Let me get this straight. You're saying that a crop sensor will have shallower depth of field than a full frame sensor, given the same subject distance from the lens? So, if that lens cannot focus at closer than 35 inches (as in the case I described), somehow I'm going to get shallower depth of field with a crop sensor, than with a full frame camera? Why? Because the subject is relatively tiny in the center of the (full) frame, and is represented by larger (and thus fewer) pixels over its area? So what? I still say with a 100mm macro lens, if ultimate detail and subject magnification is what you want, a crop sensor will be better. To get the same subject magnification with a full frame camera, the distance will be closer, and then the depth of field will be SHALLOWER than it was with the same framing on the crop camera, not deeper. It's you who doesn't understand relevant concepts here. Get off my back.
That's exactly what I'm saying - with the same focal length, aperture and subject distance, a crop sensor will have a shallower depth of field. The 'deeper DoF with a crop sensor' applies only when considering the same framing, where to match the FoV with the smaller sensor you are either further away or using a shorter focal length. Also, crop sensors don't magnify, they just use a much smaller portion of the image circle (less than 40% of the FF area) - optical magnification of the subject isn't changing. The 'magnification' you're talking about is solely a function of pixel density, which is usually, but not always, higher on crop sensors. If you frame the subject the same with both formats, the 'advantage' of pixel density is reversed (in general with current sensors). If you keep the distance the same you get more pixels on target with the crop sensor (in general with current sensors) – however, the DoF will be shallower, not deeper...and the smaller pixels of the crop sensor mean a greater effect of diffraction as you stop down, costing you more sharpness.So I do understand relevant concepts here, and am not just looking to argue and make myself look like an idiot...not this time anyway. But somebody sure is...
Sorry, but no, you don't. Don't feel bad, you're not the first to be lost inside the circle of confusion, and you won't be the last. Instead of calling people names, you could do some reading on the subject, or simply try going to an online depth of field calculator (such as DoFMaster), pick a focal length, aperture, and subject distance, then without changing any other settings switch back-and-forth between a full frame body and a crop body in the camera selection, and see which one has the shallower depth of field. Then you can come back here and tell us who looks like what…
What names did I call anyone?
What you are saying, does not make sense with the experience I have had. For example, a wide angle lens. How is it that I have to use a smaller aperture on a wide angle lens on a full frame camera, to get the same depth of field, as with an aps-c camera? For example, a 24mm lens closed to f/5.6 on a full frame camera, has much shallower depth of field on a full frame sensor, as does a 15mm lens closed to the same aperture on a Canon aps-c camera. You're going to say this isn't true also?
When I look through the viewfinder, even my own eye (which is seeing deeper depth of field than the full frame sensor does)...seems to see far less "deep focus" with say my 58mm Voigtlander f/1.4 lens (even though the angle of view is wider on the full frame)...than it did on the previous crop camera I had.
How is it that a compact camera with a tiny sensor, can get very deep focus (within its angle of view) even when zoomed into a full frame equivalent of 300mm, at an aperture of only say f/6.3...whereas if I put a 300mm lens on my 6D, I need to close it to f/20 or smaller to get a similar "deep focus"??