NIKON D800 E and macro

In my experience this is not the best combination. The sharpness and DOF (not to mention magnification) on crop sensor is a better solution.On crop (my old canon) i use f/16 and get very sharp shots with a lot of DOF.
On my Nikon i can use f/22 an get less DOF and of course lower sharpness.
Well, even if I open the aperture to f/16 still get worse acuity than the crop sensor.
Is there a user that has both FF and crop sensor and deals with macro photography that tells their experienced. Maybi the Nikon 7100 or 5200 user.

There is no depth of field at macro distances, like 1:1.

The same lens is the same lens on either camera (FX or DX), it does nothing different at 1:1. (to get the same view, say exactly two inches of source height, DX has to stand back 1.5x farther than FX, but to get 1:1, both are at same distance).

The sensor size might affect how much you enlarge it later, but the image on the sensor is exactly the same image from the same lens at 1:1. The sensors are different sizes, and any difference in perceived or calculated DOF is simply due to enlargement factor to print size.

Technically, the FX frame has advantage there, simply because the usual DOF formulas assume a 1.5x larger CoC.

If you check the calculations at Online Depth of Field Calculator

105mm VR macro lens, f/22, at 1:1, which is at one foot (Minimum focus distance, which is measured from focal plane, which is about six inches working distance in front of lens), then

D800: 0.3 inches DOF
D7000: 0.2 inches DOF

This difference is simply due to the larger frame assuming a larger CoC will be acceptable (less enlargement necessary). The same lens does the same thing, and it is the same image. You may have to use it differently (enlarge the DX image more).

But, if you want DX, then the D800 certainly will allow a DX crop (using a smaller central area of the sensor), and still be 15 megapixels (nearly 16 mp, and larger than 12 mp). Or you can simply crop it yourself later, which is exactly the same thing again. The smaller sensor is simply a crop. Either way you crop it, then you have to enlarge it more, and the smaller CoC ought to be assumed. It is very arbitrary however, CoC assumes enlargement to some standard print size viewed from a certain distance, which may not be close to what you choose to do.

​This is gogle translate so I hope that there will be no strange translation

For Extreme macro in my opinion, the DX better choice.
For macro photography is higher pixel density (number per cm2 MP sensor) desirable, therefore, has priority DX over FX
DOF is dependent on the ratio of mappings and aperture.
Yes, focal length and other factors have nothing to do here. 60 mm lens has the same relationship mappings (for example 1:1) the same DOF as a 105 or 200 mm!
If you are photography 36 mm long object with the FX is the ratio of 1:1 mapping if the DX (the sensor is 24 mm long), by the ratio of 1:1.5 mapping and got this 50% more DOF! If you use the 1.4 TC (40% zoom), the DOF is reduced by 40%.
And of course, the DOF is also influenced by each aperture and shutter change to the root of 2 (approx. 40%).

kiwi86 said:

In my experience this is not the best combination. The sharpness and DOF (not to mention magnification) on crop sensor is a better solution.On crop (my old canon) i use f/16 and get very sharp shots with a lot of DOF.
On my Nikon i can use f/22 an get less DOF and of course lower sharpness.
Well, even if I open the aperture to f/16 still get worse acuity than the crop sensor.
Is there a user that has both FF and crop sensor and deals with macro photography that tells their experienced. Maybi the Nikon 7100 or 5200 user.

Click to expand...

Umm you may want to check out some of my macros and get back to me

Ok: Nikon D800 E - DX modehttp://500px.com/photo/40634458
500px / bug by Mare




And this is on my old Canon
500px / grasshopper by Mare
500px / Fly by Mare
500px / Fly by Mare

Many other Macros here - Macro - a set on Flickr

I dont use my D800E in DX mode but I am using a 90mm Macro and Raynox DCR-250 of late and am loving it.

Also this type of macro is new to me and I am still only learning, most if not all mine are handheld even my stitched robber fly which is 21 images.

It would be good though to see the comparison with a FX and DX camera and see if there is a big difference in the out come of each photo/camera.

kiwi86 said:

​This is gogle translate so I hope that there will be no strange translation

For Extreme macro in my opinion, the DX better choice.

Click to expand...

Each of us should use what we prefer of course. My own choice for high resolution would be the opposite.

For macro photography is higher pixel density (number per cm2 MP sensor) desirable, therefore, has priority DX over FX

Click to expand...

