[throwanem]

If you know a way to focus-stack a live and highly active subject, I'm all ears. But where's your work? To judge by your response here, you must certainly be much better at this than I am, and I'd like the opportunity to derive some small benefit from the extensive experience that gives you so confidently to take such a superior tone.

[defaultname]

"If you know a way to focus-stack a live and highly active subject, I'm all ears."

You don't, which is why higher depth of field is the golden standard. See: The entirety of this discussion.

"so confidently to take such a superior tone"

To be clear, you dismissed my post by claiming that it's a "fixed" issue, then posting proof that doesn't show it to fixed. I don't believe I'm the one who attempted a superior tone.

Depth of field is *THE* issue in macro photography. Small focal length cameras are at an advantage in that regard. It's pretty simple.

[sudosysgen]

Small focal length cameras only have an advantage when the sensor size is the same. If you are decreasing the sensor size and keeping the resolution constant, the "small focal length" camera has zero advantage. There is no difference between a 4mm lens at f/2 that is a, say, 30mm FF equivalent and a 30mm full-frame lens at f/15. Precisely zero difference.

[defaultname]

If my grandma had wheels she'd be a bicycle.

[sudosysgen]

The two cameras produce exactly the same image. I guess your grandma really is a bicycle.

It's exactly the same reason why 50mm f/2 lens produces the same image on a full frame camera as a 75mm f/2.8 lens on an APS-C 1.5x camera. It's just that instead of multiplying by 1.5 you're multiplying by 8.4.

Indeed an iPhone 13's ultrawide will provide exactly the same image and bokeh as a 13mm f/15.1 lens on FF