Best model for Macro and Microscopy

Mike Adams

Senior Member
I am interested in both macro photography and photo microscopy. While there are dedicated microscope cameras, they are of not use for macro work. Does anyone have experience in both, and a suggestion for which model camera would be best?

Many thanks
 

AC016

Senior Member
I feel that you should look into a full frame camera if you are going to get serious about Macro work. You will get better resolution when you crop the photo and lower noise at higher ISO. Though, the most important part of the equation, is the lens. You will want to get a true 1:1 lens and then add some extension tubes to it in order to get even closer. Those are my thoughts.
 

J-see

Senior Member
I don't know anything about microscopy but for macro it depends a bit what you want to shoot.

If you shoot subjects where light is of little importance (static subjects or if you use flash) a crop sensor might do better. With a dedicated macro lens the detail the lens will resolve is identical for a FX and DX since they're both at the exact same distance at 1:1 but while the FX might have a better SNR, the DX will have the edge detail-wise. It evidently depends which DX and FX you compare and a 36Mp FX will do better than a 24Mp. Between some the differences might be minimal and you'd need to pixel-peep to see them.

The moment light is an issue and you need to up the ISO, FX is the better choice.
 

Stoshowicz

Senior Member
Is there a best sensor size optimizing DOF vs the noise inherent in the smaller sensors?
I am under the impression that (depending on the depth of ones subject) a micro sized sensor can at least achieve focus covering the subject , as opposed to having to focus stack everything bigger than an ant.
Light becomes the issue more so, when one clamps down the aperture to get the needed dof.
If you have the DOF you need because of the smaller sensor size resulting in less actual magnification , then perhaps the noise advantage with lower ISOs of an FX isnt there.
Since you end up increasing the ISO youd employ to counter it. I dunno.
Comparing the photos of cameras using the same ISO but different capacity sensors without considering that one increases the number of photons per unit of resolution to fill the larger photosites isnt fair comparison.
So Im thinking maybe the only way really to determine whats the best tradeoff is to have employed different systems , and then just blurt out a specific one rather than generalize, but I'm not sure.
 
Last edited:

Scott Murray

Senior Member
I think any camera can take a macro and depending on the user can take very good macros. Sure DOF will suffer at times but that is where composition comes in if you can keep the detail on the part/s you want then it makes a photo. Sure you can focus stack but this can be time consuming and painful. Most of my macros are all handheld and using what settings work. Tonight I was photographing a 'Tick' which is about 4mm in length. I am using a Nikon D800E + 90mm Macro lens + Microscopic filter.

20150312-20150312-SHM_4963.jpg



Ok this is slightly cropped.

20150312-20150312-SHM_4938.jpg
 

J-see

Senior Member
Comparing the photos of cameras using the same ISO but different capacity sensors without considering that one increases the number of photons per unit of resolution to fill the larger photosites isnt fair comparison.
So Im thinking maybe the only way really to determine whats the best tradeoff is to have employed different systems , and then just blurt out a specific one rather than generalize, but I'm not sure.

It's pretty impossible to have two different sensors shoot "identical" at all levels. The larger sensor pixels will collect more photons during the exposure but they pay the price in detail so if you have to adjust the one to the photon difference, you have to adjust the other to the detail difference. And then you have the difference in lens use. The one only partly uses the lens while the other uses it fully.

By the time it's an equal fight, DSLRs have become museum pieces.
 

Stoshowicz

Senior Member
It's pretty impossible to have two different sensors shoot "identical" at all levels. The larger sensor pixels will collect more photons during the exposure but they pay the price in detail so if you have to adjust the one to the photon difference, you have to adjust the other to the detail difference. And then you have the difference in lens use. The one only partly uses the lens while the other uses it fully.

By the time it's an equal fight, DSLRs have become museum pieces.

Yep I agree, sensor efficiencies vary , and yes the tradeoff is photons per unit resolution. But I'm not sure I agree on the complete lens use thing, the aperture made smaller to achieve dof , is cancelling out much of the potential light supplied to the sensor per unit area anyway. So if the lens has a max of F1 and you use it at f22 , its the same as using an f5.6 at f22 , isnt it? The amount of illumination per unit area is the same so regardless of how big or small that area is, just for the small sensor , with the pixels jammed together less actual magnification is needed and you get the greater DOF.
 

J-see

Senior Member
Yep I agree, sensor efficiencies vary , and yes the tradeoff is photons per unit resolution. But I'm not sure I agree on the complete lens use thing, the aperture made smaller to achieve dof , is cancelling out much of the potential light supplied to the sensor per unit area anyway. So if the lens has a max of F1 and you use it at f22 , its the same as using an f5.6 at f22 , isnt it? The amount of illumination per unit area is the same so regardless of how big or small that area is, just for the small sensor , with the pixels jammed together less actual magnification is needed and you get the greater DOF.

What I meant with the lens use is that if you're using the same lens for both, I'll be an FX lens and the DX will be using a smaller potion of that lens which is usually the sharper part. Of course its crop factor will also enlarge any imperfections the lens has.

