John K]

With your kind of photography, you will use the EVF a great deal and not necessarily take a of of shots. At the best setting, my R5 uses 1% battery every minute. For the lower refresh, it uses half that. If you use Canon lenses and use manual, you will get all the focus aids, but not if you magnify. Basically you will have to use the camera as you use your present camera. My R5 produces very fine files, but is noisy after 1600, unless you fill the frame.To use cropped or all the frame in essence, is I think no different from cropping in post and you have some margin for aesthetic reasons. You can use cropped mode that mimics a cropped camera

This is a very un exciting uncropped R5 frame at 3200 using a LED light and a 38mm Olympus macro with a 65 115 tube at F11 and a RF adaptor for OM.

Mag is about 2+, I used x6 mag in the EVF to focus.No sharpening, Default LR 6 noise reduction. To be able to magnify the EVF is really good, even though I find in general that the EVF comes no where near a OVF in terms of quality.

PS DPP crops all images

You do get IBIS which seems effective.

Have you used focus peaking in the EVF when shooting macro and if so how well does it perform for you?

IBIS will not help much since the duration of the flash is short enough to freeze motion most of the time.

--
Also known as Dalantech
My New Book: https://www.blurb.com/b/11015692-extreme-macro-the-art-of-patience-volume-ii
My Blog: http://www.extrememacro.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
Macro Tutorials: http://dalantech.deviantart.com/gallery/4122501/Tutorials
Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder...

 

[John K]

I actually find it better to do macro with crop sensor. Eventhough I do have new RF 100mm macro lens, I still shoot a lot with m43 (E-M5.3 and M.Zuiko 60mm f2.8 macro lens). One of the reasons has to do with DoF, one is longer FL - and one is the huge difference between size and weight.

If the M43 cameras had better dynamic range and noise performance I would get one. Kinda spoiled with the image quality I am getting from the 80D.

--
Also known as Dalantech
My New Book: https://www.blurb.com/b/11015692-extreme-macro-the-art-of-patience-volume-ii
My Blog: http://www.extrememacro.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
Macro Tutorials: http://dalantech.deviantart.com/gallery/4122501/Tutorials
Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder...

 

[Mike Engles]

With your kind of photography, you will use the EVF a great deal and not necessarily take a of of shots. At the best setting, my R5 uses 1% battery every minute. For the lower refresh, it uses half that. If you use Canon lenses and use manual, you will get all the focus aids, but not if you magnify. Basically you will have to use the camera as you use your present camera. My R5 produces very fine files, but is noisy after 1600, unless you fill the frame.To use cropped or all the frame in essence, is I think no different from cropping in post and you have some margin for aesthetic reasons. You can use cropped mode that mimics a cropped camera

This is a very un exciting uncropped R5 frame at 3200 using a LED light and a 38mm Olympus macro with a 65 115 tube at F11 and a RF adaptor for OM.

Mag is about 2+, I used x6 mag in the EVF to focus.No sharpening, Default LR 6 noise reduction. To be able to magnify the EVF is really good, even though I find in general that the EVF comes no where near a OVF in terms of quality.

PS DPP crops all images

You do get IBIS which seems effective.

Have you used focus peaking in the EVF when shooting macro and if so how well does it perform for you?

IBIS will not help much since the duration of the flash is short enough to freeze motion most of the time.

IBIS is good for helping to stabilise the EVF when framing.

I really cannot see the peaking, try as I might. Also all such aids disappear when you magnify the EVF. It is supposed to highlight sharp edges in a choice of colours.

 

[A_Mist]

I actually find it better to do macro with crop sensor. Eventhough I do have new RF 100mm macro lens, I still shoot a lot with m43 (E-M5.3 and M.Zuiko 60mm f2.8 macro lens). One of the reasons has to do with DoF, one is longer FL - and one is the huge difference between size and weight.

If the M43 cameras had better dynamic range and noise performance I would get one. Kinda spoiled with the image quality I am getting from the 80D.

Yes, when I take my big gun RF 100mm macro out, I love the results.

This little fellow was hard to catch while flying…

…but then he finally took a short break

 

[Bigger]

DoF, in macro, is strictly a function of Fstop and magnification. By macro I mean actually shooting at 1x to 10x magnification as determined by the size of the subject when projected onto the sensor. At the same magnification and Fstop I get the same depth of field with every macro lens and every sensor. Circle of Confusion does not make much of a difference in macro.

Yes, for a given sensor this is true. But when comparing different sensor sizes, you need to establish your point of reference. If you will be cropping a FF sensor to APSC, either in camera with a 1.6x crop, or in post, then you will get the same DoF regardless. If you use a 1.4x TC on FF and crop to the same dimensions as APSC, you will also get the same DoF in your final image. But you will get twice as many pixels, which will improve color detail (whether you will actually see it depends on your final reproduction ratio and viewing distance).

Stacking is not possible with the subjects that I photograph since most of them are in motion, or will not stick around long enough. Plus I like to use key and fill lighting and it causes too many stacking artifacts.

You may find that stacking is possible with focus bracketing in camera on the R5/R6. The camera shoots the set with the electronic shutter, which is up to 20 fps. That won't help with your artificial lighting, but may work when you have suitable natural lighting and a subject that stays still for a few 20ths of a second.