Are crop cameras better for macro?

S

Soulman

Messages
1,070
Name
Des
Edit My Images
Yes
Something I can't quite get my head round....

A 100mm macro lens on full frame would have a minimum focus distance of 25cm or so, this becomes a 150mm lens with the same minimum focus distance on a crop body. I assume it is still 1:1 and can't be a greater magnification, or can it? Is it still 1:1 on the sensor but just looking larger?:shrug::bang::cuckoo:

Someone explain it too me please!
 
a 1:1 macro lens will produce the same reproduction ratio regardless of Focal length on a crop sensor at 1:1 you would see the following if you took a picture of a ruller

1-1.jpg


on a full frame you would see 35mm - hang on - here we go 1:1 on a FF (excuse the quality)

1-1ff.jpg


So the magnification appears to be higher due to the field of view on the crop body.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for that, it's exactly the answer I was looking for, so it's 1:1 but a 100mm, on a crop body, gives the effect of a 150mm on a full frame
 
Soulman said:
Thanks for that, it's exactly the answer I was looking for, so it's 1:1 but a 100mm, on a crop body, gives the effect of a 150mm on a full frame
Click to expand...

No - a 1:1 lens on a crop body give s the same as 1.6:1 on a FF body, focal length has no effect on magnification :)
 
Last edited:
I think the answer to the OP's question "are crop cameras better for macro?" is probably yes. Depending on your prioities, but a cropper would be my weapon of choise.

Ignore magnification for a moment and consider how we actually work. For example, with a given lens of say 100mm, if you want to fill the frame with a wasp, using a cropper you won't have to move so close, hence greater working distance, and for a given f/number there would be greater depth of field (a bit over one stop) which is usually in very short supply with macro :)

That would swing it for me, and would override the only downside of slightly reduced image quality.
 
HoppyUK said:
I think the answer to the OP's question "are crop cameras better for macro?" is probably yes. Depending on your prioities, but a cropper would be my weapon of choise.

Ignore magnification for a moment and consider how we actually work. For example, with a given lens of say 100mm, if you want to fill the frame with a wasp, using a cropper you won't have to move so close, hence greater working distance, and for a given f/number there would be greater depth of field (a bit over one stop) which is usually in very short supply with macro :)

That would swing it for me, and would override the only downside of slightly reduced image quality.
Click to expand...

Personally after using both crop & FF for macro i prefer the FF especially with the MP-e , as for DOF you can use a larger aperture with FF before you start to see diffraction so what you gain in DOF on a cropped sensor is lost to sharpness at higher apertures
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
Personally after using both crop & FF for macro i prefer the FF especially with the MP-e , as for DOF you can use a larger aperture with FF before you start to see diffraction so what you gain in DOF on a cropped sensor is lost to sharpness at higher apertures
Click to expand...

It's only an opinion, but the advantage of greater working distance for a given focal length is usually an upside. On the DoF/diffraction thing, you can of course get the extra DoF on full frame by raising the f/number, but then you've also equalised the diffraction effect and loss of sharpness on that front so kind of moot. And only with a longer shutter speed (assuming no flash) and greater risk of camera shake.

I guess it's not a universal clincher ;)
 
HoppyUK said:
It's only an opinion, but the advantage of greater working distance for a given focal length is usually an upside. On the DoF/diffraction thing, you can of course get the extra DoF on full frame by raising the f/number, but then you've also equalised the diffraction effect and loss of sharpness on that front so kind of moot. And only with a longer shutter speed (assuming no flash) and greater risk of camera shake.

I guess it's not a universal clincher ;)
Click to expand...

Indeed, Macro seems like one situation where the extra think DOF of FF isnt much of an advanatge since its so thin anyway at 2.8 where as the deeper effective DOF on a crop cancils out the ealirer effects of diffraction.

I'v no idea whether its correct or not but I remember reading elsewhere that even with diffraction kicking in earlier on a denser crop sensor you still do get an advanatge in resolution at similar DOF's, just a gradually reducing one as it increases.

The difference to me then seems to be that a crop(well one with a higher pixel density than the FF model anyway) will give you slightly more resolution while a FF sensor will give you greater ability to crop while still retaining the same resolution.
 
Well, not quite. There's no fundamental advantage either way. These things work in a reciprocal manner, and in the same way that diffraction is the same with either format once the f/number has been equalised for DoF, the argument about needing a longer shutter speed on FF can be countered by the fact that the ISO could be upped to compensate and that, generally speaking, would also level the playing field on noise. It's give and take all round.

You can slice and dice these things in a number of permuations but at the end of the day you have a subject of a certain size, a lens to image it with, and a sensor to record it. The best way to do that varies.

There's no doubt that DM gets superb results on full frame, with the equipment he uses, eg that amazing MP-E 65mm lens. For others trying to capture bugs and butterflies hand-held around the garden, maybe a crop format camera might be better, might not be ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top