seta666 wrote:If you can live without the tethering I would not recommend a DSLR for macrophotography in the studio anymore. You are paying for features you will never need like fancy AF system, mirror box and weather sealing.
Javier, it’s interesting to hear a viewpoint so opposite to my own. Knowing you, I’m sure that a spirited counterpoint will not cause offense. So here goes.
For studio macro, the phrase, “if you can live without tethering,” hits me like, “if you can live without indoor plumbing.” Tethering lets me adjust camera settings from a computer—ISO, color temperature, shutter speed, jpeg vs. raw, etc. More importantly, it lets me take an image and immediately see it on a nice, big computer screen. This is the actual image as shot, not a live view representation; critically examining such images is very important before committing to a stack hundreds of frames long. And tethering lets the images transfer to a computer as they are being shot, from where they can be sent anywhere electronically and instantly. So I can monitor long stacks--while they are in acquisition progress in my studio--from my office. This is useful even for stacks that require only a few minutes; it is vital for stacks that take a few hours for the controller to shoot.
As for paying for the AF system—it’s pretty hard to get any camera these days that doesn’t have autofocus, so this hardly seems a reason to avoid DSLR cameras. Some DSLRs do have fancier autofocus systems than some mirrorless cameras, but others do not; the AF capabilities of both styles run a considerable gamut. (I recall in the 1980s, when a silly fad called “autofocus” began to infest otherwise good cameras. I wondered if “autocomposition” would be next. Alas, the fad still seems to be with us, and I’ve given up waiting for it to go away. But autofocus is nearly always turned off on my DSLRs, regardless of what kind of work I’m doing with them.)
The mirrorbox is vital in my macro studio! In fact, I’ve been wondering if I could work with the Nikon D5200’s pentamirror, rather than the D7100’s pentaprism. The idea of having no reflex capability at all is abhorrent. Also, not all DSLRs have weather sealing.
Unless you need maximum output quality and big print size, then FF is the way to go, the Canons have EFSC but the nikon D800 must be a beast (Yousef is using it now), the only thing you need to use flash.
If we aren’t striving for maximum output quality, why are we doing all the lens comparisons and pixel peeping? On the whole, I’d describe most of us studio photomacrographers as an extremely picky lot, endlessly questing for maximum output quality. And while I doubt that many of us make big prints with a large percentage of our images, quite a few of us will do so for our very best. Creating a “wall-hanger of the first order,” is in the back of my mind quite often when I pick up a camera, even if it’s something I only occasionally achieve. The tantalizing possibility that “today might be the day,” is part of what’s fun about photography. When the planets align, do you want to have in your hand a camera not capable of maximum quality output?
Even though the Nikon D800 does not have EFSC, it probably isn’t necessary to use flash with it for a good deal of studio photomacrography; a shutter speed of a few seconds should negate the effect of shutter movement. (I say “probably,” as I haven’t used a D800; but this is true with the Nikon D200 and D700 bodies I regularly shoot with.) And while the D800 seems an outstanding camera, there is a serious dilemma with it for many of us using microscope objectives whose image circles better match the size of a DX (APS-C) sensor, rather than the full-frame sensor of the D800. Even though the D800 can easily be set to use only a DXs-sized portion of its sensor, this places “only” about 15 megapixels within the frame. The much cheaper Nikon D7100 and D5200 don’t offer full-frame, but do place 24 megapixels within the DX frame. For those of us with optics that out-resolve our sensor and whose image circles are well-matched to the DX format, this makes the D7100 and D5200 pretty compelling. (Of course, I also have macro and other optics that project a full-frame image circle—the D800 on those optics would be very nice.)
If not huge print size is needed I would either get a NEX camera or a Nikon V1, I was pretty surprised by the fine detail the V1 can resolve, it would still allow for A3 prints or more. The focal multiplier of 2.7X compared to FF can be very useful.
The sensor of the Nikon V1 (as with all Nikon 1 bodies) is very small—midway between typical point-and-shoot and m4/3. Thom Hogan has a nice illustration
here. Anyone who uses a Nikon 1 body with optics that have a much larger image circle (most do!) is leaving behind a lot of visual information. Some might call the 2.7x multiplier “useful”; I’d call it “cropping” (at least on most of my optics).
Probably the best advice for most photomacrographers is to choose a sensor size that uses as much as possible of the high-quality portion of their optics’ image circles. Among cameras offering that sensor size, choose a camera body that crams as many pixels—and as much dynamic range as possible—onto that sensor. Lastly, among candidate bodies, consider compatibility with your existing system, and--if important to your work--the presence or absence of EFSC.
Cheers—and with respect, amigo,
--Chris