Macro full Frame or Crop camera

Do you prefer using full frame cameras or crop cameras for Macro photography?

I think for close-up shots crop factor cameras should have the depth-of-field advantage. For 1:1 macro or something much closer some said the advantage disappears or not that much any more.

Depends somewhat on what you intend to photograph.
Crop cameras provide more pixels on the subject, greater depth of field and greater working distance (assuming the same focal lens).
Full frame cameras with typically larger pixels give you better noise, shallower depth of field and wider DR.
Like everything in life there are trade offs.

On a true 1:1 lens, you will effectively get better than 1:1 reproduction with a crop sensor. Effectively you have a lens half again as long, with the same close focus distance, so you get more magnification.

Just be careful, because you sometimes get a "1:1 equivalent" i.e. with a half life size lens on an MFT body (2x crop factor), an enlargement looks the same as a 1:1 on a full frame. (The math might be a little off, but you get the idea)

I believe the Nikon 40mm DX Macro is a true 1:1, I get basically identical shots between that and my 60mm, which I know is 1:1

Full frame has the previously mentioned benefits with lower light, etc.

peterholdmann wrote:On a true 1:1 lens, you will effectively get better than 1:1 reproduction with a crop sensor. Effectively you have a lens half again as long, with the same close focus distance, so you get more magnification.

Just be careful, because you sometimes get a "1:1 equivalent" i.e. with a half life size lens on an MFT body (2x crop factor), an enlargement looks the same as a 1:1 on a full frame. (The math might be a little off, but you get the idea)

I believe the Nikon 40mm DX Macro is a true 1:1, I get basically identical shots between that and my 60mm, which I know is 1:1

Full frame has the previously mentioned benefits with lower light, etc.

It's still 1:1 on APS-C but it has the appearance of giving more magnification due to cropping by the sensor.  In macro speak, 1:1 refers to the image on the sensor plane being identical in size to the actual object.  The only thing you are doing with a cropped sensor is that you are photographing less of it but you aren't magnifying it any more.  Think of a window in a house with a tree outside.  You look through that window and you see the full tree, now you close the curtains halfway, now you only see half the tree but the half that you see is exactly the same size as it was when the curtain was open.

I think there is some misunderstanding regarding the full frame vs crop sensor comparison.
A lot of crop sensor camera users (I use MFT) suggest that these cameras give more DOF than a full frame camera.
Of course this is true when using the same f-stop. A full frame camera however has the benefit of the larger sensor which compensates for a higher f-stop.
Which means there is no difference between an MFT image taken at 45mm, f/2.8 @ISO200 and a full frame image taken at 90mm, f/5.6 @ISO800

I think that a full frame camera has the added benefit of possible shallower DOF.
And of course a better overall IQ when there is enough light to keep ISO values low even when using smaller apertures.

I think there is some misunderstanding regarding the crop sensor vs full frame comparison.
A lot of crop sensor users (I use MFT) suggest that these cameras give more DOF than full frame cameras.
Of course the crop sensor has more DOF when the same f-stop and equivalent focal length are used.
But a full frame sensor will compensate for using a higher f-stop.
Which means that the image and IQ will be about the same for an MFT image taken at 45mm, f/2.8 @ISO200 and a full frame image taken at 90mm, f/5.6 @ISO800.

A full frame camera has the added benefit of possible shallower DOF.
And of course, when enough light (or a tripod) is available to keep ISO values low even when using higher f-stops overall image quality will be better on a full frame camera.

Personally I prefer using a smaller and lighter and less expensive camera.
And I should add that I am NOT an accomplished photographer. As a biomedical engineer I like to look at the technical side of things and I hope this post helps to clarify things.

Jan

E.J. Peiker wrote:

peterholdmann wrote:On a true 1:1 lens, you will effectively get better than 1:1 reproduction with a crop sensor. Effectively you have a lens half again as long, with the same close focus distance, so you get more magnification.

Just be careful, because you sometimes get a "1:1 equivalent" i.e. with a half life size lens on an MFT body (2x crop factor), an enlargement looks the same as a 1:1 on a full frame. (The math might be a little off, but you get the idea)

I believe the Nikon 40mm DX Macro is a true 1:1, I get basically identical shots between that and my 60mm, which I know is 1:1

Full frame has the previously mentioned benefits with lower light, etc.

It's still 1:1 on APS-C but it has the appearance of giving more magnification due to cropping by the sensor.  In macro speak, 1:1 refers to the image on the sensor plane being identical in size to the actual object.  The only thing you are doing with a cropped sensor is that you are photographing less of it but you aren't magnifying it any more.  Think of a window in a house with a tree outside.  You look through that window and you see the full tree, now you close the curtains halfway, now you only see half the tree but the half that you see is exactly the same size as it was when the curtain was open.

Your explanation is correct, but the effect is still that it appears to have more magnification than 1:1 on a full frame. Also, I have seen 35 mm equivalent magnification on some lenses, meaning they are not throwing a life size image on the sensor, but they roughly match the field of view of a 1:1 on 35mm.