Camera body resolution needed?

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

januszj
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Camera body resolution needed?

Post by januszj »

Greetings to everybody, a new member with my first post. Is there a definite answer to how much resolution is needed from the camera body to get good results? I have run two stacks of a matchhead using an Olympus E-510 and E-PL1 with the later producing much clearer detail. If I buy a Canon 5D will the result be better still?

DaveW
Posts: 1702
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:29 am
Location: Nottingham, UK

Post by DaveW »


januszj
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Post by januszj »

Thanks Dave, I read the article and understand most of what is being said. The E-510 has 10mp and a rather strong AA filter while the E-PL1 has 12mp and a much weaker filter along with better processing to supress moire. My question then boils down to: if I where to invest in more resolution would bellows lenses available for magnifications greater than, say four, have the resolution to keep up with a much better sensor than I have already?

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23564
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

januszj, welcome aboard!

I am moving your question into the Equipment Discussions forum, where it will be seen and perhaps answered by more people with extensive experience in this area.

The short answer to your question is that it takes a very good lens to fully utilize 12mp at a subject size of 4.5 mm and smaller (4X and above on an E-510). High end bellows lenses like the Olympus 38 mm f/2.8 and 20 mm f/2.0 will barely do the job. Sharper results are obtained from microscope objectives. See for example the test results shown HERE. Those are at 10X, not 4X, but perhaps they will give you an idea of the tradeoffs involved.

BTW, one issue that may not be immediately obvious is that in switching from an E-510 to a Canon 5D, you will need twice as much magnification to cover the larger sensor with the same size subject. 4X on the E-510 is equivalent to 8X on the 5D.

--Rik

januszj
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Post by januszj »

Thanks Rik, that's very helpful, my wallet is spared for another day! I started close up photography with a pocket camera and that led me to buy a four thirds camera. The 50mm macro lens works well, especially with the addition of a 1.4x converter. My bellows is a Pentax M42 unit and I use a reversed El-Nikkor 50mm f2.8 along with a Noflexar 105mm f3.5 for lower magnifications. I can see I now have some reading to do. :lol:

Tesselator
Posts: 388
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:40 pm
Location: Japan
Contact:

Post by Tesselator »

I think with that setup or maybe with the addition of the $50 - $100 slightly sharper 63mm f/2.8 el-nikkor you're pushing the limits of available resolutions at those magnifications. Dynamic Range (DR) on the other hand plays a very important roll and for non-bracketed exposures can stand to be significantly improved over the system you're using. The amount of subject detail that is revealed with larger sensors than M4/3 can be rather phenomenal. Even the difference between a newish APS-C and the M/43 is readily noticeable.

If one values the thickness of their billfold over their tinker-time however, multiple exposures can be used to overcome most of these differences. I dunno if stacking alone will do so or not but certainly using a tone mapping scheme with a bracket of 3 or so per image to be stacked in a later step would/could do the job nicely. Photoshop's HDR routines are plenty good enough and it can be scripted to painlessly process the tone mapping for 20 to 40 target images - which you would then stack in Zerene or whatever.

januszj
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Post by januszj »

Thankyou Tesselator for highlighting dynamic range as four thirds issue. Indeed I have seen little blown highlights in very fine details such as the hairs on plants and these defy adjustment. Careful lighting helps as does staying at the base ISO setting. I have seen the output of the 7D and 5D II and it is impressive, the colours are something to be dreamed of in four thirds at the moment. :) It's a good thing I enjoy Photoshop, the output straight from the camera is not so pleasing but recovers nicely with time spent.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic