Request for comments on dpreview.com table

[DQE]

I would greatly appreciate comments and criticisms of these tables at dpreview.com, where they attempt to compare various cameras with varying sensor sizes, lens apertures (effective and nominal), etc.

Any comments about the usefulness of these cameras for macro would also be appreciated. I assume that in most cases the only practical option for macro would be add-on diopter lenses to access the macro or semi-macro world in terms of magnification.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-dsc-rx100/

EDIT: Key quote and concern:

"Effective aperture, in 135 film terms - this gives an idea of the depth of field control offered by the lenses when the sensor size is taken into account."

--------------------------------------------

This post is mostly on behalf of my partner, as I'm happy with my 5DII DSLR/based rig, and it meets my needs (and exceeds my abilities!).

I have been looking for some time for a camera that would perform adequately at 1x (at most 2x) mag for her. Due in part to medical disabilities, she can't use a lightweight DSLR with a macro lens and flash, because of the rig's high total weight. If she could move beyond her small P&S camera's limitations to an intermediate level of equipment performance, that would be much welcome progress.

Some more context: she is exclusively interested in handheld field macro, mostly in natural light. These requirements seem to make a larger sensor, all-in-one style camera a candidate for her macro rig. The weight of these cameras aren't excessive for her circumstances. Also, price isn't too much of a concern. Ease of use and weight are most important.

Her current macro rig, a high-end P&S camera with an optical macro mode, will sometimes produce personally enjoyable 0.5-1X snapshot-quality macro photos in well-lit scenes. However, the lack of manual focus wreaks havoc on too many of her attempted photos. A P&S camera autofocus doesn't know that she's really interested in a bug in the middle of the flower or bush, and not the background foliage.

I am not sure if an electronic viewing screen would be a plus or a minus for her needs. Does anyone have any thoughts on using a camera with a built-in electronic viewfinder screen for casual macro?

I've also wondered if a touch screen focus, large-sensor P&S with a touch-and-release shutter trigger as a part of the LCD viewing screen would work for her. The new Canon T4i seems to have this feature, but with a 100mm macro lens would be too heavy. This feature seems to be a trend with some of the more expensive P&S and larger all-in-one cameras, too. One just touches the thing on the LCD screen that one wishes the camera to focus on. It then holds the focus until you release your finger, at which time it takes the photo, using both image stabilization and focus tracking. Yet without a larger sensor than P&S cameras provide, her preference for natural light photos would too often provoke excessive low-light image noise.

I realize that these questions and issues are quite different from the usual high-quality macro rigs this forum uses, but any advice and comments would be most appreciated.

As the smaller cameras increasingly adopt larger sensors, sometimes with interchangeable lenses, more options seem to be opening up.

I've also wondered about the suitability of the new Sony NEX-7, etc, cameras for my partner's needs, perhaps using an add-on Raynox macro diopter lens. Yet the controls of the NEX line seem to be controversial re their complexity and ease of use.

Thanks for considering these questions and issues.

[enricosavazzi]

I don't know whether Micro 4/3 is among your possible choices, but since M4/3 places (in a manner of speaking) between P&S and Sony NEX, which you both mention, it might be.

In this case, perhaps you may be interested in reading my thoughts behind choosing to gradually move to the Micro 4/3 format, both for general photography and for its potential in close-up + macro + photomacrography:

http://savazzi.freehostia.com/photography/om-d.html

My reasons for not choosing the Sony NEX and other mirrorless formats are also discussed there.

As for live view in macrophotography, in general I find it works fine, but live view on an LCD/OLED rear screen in full daylight is difficult or impossible to see, and I mainly use the eye-level viewfinder outdoors. Of course it is useful to have a choice between viewfinder and a tilting or swivelling screen. With a viewfinder, a fixed screen is not so useful IMHO.

Touch-and-focus on the screen is also nice, but with the same limitations as above. Personally I consider an eye-level viewfinder as a must for outdoors use.

For low-level ambient-light photography there are a few sub-f/1 M4/3 prime lenses available. Expensive but not impossibly so, and so far only with manual focus.

[ChrisR]

at 1x (at most 2x) mag

What field-width do you mean?

[DQE]

at 1x (at most 2x) mag

What field-width do you mean?

This is probably a more directly useful way of describing the size of the subject and scene my partner likes to photograph.