Every cam or sensor will have advantages and disadvantages compared to an other and those are defined by their technical aspects subjected to physics. Some disadvantages we can work around, others have to be accepted as is. Depending on what we desire to shoot will make the one a better choice than the other. That never implies the other is bad. It's just not best equipped for a certain task.
 

Scott Murray

Senior Member
Hey guys do not get technical and get side tracked from the original post. There are other places to do that... Honestly if I was a mod I would be deleting all stuff that is not needed (including this rant).
 

Scott Murray

Senior Member
I am interested in both macro photography and photo microscopy. While there are dedicated microscope cameras, they are of not use for macro work. Does anyone have experience in both, and a suggestion for which model camera would be best?

Many thanks
Hey Mike I use a Nikon D800e and Tamron 90mm Macro lens, this is coupled with a Raynox DCR-250 macro filter or a Raynox Microscopic filter. This allows me great photos at the macro to microscopic sides. If you want I can provide more details and understand that you do not need a D800e any camera can be used, I am usually at ISO 100 and with shutter speeds from 1/320 - 1/2000th sec using speedlight. My aperture may vary from f/2.6 - f/64 and I can provide examples if needed.
 

J-see

Senior Member
Hey guys do not get technical and get side tracked from the original post. There are other places to do that... Honestly if I was a mod I would be deleting all stuff that is not needed (including this rant).

He might not need the information we briefly talked about but besides that, I would not know how to answer "what is best" without it becoming technical. That's the only thing which makes the difference.
 

Stoshowicz

Senior Member
Hey guys do not get technical and get side tracked from the original post. There are other places to do that... Honestly if I was a mod I would be deleting all stuff that is not needed (including this rant).
You answered his question directly what you use , and that you like it, but then you suggested it didnt matter what he used. J-see and I were bouncing around the considerations involved in making his decision. And I think we can all agree that his ultimate best choice would be best made , if he has an idea how he will want to use his equipment. The issues he bumps into like, low light ,or hand held , flowers or fleas impacts what might be considered best. Im assuming He doesn't want to have to buy several. :)
 

Scott Murray

Senior Member
You answered his question directly what you use , and that you like it, but then you suggested it didnt matter what he used. J-see and I were bouncing around the considerations involved in making his decision. And I think we can all agree that his ultimate best choice would be best made , if he has an idea how he will want to use his equipment. The issues he bumps into like, low light ,or hand held , flowers or fleas impacts what might be considered best. Im assuming He doesn't want to have to buy several. :)
Yes I answered his question from my own experience in the subject and what I do. I have never thought about pixel density or anything like that, all I have thought about what works and what doesn't. If I was to be totally honest and he was going to only do macro I would say go for a Canon as they produce the MP-E 65mm 1-5x macro lens which is amazing. I also have thought about mounting one on my D800e and if it was at all possible. But I have no experience in this and only use my Nikon D800e, 90mm Tamron Macro, Raynox DCR-250 macro filter, Raynox MSN-505 for extreme macro/microscopic use.
 

J-see

Senior Member
Sometimes we find things out while doing but there are times we're not the most objective person to judge what we're doing. As an example; I've been shooting certain lenses at apertures mentioned elsewhere as the aperture needed to get sharp shots. I always used it and indeed, it took a sharp shot. But sharpness is very hard to judge as we noticed in Eyelight's examples.

When I started using a more technical approach and first looked at the actual numbers and stats and then started testing those, I discovered I could have been shooting much sharper with certain lenses. And all it takes is set aperture to something else.

I consider photography a craft and if I want to be good at it, I have to be good at the practical and theoretical aspect of it. Knowing the technical part doesn't make you get better shots but it makes it easier to get better shots since you are fully in control of what you are doing and know exactly why you are doing it.

And it starts with buying your gear and knowing what you buy for which reason. If I had known what I know now, and that isn't nearly enough, I'd been buying differently. It's not that I regret anything but by diving directly into the practical side of photography and ignoring too much the theoretical, I've been wasting quite some.

On the other hand, it's the doing it wrong what makes you do it right. I've been doing it wrong a lot. I not nearly enough do it right.
 
Last edited:

Scott Murray

Senior Member
This is what I get with different set ups.

Grains of brown sugar - uncropped

FX camera, 90mm macro.

20150312-20150312-SHM_4996.jpg

FX camera, 90mm macro, Raynox DCR-250 - uncropped

20150312-20150312-SHM_4997.jpg

FX camera, 90mm macro, Raynox MSN-505 - uncropped

20150312-20150312-SHM_4995.jpg
 

J-see

Senior Member
I wanted to try that but was all out of brown sugar. Kitchen salt was the only thing I had. TC2.0 attached but I need to practice with that since focus is amazingly hard. Salt is also pretty reflective if you put a LED on it.

JC3_5980.jpg

At 100% it isn't sharp enough. I need to find a way to focus differently. Or I need more light.

JC3_5980-1-1.jpg
 
Top