Advice on new dSLR camera purchase

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

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

nielsgeode
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:47 am
Location: Groningen, Netherlands

Advice on new dSLR camera purchase

Post by nielsgeode »

Hi all,

At the moment, I am trying to choose a new dSLR and objective for macro photography. I decided to buy a APS-C camera for use with a microscope objective, but the question is: which one?

There are some things to take into consideration, and this also makes it hard to choose. Electronic Front Shutter Curtain is a nice feature to avoid vibrations from the shutter during the exposure. The Canon EOS 7D has remote live view and Silent mode, ideal for my purpose. However, the photos contain a lot of noise compared to the Sony NEX-6 and Sony NEX-7.

I have no clue if it can be a problem, but the manual of the NEX-6 and NEX-7 say:
When you shoot at high shutter speeds with a large diameter lens attached, the ghosting of a blurred area may occur, depending on the subject or shooting conditions. In such cases, set this item to [Off].
Here: http://www.mhohner.de/newsitem2/efcs
this is explained as:
st of all, this is badly worded and likely a result of mistranslation. I don't think the original author really meant “large diameter”, but rather “large aperture”, because the physical diameter of the lens can hardly influence the shutter. A high shutter speed at large aperture means nothing but lots of light reaching the sensor. So in this situation “ghosting of a blurred area” may occur, whatever that means. My take on this is that clearing the pixels while they are exposed is less clean, and when they are only exposed for a short time afterwards the resulting image will be of lower quality. Clearing the sensor image while it's in the dark, covered by a mechanical shutter, seems to avoid this problem in this situation. It remains to be seen how severe the problem is in real life.
Other good candidates are:
-Sony A65 (or A57): looks great at first sight, images show little noise compared to Canon 7D
-Canon 650D: cheap, supports remote live view but doesn't have silent mode)

Summary:
-Is anybody having experience with the Sony NEX or Sony a57 / a65 Electronic Front Shutter Curtain and the possible ghosting?

-How significant are vibrations from the shutter during exposure and how do people do this on SLR camera's that do not have this EFSC feature?

Thanks!
Niels

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 6053
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Re: Advice on new dSLR camera purchase

Post by Pau »

nielsgeode wrote:The Canon EOS 7D has remote live view and Silent mode, ideal for my purpose. However, the photos contain a lot of noise compared to the Sony NEX-6 and Sony NEX-7.
It may be noiser than last Nikon and Sony models, but not that much. I don't find any problem with noise under 400 ISO.
nielsgeode wrote: -Canon 650D: cheap, supports remote live view but doesn't have silent mode)
In fact Canon EOS 450D -650D have EFSC all the time enabled, they don't have another LV option. The other main difference is that the mirror need to cycle after the exposure unlike 40D-7D that have two separate motors.
I use a 7D but just for studio macro or microscope a XXXD would be equally convenient
nielsgeode wrote: -How significant are vibrations from the shutter during exposure and how do people do this on SLR camera's that do not have this EFSC feature
For continous light and high magnification it's very significative. If you doesn't have it you need to use electronic flash or very long exposure times (1s or more) along with mirror lock up

- the forum member seta666 has posted a comparison of a 5D II vs NEX 5N that may be useful for you.

- NEX are very nice, but lack some other useful features like standard flash shoe, remote LV on computer and, I think, remote firing other than its own IR one.
Pau

Chris S.
Site Admin
Posts: 4042
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Advice on new dSLR camera purchase

Post by Chris S. »

How significant are vibrations from the shutter during exposure and how do people do this on SLR camera's that do not have this EFSC feature?
Nikon bodies, which I use, don't have EFSC. With the D700, the vibration from the shutter seems to dissipate in 1/8 to 1/4 second (subjectively observed by eye with a 100x objective, live view, camera tethered, image on computer monitor with display magnified to fullest extent, indicated as "200"--which probably equates to a 200 percent view in Photoshop). If I were to take an image under continuous light with a 1/4 second shutter speed, I'd expect shutter-induced vibration to be highly significant. At the 8 seconds I typically use, I don't think it effects the image in any noticeable way. It would be enlightening to test a range of shutter speeds to see where degradation becomes noticeable, but I haven't done that. (I see Pau has written as I was typing--we have different perspectives on what constitutes a "very long" exposure time :)).

