1:1 at f/36 Versus 1:2 at F/8 Cropped

[J-see]

I tested everything, which can't be said of all, so I know very well what happens with both of my cams at which settings. I also know what works and what doesn't.

But apparently this is again one of those crazy ideas that are simply impossible because Ansel Adams said so while he was dining with King Arthur. I'm putting them in practice every day and when the bug reappear, it won't be different with this macro approach.

If others prefer the traditional ways, more power to them.

 

[Eyelight]

LOL. I agree that this isn't all that interesting. I just don't want a beginning photographer to read this thread and get confused as to what depth of field is and how to use/control it. At this point, I would urge a new photographer to scrub their mind of what they have read in this thread and go read a basic primer on depth of field.

I also agree that I have yet to see a macro picture of a bee that was shot at a small aperture and "ruined" by diffraction. Quite the opposite, actually.

Exactly why the discussion was moved from the Education Forum. Maybe it would be better somewhere else than here, but since it was dealing with macro, here seemed as good as any.

I wholeheartedly agree that the proof of anything is in the results.

I simply can't believe the denial about DoF being identical. It's based upon the same principle as controlling the amount of light using aperture and shutter.

If aperture/magnification is impossible, it implies that when I have a certain amount of light using f/8 at 1/125s, it is simply impossible to get that same amount using any other setting.

I give up.

It's math, plain and simple, but it does not work the way you seem to think it does. There are two parts to the close-up DOF calculation. The f/stop affects one part and the magnification affects the other. In order for changing of the two variables to result in the same answer (the same DOF), the new values must go up/down equally. Changing from f/32 to f/8 is 1/4 the value for this part of the formula. Changing from a magnification of 1 to that of .5 results in 3 times the value for this part. 1/4 times 3 does not equal 1.

If all this makes the mind groggy, you've read too much and should go shoot some pictures.

 

[Scott Murray]

Now this is how I go take a macro...

I walk around, find a subject, set my settings which may be something like ISO 100-5000, f/2.8-f/40, S/S 1/200 - 1/5000, with or with out flash, with or with out Raynox filter, with or with out diffuser, with or with out flash, and guess what!? Depending on the subject available light and how I feel all these settings produce great results. I do not pixel peep (and I have a D800E) I will enlarge my photo in print as large as I like. All that matters to me is the final product and if I have achieved or captured something I am proud of. I have tried being scientific in macro and guess what, you can't especially with insects as there are too many variables like the size of the bug, how flighty the bug is and how close it allows you to it, how fast or slow it is moving/scurrying. how fast it flies and changes direction, if it jumps on your lens or attacks your diffuser, if other bugs are crawling up your leg and biting you in places that are tender... The list goes on. But this is just me and the way I take photos, I am no where near an expert but just like any other type of photography things change and you need to change and adapt to them... That is what being a photographer is all about, making the most of a given situation and sometimes achieving the impossible.

 

[Woodyg3]

Scott, don't sell yourself short, your shots show that you ARE an expert because of your PRACTICAL knowledge of how to get a good shot. You understand lighting, exposure and depth of field. Your pictures show a keen eye for composition, and you have knowledge of your subjects and how best to capture them in pictures. All of this comes from understanding the basics and NOT overthinking things. I wish I had the patience to get consistent results with macro the way you do. For some reason I can sit for an hour waiting for a bird to take flight, but I have about a minute's patience waiting for that silly bee to pose just right on a flower.

 

[J-see]

Changing from f/32 to f/8 is 1/4 the value for this part of the formula. Changing from a magnification of 1 to that of .5 results in 3 times the value for this part. 1/4 times 3 does not equal 1.

If all this makes the mind groggy, you've read too much and should go shoot some pictures.

I did another calculation and get slightly different results.

According to that:

1*f/32 = 0.78*f/22 = 0.64*f/16 = 0.51*f/11 = 0.42*f/8 disregarding some trivial differences.

Only one of both calculations can be correct so I'll have to double-check. The principle remains identical but it's either three or four stops more shutter since 0.42x would be too much distance.

 

[Eyelight]

I did another calculation and get slightly different results.

According to that:

1*f/32 = 0.78*f/22 = 0.64*f/16 = 0.51*f/11 = 0.42*f/8 disregarding some trivial differences.

Only one of both calculations can be correct so I'll have to double-check. The principle remains identical but it's either three or four stops more shutter since 0.42x would be too much distance.

I had a hard time seeing what was what with all on one line, so I made a little table using your numbers. I did not double-check them, but did note earlier that ≈.42x at f/8 would yield the same calculated DOF as 1x at f/32.

Magnification	f/stop
1	f/32
0.78	f/22
0.64	f/16
0.51	f/11
0.42	f/8

ETA: So these would be the approximate magnifications to yield the same DOF at each f/stop.

 

[J-see]

I had a hard time seeing what was what with all on one line, so I made a little table using your numbers. I did not double-check them, but did note earlier that ≈.42x at f/8 would yield the same calculated DOF as 1x at f/32.

Magnification	f/stop
1	f/32
0.78	f/22
0.64	f/16
0.51	f/11
0.42	f/8

ETA: So these would be the approximate magnifications to yield the same DOF at each f/stop.

Those settings would translate into a DoF that is fairly similar. There can be one tenth of a millimetre difference but it's impossible to be that accurate in practice anyways. We rarely shoot at an exact magnification so I use rough values like 1x, 0.8x, 0.6x and 0.5x which I can eyeball using my focus points.

I have the other numbers on my PC since I use them on the D3300 so I have to verify if that formula is identical or not. If it is identical to this, I messed up by using f/8 instead of f/11. If it is different, some test shots will tell. I got the D750 after the macro season so I didn't have any chance to put it into practice with this one. I know when it starts to fall apart but shooting text and pencils isn't the same as shooting bugs.

For this cam 3 stops into shutter instead of 4 would make little difference since its low light performance is better than the D3300. F/11 is also ok since I only trade in about 5% lens performance by then which, when cropped, will still outperform the 30% performance loss at f/32. Shooting at f/8 only adds another 3% performance which likely won't be enough to crop at 0.42x.

For the D3300 it was even more profitable since that one really fell apart at f/32 or higher. I shot plenty that close down or closed to its max and at 100% the shots were all fuzziness.

 

[Pretzel]

I think aged cheddar is sharper than fresh cheddar. They're both sharper than swiss.

MmmMMmmmm... cheese!