More detail

I can never get enough detail in my macros.

Would a D3200 give more detail than my D810 on a macro shot using the same lens. There are more pixels to play with.

Looking on here it seems the best macro shots all use DX cameras.
Tempted to get the D3200 and have the 105mm permanently fixed. You can get used D3200's at amazingly low prices, and don't see a need to go up to the D5xxx or D7xxx.

Am I missing something


The new Sony 46MP looks interesting, but the price is crazy and would need new glass as well so thats a no go for me.

Think i have to doubt that conclusion,Scot for one doesn't use a D3xxx,seen some fantastic macro from D610s and 600s,have you considered the lighting on the shots in question? its my uneducated feeling that neither DX or FX will make any basic difference.

More thought on my part may bring addition answers

mikew said:

Think i have to doubt that conclusion,Scot for one doesn't use a D3xxx,seen some fantastic macro from D610s and 600s,have you considered the lighting on the shots in question? its my uneducated feeling that neither DX or FX will make any basic difference.

More thought on my part may bring addition answers

Click to expand...

Your right about Scotts shots I never thought about the lighting factor.

But Wev seems to get amazing close ups with his DX shots and thats what made me think about going that route just for macro.

Hmmm ??

Not sure but i think Wev uses flash and if not he has a lot better light than we do anyway.

I started with the D3300 and shot plenty a macro with it but would not want to go back.

If you don't use flash, you're very limited in what conditions you can shoot. It has not the best ISO performance.

I suppose if you go back to the old argument size matters does that mean by filling the FX sensor with the same image as you would fill a DX sensor your results should be better.

I want to do close up rather than saying macro but would prefer not to use flash so ime hoping the 750s ISO ability will help me.

I know when I got the D750 when comparing it to the D3300 for macro, it made little difference. Sure there's a difference in DoF and the crop advantage, but there's also better performance of the lens on the FX (my lens at least), better colors, more gray levels and less noise. All in all it was not worth keeping the D3300 for.

That was vs the D750 so vs the D810 it will even make less difference. Also keep in mind you're going back to 12-bit. The D3300 was.

mikew said:

I suppose if you go back to the old argument size matters does that mean by filling the FX sensor with the same image as you would fill a DX sensor your results should be better.

Click to expand...

That was my initial thinking, but J-see has tried both and he says he wouldn't go back.

So I think I will stay with what I have and maybe try a diffuser.

wornish said:

That was my initial thinking, but J-see has tried both and he says he wouldn't go back.

So I think I will stay with what I have and maybe try a diffuser.

Click to expand...

Thats the way round i meant,the larger sensor should mean your working with less compression with more space for tonal gradation,but i am going back to 120 v 35mm thinking.

I don't even use the D7200 for macro and it performs better than the D3200.

Flash will surely help but I don't know much about that since I'm aflash. I take my distance to get my DoF while maintaining my sharpest settings, crop what I need and then use RL-deconvolution and wavelets in RT to pull all the detail it can get out of it.

Since I close to never need the full resolution, it matters less that I have to crop.

mikew said:

Thats the way round i meant,the larger sensor should mean your working with less compression with more space for tonal gradation,but i am going back to 120 v 35mm thinking.

Click to expand...

Personally I think the crop difference in macro only plays a role when you shoot at 1:1 while the shot at that magnification fills the whole sensor on the DX. If that's the shot you need, that's also when the pixel advantage of the DX comes into play. But they need to be tiny bugs to allow such and the moment you have to move backward to get more framed, the FX starts to catch up since it already has more framed on the sensor. It doesn't take much before the D810 is identical or even outperforms the D3200 at the level of pixels used.

Yes DX sensor has higher pixel density, so you cram more information per square mm! If your images are smaller than the DX sensor size - 24 x 15, then DX will have more details than FX.

I always use flash with my D3300 for close up work. Does wonders to IQ, and you can use F/44 with no qualm. With my 105mm F2.8 AIS, at max magnification (1:1.2?) the SB800 needs only 1/2 power at F/44.

wornish said:

I can never get enough detail in my macros.

Would a D3200 give more detail than my D810 on a macro shot using the same lens. There are more pixels to play with.

Looking on here it seems the best macro shots all use DX cameras.
Tempted to get the D3200 and have the 105mm permanently fixed. You can get used D3200's at amazingly low prices, and don't see a need to go up to the D5xxx or D7xxx.

Am I missing something


The new Sony 46MP looks interesting, but the price is crazy and would need new glass as well so thats a no go for me.

Click to expand...

I would say that what you need to do is practice more and refine your technique. It is not always about the gear, are you using flash? Getting focus on the main part of the subject? Ensuring you are nice and stable when shooting? If you are using flash then is it diffused? Off camera? etc I think you can improve with your current setup than changing to others.

mikew said:

I want to do close up rather than saying macro but would prefer not to use flash so ime hoping the 750s ISO ability will help me.

Click to expand...

Honestly if you are not going to use flash with macro you are letting yourself down, sure you can get great shots with natural light but you can also get a greater keep rate using combination of flash and natural light.

Ring flash, focus stacking... D300