Macro Photography: Full VS 1.6

Rurik

would any of you be willing to point me in the right direction?

question: in Flora photography what are the benefits in using a Full Frame DSLR VS 1.6 DSLR?

ive read that the Full Frame DSLR's have a narrower depth of field but are there other distinctive traits one has over the other? can one clearly see that a specific picture was done with one or the other camera?

are there any articles you could link me to?

thoughts i have:

5d with a 100mm macro
or
50d with a 180mm macro

any comments?

thank you

RogersDA

Passage wrote:

would any of you be willing to point me in the right direction?

question: in Flora photography what are the benefits in using a Full Frame DSLR VS 1.6 DSLR?

ive read that the Full Frame DSLR's have a narrower depth of field but are there other distinctive traits one has over the other? can one clearly see that a specific picture was done with one or the other camera?

are there any articles you could link me to?

thoughts i have:

5d with a 100mm macro
or
50d with a 180mm macro

any comments?

thank you

I have both the 50D and a 5D MII. In my use the 5D offers less noise than 50D. I have the 50D because a) it was super cheap at Circuit City the other week and b) it has a much higher frame rate than the 5D. Sometimes I am shooting a sport or other moving subject where I need the frame rate.

The other thing with the 5D is that I can have a bit more liberty with the cropping so that resizing is not introducing more upsizing artifacts.

I am sure others will have more insight, too.

The 5D with the 180 macro lens (which I have, too) is a great combination.
Click the image below for a larger version.

Qarik

My thoughts:

With a crop sensor you certainly have more "zoom" for the the same lens then you do with a full frame. What does this mean?

1) you can get higher magnification on dx at a certian distance away from your subject. Depending on how big your point of interest is..this may be a handicap for a full frame lens. For example you may not be able to get as close as you want/need to fill up the frame of the full fram sensor because you exceed the minimum focus distance of your lens. This of course can be solved with extension tubes.

2) regarding the "shallower depth of field" for a full frame sensor vs crop sensor. Keep in mind that this is true only for the same apparent image size on the sensor. This means that you will be at different distance away from the subject to achieve that same apparent image size for FF vs crop (you have to be standing closer with FF).

3) I don't think you can tell if a macro photo was done with FF or crop. Image qaulity is going to be dictated by lens and lighting and focusing techniques.

Candid Arts

Can't comment on DOF much, but with a 50D and 180mm macro you are getting an effective 288mm Macro lens, where as the 100mm on the 5D, you're getting 100mm. So there is that benefit. With the 1.6x crop body, your effective focal length is 1.6x the actual focal length of the lens.

A better comparison would be of the 5D with 180 and 50D with 100mm.

I would imagine that with your combination, the 5D and 100mm is going to be way farther away than the 180 with the 50D. So because of the farther distance, the DOF is going to be a lot wider with the 5D and 100mm. However, the 100mm macro is a f2.8 where as the 180 is a f3.5. So you're going to have a narrower DOF with the 100mm because of the aperture but on the 5D you'll be farther away from the subject so.

Rurik

Qarik, thank you, so i ask... the DOF would be the same on either camera if image sizes were equal in size on the sensor?

Candid Arts

Passage wrote:

Qarik, thank you, so i ask... the DOF would be the same on either camera if image sizes were equal in size on the sensor?

I don't believe that predicts the DOF. What is going to give you wider/narrow DOF is going to depend on the actual focal length of the lens, effective focal length of lense, max. aperture of lens, and distance to subject.

RogersDA

Passage wrote:

very nice of all you! i guess i had my lens selections backwards...

RodgersDA so you would pick up the 5d over the 50d for macro? is it safe to say maybe even everytime?

For studio shooting it probably makes no big difference since you can control the lighting, the camera position, and the subject matter position. Given that you could choose ISO100 most times and still have great shots (darker shots obviously requiring more exposure time - but it is studio-type shooting so who cares). Outdoors I would probably use the 5D over the 50D for the lower noise aspect as I may not know exactly where I will be at any given time.

If you need the faster frame rate then certainly the 50D will work for both floral shots and for the higher frame rates. But you need to know what your needs might be. My gut feeling is that with either body you will get an immediate idea of where you need to be for shooting.

There is a substantial cost difference in the bodies, too. Getting the 50D, the 180 lens, and the 100 lens would give you a great setup for a bit more than a 5D MiI body (though one could aregue that you don't need the 180 lens and the 100 lens). If I had to do it all right now now I might go for the 50D, the 180 lens, and maybe something wider like the nifty fifty for some wider-anlge shooting.

