NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: Andrea B. on February 10, 2016, 19:24:31
-
What camera is really best for close-ups with such a lens as
the 60/2.8 Micro-Nikkor or Coastal Optics 60/4.0 or other similar lenses?
Large sensor, small pixel? Small sensor, large pixel? Lots of pixels? High pixel density?
I've gotten myself all hung up on this trying to decide "in theory"
which is the best camera for such close-ups, or as some call it, macro shooting.
I do know that larger pixels promote better signal-to-noise ratio.
And that diffraction sets in earlier for both smaller sensors and smaller pixels.
Is there a sweet spot somewhere between late diffraction and rendering of detail?
Here are the cameras under consideration along with their pixel count,
pixel size and approximate diffraction limit.
Diffraction limits shown here are based on green light
from some online chart somewhere, so we take it with a grain o' salt.
I added a Nikon-1, but would not really want to use that for close-ups.
Cam MP PixelSize Diffraction
Df 16 7.30 f/13
D750 24 5.98 f/11
D810 36 4.89 f/9
D500 21 4.22 f/8
D7200 24 3.92 f/8
1V1 10 3.4 f/6.3
-
In my opinion there is a sweet spot between resolution, filesize, pixelsize, noise response and diffraction around 16-24 mp. Above 24 mp the computer workload is to heavy for my liking. For macro I really like the tilt screen of the d750 but stopping down to get the DOF required, diffraction kicks in. There might not be a global solution to the problem you put forward, local adaptions :)
-
Nikon D3X :D 24 MP is the perfect sweetspot IMHO
-
I would love this camera to be the Df, as it is my day-to-day work horse, but a nagging feeling is that the new D500 might be better for close-ups. Meanwhile, I'd pick the D810 for the added MPix. This can come in handy when you work slowly and meticulously with a tripod-bound camera anyway.
In UV, the Coastal 60 APO can be used at f/45 with good results. Diffraction is there of course, but this is a lens that is diffraction-limited more or less over its entire aperture range. The lighting of the subject plays an even more significant role in setting the attainable resolution than diffraction alone. However, we rarely light the subjects in an optimal manner for sharpness these days because we would perceive the rendition to be too harsh.
-
My theory is that since diffraction softening is a physically small thing, the less the degree of enlargement that can be employed, the less it will be visible.
Thus, the larger sensor should be the better choice, always.
Pixel density doesn't matter as much.
Also, some lenses do better than others at small stops due to factors other than diffraction, like diffuse flare.
-
The mantra of "larger is better" was more pronounced back in the film days. You could really pull off f/90 to f/128 frames if you employed an 8x10" camera. Come to think of it, you needed those ultrasmall apertures anyway because the focal lengths were long (to provide adequate coverage) and movements of standard(s) could not solve all requirements for depth of field.
Still, larger pixels tend to associate with more statistical spatial independence of the photosites, thus potentially less noise.
-
I do close-up photography, very little actual macro (1:1). I have come up from the beginning and then through the D1x, D100, D200, D300, D3s, D3x, D800E, and now the D810. Of course, lenses are perhaps even more important for this work.
I consider the D810 the finest camera for this kind of work that I have ever seen, better than even the RZ67 MF Mamiya system I use to have. I value the 36MP and would like even more, like 54MP or something. I especially value the ISO 64 in the D810, and the ability to actually use LiveView to focus, which is all I use these day.
-
It really depends of the final goal.
I do a lot of medical skin macro, where definition is a must, so nothing beats the bigger the better trend. That said the D810 is my 1st choice.
-
for me, nothing beats the D7200 for shooting bugs :o :o :o
-
I looked at the D800 and D800E when they came out I also recall playing around with the one JA had,,, Several points where I was less enthusiastic have be addressed to according to the reviews so maybe I should have a closer look at the D810 if it really is that good,,,
-
As far as I'm aware of, the LiveView functionality of the D810 is much improved over the D800. Quite necessary too as critical and accurate focusing via LiveView simply is impossible with the D800.
-
Can't think of many functionality regarding the whole 'LiveView' option. The idea of Photography is to adjust the camera to the image you want and hit the shutter? And check the image afterwards for any possible improvements?
-
LiveView of Nikon camera's can vary. It was better on my D300 than on my current D7100 for precise manual focusing.
Purely looking at resolution for macro smaller is usually better.
To illustrate that a small example.
Let's say you want to photograph a bug of a few mm's in a scene of 8x10mm.
If you have a macro lens with 1x magnification (1:1) you get:
with a 24MP FX camera like the D750 a resolution of 2.2MP for that scene;
with a 36MP FX camera like the D810 a resolution of 3.3MP;
with a 24MP DX camera like the D7200 a resolution of 5.2MP;
with a 10MP CX camera like the V1 a resolution of 6.9MP and
with a 20MP CX camera like the J5 a resolution of 13.8MP
Of course considering other factors like signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range smaller is not better, but just wanted to illustrate resolution here.
-
Thank you Arend for clearing up the resolution question.
I want to add that Close up work is mostly tripod based plus IR or Cable Release plus manual focus in live view.
So you can use every camera at its sweet spot.
What limits the IQ apart from sheer spatial resolution is the ability to count photons. Light is what photos are made of.
More is better.
Based on the information provided on sensorgen.info the D600 counts three times the amount of photons than a D700
or D3 respectively. The Df is even better, The D5 and D500 are destined to be better.
The light collection capability is what makes great tonality.