I also have shutters on some of my continuous light sources, which can be used to gate the light so as to illuminate the subject only after shutter vibration has dissipated. This permits a much shorter shutter speed that allows me to run a stack more quickly.

If you are using flash, rather than continuous light, shutter vibration should not be of much concern with any camera that permits rear curtain flash, which fires the flash at the end of the exposure. Then simply use a shutter speed of a second or two. Even this may be overkill, as the short duration of the flash may eliminate shutter vibration.

All that said, if you are starting from scratch, EFSC seems like an option well worth having. I haven't seen it as sufficient reason to switch systems--or even get the parts needed to hook up the Canon body I now have to try out EFSC--but my hardware, software, and workflow are Nikon-centric.

While comments about the specific bodies you mentioned are best left to folks who have experience with them, I'd be surprised to hear that the Canon EOS 7D (or any modern camera, for that matter) is noisy at base ISO, which is what I would think you'd use for most stacked macro images.

--Chris

nielsgeode
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:47 am
Location: Groningen, Netherlands

Re: Advice on new dSLR camera purchase

Post by nielsgeode »

Chris S. wrote: While comments about the specific bodies you mentioned are best left to folks who have experience with them, I'd be surprised to hear that the Canon EOS 7D (or any modern camera, for that matter) is noisy at base ISO, which is what I would think you'd use for most stacked macro images.

--Chris
Please check out yourself.

Canon EOS 6D @ 100 ISO: http://ir7.theimagingresource.com/PRODS ... SLCON1.JPG
Canon EOS 7D @ 100 ISO: http://216.18.212.226/PRODS/E7D/FULLRES ... _NR_2D.JPG
Canon EOS 650D @ 100 ISO: http://216.18.212.226/PRODS/canon-t4i/F ... 100NR0.JPG
Sony NEX-6 @ 100 ISO: http://216.18.212.226/PRODS/sony-nex-6/ ... SLCON1.JPG
Sony NEX-7 @ 100 ISO: http://216.18.212.226/PRODS/NEX7/FULLRE ... 00NR2D.JPG
Sony A65 @ 100 ISO: http://216.18.212.226/PRODS/AA65/FULLRE ... SLDRO3.JPG

nielsgeode
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:47 am
Location: Groningen, Netherlands

Re: Advice on new dSLR camera purchase

Post by nielsgeode »

Pau wrote:In fact Canon EOS 450D -650D have EFSC all the time enabled, they don't have another LV option.
Do you have a reference? I searched on google and cannot find anything on it...

One other question: what is the advantage of remote live view over using the HDMI port for getting your live-preview on your pc monitor? I assume that the sony a65 supports this feature and that it is easy to switch between HDMI-out and taking pictures?

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 6053
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Re: Advice on new dSLR camera purchase

Post by Pau »

nielsgeode wrote:
Pau wrote:In fact Canon EOS 450D -650D have EFSC all the time enabled, they don't have another LV option.
Do you have a reference? I searched on google and cannot find anything on it...

One other question: what is the advantage of remote live view over using the HDMI port for getting your live-preview on your pc monitor? I assume that the sony a65 supports this feature and that it is easy to switch between HDMI-out and taking pictures?
- Not in this moment, I need to do a search in the forum, but Charles Krebs - the first who studied Canon EFSC- posted it for sure for one camera in this line and many other members also use them for this feature

- I never used Sony, but again this question is already discussed in the forum
Pau

Alan Wood
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 3:09 pm
Location: Near London, U.K.
Contact:

Re: Advice on new dSLR camera purchase

Post by Alan Wood »

nielsgeode wrote:
Pau wrote:In fact Canon EOS 450D -650D have EFSC all the time enabled, they don't have another LV option.
Do you have a reference? I searched on google and cannot find anything on it...