Either lens will work on either body. Consider your shooting needs for choosing one over the other.

ziggy53

Passage, welcome to the Digital Grin.

Can you tell us a bit more about what you plan to shoot and what sized area you intend to use?

Will you need 1:1 macro?

What lighting?

How large an image do you need? Printed?

What is your experience in photography?

The more you tell us the more we can help.

Qarik

Passage wrote:

Qarik, thank you, so i ask... the DOF would be the same on either camera if image sizes were equal in size on the sensor?

actually the DOF will be shallower on the FF sensor for equaivalent image size on the sensor because the camera needs to be closer to the subject in question with the FF seansor to achieve the same equivalent image size. This shallower DOF may be something you want..or it may be something you don't want. Anyway you can control this DOF by stopping down the aperture so it's not big deal ... as long as you are using good flash set up for the macro shots so that underexposure is not problem for stopped down aperture.

I can't emphsize enough the use of good diffused macro flash setup for this kind of work.

Rurik

everyone thank you.

ziggy53,
on this web page are (flora) good examples of what i want... specifically the background and how it is out of focus like that 180mm produces:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

would either DSLR give me that type of photo with that specific lens? would it just be a matter of distance from the subject?

1:1, i dont know if i would need that...i will think about it.

lighting? im not that far... but it seems to me i might be just using natural light since i do not understand flash all as much as i should.

subjects would mostly be cactus blooms and small desert flowers.

i would like to print something very large like 6 foot if i could possibly photograph something worth printing. (i do not know how to gauge worthyness, i know what i like when i see it)

experience? i understand many fundamentals i.e. f/stops, shutter speeds, iso, and how they work together but many issues i still need help with... mostly what specific equipment will help me over the other equipment, like this issue with flora macro i have not wrapped my mind around yet...and i dont want to waste my time only to find out i should have used this or that instead....
experience? as in: "do i know what im doing"? i would say "no" (but dont hold that against me)

thank you for the comments!!

Rurik

thank you Qarik.

Qarik

Passage wrote:

thank you Qarik.

For that kind of flora shot a 100mm macro on crop frame would be just fine and would likely be the most versatile and cheapest combo. I suspected you might be geared towards natural light...heh. You can start with natural light but I think you will quickly run into lmiitation for macro as you increase your apetitie for varied shots.

I would say a great majority of macro shooters have a flash setup similar to this:



The diffuser was made with soda can.

ziggy53

Passage wrote:

everyone thank you.

ziggy53,
on this web page are (flora) good examples of what i want... specifically the background and how it is out of focus like that 180mm produces:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

would either DSLR give me that type of photo with that specific lens? would it just be a matter of distance from the subject?

1:1, i dont know if i would need that...i will think about it.

lighting? im not that far... but it seems to me i might be just using natural light since i do not understand flash all as much as i should.

subjects would mostly be cactus blooms and small desert flowers.

i would like to print something very large like 6 foot if i could possibly photograph something worth printing. (i do not know how to gauge worthyness, i know what i like when i see it)

experience? i understand many fundamentals i.e. f/stops, shutter speeds, iso, and how they work together but many issues i still need help with... mostly what specific equipment will help me over the other equipment, like this issue with flora macro i have not wrapped my mind around yet...and i dont want to waste my time only to find out i should have used this or that instead....
experience? as in: "do i know what im doing"? i would say "no" (but dont hold that against me)

thank you for the comments!!

That website, "The Digital Picture" does a great job reviewing and explaining.

I suggest that you start with the 100mm and the 5D MKII and see if that works for your needs. I think other possible solutions are to use a prime lens and a diopter to allow close focus for larger subjects. Our own Dalantech has used the EF 70-200mm, f4L and a 500D to good effect:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=65519

Rurik

Qarik, thanks, i will prepare in getting flash on my list then ...
where do i go to see your Macro work?

Ziggy53, thank you again. also The Digital Picture seems a great read, but its no match for this place you all have here....! wonderful & real world info throughout.

Qarik

[some shots with that flash setup and the sigma 105mm macro.

Note this the same setup that Lord Vetinari used to get off the ground and he is the absolute GOD of macro imo.

NikonsandVstroms

I use 3 formats for my macro work depending on what I need, D700 S5 pro 1.5X or E420 with adapter 2X, it provides alot more flexability and there are many times that 2X from the E420 is really helpful

Rurik

wonderful examples, thank you.

Rurik

Qarik / Anyone, is the main purpose of the off-camera flash to get the flash further up so not to cast a shadow?
or other reasons?


anyone? where do i find a off-camera flash bracket?

ziggy53

Passage wrote:

Qarik / Anyone, is the main purpose of the off-camera flash to get the flash further up so not to cast a shadow?
or other reasons?


anyone? where do i find a off-camera flash bracket?

