Please, please, stop this useless discussion. Get back on topic.

I'm done posting here. You folks are not worth the effort, since you've clearly circled the wagons and left me out.

Where's Mel Brooks when we need him?

When you take your fingers out of your ears and speak up, I'll come back.

Once again, it could be explained by the mega pixels, processing, and compression. None of those things are necessary connected with sensor size, but the relationship between focal length, sensor size and f-stop (equivalency).
That's my interpretation on Earth 2. I need @riker to talk to Data and Gordy about putting us in the right places!

Philnick said:

I continue to be astonished that no one here is agreeing with me. I appear to be visiting Earth 2.

Click to expand...

You're in the wrong, and you expect people to agree with you? Anyway, since your statement that you'd settle for an end to the dispute you've now made four more posts contributing to it. Hypocrite.

Philnick said:

Inserted, unlabeled, into a discussion about using an APS-C sensor to get more reach from a lens - and prefaced by mocking those who believe in the magic of a crop sensor - no one would assume it was a smartphone photo unless they were familiar with you having done that kind of thing in the past.

Click to expand...

The smudging from AI-driven noise reduction by the iPhone is very evident to anyone who knows what to look for. I guess now you know what to look for, as well.

Philnick said:

As a relative newcomer to this forum, I didn't know I was dealing with someone as deceptive as you, and was entitled to take your post at face value. Once again, you try to evade responsibility for a deliberate deception by blaming those who didn't see through it.

Click to expand...

Again, no. You were deceived by your own ASSumptions about what I posted. I was not attempting to deceive anyone, for example by claiming that I was comparing FF and APS-C. I use the term 'smaller sensor' and that was accurate. I find your characterization of me as being deliberately deceptive to be offensive. I strive to always post factual information, and when posting my own opinions I indicate them as such. I do make mistakes, and when those are pointed out I am grateful for the correction because it often means I have learned something new (though I'm certainly guilty of the occasional typographical or copy/paste error).

Philnick said:

Please stop trying to justify your actions by blaming those who criticize them. What's appropriate would be an apology from you - but I'm not holding my breath waiting for one, since an apology from you would be totally out of character.

Click to expand...

I apologize when I am incorrect. In this case, I am not.

Philnick said:

At this point, I'd settle for you shutting up about this dispute.

Click to expand...

The real issue here is that you are triggered by factual information about areas where APS-C sensors are inferior to FF. The 'dispute' did not start over the iPhone/R3 comparison images, your first response to me in this thread was about the effect of sensor size on DoF, and that reply was full of misinformation. Let's review that first response:

Philnick said:

Leave the camera in the same place and let the framing change because of the smaller sensor and the depth of field and background blur are unchanged.

Click to expand...

That is false. Are you going to admit that you were wrong...and apologize for it?

Philnick said:

Telling folks just getting into photography, and are primarily concerned with whether the lens/camera combination they're looking at can capture enough light in low light situations that the f/2.8 lens they're looking at is really an f/4 lens is totally misleading to the ordinary photographer, and is primarily designed to steer them to buy more expensive full-frame gear.

Click to expand...

Does 'the ordinary photographer' not care about noise in their images? Maybe you don't, that's fine. I suspect most photographers, especially those using ILCs, do care about noise in their images. The fact is that image noise is inversely proportional to sensor size.

Philnick said:

If a blurred background is the paramount virtue you aim for in photography, go for it - but you're not talking the language of most photographers.

Click to expand...

Do you speak for 'most photographers'? Wedding and portrait photographers outnumber most other genres, and for them a blurred background is very commonly used. The same is often true for wildlife, macro, and other genres, and the reason is that when a photograph has a key subject, there is often a desire to separate that subject from the background. As I pointed out in my previous reply, smartphones are the most popular camera type in the world (by far!) and they all now offer a 'portrait mode' that uses AI/ML to identify the subject and blur the background.

So, that question was rhetorical. You were wrong there, too...are you going to admit that and apologize for it?

Philnick said:

At this point, I'd settle for you shutting up about this dispute.

Click to expand...

You are free to do so by choosing to not respond to my posts. You may want to at least refrain from arguments over technical matters, you are clearly out of your depth (pun intended) in that arena. Not just the above corrections, there are several other posts in this thread where you've exposed your lack of technical knowledge (e.g., your statement that, "..an APS-C R5 shot has shot noise comparable to an R7" when you mean 'noise in the shot' and not shot noise, which has a specific definition and is a one component of image noise that is independent of the ISO setting).

