Sorry for the gearhead question ( I realize talent and practice is where it counts), but I am curious to hear from those of you who swear by the 5D / FF sensor cameras for macro.
I was impressed with the 5D depth of field when shooting people, and figured it might be beneficial for the selective focus / highly OOF shots that many of you are so fabulous at. I personally don't notice much, if any difference (besides the reach), but curious to hear it from you!
I think for me, the way the 5D handles ISO has opened up more opportunities I would not have had with the 20D. I shoot at ISO 800 all the time with little concern about the tiny amount of noise the camera produces. There is just a different look/feel to the images with the 5d coming from the 20d. I like the 1.6x crop factor on the 20d for macro but the 5d holds its own. As far as the shallow DOF and the OOF shots... all depends on the desired effect the person is trying to achieve. I think you can accomplish this with most any camera. I would say it is more technique based versus camera based. If I understand the question correctly?
Admit not owning a 5D but am thinking about it or it's succesor. Think Hatch hit the nail on the head, compared to 1.6crop cams it's a trade off between lower print magnification of the 5D vs better high ISO noise, making it ideal for "arty" type natural light shots. Not sure DOF considerations really come into it.
We are waiting to see if Canon reproduces their rebate of last October because we think we want one. So I am reading this post with great interest. The high ISO/low noise is what appeals to me the most.
I have done recent testing with the 5 vs 20D and can't seem to find much difference with the noise levels. Keeping my eye open for the 2/3 stop difference in sensitivity, but just dont see it!
To get the same DOF as on a 1.6x camera you are going to have to stop down approximately 1.3 stops so you are going to lose shutter speed (if you aren't using a flash) or need that high quality ISO just to keep things equal. I have spoken with several people shooting butterflies with the 5D and they were really missing the loss of magnification. If you are always wanting a longer lens then going to a 5D is not the best idea. Over the past couple of years I have seen a number of people who felt the need to replace their 100mm macros with a 180mm to make up the difference and obviously that adds to the cost.
For natural light bug shooters I suspect the 40D is a better option. For flower shooters, I think the 5D would win hands down better bokeh and better IQ. Both models have serious flaws in the placement and limit of their AF points but the 5D is much easier to MF due to its brighter and bigger viewfinder.
For this type of work don't let all the talk about the AF problems of the 1DMkIII in Servo scare you off. Unless you are shooting some really fast bugs at 10 fps it won't be an issue. If there is money in the budget I can't think of a better way to go. The 1.3x factor is a nice compromise and the IQ is stunning.
I have done recent testing with the 5 vs 20D and can't seem to find much difference with the noise levels. Really? I see a huge difference. Have you tried shooting in poor lighting situations? Gyms? Basketball courts? I shoot ISO 1600 with the 5d and have very usable photos which require very little noise reduction. With the 20d in the same situations I had very few keepers. I just shot a volleyball game with the 5d and my partner shot with the 20d... most of the shots with the 20d looked really bad due to the noise the way the 20d handles noise.. (Not attacking your comment/you) I'm just surprised about the comment.,.. the 5d is well know for how it handles noise. I love shooting ISO 800 or even 1600 and not having to worry very much about the noise. As I mentioned in the post above... shooting ISO 800 for macro has opened up another world. When I shot with the 20d at ISO 800 I knew I would have to use some sort of noise reduction to turn out a decent image. Not the case with the 5d...even beyond ISO 800 the camera does a great job IMO. I do not miss the 1.6x factor. I might have to move in a little closer for my shots but having FF really helps with large subjects.
Even the tiny insects with 100mm show off tons of detail. For example this little wasp was shot at ISO 800...f/9.0...1/400th a sec. Lots of detail for a 1/4" subject. I might have had a 20mm extension tube on at the time? I don't think the additional 1.6x factor would have made a huge difference in the shot. I do think the higher ISO needed on the 20d would have had an impact on the quality of the photo. http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1233/1020921253_40f87f3e22_o.jpg
The 40d as mentioned above would be a good choice as well. I haven't shot with it but from the specs and the work I have seen produced with the camera. It is hard to beat for the price.
Another vote for the 5d would be the focusing screens you can buy... I added the "S" screen to mine...works to help manual focus your fast lenses....2.8 or faster. I found this has helped increase my keeper rate as well. I leave it in all the time... with my slower lenses the viewfinder looks a littel darker but this hasn't impacted my shooting style.
As for shooting in low light conditions, thats pretty much all I do. I generally don't notice much difference between 400 and 1600 in low light conditions, so my cameras are set at 1600 pretty regularly. I never really push it to 3200 unless I know I need to document an otherwise impossible shot.
Your example of comparing a 20D and 5D at a basketball game in a gym- I can't even imagine using the 5D! I find the camera to be fairly slow and unresponsive, even the halfway point on the shutter, its just not there. Fine for landscapes, but not anything moving!
I haven't done any scientific testing between the cameras, but I have metered the same (low light) shooting situations (same time of day, same hot lights, same tripod placement) in the dark corners of reptile enclosures. The readings on the 20D and 5Dare the same. 40D was generally one stop faster.
My LCD on the 40D has a terrible purple cast and most of my images are suffering from image shake. Used in conjunction for a few commercial events this past week, 20D/40D each with a 16-35, almost all of the 40D images were trashed. I have no explanation for this, but was definitely misled with it's ease of use. I immidiately felt at home with, with fast AF lock, quicker frame rate, and gigantic LCD, but was major dissappointed with the screen colors and the amont of keepers.
I apologize for the confusion with the DOF question, but Hrow confirmed my assumption with the image quality and bokeh. The selective focusing/fine art images in the flickr galleries prove this quite well.
