Full Frame or Medium Format?

[Cunha]

Hello everyone,

I want to ask you the following question:
For macro 1:1 to 5:1, which is more appropriate, effective and with better results; Full Frame or Medium Format (around 50 megapxels both)?
And why?

Thank you very much in advance for your help.
Regards.

[ray_parkhurst]

What about APS-C or M4/3, etc? It's much easier to find optics to cover the smaller sensor. I know there are no 50MP APS-C sensors.

[Macro_Cosmos]

Medium format
+ larger pixels
+ better use of resolution
+ 16-bit raw
- price
- big and obnoxious, heavy (vertical shooting)
- objective's field number is very likely too small!!!
- continuous shooting (often 3 or 4 fps)

FF
+ mature ecosystem
+ light-ish
0 price (gap is closing, a used gfx50r is similar to a new high MP ff body)
+ most objectives cover it
+ continuous shooting
+ trivial mounting, use raynox, Nikon 200mm ai-s, CMH-200 clone tubelens...
+ 1-5x? Well, just get the Laowa 25mm and a 1x macro lens.
- small pixels
- often out-resolves the objective

A lens that covers 1-5x on medium format... hmmm the Printing-Nikkor/Rayfact 150mm 1-5x float comes to mind, so does its $10k+ pricetag, doesn't include the big bellows and space you need.
A mit 5x would be fine, just need the right tube lens and don't worry too much about those fuzzy corners. 1-4x you can just get the Schneider Macro Varon.

Either way, the verdict is simple. If you're loaded, by all means medium format is a great option. For most, FF or crop makes far more sense. Why does it have to be 50MP though? A 24MP FF body works very well.

[ray_parkhurst]

A 24MP FF body works very well.

A 24MP APS-C also works well, and many more objectives and lenses can cover it. They need to be higher quality though since the pixels are smaller.

[Lou Jost]

More pixels are nearly always better; 24Mp is much too low for such mild magnifcations. Even 50Mp is too low at 1:1, if you are trying to get the most out of your lenses. My 180Mp FF pixel-shifted images are noticeably better than my 47Mp unshifted images at 1:1 .

[ray_parkhurst]

More pixels are nearly always better; 24Mp is much too low for such mild magnifcations. Even 50Mp is too low at 1:1, if you are trying to get the most out of your lenses. My 180Mp FF pixel-shifted images are noticeably better than my 47Mp unshifted images at 1:1 .

We're talking about a few disparate considerations here, but Yes, more is better.

Main difference between sensor sizes for a fixed magnification is the FOV. The larger sensor will appear to have lower magnification.

For a fixed magnification, smaller pixels give better resolution. 1x on 50MP FF has less resolution than 1x on 24MP APS-C, assuming the optics support.

So on 24MP APS-C, you have higher apparent magnification, and better resolution than on 50MP FF.

[Lou Jost]

So on 24MP APS-C, you have higher apparent magnification, and better resolution than on 50MP FF.

As you mention, there are many things mixed up in these comparisons. When comparing different sensor sizes, the original question probably should not have been framed in terms of a fixed range of magnifications ("1:1 to 5:1") but rather in terms of what range of FOV he or she was interested in.

The 24Mp APS is far inferior to a 50Mp FF or MF if we keep the FOV constant, which is easily done by using a longer tube lens with the FF or MF sensor. On the other hand if the person only has finite optics, you're right. But if the person is asking this question, I suspect he or she is starting from scratch and can go with infinity-corrected optics (including lens stacks for the lower end of the magnifcation range).

[Macro_Cosmos]

Well yeah, more MP will always yield more detail, the percentage of increase might not be that big though.
There was this (crap) idea that Nikon should not make dslrs with an MP of above 36 circulating back then, it stemmed from an article on photography life with some very grotesque simplifications and fallacious use of data. What the author was able to show was, for some lenses, the benefit of moving up to a sensor with smaller pixels might not be that huge. The 24/1.4G saw around 10% more MTF, but the 105/1.4E saw more than 30% (not apples to apples but the point does stand).