It is also beneficial to be able to put the light at any angle relative to the subject as some subjects will look better with the light coming from a certain direction.

For macro purposes there are a number of bracket solutions (lots are DIY) :

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=120533
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=795213&postcount=2
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/178/443587088_24ebb564b5.jpg
http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00Q/00Q7t6-55875584.jpg
http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00G/00GqWr-30432784.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a385/Ookpik/POTN/IMG_1073.jpg?t=1237913033

Qarik

Passage wrote:

Qarik / Anyone, is the main purpose of the off-camera flash to get the flash further up so not to cast a shadow?
or other reasons?


anyone? where do i find a off-camera flash bracket?

yes, that is one of the main purposes of off camera flash for macro. Note since often the the macrio subject is inches away from your lens, most flashes ca not bend down far enough to get the light to the subject. Even if if it could bend that far the lens is often in the way and creates a "shadow". Also with the light so close the sensor plane, the lgiht tends to be very flat.

The off camera lighting solves all these problems.

I use something like this for like $10

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/101795-REG/Samigon_CSA415_Straight_Metal_Flash_Bracket.html

You will need a TTL flash cord and some kind of diffuser as well.

Rurik

thank you Ziggy & Qarik & everybody!

i will pick up a 430ex & flash cord also...

may i ask still more questions?

1.
what is it that stops someone from just handholding the flash where they want it? is it all about consistency in exposures? or just too much trouble?

2.
with a 180mm macro lens i would want to get further out in distance from the camera body to compensate for the sensor plain & distance to the subject compared to say 100mm lens?

3.
btw, im thinking on the Sigma 150mm unless someone can talk me out of the idea...

also thinking of the 5D2....

ziggy53

Passage wrote:

...
1.
what is it that stops someone from just handholding the flash where they want it? is it all about consistency in exposures? or just too much trouble?
....

Some people do just that but it can be tiresome and difficult to point the flash while you look throught the viewfinder and try to frame the shot.

Passage wrote:

...

2.
with a 180mm macro lens i would want to get further out in distance from the camera body to compensate for the sensor plain & distance to the subject compared to say 100mm lens?

....

Not sure I understand your question but the 180mm will give you a longer working distance but it is more difficult to hand-hold and to keep steady. It is easier to position lights with the longer working distance and it should not frighten as many insects and small creatures.

A Canon 1.6x crop camera will give more effective magnification than a 1.3x crop or full-frame sensor camera. Since small apertures are often used with a macro application some folks like a full-frame camera for macro because they tend to be less diffraction limited, but it's not that much of a benefit IMO.

Passage wrote:

...
3.
btw, im thinking on the Sigma 150mm unless someone can talk me out of the idea...

....

I think anything from 90mm through 200mm can work for a 1:1 macro lens.

Qarik

Passage wrote:

thank you Ziggy & Qarik & everybody!

i will pick up a 430ex & flash cord also...

may i ask still more questions?

1.
what is it that stops someone from just handholding the flash where they want it? is it all about consistency in exposures? or just too much trouble?

Nothing in theory..but when I shoot macro I need both hands to hold the camera for steadiness purposes. I think it would be very difficult to do it one handed and hold a flash. And yes you will get more consistency with a fixed flash. If you don't like it then you can change it the angle for example. If you hand hold it then the ligthing may not be reproducible whether you like it or not.

2.
with a 180mm macro lens i would want to get further out in distance from the camera body to compensate for the sensor plain & distance to the subject compared to say 100mm lens?

this depends on what you are shooting how comfortable you are. This also will depend on the minimum focus distance of each lens.


3.
btw, im thinking on the Sigma 150mm unless someone can talk me out of the idea...

the only issue with longer zooms for macro is handshake. Remember if you are shooting bugs at close distance for example you have only fractions of milimeters in depth of field. Any motion in the camera at 180mm is magnified compared to say 100mm or 60mm. Thus it is harder to get good focus and focus is everything in macro. My thinking is that 60mm does not get you close enough...180mm is difficult to handle so 100mm range is a very good compromise. 180mm will give you more distance to work with that is for sure.

also thinking of the 5D2....

see response above

Rurik

ziggy53 wrote:

tend to be less diffraction limited, but it's not that much of a benefit IMO.

i will need to look that up just to understand what diffraction limited means.

but going back to question #2;

maybe this will help explain...
if i used a 180mm lens and had more distance between the lens and subject i would likely want the flash to be further away from the camera body to avoid flat light, right?.

anyways, im sure i will learn many things by just doing it...but until i get the equipment i thought to just ask and help my mind grasp more. thanks so much for the help!!

ziggy53

Passage wrote:

...

but going back to question #2;

maybe this will help explain...
if i used a 180mm lens and had more distance between the lens and subject i would likely want the flash to be further away from the camera body to avoid flat light, right?.

