Four Thirds Camera/Lenses

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

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

SinarP2
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 3:53 am
Location: Texas

Four Thirds Camera/Lenses

Post by SinarP2 »

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that the new Four Thirds bodies/lenses have a greater DOF than their "big" brothers.

Do you experienced folks see the Four Thirds as a viable alternative to using larger bodies (assuming there are stellar optics available)?

Thanks!

PS: What is considered the ultimate digital camera body for macro work?

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

Re: Four Thirds Camera/Lenses

Post by rjlittlefield »

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that the new Four Thirds bodies/lenses have a greater DOF than their "big" brothers.
That assumption is wrong. But don't worry --- it's a common confusion that results from authors not being clear about what's being held constant.

Changing the sensor size makes no difference in achievable DOF, and no difference in the DOF/resolution tradeoff. All that changes are the nominal settings. All else being equivalent, if you set f/11 on the Four Thirds, then you'll get more DOF than at f/11 on a larger sensor. But you'll also get worse diffraction blur. Open up the Four Thirds' lens to get the same absolute aperture diameter -- measured in mm, not f-number -- and you'll have the same DOF and diffraction blur in the final image with both cameras.
Do you experienced folks see the Four Thirds as a viable alternative to using larger bodies (assuming there are stellar optics available)?
Sure, it'll work fine. The smaller sensor will probably have a little more noise, but it's not likely to be important.
What is considered the ultimate digital camera body for macro work?
There's no obvious leader in bodies or lenses. All the major brands can do great work in the right hands.

--Rik

Joseph S. Wisniewski
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:53 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Four Thirds Camera/Lenses

Post by Joseph S. Wisniewski »

SinarP2 wrote:PS: What is considered the ultimate digital camera body for macro work?
I'm going to do "point/counterpoint" here, and say there is an "ultimate" digital body: the Canon 40D.

Only Canon cameras have mirrors that stay locked up during liveview operation. Nikon bodies (right up to my D3) and four thirds bodies drop the mirror and raise it again right before opening the shutter. This actually ends up giving you even more vibration than a conventional DSLR.

The 40D has an additional feature called "electronic first curtain" that means you go right from liveview to the beginning of image capture with no mechanical motion, at all. There's still a physical shutter closing at the end of the exposure, but the "grand total" is 1/2 the shutter vibration of anything else out there, and no mirror motion.

Only Canon cameras offer a stock "course grain" focusing screen to aid manual focus.

Combine all that with excellent long exposure capability, excellent high ISO capability, and you're looking at a really powerful macro tool. I'm considering getting one as a telescope/microscope/macro bench camera.[/list]

SinarP2
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 3:53 am
Location: Texas

40D

Post by SinarP2 »

Joe,

Do you folks tether a computer/screen to the camera body when doing extreme macro work?

Is higher pixel count a "good thing"?

Thanks!

elf
Posts: 1416
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:10 pm

Post by elf »

4/3rds has several advantages:
Smaller image circle means you can use more shift and tilt than larger sensors (Assuming you have the hardware to do shift and tilts)
Registration distance is shorter than Nikon (or Canon) so you can get infinity focus with bellows and Nikon lens. This also gives you a wider range of lens to choose from.
Olympus 4/3rds optics are generally better than Nikon or Olympus particularly at wide angles (Caution: This statement may cause religous wars)
Articulated Live View on E3, E330, and E30 (next year).


Disadvantages:
Diffraction sets in earlier so you need faster (expensive) glass to compensate.

Canon software can control the focus which should make stacking simpler.

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

Re: 40D

Post by rjlittlefield »

Do you folks tether a computer/screen to the camera body when doing extreme macro work?
I don't, but that's only because my aging camera doesn't support it. If it did, I would.
Is higher pixel count a "good thing"?
Yes, but how much better depends on what you mean by "extreme macro".

At field sizes below roughly 3 mm, it gets pretty challenging to find optics that will exceed even a 6 Mpixel sensor. (2000x3000 pixels means 1500 line pairs across the frame. Spanning a 3 mm field, that's 500 line pairs per mm. You see the problem.) In this regime, more pixels will give a modestly better image, but only to the extent that oversampling reduces artifacts.

There is more value in high pixel counts at lower magnifications, particularly if you're willing to stack so that you can use your lenses at optimum resolution.

--Rik

Joseph S. Wisniewski
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:53 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: 40D

Post by Joseph S. Wisniewski »

SinarP2 wrote:Do you folks tether a computer/screen to the camera body when doing extreme macro work?
I used to, with Nikon D100 and D2X. Used the Nikon Capture program and a laptop.

The D3 HDMI output plugged right into a monitor looks better, and responds faster. That's the way I work these days. Saves the "middle man" of a laptop, USB interface, and software.
SinarP2 wrote:Is higher pixel count a "good thing"?
As Rik said, it typically takes you into what we call "empty magnification". Most macrophotography gear wasn't really set up (lens apertures, relay lenses, etc) with the intention of producing giant images. Little old 6 or 10mp DSLRs make great 8x10 and can pretty much outresolve the macro lenses when you're pushing to 13x19.

Joseph S. Wisniewski
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:53 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Post by Joseph S. Wisniewski »

elf wrote:4/3rds has several advantages:
I see these as, at best, trivial, and nowhere near enough to counter its ISO disadvantages, or the poorly implemented (for macro) liveview systems. Believe me, I've shot Nikon for decades, but have a much softer spot in my heart for Oly and Pentax than I do for the ambiguous Canon and the morally bankrupt Sony. If there was any way, in good faith, that I could recommend an Oly over a Canon, I'd take it.