Hrow, your images are awesome, and I have no reason to doubt you, but my (former) Mark II would be my least favored candidate for macro shooting. Low light performance was horrible, and I have become very accustomed to adjusting the D series cameras without even thinking about it.
I think I am the only one on this board that has buyers remorse instead of camera fever! I sit here with all the new toys and find that I am just as happy to abandon them and revert back to my 20D's! I would keep the 5, but the sensor/viewfinder dust drives me nuts...so maybe the 5DMII will fix that?
I am at a point of wanting to simplify my rig- I find that I do much better with a standard simple rig, making the best of what I have and not thinking about the greener grass on the other side.
I can appreciate that the Mark II would be your least favorite for macro and it is one of the reasons I never bought one. The Mark III is a totally different beastie though.
Could somebody please correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I think that the DOF is actually greater for a constant subject size on a smaller sensor. For example, the DOF in small P&S cameras is great compared to DSLRs, when given a constant subject size, like people portraits. I remember seeing this at some point as a pro argument for smaller sensors compared to FF.
I only ask the question for interest (and my own technical accuracy), and not to generate controversy here.
I know that for constant subject size, and constant aperture the DOF is basically independent of focal length, but this is something different.
bsteels wrote:
Could somebody please correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I think that the DOF is actually greater for a constant subject size on a smaller sensor. For example, the DOF in small P&S cameras is great compared to DSLRs, when given a constant subject size, like people portraits. I remember seeing this at some point as a pro argument for smaller sensors compared to FF.
I only ask the question for interest (and my own technical accuracy), and not to generate controversy here.
I know that for constant subject size, and constant aperture the DOF is basically independent of focal length, but this is something different....Show more →
You're right and that's the point I was trying to make earlier. There are some charts floating around on the Internet but my recollection is that there is between 1 1/3 and 1 1/2 stops worth of a difference between 1.6x and FF. This is the reason DOF calculators ask for your sensor size.
My fault there. Now that I realize what I said, I meant field of view -FOV. I get enough alphabet soup with work, and it didnt even cross my mind now that I am beating it to death. No controversy here!
The important thing to remember is that each body has its own set of attributes and its own set of flaws. There is no free lunch so every feature has a corresponding price to pay for it. It all boils down to personal preference and need.
One of the things that is unfortunate is that most "which body" questions turn into arguments when it would be much more helpful to have a fluid dialogue in which you can bounce ideas and thoughts off of others. We can all learn a lot from each other and hopefully will.
Hrow wrote:
The important thing to remember is that each body has its own set of attributes and its own set of flaws. There is no free lunch so every feature has a corresponding price to pay for it. It all boils down to personal preference and need.
One of the things that is unfortunate is that most "which body" questions turn into arguments when it would be much more helpful to have a fluid dialogue in which you can bounce ideas and thoughts off of others. We can all learn a lot from each other and hopefully will.
Thanks for the clarification earlier, and very well put above. This holds true for lenses as well. So often I just shake my head over the raging debates or close-minded opinions that appear online...
Cheers, Brad
Oh - and good luck to the OP!! Decisions, decisions...
The important thing to remember is that each body has its own set of attributes and its own set of flaws. There is no free lunch so every feature has a corresponding price to pay for it. It all boils down to personal preference and need.
I couldn't agree more. They all have wonderful features... but it really comes back to your shooting style and needs.
Well put Hrow. Your work is wonderful BTW. I really enjoyed your galleries.
Good discussion.
It'll never happen but I wish canon would come up with the ideal macrophotography body (well at least for me). No AF, large bright viewfinder, good high ISO low noise characteristics , weatherproof, perhaps 1.3 X crop and not too heavy.
I keep looking at the Mk3 but even though I have the money I don't want to pay for all those bits I don't need
Keep on wondering how one of those foveon sensors would do in a decent body
In the meantime my 20D and 350D keep me happy.
I know, and like I said I apologize in advance for the gearhead discussion.
Though, it's usually the opposite theme...I need more, better, faster, longer, etc! Just sold the last of the fancier bodies and back (happy) with the 20D's.
As for future upgrades, I think Canon has some room for improvements. I hope to see an upgrade with the mt-24. Granted, they are extremely consistent, but I personally would love something wireless, adaptable and more adjustable like the Nikon R1. I often shoot with the 77mm threaded lenses and am thus forced to use the brackets and full size strobes, thus tripod = heavy!
Weatherproofing would be great, but I see how they have used that to distinguish the pro bodies from the prosumer, and don't see that happening!
bsteels wrote:
Could somebody please correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I think that the DOF is actually greater for a constant subject size on a smaller sensor. For example, the DOF in small P&S cameras is great compared to DSLRs, when given a constant subject size, like people portraits. I remember seeing this at some point as a pro argument for smaller sensors compared to FF.
You've kinda mixed apples and oranges my friend
A full frame sensor will give you more depth of field than a 1.6x crop factor camera at the same Fstop (about a 33% difference) because the pixels on the FF camera are larger. The pixel size changes the area of confusion, and that's why DoF calculators ask you for the camera that you are using.
A P&S camera has a tiny sensor, and therefore tiny pixels. So you might be wondering why the DoF is so much better than cameras with bigger sensors (and pixels). It's because the P&S camera has an ultra wide angle lens -sometimes as little as 5 to 7mm of focal length at the wide end. With a lens that wide you're going to get a lot of depth no matter how small the sensor is...
LordV wrote:
Good discussion.
It'll never happen but I wish canon would come up with the ideal macrophotography body (well at least for me). No AF, large bright viewfinder, good high ISO low noise characteristics , weatherproof, perhaps 1.3 X crop and not too heavy.