...

Different subjects require different lighting setups. Longer lenses allow more positioning flexibility but there is no one "best" location for the flash(es) since there is no singular subject matter. The more you shoot macro the more you will appreciate different lighting setups.

Rurik

seriously thank you all for the advice! it has helped 1000%

i will get a 5dmII for the full frame and large printing ability.

*flash= so with only Macro flash "needed" in mind, would anyone think this 270ex is useful or should i stick to getting the 430ex?
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-270EX-Speedlite-Flash-Review.aspx

also, i have almost decided on the sigma 150mm macro since i can get that along with all the flash equipment i need for less than the Canon 180mm lens alone.
(unless someone can strongly advise me differently.??)
(or maybe i will second guess myself and talk myself into the idea i need the 180mm for the background compression!)(i cant believe how hard it is to decide)

thanks again everyone for your help.
all your advice is not in vein, im not a fly by night member...

and Ziggy, sorry to make you once again use the explanation "its all about what im doing to as what i need" discription. haha...im sure your tired of that... but seriously your care is apperciated by me and i dont want to waste your time, so again thanks all!!!!

ziggy53

Passage wrote:

seriously thank you all for the advice! it has helped 1000%

i will get a 5dmII for the full frame and large printing ability.

...

also, i have almost decided on the sigma 150mm macro since i can get that along with all the flash equipment i need for less than the Canon 180mm lens alone.
(unless someone can strongly advise me differently.??)
(or maybe i will second guess myself and talk myself into the idea i need the 180mm for the background compression!)(i cant believe how hard it is to decide)

...

The Canon 5D MKII and the Sigma 150mm, F2.8 EX DG HSM APO Macro should make a very good combination.

Passage wrote:

...

*flash= so with only Macro flash "needed" in mind, would anyone think this 270ex is useful or should i stick to getting the 430ex?
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-270EX-Speedlite-Flash-Review.aspx

...

While the Canon 270EX might suffice for this one application (macro) I do think that the Canon 430EX speedlight is the minimum I would recommend in that it is more capable for general photography. The 580EX II has even more power and capabilities, depending on your future needs.

I find that the Sigma 5xx DG Super flashes are also very competent and capable and will do Canon E-TTL II flash automation.

Passage wrote:

...

and Ziggy, sorry to make you once again use the explanation "its all about what im doing to as what i need" discription. haha...im sure your tired of that... but seriously your care is apperciated by me and i dont want to waste your time, so again thanks all!!!!

I just don't want you, or anyone reading this thread, to think that there is any single best single solution to match all situations and needs. I enjoy options and macro applications have plenty of options available. The more you know (speaking to the global "you" of readers of this thread) about the options and the more experience you accumulate the more you will appreciate the need for diversity and flexibility as well.

Rurik

ok, Ziggy! my ears iz hearing you! thanks!

Quark/Anyone: this bracket puts the speedlight a little higher than the one you suggested (btw the one you suggested is in my B&H cart waiting), so is that extra height a benefit or not?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/101794-REG/Samigon_CSA413_One_Touch_Folding_Bracket.html

bringing the light in from 11o'clock instead of 9o'clock so-to-speak

Qarik

Passage wrote:

ok, Ziggy! my ears iz hearing you! thanks!

Quark/Anyone: this bracket puts the speedlight a little higher than the one you suggested (btw the one you suggested is in my B&H cart waiting), so is that extra height a benefit or not?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/101794-REG/Samigon_CSA413_One_Touch_Folding_Bracket.html

bringing the light in from 11o'clock instead of 9o'clock so-to-speak

I wouldn't say it's benefit or not. For any one angle of of macro subject..it may be better to approach forom the side or from the side-top ..or side bottom or bottom, etc. Remember shootiing macro is dynamic process...you can always move the camera/flash setup around the subject to get the lighting you want.

Manfr3d

Thinking about floral photography .. the Canon 90mm/2.8 TS-E comes to mind. While not 1:1 macro its is an excellent lens for this type of work (unless you expect to shoot bugs) because you can tilt the focal plane to match the flower. Non ts lenses can only focus on a plane parallel to the image sensor (see flower pics above).