One other question: what is the advantage of remote live view over using the HDMI port for getting your live-preview on your pc monitor? I assume that the sony a65 supports this feature and that it is easy to switch between HDMI-out and taking pictures?
Here is a reference:
http://krebsmicro.com/Canon_EFSC/index.html

If you use the HDMI output from a camera direct to a monitor, you just get a bigger version of what you see on the camera's rear screen.

Canon digital SLRs come with a program called EOS Utility that works via USB ports. This not only lets you compose and focus an image on your computer's screen, but also allows you to control the camera.

Alan Wood

Charles Krebs
Posts: 5865
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
Contact:

Post by Charles Krebs »

However, the photos contain a lot of noise compared to the Sony NEX-6 and Sony NEX-7.

Not sure I agree with that (with perhaps one exception). Probably one of the the best noise comparisons for these cameras can be seen here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-e ... bel-t4i/17

You can select different cameras (no Nex-6 yet) to see side by side results through the full range of ISOs. I think these comparison charts start at a default of ISO 800. You would likely never use an ISO above 100 or 200 for stacking. And I think you might be a little surprised at the noise comparisons between a 650D, 7D, Nex-7, Nex-5, and A65 (especially the raw noise comparison). Where you can see a noise difference with the current Sony and Canon sensors is if, in post-processing, you use software to "pull open" an extremely underexposed region in a photograph. After doing so the current Canon sensors will show more noise in these dark regions than a Sony sensor.

I don't know about the "ghosting" issue with the Sony cameras. Canon also has a usage "footnote" for their EFSC. From the Canon 40D "white paper), page 15:
Set to "Disable" when using a TS-E lens shifted up or down or when using an Extension Tube. If one sets Mode 1 or Mode 2 when using a TS-E lens and a shutter speed of 1/2000 sec. or faster, the small slit created between the electronic 1st-curtain shutter and mechanical 2nd-curtain shutter will be in the same orientation as the optical axis, resulting in underexposure or overexposure. Similarly, with an Extension Tube and a shutter speed of 1/2000 sec. or higher, the exposure will be uneven at the top and bottom of the image.
I have noticed when I use Canon EFSC on a microscope mounted camera with very fast shutter speeds (only really possible with lower power brightfield illumination) I do get some exposure unevenness... the bottom being slightly darker. This has not proven to be a practical problem since my typical continuous light exposures are far longer than that, and show even exposure.

The Canon T4i (650D) has EFSC, and like all previous camera in this xxxD series it is on all the time when in live-view. (I have not checked to see if the T4i has the slight vibration that unfortunately occurs in the 60D). A big difference in the "T" (xxxD) series Canons and the higher series with EFSC is that the more expensive bodies have separate motors to operate the mirror mechanism and the shutter mechanism. This means that if silent mode is set to "on" there will be no mirror movements at all. This has no real additional vibration reducing effect since on the xxxD bodies the mirror only moves after the exposure is completed (unless perhaps you rip off several frames in quick succession without any "settle" time), but it does make for a more peaceful, quieter operation.

I have not looked at the new Nex 6, but I checked out the Nex 5 and Nex 7 when they were introduced. There were some features I use that they did not have. I noticed that they did not have a capability for a wired shutter release, no capability for computer tethering and control, and the the Nex 5 had no "generic" external flash capability. While these are very minor issues for most general photography use, they are features I really like to see in a camera used for microscopy and high magnification work. Some of these concerns have since been addressed thanks to third-party offerings. I see that the Chinese "Ebay entrepreneurs" have come up with a flash adapter that plugs into the proprietary slot on the Nex 5 (that costs about $20. There have long been adapters for the proprietary Nex 7 flash shoe). The lack of a wired release could be a particular concern for people doing automatic Z-stack acquisition, but the folks at Cognisys (the StackShot makers) offer a $60 programmable IR remote that can be wired to automated controllers.