That's why I said 24MP FF is "about right". It's sort of like a 50MP medium format in terms of pixel size. ~24*1.5*1.7=61.2 (Phase One medium format, 53.7x40.4mm)
This is based on the author's choice of a 50MP medium format camera. I'm guessing it's the fujifilm GFX50R or S though, which has a smaller sensor than 53.7x40.4mm, Phase One's marketing calls it "medium format crop", pretty cute of them.
One won't get much more on a 50MP medium format, considering that most lenses struggle with covering it. Since the author only listed FF or medium format, that was my suggestion.

If we consider crop sensors, then a 24MP aps-c would work very nicely for most macro lenses or objectives. Pixel shift is a different matter, it even gets rid of moire, good stuff. Computationally intense though. The S1R does it well.

[Guido]

The people chasing insects in nature mostly perform not very good with full frame. Mostly resulting in very strong crop's.
My forum/web results are better with four thirds then with my FF. The DOF of FF is extreem small.

If you do early morning stacks the situation changes.
Sure if you work in a technical studio setup a larger format should be better.

There is also the question were the picture are going to be used for. Big pictures poster format or just on the internet?

[Cunha]

Hello friends,
thank you very much for your messages. I always learn something.
This post comes following another one that has had no response. I thought that either my question was stupid or that the question should be reformulated and therefore this new post.
In the previous post I asked this question concretely (and this way, in fact, you will understand my dilemma):

"I want to add a new camera body to my macro work with the Canon system; the Fujifilm GFX 50R. Want to adapt my two Canon macro lenses to that medium format Fujifilm body. The lenses are:

Canon EF 100mm f / 2.8L Macro IS USM
and the very tricky
Canon MP-E 65mm f / 2.8 1-5x Macro.

I know that 35mm full frame lenses sometimes do not fully cover the Fujifilm sensor which is medium format, but this is especially true with lenses below 50mm according to users; have some (correctable) vignette.

It depends on the good functioning (or not) of these two lenses after being adapted, my purchase of the GFX 50R.
So I look for testimonials and examples of users who have already made this adaptation.
It would be great if they could share images and comments on whether they work on the medium format sensor completely in its full format (4: 3) or whether they need some cropping mode that the camera allows, below this. "

Right now I work with a Canon EOS R, which is quite good for macro and beyond. However, I always look for more detail, better DR, better IQ in general and the possibility to print bigger or crop. 50 is better than 30 megapixels .-)
I could think of the new R5, but I will be paying a lot of money (€ 4700.00) for video functions that I don't use.
On the other hand I have the opportunity, right now, to buy a GFX50R with only 1000 shots and an adapter for Canon already included, for € 2500.00. In theory, the MP-E 65mm and 100mm L will work, even if they "recede" a little by the 0.79 crop factor, for the MF sensor. They do not reach 50mm of focal length; I mention this because generally from the 50mm backwards the full frame lenses have a vignette on the MF sensor, although it can be corrected.

The important question here is: will I earn IQ and DR that improve my work?
I will earn 20 megalpixels and the absence of the AA filter; therefore more detail.

In the face of this opportunity ... I started to think. -D and so these questions.

[Cunha]

Addendum .-)
I photograph still life (objects, fruits, plants, etc.) both in the studio and in the field, with and without flash. I don't photograph insects for example or things in motion. I have flash and some modifiers, tripods, focusing rail and this is what I work with.
Thank you.

[Lou Jost]

That information changes everything. Someone who has actual experience with those lenses will need to answer, but a 50Mp MF will surely be worse than a 50Mp FF for those lenses.

[Cunha]

Thank you Lou.
Why? If both lenses cover the sensor, won't it work?

[Lou Jost]

They may cover the sensor but they aren't going to be as good in the corners as they would be on FF. If you choose to crop the FF to remove the corners, then you are working at less than 50Mp, so you would be better off with the 50Mp FF.

[Cunha]

Thanks.
FF mode in the GFX50R is 45 megapixels .-) the same as the R5. But, bigger "eyeballs" in a bigger sensor. Better IQ and DR?