As I already said - I did not comment on this aspect. But feel free to continue the "discussion".It's totally relevant to your comment. When you crop and then enlarge, you give up the gain in Depth of field you got by backing up, just like you give it up if you increase focal length after backing up. In the end only two things matter for depth of field: total magnification and aperture. The following factors all affect total magnification: subject distance, focal length, enlargement ratio (sensor size to display size ratio), and viewing distance. If you crop, it's exactly the same as reducing the sensor size without changing your shooting distance.
As I already said - I did not comment on this aspect. But feel free to continue the "discussion".
I strongly disagree.
If you want all of that extra area and the resulting slower processing and larger file sizes, more power to you. Have at it. But please stop insisting that what you perceive is best for you is also best for everyone else!
I don't need all of that extra area and the processing speed penalty it imposes. I also don't want the extra data size when archiving the raw images.
Some of us don't seem to have near as much trouble tracking erratically moving targets as much as others of us seem to have. Many of us learned to shoot with both eyes open a long time ago. It helps prevent getting clobbered on the sidelines of field and gym sports as well as allows one to see what is going on outside the narrow field of view in the viewfinder.
If one is already nailing focus well over 90% of the time using an APS-C sensor, then there's no real need to "increase the chances" by using a FF sensor.
If one is having difficulty nailing focus with todays top APS-C cameras such as the Canon EOS 7D Mark II or Nikon 500D, compared to using same generation FF DSLRs, the problem ain't the sensor size...
It's not 2008 any more. Hard disks are cheap, modern computers are pretty damn powerful (My 2013 MacPro is perfectly capable of editing 50Mpx+ images rapidly, and that's an 8 year old machine now.)
You're perfectly fine in doing what you want to do in the way you want to do it, but all I'm saying is that APS-C has no long term future on the R mount, for all the reasons that I mentioned.
None of this contradicts what I said. You may be getting great shots with an APS-C camera. But that doesn't mean your hitrate couldn't improve if the sensor is larger and able to predict/track movement better because of it.
if you're getting 90% with an APS-C sensor and 95% with a FF because of the better tracking capabilities, that might not be worth the investment to you. But that one missed shot that you might have got otherwise...
By "poor marketing" you meant the EOS-M lag in every major metrics? EOS-M got high visibility when they launched but the camera failed to perform, disappointed in many reviews. It is very funny to call that "poor marketing"If you are talking about the EOS M series, it's only the best selling interchangeable lens camera system in the entire world. It just didn't sell well to begin with in North America and Western Europe for a variety of reasons, mainly poor marketing to consumers in those markets.
If you always keep your subject in the center of the frame then you're right, there's no difference. But real world, that doesn't happen as often as we'd we like especially with long lenses. When something is moving into your APS-C area from outside of it, of course you're going to get better AF if the camera is already tracking it because it's in the FF area.It has nothing to do with a larger sensor being able to predict/track movement better because a larger sensor has no ability to predict/track movement better. Even if it did, it wouldn't make a difference if the subject is always within the center 42% of the frame that is the same size as an APS-C sensor.
That's probably true. And as none of us have any control over what Canon do, there's little point in discussing these things except to try to enjoy ourselves. If anything I say makes you or others annoyed then I apologise. I know as little about Canon's plans as anyone else here. My speculation is based on my own experiences, and they're of course not the same as anyone else.Again, you're projecting your own cost/benefit analysis method onto others.
That's probably true. And as none of us have any control over what Canon do, there's little point in discussing these things except to try to enjoy ourselves. If anything I say makes you or others annoyed then I apologise. I know as little about Canon's plans as anyone else here. My speculation is based on my own experiences, and they're of course not the same as anyone else.
One other point though while I'm here about the APS-C vs FF thing, is that the other cost issue is that most photographers don't ONLY do one type of photography. Previously we were limited by technology. The 5D III was't the best camera for wildlife photography, and the 7D II wasn't ideal for landscape (although both were far from terrible at the other.)
What we're seeing with the R5 and beyond is the start of the 'one camera that can do everything very well'. Although An R7 will absolutely be cheaper than the R5S or whatever it's called, will the R5S be cheaper than buying an R7 AND an R5? Probably.