Her primary interests are related to a scene width of roughly 10mm at the high-mag end, and about 35 mm at the low-mag end. I assume larger scenes would automatically be accommodated.

In reading more about the Sony NEX cameras, I noticed that their macro lens requires that one move quite close to the subject, reminding me of a limitation of P&S cameras for small subjects. She often only has a working distance between lens and subject of about 10mm, which she can live with to some extent. However, short working distances make it hard to light a scene and it's hard to avoid scaring some subjects away. Fortunately, she is good at bug stalking and usually does very well with that aspect of her bug macro efforts.

I'm beginning to think that 4/3 is possibly the best available intermediate solution for my partner's needs and interests, superior in some ways to the Sony NEX product line.

I am also beginning to better appreciate that trying to escape from a DSLR-based macro rig is a difficult task, even if one is willing to compromise substantially. As I mentioned previously, handling the weight of a DSLR macro rig is incompatible with her medical limitations.

I have wondered for some time if one of the optical loupe LCD screen viewers that one attaches to the LCD screen, blocking interfering light, would be usable for this application, with a non-DSLR camera. They seem to be mostly used for video work. I've even wondered about this accessory for my DSLR, but I much prefer to steady the camera by pressing it against my face while I compose and focus.

[DQE]

I don't know whether Micro 4/3 is among your possible choices, but since M4/3 places (in a manner of speaking) between P&S and Sony NEX, which you both mention, it might be.

In this case, perhaps you may be interested in reading my thoughts behind choosing to gradually move to the Micro 4/3 format, both for general photography and for its potential in close-up + macro + photomacrography:

http://savazzi.freehostia.com/photography/om-d.html

My reasons for not choosing the Sony NEX and other mirrorless formats are also discussed there.

As for live view in macrophotography, in general I find it works fine, but live view on an LCD/OLED rear screen in full daylight is difficult or impossible to see, and I mainly use the eye-level viewfinder outdoors. Of course it is useful to have a choice between viewfinder and a tilting or swivelling screen. With a viewfinder, a fixed screen is not so useful IMHO.

Touch-and-focus on the screen is also nice, but with the same limitations as above. Personally I consider an eye-level viewfinder as a must for outdoors use.

For low-level ambient-light photography there are a few sub-f/1 M4/3 prime lenses available. Expensive but not impossibly so, and so far only with manual focus.

Thanks for posting the link and some additional discussion re the M4/3 options.

I hadn't recently reviewed this option path, and it seems to be a promising alternative. From reading reviews of the NEX options, I am concerned about the ergonomics and ease of use of the NEX path, for my partner, as much as anything else.

I look forward to the anticipated 2012 Olympus macro lens for this camera, and suspect that this might be the option that completes this rig for my partner. EDIT: Olympus *seems* to be listing it as available for aboutr $500 US dollars, but I am not sure it is actually available. Is it possible to estimate the working distance (from front of lens to subject) for this lens at 1x mag?

[DQE]

The new Olympus macro lens, for their M4/3 systems, has confusing specs posted by Olympus:

Closest Focusing Distance 9.45 inches/ 0.24m
Maximum Image
Magnification 0.52x ( 35mm equivalent Maximum Image Magnification 1.04x )
Minimum Field Size 33.3 x 25mm

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_secti ... page=specs

In particular, it's confusing that they claim it has 0.52x mag but a 33.3 x 25 mm field of view. Yet my FF DSLR has about a 35 x 24 mm field of view at 1x mag. Are these specs compatible or do I need to exclusively consider the field of view in comparing this camera and lens to my FF DSLR?

I realize that this and related topics have been thoroughly discussed elsewhere in this forum and I am reasonably comfortable with those discussions. What I am not comfortable with is Olympus' quoting 0.52x mag AND a 33 x 25 mm FOV, with their 4/3 sensor size. I don't see how both of their specs could be right. I must be missing something that I had not realized!

[rjlittlefield]

Magnification 0.52x ( 35mm equivalent Maximum Image Magnification 1.04x )
Minimum Field Size 33.3 x 25mm

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_secti ... page=specs

In particular, it's confusing that they claim it has 0.52x mag but a 33.3 x 25 mm field of view.

They are using "x" quite properly, to mean magnification from the subject onto the sensor.

