Best camera choice for close-ups

[Andrea B.]

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 

[BW]

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

[Erik Lund]

Nikon D3X  24 MP is the perfect sweetspot IMHO

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[pluton]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Michael Erlewine]

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.

[PedroS]

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.

[richardHaw]

for me, nothing beats the D7200 for shooting bugs

[Erik Lund]

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,,,

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[John Geerts]

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?

[ArendV]

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.

[Frank Fremerey]

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

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.