I'm excited about 100mpx cameras even though I probably can't afford one yet - and I'd still probably spend my money on new RF lenses before a new body because even my EOS R is still good enough for almost anything I want to do right now.
By "poor marketing" you meant the EOS-M lag in every major metrics? EOS-M got high visibility when they launched but the camera failed to perform, disappointed in many reviews. It is very funny to call that "poor marketing"
I guess it all depends upon whether you consider a particular camera a success or not based on what kinds of YouTube reviews it gets rather than how many units it sells and how much profit it makes worldwide. The YouTubers do what they do to get the most views and thus generate the most income they can from their videos. If that means stirring the pot and criticizing anything the worlds largest seller of cameras offers for sale, that's what they'll do.
I'm not so sure Canon's poor marketing of the initial pieces of the M-series in North America and Western Europe wasn't intentional because they had higher profit margins on lower end DSLRs in the Rebel/xx0D and xx00D lines. It was in Asia where smaller/lighter/cheaper was really catching on with dedicated cameras for "non-photographers" that the M first made its mark - and in so doing made a ton of cash for Canon. The YouTubers still don't get that the M-system is not created nor marketed for anyone interested enough to watch a bunch of talking heads on Youtube trash every camera except the brand that they're a fanboy of.
You're applying what Bob said for one situation to what Fisher is saying for another scenario. When you crop, it's exactly the same thing as reducing the sensor size without changing your shooting distance.
If you backed up without changing the focal length you gained DoF at the expense of magnification.
Be sure to use macro shooting distances where the reproduction ratio will approach 1:1.
This is the relevant text from the post which started the discussion, by jvillian:
It will reduce the need to focus stack macro shots. Back the camera up giving yourself more depth of field and then crop in. That alone would make it worth while fore me.
He is correct. Slap a 100mm macro on FF and fill the viewfinder with a big bug. Now slap that 100mm on a crop camera. The bug will be larger than the viewfinder. If you back up to get the same exact framing as with the FF, you will have more DoF. That is exactly what Bob Atkins was describing.
Technically yes, but the whole point is that you do not need as much magnification for a subject that fills the FF sensor when you're working with an APS-C crop. You can back up a bit, get more DoF, and still have good detail if you're working with higher pixel densities. That's true whether you're using an actual crop camera, or cropping a high resolution FF file.
It doesn't change anything. The "advanced options" only allow you to ask will this be acceptable at X arbitrary print size? The relationship between the two (1.6x more DoF at 1.6x the distance) remains the same. Note: their calculator has a rounding error somewhere. You can get it to report 2x the DoF or 1x with extreme print sizes. You can also create situations where the reported Total Depth of Field value does not match the difference in the reported near/far values.
Again, this doesn't change anything. A subject that fills the FF sensor at 1:1 spills over an APS-C crop at 1:1. If what you want is to capture the entire subject then you have to back up with an APS-C crop. At which point you have less than 1:1 magnification, but more DoF.
Yes well there's some truth in that.It means you are a masochist's masochist.
Western Digital 14TB external drives are now under $300. While there's still a good argument for the performance issues dealing with larger files especially on older computers or with older software, the cost of storage really isn't a big deal these days.Yes well there's some truth in that.
However it raises an interesting question. The 5 series was always the GP camera model that was good for most applications, and an awful lot are used to photographing weddings, the FF giving such an advantage in dimly lit churches. If the R5 really is the 5DIV's replacement then it's jumped to 45mp, and the difference between 45 and 50mp is basically nothing in both terms of resolution, output size and processing speed ! So 5 series users, often shooting hundreds of images at a time, are now 'lumbered' with 45mp data to deal with. Maybe CRAW is coming to the rescue here ? The problem with the previous MRAW & SRAW was that only DPP seemed to be able to convert them properly and even then there are issues so it wasn't really a viable option for many, myself included.
So it looks to me as if 5 series photographers are going to be forced into becoming data masochists in the future !
People almost always look at these things from their own perspectives and don't fully embrace other peoples perspectives.Western Digital 14TB external drives are now under $300. While there's still a good argument for the performance issues dealing with larger files especially on older computers or with older software, the cost of storage really isn't a big deal these days.