Canon bodies come with a pretty nice computer control "tethering" program. This allows you to remotely view and make nearly all camera settings from a "tethered" computer. I don't believe there is any ability to fully control a Sony body via a computer. (This may be changing... the Nex-6 and Nex-5N offer some limited control via Wi-Fi, but I believe that so far it consists of shutter-release and remote viewing).

There are two areas where I am curious if the Sony camera perform differently than Canon...
With Canon in EFSC there is no electronic flash sync signal given. To fire an electronic flash the camera reverts to a mechanical first shutter curtain.

When you connect the HDMI output of a Canon or Nikon DSLR to an HDMI TV or monitor, you encounter a noticeable delay between the taking of a picture and having it displayed on the TV. (We discussed this in a thread one time). The delay seems to be the least with the 7D, but it is about 3 seconds or so with a xxxD. I find it quite annoying if I am working with live subjects. So I am curious if this is also the case with the Sony bodies... don't know... never tried one.

Chris S.
Site Admin
Posts: 4042
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Chris S. »

Niels,

I studied four of the links you provided to “theimagingresource.com,” but did not sense that much could be reliably drawn from them. What jumped out at me were what looked like artifacts from the cameras’ jpeg engines. It seems strange that the Website chooses to use so-called “straight out of camera jpegs,” (aka SOOC jpegs) rather than raw files. Since SOOC jpegs typically include noise reduction and sharpening, it is perhaps not surprising that the jpegs shown seemed to have strong artifacts from both these processes. I say "so-called" SOOC jpegs because cameras of course typically offer choices as to the levels of various parameters, so there can be a big difference between SOOC jpegs from a single camera, depending on how those parameters are set up. I suspect the parameter levels chosen may not have been optimal. Perhaps they were the default settings, but this tells us little of what a camera is capable of, rather than what defaults the engineers thought would be best for common situations.

As a cross check, I pulled the Website’s image from a camera I’m very familiar with, the Nikon D700 (I’d have also looked at the older D200, but they don’t have it). The sample I saw does not look much like the D700 files I’m used to working with. Apparently their use of the camera is different from mine, and pretty clearly, this matters. To be sure, when I do the level of pixel peeping I just did, it’s usually on a raw file, not a jpeg. I do quite often use jpegs, but when I do, they don’t look like the one provided by this Web site for base ISO.

The reference Charlie provided seems much more telling to me, partly because it allows comparisons based on raw outputs, and the choice of raw outputs at different conversion settings. Based on what I saw there, of the cameras you are considering that were represented, I’d go with the Canon 7D. For a benchmark with which I’m familiar, I also compared it with the Nikon D7000 (the D700 and D200 that I know well were absent, but I do have some experience with the D7000); to my eye, the D7000 looked much better than the other cameras in terms of noise; and the D7000 images did look like files I’ve worked with. But being a Nikon, the D7000 doesn’t have EFSC.

Echoing Alan and Charlie, I’d emphasize the importance of having tethering software available for studio macro shooting. I use tethering software to adjust camera settings from the computer, including shutter speed, white balance, and file format. I also use tethering software to view the histogram on the computer, and to fire test shots without jostling the camera. I set tethering software to save images to the computer, rather than flash memory in the camera. From this I gain several advantages: I can review full image files during initial setup; then monitor from my office a stack during automatic acquisition in the studio; and automatically transfer images from the shooting computer to a post-processing computer. Unlike Canon, Nikon does not include this software (Nikon Capture Control Pro 2) free of charge, but if you purchase it, it works very well. There is also a much-cheaper third party program, “Control My Nikon,” which is said to be excellent (I have little experience with it).

Any camera that did not have an available tethering capability would be a non-starter for me.

