Would switching to FF hurt my macro??

[houston1852]

Hi, I've posted on here before about my dilemma about upgrading from T2i to either the 7D or 5D2 (mainly just to have a 2nd body to carry).  I shoot pretty much anything.  I'm leaning towards the 5D2, but I was wondering how it is with macro.  I love having the extended reach of my crop sensor T2i and I was just wondering if I would miss that on macro shots with the 5D2.  I know I would still have the T2i but I'm sure I would have the 5D2 with me alot more.  I like to just go for walks looking for bugs and small items to shoot (hand held).  I was leaning towards the 7D because I shoot wildlife, but I don't really need the extra fps so I don't think I need it too much over my t2i.  I do enjoy landscapes so the 5d2 would be nice.  I'm just curious about it's macro capabilities.

Thank you

All Canon: T2i, 100mm macro, 24-70 2.8,  100-400L, 50 1.4, 10-22

[rj79in]

I initially had the same concerns which were ultimately unfounded. The 5D2 is great for macro. Go with the 5D2 and you will never regret it. The shots you get with the 5D2 will be far superior to the 7D and you have the T2i as a cover in any case.

[PackLight]

It always performed great for me.

The difference in the two bodies, 7D vs 5D II for me boils down to this.
The 5D II is a static subject camera.
The 7D is a moving object camera.


I prefer the full frame for macro work.

[Harry Muff]

5D2 also has Magic Lantern available which has lots of awesome features including focus bracketing.


I've recently bought a EF 100 2.8L IS Macro and it goes great the 5D2.

[SJTstudios]

For macro, ff is better, because you get the detail. But since you loose the 1.6x crop factor, you have less zoom, so you may disturb bugs, and, you technically loose magnification, since your t2i gives you a (example 100mm macro) 160mm 2.8 with minimum focusing distance of x. With ff, you'll have a 100mm zoom, and the same x focusing distance. So if you want to leave your subjects undisturbed, get either...

-sigma 150mm
-Sigma 180mm 2.8 os
-canon 180mm 3.5 l macro
-rumored canon 200mm l f4 macro

If not, then these will suit much better...
-canon 100mm macro 2.8
-sigma 105mm 2.8 os macro
-canon 100mm macro 2.8 l is
-New tamron 90mm 2.8 macro vc
-sigma 50mm 2.8 macro

But even if you go 7d, then any of the ones above work.

[neuroanatomist]

For macro, ff is better, because you get the detail. But since you loose the 1.6x crop factor, you have less zoom, so you may disturb bugs, and, you technically loose magnification, since your t2i gives you a (example 100mm macro) 160mm 2.8 with minimum focusing distance of x. With ff, you'll have a 100mm zoom, and the same x focusing distance.

Technically, no.  A 100mm macro lens focused at the MFD will project the same sized image on both a FF and an APS-C sensor.  There's no additional real magnification, the smaller sensor is just capturing a smaller portion of the image circle.  Depending on the pixel densities involved, the APS-C sensor may (and likely will, for a newer APS-C camera) put more pixels on the target.  But if that means more magnification, then a 5DIII has more magnification than a 6D, because it has a higher pixel density.  If you compare a FF 5DII to an APS-C 20D with a 100mm macro lens at 1:1, the subject would be the same size in both images, because the pixel density is the same for the two sensors.

[birtembuk]

No hesitation ! For macro work, the 7D would give you the same picture style than T2i. With 2 stops more ISO, the 5D's give you much more leeway to work the quality of the background. For macro, the noise control is paramount as the background takes a big surface of the shot. And when it gets mushy, imo the shot is lost.

With APS-C, I limit the ISO to less than 800. With FF, for me this goes to 1600 (but I'm quite picky for macro IQ). Obviously, this gives a lot more room. Not only 5D2 won't hurt your macro but it will blow you away. I think two slightly different style of pictures. For me, it boils down to this: APS-C for tiny subjects with higher magnification, therefore more flash and consequently slightly harsher rendering. Then FF for slightly wider subjects with more creamy and artistic backgrounds. At least that's what I try to achieve. Wouldn't swear I get that all the time       

[sagittariansrock]

For macro, ff is better, because you get the detail. But since you loose the 1.6x crop factor, you have less zoom, so you may disturb bugs, and, you technically loose magnification, since your t2i gives you a (example 100mm macro) 160mm 2.8 with minimum focusing distance of x. With ff, you'll have a 100mm zoom, and the same x focusing distance.