The M4/3 format has a sensor size of 17.3 mm (H) x 13.0 mm (V). The calculation 33.3 x 0.52 = 17.3 shows that a 33.3 mm wide subject at 0.52x fills the 17.3 mm sensor.

In 35 mm, the equivalent calculation would be that 33.3 x 1.08 = 36. The difference between 1.08 and the 1.04 they quote is an approximation required by the difference in aspect ratios.

do I need to exclusively consider the field of view in comparing this camera and lens to my FF DSLR?

You should be considering field of view and working distance. Thinking about magnification is often misleading when different sensor sizes are involved.

--Rik

[ChrisR]

I have wondered for some time if one of the optical loupe LCD screen viewers that one attaches to the LCD screen, blocking interfering light, would be usable for this application, with a non-DSLR camera.

I bought one of those, thinking it would be good for such things.
It probably would be great, if I could only see a bit better!
It has no dioptre adjustment, so its voluptuously curved eyepiece is of no use to me. I was a bit surprised, because my eyes aren't that bad, about 1.5 diptres is ok for reading. So be warned!
Being tripod-screw mounted, it would work on just about any camera though.
(A lens from surplus-shed would probably serve, glued in the thing.)

On a camera note - another gotcha to avoid: we have a Nikon Coolpix superzoom Psomethingorother (P500?). It's NOT possible to fit filters of any sort to it. And the viewfinder is poor - you can't tell what's in focus at all.
And the manual settings are a pain. You turn it off and on again, and some of them reset themselves. I might see if survives a drop-kick, before long...

[DQE]

I have wondered for some time if one of the optical loupe LCD screen viewers that one attaches to the LCD screen, blocking interfering light, would be usable for this application, with a non-DSLR camera.

I bought one of those, thinking it would be good for such things.
It probably would be great, if I could only see a bit better!
It has no dioptre adjustment, so its voluptuously curved eyepiece is of no use to me. I was a bit surprised, because my eyes aren't that bad, about 1.5 diptres is ok for reading. So be warned!
Being tripod-screw mounted, it would work on just about any camera though.
(A lens from surplus-shed would probably serve, glued in the thing.)

On a camera note - another gotcha to avoid: we have a Nikon Coolpix superzoom Psomethingorother (P500?). It's NOT possible to fit filters of any sort to it. And the viewfinder is poor - you can't tell what's in focus at all.
And the manual settings are a pain. You turn it off and on again, and some of them reset themselves. I might see if survives a drop-kick, before long...

Thanks for the comments and tips.

Is it practical to use a viewing screen loupe with eyeglasses? Even if the answer is "yes", I still don't see how I could stabilize the camera if I can't press it against my face while shooting hand-held field macro. Spacing my eye/face about 1.5 inches above the LCD screen would seemingly unbalance the effort. I am averse to permanently attaching a viewing loupe to my camera back, too...

The complex and diverse differences between nominal specs and features and how a camera really works in field use is overwhelming. Perhaps the main feature a traditional DSLR has is that one can simply and easily set the thing to full manual, and fire away! Having so many computer assistance features, further complicated by touch screens and multiple nested and cross-linked menus, is (IMO) quite annoying for macro work where almost no automation is helpful or needed.

If we could design a blank sheet camera body to be used only for macro, I suspect it would be quite different and much simpler than what we have today. Unfortunately, the market for such a specialized camera is quite small. It's been difficult enough to get the vendors to provide a range of macro lenses...

[ChrisR]

Is it practical to use a viewing screen loupe with eyeglasses?

That's the point I was making. - no it's not, so the pyramid thing has to contain an adjustment, at the eye end where it has a lens.
This one doesn't have one:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/LCD-View-Find ... 231a8f0282

this one I don't understand:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/LCD-ViewFinde ... 19c1ec15e9

I have seen some which DO have adjustements, (like the one I used with a Hasselblad, etc in days gone by). None listed at the moment

HA! - Here's an intriguing one:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/NEX-LCD-Viewf ... 43b049deaf
bearing the comment, (copied for when the ebay listing has expired)
"Just as it reads.
Typical viewfinder you find on Ebay. Could not see a darn thing thriugh it, so I removed the factory plastic lens and glued in a +1 diopter glass lens from a RZ67 camera. Very high quality and if you wear glasses especially, you need one of these.
Glue in is not the best quality but it works and is extremely clear."