I continue to be astonished that no one here is agreeing with me. I appear to be visiting Earth 2.

EricN said:

Some people say, "we see what we want to see."
What in your opinion makes it garbage?

Click to expand...

Did you double-click on it? Apparently not - maybe because you don't want to see what I'm saying. It's a grainy low resolution image that no one here would boast of having taken. Presenting that low resolution smartphone image as implicitly an APS-C image (from the context and its own prefacing words) to compare to the right-hand image, which we now know was taken with an R3 and an L lens, was unworthy of anyone engaged in honest discourse.

Some people say, "we see what we want to see."
What in your opinion makes it garbage?

EricN said:

In my universe, we were talking about Equivalency and how the depth of field (among other things) is affected. If your interpretation was it's terrible that's on you. Some people would say the left photo is preferable because more is in focus. As I attempted to explain before they contrast and artifacts can be attributed to the sensors dynamic rage, MP count and processing. Several of the people you seem to be upset with have a variety of cameras with an array of sensor sizes. I can admit I'm not the most conservative person with my spending habits, but even so, I wouldn't have bought an R7 or an S25 ultra if I thought the image quality was poor.
If Neuro said something I disagree, think is dishonest or whatever with, I'll ask him, but probably not in an insulting way (the redneck in me is going to come out and say, "mess with the bull and you get the horns").
I don't know what else to say other than sorry for offending you with my crazy sense of reality. I'll go see a therapist soon.

Click to expand...

Click twice on the comparison image in post #38 and tell me that the left image, seen large, is anything but garbage - so bad that neuro claims that it was so obiously a smartphone photo that it wasn't necessary to say it was. No one in this universe would say the left photo is preferable.

My point throughout is that post was libel of APS-C imagery, calling it garbage by implication, and doesn't belong in an APS-C anticipation thread.

Neither neuro nor I were talking about depth of field in connection with that photo comparison. (He talked about effective focal length.)

This appears to be your attempt to rescue his dishonest post. It doesn't work.

If this forum gave us the ability to block abusive posters, I'd be using it on neuro. You hangers-on - keep going. I'm not that offended by you all yet, but it won't be long before I'm simply out of here, having lost patience with a group unwilling to stand up to a liar, preferring to attack those who call a liar out.

Del Paso said:

I did!

Click to expand...

I thought it was Roby NOT approving it. They do the opposite of everything he wants.

AlanF said:

Optical limits is one of Richard's favourite sites
Summary:
The Good
Very sharp at medium aperture settings
f/1.2 on a budget

The Bad
Blurry corners from f/1.2 to f/2
Excessive axial color fringing at f/1.2
Very pronounced focus shift
Wavy field curvature
Miserable corner bokeh in certain scenes
Overpriced for what it is

1.5/5 stars, Avoid!

Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM Review - OpticalLimits

A Canon lens with an aperture of f/1.2 and offered below $500 USD? Can this work out here? Let's check the Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM ...

opticallimits.com

Click to expand...

I'll buy 10!~

Philnick said:

I didn't know I had wandered into a private clubhouse. Keep it up, folks, and you'll find yourselves alone here.

I didn't say a word abouf f/stop in my criticism of neuro's post - I criticized it for implying that APS-C images were terrible.

PS No you're not here for anyone but neuro and neuro's friends. Honest discussion is only allowed, it appears, if it doesn't call out dishonest posts as such.

Click to expand...

In my universe, we were talking about Equivalency and how the depth of field (among other things) is affected. If your interpretation was it's terrible that's on you. Some people would say the left photo is preferable because more is in focus. As I attempted to explain before they contrast and artifacts can be attributed to the sensors dynamic rage, MP count and processing. Several of the people you seem to be upset with have a variety of cameras with an array of sensor sizes. I can admit I'm not the most conservative person with my spending habits, but even so, I wouldn't have bought an R7 or an S25 ultra if I thought the image quality was poor.
If Neuro said something I disagree, think is dishonest or whatever with, I'll ask him, but probably not in an insulting way (the redneck in me is going to come out and say, "mess with the bull and you get the horns").
I don't know what else to say other than sorry for offending you with my crazy sense of reality. I'll go see a therapist soon.

danfaz said:

Christopher Frost on YouTube discovered a pretty significant focus shift when stopping down.
Possibly copy variation, but worth pointing out.