--Chris

dmillard
Posts: 637
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:37 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Post by dmillard »

Charles Krebs wrote:
There are two areas where I am curious if the Sony camera perform differently than Canon...
With Canon in EFSC there is no electronic flash sync signal given. To fire an electronic flash the camera reverts to a mechanical first shutter curtain.
The Nex 5N fires a flash when electronic front curtain shutter is enabled, but I don't know whether it also reverts to a mechanical first shutter curtain in this situation. However, when using a WanSen transmitter and receivers at long shutter speeds, it always triggers the flashes twice (in my case, Vivitar 283's). It does this whether I use a remote or push on the shutter release directly. I'm not sure if the initial flash is fired before the actual exposure (like the preflash on the proprietary flash unit). I can't detect this double flash when I set the shutter speed at 1/10 second and faster, but that may just reflect the limits of my sensory discrimination. I'm able to control the exposure of my images, but it's still annoying. I've done a brief Google search, but haven't yet found any solutions.

David

kriscavok
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:06 pm
Location: Poland

Post by kriscavok »

Hello,

Do you know if there is any software for PC supporting remote NEX triggering vie IR dongle?
Regards.
KrisCavok

Charles Krebs
Posts: 5865
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
Contact:

Post by Charles Krebs »


seta666
Posts: 1071
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 8:50 am
Location: Castellon, Spain

Post by seta666 »

dmillard wrote:[
it always triggers the flashes twice (in my case, Vivitar 283's). It does this whether I use a remote or push on the shutter release directly.
I have used the NEX-5N with the cheap chinese flash adapter and the Yongnuo YN-460; no double flash like you describe. I can use it either via cable or IR remote but I will not need it as my new stack controler carries flash signal.
Charles Krebs wrote: Where you can see a noise difference with the current Sony and Canon sensors is if, in post-processing, you use software to "pull open" an extremely underexposed region in a photograph. After doing so the current Canon sensors will show more noise in these dark regions than a Sony sensor.
The advantage sony sensor has over canon sensors is in the iso 100 to 400 range and in DR

I made a game in canon forums with raws from Dpreview

First 100% crops with +4EV exposure, all resized to 25mpx more or less

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8038/7905 ... edef_o.jpg

A/ Pentax K5 B/ Canon 60D C/ nikon D800 D/ 5D mkIII E/ 5D mkII F/ Sony NEX-5N

Then just crops at iso 3200

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8305/7905 ... 1353_o.jpg

A/ 5D mkII B/ nikon D800 C/ 5D mkIII D/ Pentax K5 E/ Canon 60D F/ Sony NEX-5N

That DR advantage at base iso can let you handle high DR subjects just by underexposing 1-2 stops to preserve highlights while keeping detail in the shadows


To other thing you just said:

- I have not seen any goshting problems, but I do not use vey fast shutter speeds

- I do not use the tethering feature on my canon, I did in Portugal but it does not suit the way I work (I understand for some people this must be a "must do" feature; I want to try the HDMI thing though for liveview. I will report my findings when I do.

- I use the IR from Cognisys and I can say it works well, no missed shots whatsoever. Hoever you have to be careful not to block the way to the IR receiver. I have used it with the NEX and the Nikon V1

Chris S. wrote:Niels,
The reference Charlie provided seems much more telling to me, partly because it allows comparisons based on raw outputs, and the choice of raw outputs at different conversion settings. Based on what I saw there, of the cameras you are considering that were represented, I’d go with the Canon 7D. For a benchmark with which I’m familiar, I also compared it with the Nikon D7000 (the D700 and D200 that I know well were absent, but I do have some experience with the D7000); to my eye, the D7000 looked much better than the other cameras in terms of noise; and the D7000 images did look like files I’ve worked with. But being a Nikon, the D7000 doesn’t have EFSC.
--Chris
If you can live without the tethering I would not recomend 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.

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 not huge print size is needed I would either get a NEX camera or a nikon V1, I was pretty surprissed 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

Regards
Javier

kriscavok
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:06 pm
Location: Poland

Post by kriscavok »

Thank you,

In fact it is what I try to skip. I am looking for simple software supporting release and time lapse shooting from PC. That is probably possible to fix using general "Irda" coding PC software, like http://winlirc.sourceforge.net/ and USB IR dongle, but maybe someone did it already, with nice interface as it has been done for Iphone.

Regards!
KrisCavok

Chris S.
Site Admin
Posts: 4042
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Chris S. »

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

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic