cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Share your Macro Photos

lindam
Administrator
Administrator

Have you captured an awesome macro photo? Post it here and share the story behind the shot. Be sure to include the Canon gear you used. This photo was captured with a Canon EOS 5D Mark III and a Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM lens at f/5, 1/160 sec, ISO 100.

 

FLower-Macro.jpg

173 REPLIES 173

 nevermind

 

 

This discussion has gone on a tangent, and is was off topic.  Use this thread below to continue the discussion.

 

https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/General-Camera-Discussion/Open-Discussion-on-Image-Sensors/m-p/25...

 

I would encourage a Moderator to break this thread, and move the off-topic discussion to the above link.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

then WHY did you reply to it if you think its a problem here as a side note?

 

"...your image quality will be so much worse because you lose a lot of pixels in the process of cropping."

 

You can't say this as a blanket statement.  In your case it may be so. Probably is but this is a camera vs camera thing. Sometimes it is good to use an extreme example to illustrate a point. Let's say we use a Rebel Xti and a 5D Mk IV or a 5Ds.  Now the cropper isn't going to fair so well is it?

You would have to compare both images in PS at 100% to see if a certain FF is worse with a 1.6 edited crop vs an already cropped image from any certain crop sensor camera. Another factor is pixel size vs pixel density.  Sometimes larger pixels trump pixel density.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!


@ebiggs1 wrote:

"...your image quality will be so much worse because you lose a lot of pixels in the process of cropping."

 

You can't say this as a blanket statement.  In your case it may be so. Probably is but this is a camera vs camera thing. Sometimes it is good to use an extreme example to illustrate a point. Let's say we use a Rebel Xti and a 5D Mk IV or a 5Ds.  Now the cropper isn't going to fair so well is it?

You would have to compare both images in PS at 100% to see if a certain FF is worse with a 1.6 edited crop vs an already cropped image from any certain crop sensor camera. Another factor is pixel size vs pixel density.  Sometimes larger pixels trump pixel density.


Hi ebiggs,

Great points.  I made a certain assumptions like comparable quality camera and sensors, roughly the same megapixels,  with just the sensor size difference.  Since I have both the 7D mark II and the 5D mark III, I have made comparisons on those two.  The images from the 5D Mark III after cropping to be the same size as the 7D mark II shows discernable loss of IQ, hence the reason I'm using both cameras for different purposes.

================================================
Diverhank's photos on Flickr

ok so what about the cameras who cram all those pixils (say for instance FF sensor compared to the mirrorless) where they cram 3 pixils into the same space which the FF has only one.  What I read was the camera with ONE pixel in that space will  have less noise than the one with 3 in that same amt of measured space.  I hope Im being clear.

 

Im sorry I dont have all the right lingo to express what Im trying to convey about the article.  Its a large quotent preventing many DLSR users to switch over to mirrorless (besides replacing all your lenses).  One would intuitively think more pixils, better photo.  But not so much from what I read.

 

As for the rest, Ill leave that decision up to you more experienced ppl to debate.  I enjoy having extra reach with the Crop sensor, not to metion, still able to use all lenses I have collected so far.  (still want the 600mm for birds, cropped sensor w/  1000mmFL or not) 

 

I promise Ill get EXTIF prgm to post settings w/ photos in the future.

 


@fatcat wrote:

ok so what about the cameras who cram all those pixils (say for instance FF sensor compared to the mirrorless) where they cram 3 pixils into the same space which the FF has only one.  What I read was the camera with ONE pixel in that space will  have less noise than the one with 3 in that same amt of measured space.  I hope Im being clear.

 

Im sorry I dont have all the right lingo to express what Im trying to convey about the article.  Its a large quotent preventing many DLSR users to switch over to mirrorless (besides replacing all your lenses).  One would intuitively think more pixils, better photo.  But not so much from what I read. 

 



Sorry not to get back with you sooner.  At the risk of being not totally technically correct, I'll try to keep it simple.  What you stated in the first paragraph is correct.  Assuming everything else being equal, as you cram more pixels in and expect it to do more...something has got to give.  Sensor is collecting light and with more pixels, each pixel is smaller and hence collects less light.  The noise amount is the same for a given sensor so each pixel will have more noise - A practical example is the Canon 5DS and 5DSR.  I own a 5DSR (which has the anti-aliasing filter removed from the sensor).  Here Canon basically took a 5D Mark III and the same sensor and modified it into a 5DS / 5DSR.  The 5DS/R has 50.1 megapixels versus the 5D III 22.3 megapixels.  The end result is at higher ISO the 5DS/R doesn't do too well.  Since I have both the 5DSR and the 5D III, I can tell right away.  In practical terms it's about 3 stops worse - Via the menu, I stop the Auto ISO from going above 3200 for the 5DSR and 12800 for the 5D III for this reason.  So noise is worse but you have much more resolution.  If you are one who blows everything up to 400% to look at your pictures - a pixel peeper - you will be amazed at how good the 5DS/R is.  Same goes with cropping.

 

Regarding your second paragraph above, I'm not sure what you're referring to...what we talked about in paragraph 1 has nothing to do with mirror or mirrorless.  Many mirrorless cameras has the same size sensors as the DSLR (APS-C and full frame) with roughly the same megapixels.

 

================================================
Diverhank's photos on Flickr

" Sensor is collecting light and with more pixels, each pixel is smaller and hence collects less light."

 

Almost perfect!  Smiley Happy  "... each pixel is smaller and hence collects less light."  Each smaller sensor collects less total light.  But the light that falls on it is exactly the same regardless of its size. If you place an 8 1/2 x11" sheet of paper on the table and draw a 1" circle on it and then draw a 2" circle the amount of light falling on either is the same.  However the larger circle has more of it.  This again has to do with certain camera vs certain other cameras since sensor size is not the whole factor here.  However, the processing hardware in the camera's electronics has a great deal, probably more, to do with how it preforms in low light or even in IQ for  that matter.  Again would you take a EOS 1D with a 4mp FF sensor, pixels that are huge, or a 7D with much smaller pixels to shoot low light stuff?

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!


@ebiggs1 wrote:

" Sensor is collecting light and with more pixels, each pixel is smaller and hence collects less light."

 

Almost perfect!  Smiley Happy  "... each pixel is smaller and hence collects less light."  Each smaller sensor collects less total light.  But the light that falls on it is exactly the same regardless of its size. If you place an 8 1/2 x11" sheet of paper on the table and draw a 1" circle on it and then draw a 2" circle the amount of light falling on either is the same.  However the larger circle has more of it. 


I have a problem with this analogy because it completely ignores the size of the photosites, or sensors, as well as the spacing between them.  The analogy would be correct if the circle was one big photosite, but it is not.  The analogy is correct about the same amount of light falling, though.

The surface of the image sensor can be compared to an ice cube tray, or a cupcake tin.  Each photosite would be a “cup” in the ice cube tray or cupcake tin.  Light falling on an image sensor can be compared to rainfall.  

 

If an inch of rain falls on the ice cube tray, then every cup in the ice cube tray will collect an inch of water.  Except, cups with a wide diameter, like a FF sensor, will collect more water than cups with a smaller diameter, like an APS-C sensor.  Bigger cups will collect more water, and larger photosites do collect more light and smaller ones.

 

There is also space between the cups on the trays, just as there is space between photosites.  Reducing the space between photosites increases the detail in the final image, because less light is lost to falling between photosites.  

 

Manufacturers like to publish the size of the photosites on a sensor, but no one seems to talk about the blank space on the surface.  I suppose that the amount of blank space could be inferred from the number of MP that the sensor has.  But, the more completely photosites cover the image sensor, then the more detail you will get.

The ideal sensor would have large diameter photosites, which would be tightly packed together, to minimize loss of light.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."


@ebiggs1 wrote:

" Sensor is collecting light and with more pixels, each pixel is smaller and hence collects less light."

 

Almost perfect!  Smiley Happy  "... each pixel is smaller and hence collects less light."  Each smaller sensor collects less total light.  


Yes total light.  I was trying to explain why the smaller pixel has more noise - I did caveat that everything else being equal - in electronics communication there's a term Signal to Noise ratio (SNR) - if this ratio is small your reception is not going to be so good - not sure if this term is used in photography but it's the same concept.  Here light can be equated to Signal - amount of total light going into that pixel...the noise is the same regardless of pixel size for a certain sensor. So for smaller pixel that receives less total light, the SNR is smaller compared to a larger pixel - quality will be worse than a larger pixel.

================================================
Diverhank's photos on Flickr
Avatar
click here to view the press release
Announcements