Click to expand...

Bryan (TDP) mentions it in his review, though he suggests it’s mild:

This lens seems to exhibit a slight focus shift (caused by residual spherical aberration, RSA), with the plane of sharp focus moving slightly backward as the aperture is narrowed. The greatest impact is around f/2.8, where the focused-on subject sometimes appears slightly softer.

Click to expand...

EricN said:

*IF* f/stop isn't important between apsc and full frame, then why would it mater if it's the iphone's 2.8 lens or the r7 or R1? I believe the point was that it's it's easier to see the depth of field changes between the more extreme difference in sensor sizes. Sometimes it's hard to admit we're wrong, but I'm here for you

Click to expand...

I didn't know I had wandered into a private clubhouse. Keep it up, folks, and you'll find yourselves alone here.

I didn't say a word abouf f/stop in my criticism of neuro's post - I criticized it for implying that APS-C images were terrible.

PS No you're not here for anyone but neuro and neuro's friends. Honest discussion is only allowed, it appears, if it doesn't call out dishonest posts as such.

Click said:

This is the first time I've seen this mushroom. They're very pretty with their white stripes. Are they edible?

Click to expand...

No idea about the specific mushroom, but the overwhelming majority of mushrooms fall into the category of ‘edible but not tasty and will probably cause some GI discomfort’. A small number of mushrooms are in the ‘edible and tasty’ category, and an even smaller number are in the ‘deadly if ingested’ category.

The hen-of-the-woods falls into the large edible but not tasty group.

Christopher Frost on YouTube discovered a pretty significant focus shift when stopping down.
Possibly copy variation, but worth pointing out.

Philnick said:

Inserted, unlabeled, into a discussion about using an APS-C sensor to get more reach from a lens - and prefaced by mocking those who believe in the magic of a crop sensor - no one would assume it was a smartphone photo unless they were familiar with you having done that kind of thing in the past. As a relative newcomer to this forum, I didn't know I was dealing with someone as deceptive as you, and was entitled to take your post at face value. Once again, you try to evade responsibility for a deliberate deception by blaming those who didn't see through it.

Please stop trying to justify your actions by blaming those who criticize them. What's appropriate would be an apology from you - but I'm not holding my breath waiting for one, since an apology from you would be totally out of character.

At this point, I'd settle for you shutting up about this dispute.

Click to expand...

*IF* f/stop isn't important between apsc and full frame, then why would it mater if it's the iphone's 2.8 lens or the r7 or R1? I believe the point was that it's it's easier to see the depth of field changes between the more extreme difference in sensor sizes. Sometimes it's hard to admit we're wrong, but I'm here for you

Markov said:

Indeed. You get more depth of field, when you use the same framing as on a full-frame camera. Or you get the same DOF but with a larger effective magnification.

Click to expand...

Technically, if you keep the subject distance the same between FF and APS-C, the field of view is smaller with APS-C and the depth of field is slightly shallower at the same aperture setting. The ‘deeper DoF with crop’ is entirely due to increasing the subject distance to match framing. The magnitude of the effect of increasing distance on DoF is greater than that of the opposing effect of a smaller sensor.

The scenario of keeping the distance the same is arguably more common with macro photography, because the minimum focus distance (which delivers the maximum magnification for the lens) is an intrinsic property of the lens.

neuroanatomist said:

What was untrue about that comparison, other than your mistaken assumption about what was being compared? The images were photos that I took, and one was taken with longer lens and a bigger sensor while the other was taken with a shorter lens with a smaller sensor. As I stated. You assumed I was comparing APS-C and FF, but really if you look at the image on the left, it's very obvious that it was taken with a smartphone. But your assumption about what I was comparing triggered you, and you can't seem to get past that. How sad for you.

Click to expand...

Inserted, unlabeled, into a discussion about using an APS-C sensor to get more reach from a lens - and prefaced by mocking those who believe in the magic of a crop sensor - no one would assume it was a smartphone photo unless they were familiar with you having done that kind of thing in the past. As a relative newcomer to this forum, I didn't know I was dealing with someone as deceptive as you, and was entitled to take your post at face value. Once again, you try to evade responsibility for a deliberate deception by blaming those who didn't see through it.

Please stop trying to justify your actions by blaming those who criticize them. What's appropriate would be an apology from you - but I'm not holding my breath waiting for one, since an apology from you would be totally out of character.

