03-29-2024, 08:41 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-29-2024, 08:58 AM by MLonlooker.)
You don't seem to understand equivalence (between sensor sizes).
f32 on fullframe is equivalent to f21 on APS-C. Would you use f21 on APS-C?
Again, there is zero advantage to having more depth of field with APS-C (vs FF) as you can always match the larger depth of field with FF by stepping down more.
When considering equivalent systems, you must take in account aperture, ISO and focal length.
I remember Klaus had written an article on equivalence with examples, but it seems the article is gone :-(
I recommend you read the DPR article on the same subject here to help you understand it better: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/266693...uld-i-care
Again, there is no inherent advantage to APS-C or smaller formats for macro photography.
The only reason why you might think APS-C is more interesting is because there is no equivalent lens available for FF.
For instance a 100mm f2.8 macro lens on APS-C would be equivalent to a 153mm f4.3 on FF. So yes, there is no such lens available for FF (yet) ;-) But this has nothing to do with sensor size.
[/quote]
........................................................................................................................................................................................
Technically there maybe no advantage in APSc over FF for macro, but practically, there is, subject distance is a biggy, pixel density is another .. size/weight .. I don't care.....
I don't know if you guys have seen the work of Thomas Shahan's insect photography, it's breathtaking .......
his was then taking images using a super basic used Pentax K200 with a reversed ringed old 50mm lens (manual focus) and a basic flash ..... a magically calm talented man ........ enjoy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmMcCjEU68Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqRn3at0H60&t=204s
For all except portraits and the occasional landscape I'll shoot APSc ..... to keep my distance from these capricious easily spooked critters and to have a greater DOF straight off the bat with a higher pixel density ....... and when you crop noise equals out .... many prefer M4/3rds to benefit from more of the same above reasons ....
You could apply the same equivalent reasoning to medium format for macro, but it makes little sense .....
I think macro is best adapted to the APSc sensor not because the equivalency theories are flawed, they aren't, but the suitability of FF has a few drawbacks that APSc adapts to more easily.
MLonlooker
f32 on fullframe is equivalent to f21 on APS-C. Would you use f21 on APS-C?
Again, there is zero advantage to having more depth of field with APS-C (vs FF) as you can always match the larger depth of field with FF by stepping down more.
When considering equivalent systems, you must take in account aperture, ISO and focal length.
I remember Klaus had written an article on equivalence with examples, but it seems the article is gone :-(
I recommend you read the DPR article on the same subject here to help you understand it better: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/266693...uld-i-care
Again, there is no inherent advantage to APS-C or smaller formats for macro photography.
The only reason why you might think APS-C is more interesting is because there is no equivalent lens available for FF.
For instance a 100mm f2.8 macro lens on APS-C would be equivalent to a 153mm f4.3 on FF. So yes, there is no such lens available for FF (yet) ;-) But this has nothing to do with sensor size.
[/quote]
........................................................................................................................................................................................
Technically there maybe no advantage in APSc over FF for macro, but practically, there is, subject distance is a biggy, pixel density is another .. size/weight .. I don't care.....
I don't know if you guys have seen the work of Thomas Shahan's insect photography, it's breathtaking .......
his was then taking images using a super basic used Pentax K200 with a reversed ringed old 50mm lens (manual focus) and a basic flash ..... a magically calm talented man ........ enjoy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmMcCjEU68Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqRn3at0H60&t=204s
For all except portraits and the occasional landscape I'll shoot APSc ..... to keep my distance from these capricious easily spooked critters and to have a greater DOF straight off the bat with a higher pixel density ....... and when you crop noise equals out .... many prefer M4/3rds to benefit from more of the same above reasons ....
You could apply the same equivalent reasoning to medium format for macro, but it makes little sense .....
I think macro is best adapted to the APSc sensor not because the equivalency theories are flawed, they aren't, but the suitability of FF has a few drawbacks that APSc adapts to more easily.
MLonlooker