Technically, no.  A 100mm macro lens focused at the MFD will project the same sized image on both a FF and an APS-C sensor.  There's no additional real magnification, the smaller sensor is just capturing a smaller portion of the image circle.  Depending on the pixel densities involved, the APS-C sensor may (and likely will, for a newer APS-C camera) put more pixels on the target.  But if that means more magnification, then a 5DIII has more magnification than a 6D, because it has a higher pixel density.  If you compare a FF 5DII to an APS-C 20D with a 100mm macro lens at 1:1, the subject would be the same size in both images, because the pixel density is the same for the two sensors.

+1. I was going to say the same thing when I read this response, but good thing Neuro saw it first and explained it more succinctly than I could have.
Another issue for me was that I always wish for higher ISO sensitivity since the close focusing of a macro means less light available (and I don't own the macro ring light). So I think the FF advantage would help here as well.

[NormanBates]

OK, so it has already been established that the crop factor doesn't help the 7D, but the pixel density does.

Now, say you're worried about depth of field: when you move to FF, it will be significantly narrower than on APS-C. Can you close the iris to compensate, or will diffraction be a problem if you do? I mean: if I'm shooting f/11 on APS-C because above that I get diffraction and the image comes out soft, when I move to FF, will I want to stay at f/11, or will f/16 suddenly be acceptable?
Is the diffraction limit the same for APS-C and for FF? I'm guessing it is, since it's a characteristic of the lens, but I'm too busy today to think this through myself 

[Kit.]

I love having the extended reach of my crop sensor T2i and I was just wondering if I would miss that on macro shots with the 5D2.

No, you wouldn't.  You can always just crop it out. You don't need huge pixel counts for macro work (unless you are digitizing medium format landscape slides, of course).

You will lose a bit in DoF if you don't crop, though.

[neuroanatomist]

OK, so it has already been established that the crop factor doesn't help the 7D, but the pixel density does.

Now, say you're worried about depth of field: when you move to FF, it will be significantly narrower than on APS-C. Can you close the iris to compensate, or will diffraction be a problem if you do? I mean: if I'm shooting f/11 on APS-C because above that I get diffraction and the image comes out soft, when I move to FF, will I want to stay at f/11, or will f/16 suddenly be acceptable?
Is the diffraction limit the same for APS-C and for FF? I'm guessing it is, since it's a characteristic of the lens, but I'm too busy today to think this through myself 

The 'diffraction limit' depends on pixel density, not sensor size.  But, DoF depends on sensor size (for equivalent framing).  In general, FF sensors have larger pixels, so narrower apertures for equivalent diffraction effect - in your example, yes, f/16 on FF would probably give you approximately the same amount of diffraction effect as f/11 on APS-C.  So, if you're talking about framing something identically (i.e. you're further away with APS-C), for the same DoF you'd have the same diffraction (approximately, with recent sensors). 

But...in the case where the lens magnificaiton is held constant (e.g. shooting at 1:1 on APS-C vs. FF, where the framing is not the same), the APS-C will actually have a slightly shallower DoF at the same aperture, and suffer more from diffraction at the same narrower aperture (assuming higher pixel density).  That's why, if you are planning to shoot at 1:1, FF has an advantage (and as mentioned, the disadvantage of putting fewer pixels on target).

[Kit.]

But...in the case where the lens magnificaiton is held constant (e.g. shooting at 1:1 on APS-C vs. FF, where the framing is not the same), the APS-C will actually have a slightly shallower DoF at the same aperture, and suffer more from diffraction at the same narrower aperture (assuming higher pixel density).

Only if the goal for your DoF is to give you sharp pixels.

If the goal is to give sharp images of the objects you shoot, higher pixel density means (slightly) deeper DoF.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I preferred my 7D to my 5D MK II for Macro, but it was not enough to keep me from selling the 7D after getting my 5D MK III.  The 7D went virtually unused.

[sagittariansrock]

But...in the case where the lens magnificaiton is held constant (e.g. shooting at 1:1 on APS-C vs. FF, where the framing is not the same), the APS-C will actually have a slightly shallower DoF at the same aperture.

Why?

@MtSpokane: why did you prefer the 7D for macro?