But if you fill the D800 frame, you have 36 megapixels. That is resolution! As of today, nothing DX can come close, not 12 mp, not 16 mp, not 24 mp. Yes, you might compute that 24 mp DX has pixels closer together on the sensor. But so what? The small DX sensor has to be enlarged more, and the pixels are wider apart then, with smaller CoC. The DX will never be 36 mp. There is no way you can show in 16 or 24mp what can be shown in 36 mp. I think you must not be taking advantage of your 36 mp.

DOF is dependent on the ratio of mappings and aperture.
Yes, focal length and other factors have nothing to do here. 60 mm lens has the same relationship mappings (for example 1:1) the same DOF as a 105 or 200 mm!
If you are photography 36 mm long object with the FX is the ratio of 1:1 mapping if the DX (the sensor is 24 mm long), by the ratio of 1:1.5 mapping and got this 50% more DOF!

Click to expand...

I think you said that a 36 mm long object in 36mm wide frame is 1:1. Yes.

In a 24mm wide DX frame at 1:1, it is cropped off, incomplete, so if you have this 36mm subject size, then you must back away with magnification, and use only 1:1.5 or 67% magnification. You do this by standing back 1.5x farther. Which longer focal length could be said to be greater DOF, but the smaller DX frame has to be enlarged 1.5x more, and CoC is 1.5x less, so there is no advantage.

But it is overwhelming that the D800 can be 36 megapixels, and the DX can not.

I think that ultimately in macro you will want maximum pixels per object. If you cannot fill the full FF frame, a higher density sensor will be better in the sense that it will have to enlarged lesser to get that same print size. As in general the DX sensor have higher pixel density, with proper light a macro shot in DX have more details. Of course if you can fill the FX frame fully with the object, then you get better quality - colour depth, DR etc. It will be interesting to see the quality difference between the D7100 and the D600 as both are 24MP sensors.

Well, if we want pixel density on the sensor, we should get a little compact point&shoot camera. 12 mp or 16 mp in a tiny 4x5 mm or 5x7 mm sensor. Now that's density!

But that density is not what it is about (and is actually the opposite of what we would want, smaller pixels, noise, etc). Simply because we cannot look at the image on the sensor. We must enlarge that image to print perhaps an 8x10 inch print. Enlargement spreads the pixels out wider... 6x wider than FX for the compact, 1.5x wider for DX.

In this 8x10 inch print (which result we can actually see), which one would permit the higher resolution, 12mp, 24mp, or 36mp? Seems pretty obvious.

Truth is, they all have ample pixels for an 8x10 inch print today, but 36 mp images allow amazing 100% crops.... amazing detail. Smaller sensors, not so much.

Pixel density is NOT a factor in the Depth of Field formula, which is a film-oriented concept of enlargement. Actual concept is that a 16x20 inch print will not appear as sharp as a 4x5 inch print. The lines per mm on the sensor (from the lens), when enlarged greatly, become far fewer lines per mm in what we can see. If using the SAME lens on DX and FX, then of course it is the same image, but DX has to be enlarged more (regardless if you step back 1.5x farther or not, for same view). This greater enlargement of a smaller image is exactly what gives DX its telephoto effect (zoomed in, so to speak).

Sensor size is of course a factor because it affects necessary enlargement, which also affects the arbitrary Circle Of Confusion number (as related to DOF, simply that small images have to be sharper and more detailed to withstand the greater enlargement - however, their shorter focal length for same view is the opposite factor.) The CoC number is arbitrary, whatever sharpness you want to assume it, however, the divisions of it due to smaller sensor is exact, not arbitrary.

​We need a user that has both a Nikon 7100 and Nikon 800 to give a final opinion.With my Nikon 800E simply I not satisfied.

To each his own, but my guess is you just heard someone show these numbers:

D800: 36.3 mp, Image width 7360 pixels, Sensor width: 35.9 mm - density 205 pixels per mm.

D7100: 24.1 mp, Image width 6000 pixels, Sensor width: 23.5 mm - density 255 pixels per mm.

And 255 is more than 205, more density on the chip. Seemingly, this is the only number anyone wants to discuss.

However, so what? Smaller pixels is just more noise.

1. We don't/can't look at the chip.

2. 36.3 mp is more than 24.1 mp (simply greater resolution in the image). You can't see effect of this?