At this point, I'd settle for you shutting up about this dispute.

This is the first time I've seen this mushroom. They're very pretty with their white stripes. Are they edible?

EricN said:

Which rail are you using?

Click to expand...

This one:

With the extender for a collared lens:

AlanF said:

Optical limits is one of Richard's favourite sites
Summary:
The Good
Very sharp at medium aperture settings
f/1.2 on a budget

The Bad
Blurry corners from f/1.2 to f/2
Excessive axial color fringing at f/1.2
Very pronounced focus shift
Wavy field curvature
Miserable corner bokeh in certain scenes

Click to expand...

Anyway, It costs as much as the list price of the EF 50 mm 1.4 used to be and gives us the optical performance of the EF 50 mm 1.2.
I think it’s a fair package. Maybe I'll give it a try.
If you need „more“ there are RF 50mm 1.4 L VCM and RF 50mm 1.2 L.

Planterz said:

From what I understand, yes. Micro 4/3 cameras are popular for macro for a few reasons. You get extra working distance because you get to/have to back a bit to fill the frame with the same object (assuming same focal length lens). The 2x crop factor gives you twice the depth of field at the same aperture, which in some cases will let you keep the aperture more open for faster shutter speeds and less ISO. I think the Olympus/OM lenses also accept their teleconvertors, so you can combine TCs and extension tubes for some pretty crazy magnification factors (not sure about Panasonic). The higher end M4/3 bodies also have very good IBIS and the stacked sensor ones like the OM-1 can shoot up to 50fps, so you can fire off handheld brackets easier. I've reason something about OM holding a patent for some fancy focus stacking thing they do, but I'm not sure what that is.

Click to expand...

Indeed. You get more depth of field, when you use the same framing as on a full-frame camera. Or you get the same DOF but with a larger effective magnification. I did quite a bit of checking and reading and decided against the micro 4/3 sensor and went for APS-C though. Also because of some of the other features of the R7. I also do flower photography and then the increase DOF can hurt you because the background is not blurred enough. (Fortunately you can correct that in post-processing nowadays.)

IBIS does not work too well with macro. Maybe one or two stops. So when shooting hand-held I always use a shutter speed of 1/300 or more. I often use a diffused flash to get enough light. And don't forget to use continuous autofocus (Servo) as any minor motion of yourself or the subject will throw off the focus.

As far as I know, the focus bracketing of the OM is similar to the R7. (I think OM takes the shots from back to front and Canon from front to back; both have advantages and disadvantage).

Planterz said:

From what I understand, yes. Micro 4/3 cameras are popular for macro for a few reasons. You get extra working distance because you get to/have to back a bit to fill the frame with the same object (assuming same focal length lens). The 2x crop factor gives you twice the depth of field at the same aperture, which in some cases will let you keep the aperture more open for faster shutter speeds and less ISO. I think the Olympus/OM lenses also accept their teleconvertors, so you can combine TCs and extension tubes for some pretty crazy magnification factors (not sure about Panasonic). The higher end M4/3 bodies also have very good IBIS and the stacked sensor ones like the OM-1 can shoot up to 50fps, so you can fire off handheld brackets easier. I've reason something about OM holding a patent for some fancy focus stacking thing they do, but I'm not sure what that is.

Click to expand...

I remember OM has something for astronomy to take multiple photos as opposed to one long exposure, but that's about as far from Macro as you can get.

EricN said:

Back on topic: Is the following correct? Using the smaller sensor on macro, you could achieve the wider depth of field with the same settings (which could be useful for moving subject that can't be focus stacked), but noise would be increased and with the higher magnification, any motion or shake would be more visible.

Click to expand...

From what I understand, yes. Micro 4/3 cameras are popular for macro for a few reasons. You get extra working distance because you get to/have to back a bit to fill the frame with the same object (assuming same focal length lens). The 2x crop factor gives you twice the depth of field at the same aperture, which in some cases will let you keep the aperture more open for faster shutter speeds and less ISO. I think the Olympus/OM lenses also accept their teleconvertors, so you can combine TCs and extension tubes for some pretty crazy magnification factors (not sure about Panasonic). The higher end M4/3 bodies also have very good IBIS and the stacked sensor ones like the OM-1 can shoot up to 50fps, so you can fire off handheld brackets easier. I've reason something about OM holding a patent for some fancy focus stacking thing they do, but I'm not sure what that is.