[DQE]

I've sometimes wondered how much a good eyeglasses/optician shop would charge to make a custom-compensated loupe for this purpose, perhaps as an add-on to a commercial loupe.

But, as we've discussed, it's not easy to use the thing even if one could see clearly through it, for macro work.

I also would like to have a flip-up magnifier for my existing 5DII optical viewfinder, something about 2X magnification, with good optical quality. For critical focusing, I sometimes can't tell when the camera is at an excellent focus, as I look through the optical viewfinder. I would still need to flip it up quickly in order to verify the overall scene composition, etc. I bought such a gadget recently but it turned out to only be about 1.25x mag and this wasn't enough to help with accurate focus verification.

[rjlittlefield]

One pro I know is an ardent fan of Hoodman loupes. I was just now looking at http://www.hoodmanusa.com/ha.asp. They seem to have the adjustments you're looking for. I'm assuming, of course, that all you need is a diopter adjustment. None of these things will have astigmatism correction like eyeglasses or contact lenses can.

--Rik

[elf]

Her current macro rig, a high-end P&S camera with an optical macro mode, will sometimes produce personally enjoyable 0.5-1X snapshot-quality macro photos in well-lit scenes. However, the lack of manual focus wreaks havoc on too many of her attempted photos. A P&S camera autofocus doesn't know that she's really interested in a bug in the middle of the flower or bush, and not the background foliage.

I think the Auto Focus mode should work well for her if she learns to focus, then compose. Basically it's just put the subject in the center of the frame, half press the shutter, recompose, and lastly full press the shutter.

[DQE]

One pro I know is an ardent fan of Hoodman loupes. I was just now looking at http://www.hoodmanusa.com/ha.asp. They seem to have the adjustments you're looking for. I'm assuming, of course, that all you need is a diopter adjustment. None of these things will have astigmatism correction like eyeglasses or contact lenses can.

--Rik

I hadn't looked at the Hoodman product lineup recently, and I see that they now have a variety of methods of attaching the loupe to one's LCD screen.

Hmmm...maybe I could get used to pressing the loupe against my eye to steady the camera for field macro. Other than being careful not to overheat the sensor due to excessive use of LiveView, perhaps this method would be a viable alternative for field macro.

Does anyone have any idea how long the eye relief (max distance between exit surface of the loupe and the user's eye) might be? I've found that binoculars vary considerably, with some not being usable with eyeglasses due to inadequate eye relief. It seems like they've designed these loupes to be used with a wraparound eye shield, which *may* imply that they haven't built in much eye relief.

http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/mids ... elief.html

[enricosavazzi]

I look forward to the anticipated 2012 Olympus macro lens for this camera, and suspect that this might be the option that completes this rig for my partner. EDIT: Olympus *seems* to be listing it as available for aboutr $500 US dollars, but I am not sure it is actually available. Is it possible to estimate the working distance (from front of lens to subject) for this lens at 1x mag?

It is not available yet, but some sites might be taking pre-orders.

It is difficult to estimate the working distance. This lens obviously has internal focusing, so its effective focal length at maximum magnification (about 0.5x real magnification) will probably be between 40 and 50 mm. The positions of the front and rear pupils are also a matter of guesses at this point. The "closest focusing distance" specified by Olympus might be relative to the sensor plane, so assuming its amount is good, subtract from it the registration distance (almost 20 mm) and the length of the lens (does anyone know it? it seems longish, anyway) and you will get a good estimate of the working distance. Most likely less than 100 mm.

I am also somewhat curious about this lens, but on the other hand an old Micro Nikkor 55mm on a Nikon to M4/3 adapter does everything that the Olympus macro lens will do except autofocus and auto aperture, and a Micro Nikkor D 60 mm f/2.8 on the same adapter will actually get twice the magnification (1x). A Micro Nikkor D 105 mm will do the same and also have a significantly longer working distance. The Olympus 60 mm could double as an all-round, relatively fast lens and will likely be somewhat slimmer than the Micro Nikkors, but at this point it does not have a high priority for me because I already have all three Micro Nikkors mentioned above.

Edit: ...not to mention that an Apo Rodagon or Apo Componon 40-50mm on a focusing helicoid will get to perhaps 2x in a relatively compact package (probably smaller and lighter than the Olympus 60 mm)