So, as much as it pains me to say so, the overwhelming advantages go to Canon.
elf wrote:Smaller image circle means you can use more shift and tilt than larger sensors (Assuming you have the hardware to do shift and tilts)
My hardware (Nikon PB-4 bellows) does shifts and tilts. It is possible to get a small amount of vignetting on one edge at full tilt with a 63mm Luminar on the mount. That's a full frame camera. The 1.5x Nikons have no vignetting, nor does the 1.6x Canon 40D I recommended.
elf wrote:Registration distance is shorter than Nikon (or Canon) so you can get infinity focus with bellows and Nikon lens.
If there were such thing as a four thirds bellows. There isn't. When you mount a Nikon, Canon, or Oly bellows to a four thirds camera with the appropriate four thirds adapter, the registration distance "advantage" vanishes.

Even if you could take advantage of the registration distance difference, it's just 8mm more than Nikon F, 6mm more than Canon EOS, and I can't think of any lens that's so close to the edge of infinity focus that 6-8mm will make anything magical happen.

You won't get infinity focus for any Nikon F mount lens other than the "bellows" 105mm and 135mm, and those reach infinity with Nikon bodies anyway. You won't get infinity focus with a "regular" lens from any other system, because the collapsed bellows is still at least 40mm, and 40mm is much larger than the 6-8mm you'd get if you didn't have to use an adapter to mount the bellows to a four thirds body.

And you won't get infinity focus with the 63mm Zeiss Luminar, even if you mount it backwards, poking into the bellows on a short RMS adapter.

I don't think 6-8mm would make the difference for a 85mm El-Nikkor enlarging lens, either, and the 105mm El-Nikkor can reach infinity on a Nikon body.
elf wrote:This also gives you a wider range of lens to choose from.
To a point. For bellows, it's a level playing field, you can get RMS adapters, M39 adapters, and T-mounts for any system.

For four thirds lenses, there's the Oly 50mm f2.0, which really is a lens you can write home about.

But the lens leader for macro is (hard for this old Nikon shooter to admit) Canon. The Canon with the proper adapters can mount all the old Canon FD macros, the manual focus Nikon macros, the AF 60, 105, and 200mm macros, the Nikon 85mm tilt/shift macro, the Canon AF 50, 60, 100, and 180mm macros, the Canon TS/E 45mm and 90mm macros, and the indescribable MP-E65, which gives you 1x-5x magnification without a bellows. As well as the excellent Tamron 90mm and 180mm macros (Tamron has yet to launch any of their lenses in four thirds), Sigma 50, 70, 150, and 200mm macros (Sigma only has part of their line in four thirds). So, to gain an amazing 50mm f2.0 Oly, a four thirds used gives up seven impressive Canon macros and 6 aftermarket macros available in Canon mount but not in Oly.
elf wrote:Olympus 4/3rds optics are generally better than Nikon or Olympus particularly at wide angles (Caution: This statement may cause religous wars)
Or peels of laughter, especially from people who have shot both systems.
elf wrote:Articulated Live View on E3, E330, and E30 (next year).
That's liveview that you can't use effectively for macro, because the mirror double cycles before the shutter fires. Articulated or not, the best liveview for macro is definitely the Canon 40D.
elf wrote: Disadvantages:
Diffraction sets in earlier so you need faster (expensive) glass to compensate.
That is quite true for general photography (there's no Oly 25mm f0.7 to match a Nikon or Canon 50mm f1.4, and no 35-100mm f1.4 to match the competing 70-200mm f2.8).
elf wrote:Canon software can control the focus which should make stacking simpler.
Can it focus bracket between two set limits?

But it's really not that much help, because we typically do focus bracketing by moving the camera, not the lens focus control. That's a more linear focusing operation, and results in less

I mentioned it earlier, but a major four thirds disadvantage is the current crop of sensors for four thirds. Neither the original Kodak sensors nor the current Panasonic have been able to come within about 2 stops of what Canon and Nikon can do. Being able to shoot with less noise is a big advantage, especially when using focus stacking software. Noise masks detail, and causes more errors when the focus stacking software tries to find the best layer to take data from.

Another Oly disadvantage (at least compared to Nikon) is the Nikon R1-C1 macro lighting system. Up to 8 heads that can live anywhere you want on the ring, each assignable to one of three independent, fully controllable banks. If your macro work has you chasing live bugs, there's no comparison.

elf
Posts: 1416
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:10 pm

Post by elf »

The articulated live view may not mean very much in a studio, but it makes a huge difference when you're in the field. The only way I'd have a camera without an articulated live view would be if it had a wireless interface with live view. I'd probably even settle for a wired interface :)

High ISO performance is only necessary if you don't have enough light. In a studio, I don't think this should be much of a problem. In the field a good flash setup will take care of it.

The off-the-shelf bellows solutions for 4/3rds are pretty much non-existent which is why I built mine. The bag bellows collapses to less than 8mm so it's capable of focusing to infinity with any Nikon F mount lens. A couple of photos of it are here:http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... php?t=5904. It has rear rise and fall now and I'm working on a design to add tilt.

I'd recommend an Olympus over Canon or Nikon for in the field work and the Canon for studio work.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic