Camera for flowers
Feb 18, 2019 14:23:23 #
User ID wrote:
They are equal.
...
But if you crop a 6D image to match the framing
of the Xsi, you lose about half your pixels. As
the 6D is 20MP and Xsi is 12MP, it's a wash. .
...
But if you crop a 6D image to match the framing
of the Xsi, you lose about half your pixels. As
the 6D is 20MP and Xsi is 12MP, it's a wash. .
Actually, cropping to match an APS-C image reduces the pixels by 1/1.6² = .39. You lose 61% of the pixels. 20MP X .39 = 7.8 MP, quite a bit less than 12 MP.
Also, the 6D is more than a decade newer, the technology has improved quite a bit in that time.
Feb 18, 2019 14:30:48 #
PHRubin wrote:
Actually, cropping to match an APS-C image
reduces the pixels by 1/1.6² = .39. You lose
61% of the pixels. 20MP X .39 = 7.8 MP, quite
a bit less than 12 MP.
Actually, cropping to match an APS-C image
reduces the pixels by 1/1.6² = .39. You lose
61% of the pixels. 20MP X .39 = 7.8 MP, quite
a bit less than 12 MP.
As your math shows, it's all about
the same, no significant difference.
Thank you for the calculations.
.
Feb 18, 2019 14:32:42 #
PHRubin wrote:
....
6D is more than a decade newer, the technology
has improved quite a bit in that time.
6D is more than a decade newer, the technology
has improved quite a bit in that time.
It will surely render differently. "Improved" is
however in the eye of the beholder, subjective.
.
Feb 18, 2019 17:44:32 #
Best answer 😊 try both cameras with all your lenses and compare.
Feb 18, 2019 18:13:36 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
Either camera will work. The 6D has higher resolution and would be better in most situations.
Best lenses would generally be your 24-105 on the 6D or 50mm on the XSi.
It's ALWAYS best to "fill your viewfinder" rather than do heavy cropping later in post-processing.
Get yourself a set of Macro Extension Tubes and fit those between the lens and camera to make ANY lens able to focus closer and render higher magnification.
I recommend the Kenko set of extension tubes for good quality and value at $130 (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/375102-REG/Kenko_AEXTUBEDGC_Auto_Extension_Tube_Set.html). The Kenko set includes three tubes: 12mm, 20mm and 36mm. They are equal in function and quality to the Canon macro extension tubes.
The Canon tubes are also very good, but are only sold individually in two sizes and work out to be much more expensive: 12mm ($82) and 25mm ($140).
There also is a less expensive Vello set of three (12mm, 20mm & 36mm, $80) which are functually the same but more plasticky.
If you search you'll also find even cheaper sets of tubes... some under $25. However, those should be avoided because they severely limit lens function. All the above fully tubes support autofocus, aperture control and on lenses that have it Image Stabilization. The super cheap tube sets lack any electronic contacts for these functions. They only allow manual focus, give no direct means of aperture control and IS won't function on lenses that have it. The cheap tubes are fine with vintage lenses that are manual focus only and have mechanical means of aperture control right on the lens itself, but they are not good with modern electronically controlled lenses like you EF and EF-S lenses.
As mentioned, you simply install an extension tube between lens and camera to make the lens able to focus closer. It won't be able to focus to infinity, while the extension is installed, but otherwise will function normally. The tubes can be used singly or in various combinations of two or all three. The more extension you add, the higher magnification possible with a lens. Also, the longer the lens focal length, the more extension that will be needed to significantly change the close focusing ability of the lens and the magnification it renders.
I've used macro extension tubes for many years with different camera systems. They are compact, light weight, inexpensive, and an easy way to "do macro and close-ups". Sure, a "true" macro lens is even easier, but will usually be a lot more expensive (at least $350.... many are $500, $600 or more).
At one time or another, I've used macro extension tubes on lenses ranging from 20mm to 500mm. I currently have the Kenko set and several of the Canon tubes for use with my Canon system.
Usually the best choice in lens for this purpose is a "short telephoto". That gives you reasonable working distance without being too difficult to hold steady and with reasonable depth of field. Shorter focal lengths can put you too close to subjects... while longer ones give lots of working space but make for super shallow depth of field, requiring smaller lens apertures be used, which in turn makes for slower shutter speeds and/or higher apertures, all of which makes it hard to hold a steady shot.
Following are some examples:
50mm lens with 20mm extension tube on crop sensor camera (like your XSi):
Note: This above rose bud image shows how using an extension tube to force a non-macro lens to focus closer can make for some vignetting and softer looking corners. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it's why I chose to use the lens and tube combo above. I knew the image would naturally show some of those effects with the 50mm when it was used with a lot of extension and at a fairly large aperture. A different lens or even stopping this lens down farther would have reduced those effects, as you can see in some of the other shots below that were done with extension tubes.
85mm lens with 20mm extension tube on crop camera:
25mm extension tube on 70-200mm zoom on full frame (film):
90mm macro lens (vintage manual focus, 1:2) with 20mm extension tube on crop camera:
300mm lens with 25mm extension tube on crop camera:
500mm lens with 36mm extension tube on crop camera:
Following image actually wasn't shot with an extension tube, but is included here to give you some idea how shallow depth of field can be at high magnifications when a longer focal length lense is used. This was shot with 180mm macro lens near it's max magnification on a film (full frame) camera. Depth of Field is only a few millimeters, as you can see:
There are exceptions to everything. For example, while I suggest usually using a short telephoto lens, in order to keep the flowers in the background recognizable in the shot below I deliberately used a 20mm wide angle lens fitted with a 12mm extension tube on a full frame (film) camera. The petal of the flower was actually touching the front element of the lens. You can't get much less working distance than that!
Some of the above were shot at higher magnification than is typically needed for flower photography. But some flowers are tiny, such as the ones below that were shot with a 100mm macro lens close to it's maximum 1:1 magnification:
Best lenses would generally be your 24-105 on the 6D or 50mm on the XSi.
It's ALWAYS best to "fill your viewfinder" rather than do heavy cropping later in post-processing.
Get yourself a set of Macro Extension Tubes and fit those between the lens and camera to make ANY lens able to focus closer and render higher magnification.
I recommend the Kenko set of extension tubes for good quality and value at $130 (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/375102-REG/Kenko_AEXTUBEDGC_Auto_Extension_Tube_Set.html). The Kenko set includes three tubes: 12mm, 20mm and 36mm. They are equal in function and quality to the Canon macro extension tubes.
The Canon tubes are also very good, but are only sold individually in two sizes and work out to be much more expensive: 12mm ($82) and 25mm ($140).
There also is a less expensive Vello set of three (12mm, 20mm & 36mm, $80) which are functually the same but more plasticky.
If you search you'll also find even cheaper sets of tubes... some under $25. However, those should be avoided because they severely limit lens function. All the above fully tubes support autofocus, aperture control and on lenses that have it Image Stabilization. The super cheap tube sets lack any electronic contacts for these functions. They only allow manual focus, give no direct means of aperture control and IS won't function on lenses that have it. The cheap tubes are fine with vintage lenses that are manual focus only and have mechanical means of aperture control right on the lens itself, but they are not good with modern electronically controlled lenses like you EF and EF-S lenses.
As mentioned, you simply install an extension tube between lens and camera to make the lens able to focus closer. It won't be able to focus to infinity, while the extension is installed, but otherwise will function normally. The tubes can be used singly or in various combinations of two or all three. The more extension you add, the higher magnification possible with a lens. Also, the longer the lens focal length, the more extension that will be needed to significantly change the close focusing ability of the lens and the magnification it renders.
I've used macro extension tubes for many years with different camera systems. They are compact, light weight, inexpensive, and an easy way to "do macro and close-ups". Sure, a "true" macro lens is even easier, but will usually be a lot more expensive (at least $350.... many are $500, $600 or more).
At one time or another, I've used macro extension tubes on lenses ranging from 20mm to 500mm. I currently have the Kenko set and several of the Canon tubes for use with my Canon system.
Usually the best choice in lens for this purpose is a "short telephoto". That gives you reasonable working distance without being too difficult to hold steady and with reasonable depth of field. Shorter focal lengths can put you too close to subjects... while longer ones give lots of working space but make for super shallow depth of field, requiring smaller lens apertures be used, which in turn makes for slower shutter speeds and/or higher apertures, all of which makes it hard to hold a steady shot.
Following are some examples:
50mm lens with 20mm extension tube on crop sensor camera (like your XSi):
Note: This above rose bud image shows how using an extension tube to force a non-macro lens to focus closer can make for some vignetting and softer looking corners. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it's why I chose to use the lens and tube combo above. I knew the image would naturally show some of those effects with the 50mm when it was used with a lot of extension and at a fairly large aperture. A different lens or even stopping this lens down farther would have reduced those effects, as you can see in some of the other shots below that were done with extension tubes.
85mm lens with 20mm extension tube on crop camera:
25mm extension tube on 70-200mm zoom on full frame (film):
90mm macro lens (vintage manual focus, 1:2) with 20mm extension tube on crop camera:
300mm lens with 25mm extension tube on crop camera:
500mm lens with 36mm extension tube on crop camera:
Following image actually wasn't shot with an extension tube, but is included here to give you some idea how shallow depth of field can be at high magnifications when a longer focal length lense is used. This was shot with 180mm macro lens near it's max magnification on a film (full frame) camera. Depth of Field is only a few millimeters, as you can see:
There are exceptions to everything. For example, while I suggest usually using a short telephoto lens, in order to keep the flowers in the background recognizable in the shot below I deliberately used a 20mm wide angle lens fitted with a 12mm extension tube on a full frame (film) camera. The petal of the flower was actually touching the front element of the lens. You can't get much less working distance than that!
Some of the above were shot at higher magnification than is typically needed for flower photography. But some flowers are tiny, such as the ones below that were shot with a 100mm macro lens close to it's maximum 1:1 magnification:
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.