3. 7360 pixels width is 1.23x more than 6000 pixels (simply more pixels, more resolution, more detail, across the width of the image). You can't see effect of this?

4. 35.9 mm width is 1.5x larger than 23.5 mm (needs less enlargement into any image that can be viewed). The DOF formula works from enlargement (and aperture and focal length, but NOT density).

5. The DX 255 pixels per mm becomes only 170 pixels per mm after enlargement to same size as FX. The density per mm maybe be greater on the D7100 "chip", but its image is smaller (objects occupy fewer mm), so there are instead FEWER pixels across its smaller object dimensions. Less detail, not more.

6. If density is the foolish goal, then the Nikon Coolpix P310 compact point&shoot camera specs are:

P310: 16.1 mp, Image width 4608 pixels, Sensor width 7.66 mm - 856.9 pixels per mm.

Wow! 856.9 pixels per mm! We should try that one. But it has to be enlarged about 5.6x more. This is only 153 pixels per mm after enlargement to same size as FX. And there are also other factors, like noise and poor high ISO performance, due to the tiny pixels.

So chip density is wrong thinking. The good stuff is about pixel size and count instead. Chip density can be counter productive. I would instead suggest more resolution, more pixels instead.

FX does use a longer focal length than DX, and DX is longer than compact (to fill frame with same view).
This longer lens does reduce FX DOF, but it does not reduce resolution.
Small sensor sizes reduce resolution.

Full frame macro.

​Scott, your images are simply amazing! Well done. I have a D800 and the Nikon Nikkor 105mm f2.8G VR. Amazing lens. I have had no issues with the results. In fact, I find it a stellar combination, as your images so thorughly suggest.

Well … just my prehistoric canon D60 (6.3 megapixels) works better and sharper pictures than my Nikon D800 E (36.3 megapixels).If i photographing bee (all bees are more or less similar in size) then after crop get almost the same size of pictures.

Not sure if you are speaking only of DOF, or about resolution. If about resolution, sorry, but your story is really hard to believe. You have not actually said your procedure, but I would suspect you are just making a mistake, not comparing (looking at) the images correctly.

For example, Nikon has a page to demonstrate the difference in DX and FX, at
Nikon | Imaging Products | Digital SLR Camera Basics | Focal Length and Angle of view

Look about mid-page there, at the example of DX and FX Formats Compared... the drawing of the girl in a blue shirt.

It shows that with the same lens standing at same location, FX has a wider view, and DX is instead cropped, cannot show full view. But ... then when you show these smaller, both at the same size, the small DX is of course necessarily enlarged more, and you may imagine that is better. But that's wrong. DX is not larger, it is smaller.

Here is another example that I can post here:



These are with a 105mm lens at 1:1.
FX on left is 36 mm wide view, 1:1.
DX on right is 24mm wide view, 1:1.

Normally, DX has to stand back 1.5x farther to show the same view with same lens (effective focal length), but these are not the same view. 1:1 IS a different story, it is at one specific distance with the macro lens, regardless of sensor size. And so now it is the same lens at same place, both 1:1, so the two images out of the lens are exactly the same. However, DX is is of course cropped due to the smaller sensor... it is not large enough to show the wide view FX shows.

We might mistakenly imagine "Wow, that DX image sure is big", but that is nonsense.

We may imagine this to be a telephoto effect, but DX simply cropped the lens view, and then enlarged it more. We can do that in our photo editor anytime.

These really ought to be compared this more realistic way:



This is the realistic comparison, both enlarged the same amount here. Both are of course the same image from the same lens at the same distance. The ruler spacing and marking size should look the same because this is the correct comparison of the sensor sizes (both enlarged the same amount).

But when enlarged to show above AT THE SAME SIZE anyway, DX is of course enlarged 1.5x MORE than FX, in order to appear same size, but which then makes DX look larger. It is a smaller image, but we enlarged it more than FX. But DX is not larger, it is smaller in every conceivable way (sensor size, megapixels, pixel dimensions, resolution, every possible way). We simply enlarged that ONE more here so DX could appear to compete.