After testing the D750 against the D810 in close up work I feel tonality is better in the D750 while resolution is better
in the D810 ... given the same lens and technique.
But: The difference is small, so small that I do not see a reason to upgrade to either from my D600.
The D5 and D500 could be a leap forward from this generation. Can't wait to get my hands on these.
All the best
Frank
-
However, with the CX camera you might only capture the head of a bug, while the FX gives you the entire bug plus possibly part of the setting.
To put the whole thing in perspective, 1:1 life-size with an 8x10" is a close portrait of a human face.
-
Can't think of many functionality regarding the whole 'LiveView' option. The idea of Photography is to adjust the camera to the image you want and hit the shutter? And check the image afterwards for any possible improvements?
The finder system might not be up to the task of providing critical focus. Then, LiveView might be the feature required to get the shot.
In the old days, you could change screens to make focusing accurate in conjunction with an alternate finder. Now, these days, Liveview plays the same role.
-
Thanks for the clarification, Bjørn. Do you perhaps have some examples in which case the focus can be that critical? In case of macro-details? Or Special lenses?
-
However, with the CX camera you might only capture the head of a bug, while the FX gives you the entire bug plus possibly part of the setting.
But in a lot of situations you can move the CX camera a bit backwards to get a broader view.
Decreasing magnification & resolution is usually easier than increasing it.
-
Once you move in towards 1:1 or beyond, focusing is always critical.
Around 3:1, about the maximum you can deal with using a hand-held camera, depth of field is down to the breadth of a human hair.
-
But in a lot of situations you can move the CX camera a bit backwards to get a broader view.
Decreasing magnification & resolution is usually easier than increasing it.
The experience from practical close-up photography and photomacrography is you tune the used magnification to the format. For example, when I used 24x36 (today's 'FX') and 6x9 concurrently, you would shoot 1:1 with the 24x36 system and 3X with the 6x9. You got better details with the 6x9 and less depth of field. Thus there would always be a balance here to strike.
Automated setups for focus stacking have changed the approach significantly, but still there will be conflicting interests at play.
-
I would be interested in your 3x setup, I assume it includes a bellows?
-
I wouldn't do 3X with a 6x9 camera hand-held. It is too awkward using a technical view camera in that manner. However, in a studio setting there would be little problems. Or I could switch to my Nikon Multiphot photomacrographic camera and use the Macro-Nikkors in leaf shutter mount.
For 3X with the DSLRs, I'm using a rig with an Olympus 38 mm f/2.8 macro lens. Once in a while even shorter lenses, such as a Macro-Nikkor 19 mm f/2.8 or Canon 20 mm f/3.5. I probably should track down an Olympus 20 mm f/2. I use the Olympus simply because it has a sensible size to allow me to operate it with gloves on. That is less easy with the other alternatives such as the Macro-Nikkors (apart from the 65/4.5 Macro-Nikkor, but that one is better used with the Multiphot).
Do note the ring arrangement and the protruding stub in front. This acts as a combined stray light baffle and a holder for the SB-21 ring flash. The perfect setup for easy hand-held photomacrography. Still, there will be a lot of captures outside the optimal focus, but getting the keepers is no longer verey taxing as only patience is required.
-
Thanks Bjørn, nice setup with the Olympus 38mm !
This is my 2x magnification setup with the Olympus 80mm.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5694/23596052841_eac9b293b1_c.jpg)
But I guess we are off topic on Andrea's question: What is the best camera for close-ups?
-
"But I guess we are off topic on Andrea's question: What is the best camera for close-ups?"
Such discussions always meander back and forth. It's their force and weakness combined.
As to Andrea's question: I feel the upcoming D500 might well be the answer. It has a decent resolution, state-of-the-art sensor and the associated dynamic range and ISO capabilities, has a tiltable screen to save some lower back pain (if you shoot in landscape mode, otherwise you have to contort your body into even worse shapes), and is robustly build for real field use. The D810 might make a tie, but not convinced about its qualities as a field camera.
Mirrorless cameras are a pain to use in sunlight and their EVF is not kind to ageing eyes. Besides, they tend to be small and fiddly to operate. You really need a camera that packs heft and sufficient size into one.
-
I found the LiveView of any of the larger Nikon DSLRs not usable IMO for close-up work. The Nikon D810 is usable, not perfect, but good enough that I use it all the time, although it really eats up the batteries.
The title of this blog is "Close-Ups," but we are discussing more macro or above, right?
-
Knowing Andrea, 'close-up' work is most relevant. The Coastal 60 lens she mentions stops at 1:1.5, and the UV-Nikkor only goes to 1:2 on its own (1:1 with the PN-11). The 60 Micro-Nikkor extends to 1:1.
-
.... the Nikon D810 is usable, not perfect, but good enough that I use it all the time, although it [Liveview] really eats up the batteries.
You should run the camera from an A/C power source then.
The battery chamber insert:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/742056-REG/Nikon_27014_EP_5B_Power_Supply_Connector.html
and the A/C adapter itself
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/820410-REG/Nikon_27055_EH_5B_AC_Adapter_for.html
-
I looked at the D800 and D800E when they came out I also recall playing around with the one JA had,,, Several points where I was less enthusiastic have be addressed to according to the reviews so maybe I should have a closer look at the D810 if it really is that good,,,
I must admit; D810 is really good,,, This was an expensive thread :o
-
Thanks everyone for their replies!
I must admit; D810 is really good,,, This was an expensive thread
:D