But the FX image is still 36 megapixels and 7360 pixels wide (D800), and the DX image is 12 megapixels and only 4288 pixels wide (D300). The FX image is of course much larger, and has many more pixels to show more detail. We are just not showing it that way here. We are showing it only about 500 pixels wide, which is resampled to less than 0.2 megapixel, so we discarded about 99.5% of our original pixels and detail. And then we gave strong false advantage to DX, which of course is not reality, basically we lied to ourselves. You might even like that if you do not realize you could have enlarged the FX too. If you want FX to look that way too, simply just also enlarge it 1.5x more too.

If you resample them small, of course then you only see reduced capability, lower resolution.
And if you show them the same size, then you only see this effect described here. Because, they simply are NOT the same size.

So, hold your breath, and try inspecting both at 100% size. Try to see the capability you have. You can use that capability, in extreme print sizes and in extreme crops.

I am stopping now, this is more than enough.

aroy said:

I think that ultimately in macro you will want maximum pixels per object. If you cannot fill the full FF frame, a higher density sensor will be better in the sense that it will have to enlarged lesser to get that same print size. As in general the DX sensor have higher pixel density, with proper light a macro shot in DX have more details. Of course if you can fill the FX frame fully with the object, then you get better quality - colour depth, DR etc. It will be interesting to see the quality difference between the D7100 and the D600 as both are 24MP sensors.

Click to expand...

This is such a myth that people keep repeating and repeating and repeating. You DO NOT necessarily want maximum pixels per object in macro. There is the possibility that you'll end up using many many pixels to represent just one point of coloured light. What you want is optimum pixel size in correlation to the point of light. So if you have a sensor that takes 4 pixels to represent a red point and an other sensor that takes 24 pixels, all you're doing is wasting pixels to do the same job that 4 could do. Would you want to pay 24 dwarf movers to move your couch or 4 large rugby players? Pixel density is not the end all and be all of resolution. Pixels size in relation to density is MUCH MUCH more important. That being said this was shot with a D800E.

Silven said:

This is such a myth that people keep repeating and repeating and repeating. You DO NOT necessarily want maximum pixels per object in macro. There is the possibility that you'll end up using many many pixels to represent just one point of coloured light. What you want is optimum pixel size in correlation to the point of light. So if you have a sensor that takes 4 pixels to represent a red point and an other sensor that takes 24 pixels, all you're doing is wasting pixels to do the same job that 4 could do. Would you want to pay 24 dwarf movers to move your couch or 4 large rugby players? Pixel density is not the end all and be all of resolution. Pixels size in relation to density is MUCH MUCH more important.........

Click to expand...

What I wanted to say is that given similar quality of pixels, the more pixels you have per object the more details you can see. This is not limited to macros and applies to all sorts of photographs. Your contention that too many pixels are of not much use is correct provided those pixels are of inferior quality, but when they are similar (and light is sufficient to give optimum exposure), the 24MP DX sensor in the D7100 will give more resolution compared to the 24MP FF sensor of D600 (24MP), for a given image size on the sensor. This is especially true if you cannot fill up the DX sensor, as you will be left with more non usable area.

aroy said:

, but when they are similar (and light is sufficient to give optimum exposure), the 24MP DX sensor in the D7100 will give more resolution compared to the 24MP FF sensor of D600 (24MP), for a given image size on the sensor. This is especially true if you cannot fill up the DX sensor, as you will be left with more non usable area.

Click to expand...

<sigh> You surely mistyped, and intended to say FX in your last sentence. It's little issue to fill up the small DX frame. But why shouldn't we filll both frames?

You appear to be saying, for same megapixels, that because DX is smaller, then the same megapixels will sample more pixels across, say a tiny bug. Which is true as far as it goes, but the frames are small, which is useless if we cannot see it. We have to enlarge it to see it. And DX has to be enlarged 1.5x more to compare at same size - and if not comparing at same size (same subject size), then it is a garbage try.

So, we CAN fill the FX frame with the bug. And by default, we have to divide the DX numbers by 1.5 to compare them to FX. If DX had more than 1.5x pixel dimensions than FX, then DX could win (except then noise and ISO would of course suffer, lower quality image). The D800 frame is 7360 pixels wide, and lets assume we fill it the same with the bug. No way DX can even imagine doing that (7360 pixels across the bug), in part because of FX size, and in part because of D800 36 megapixels.

Like I said before, if you crave pixel density, you should get a compact point&shoot.
But, it turns out, the smaller sensor is counter productive (same as is smaller film size really).