Small sensor camera for macros?

rutt

My best macros were taken years ago with an Olympus E-20 with an add on macro lens attachment. Makes sense, right, small sensor, small lens aperture equals greater DOF?

So, is there anyone out there doing this now, especially someone who as retreated from dSLRs for this very reason. I'd like to hear about experiences.

rutt

Here is an example of someone getting amazing results by taking this idea to extremes: http://www.mplonsky.com/photo/article.htm

Bob Bell

Rutt, I do my share of electronics macro's for ad's and I use a 50/1.8 and use diopters and extension tubes. I usually start off with a B+W 10X macro diopter to get a 1-2" working distance. I know there are other powers like the typical +1,+2,+4 sets that would probably replicate your macro experience.

The DoF is a lot more controllable in a DSRL with say a Canon 100 macro than a P&S.

Now on the P&S side of the world. I used an A40 to transisition from film slr to dslr and use it with an adapter for 52mm filters. I actually bought the 10X B+W for use with that P&S.

The advantage to the P&S approach is that you can get more light to the subject because of the smaller bodies.

I know this isnt much help, just rambling thoughts

Forehead

I enjoyed reading the link!

Now YOU might enjoy fantasizing over a new 16MP hand-held digital microscope from Keyence (I'll try to find that link for you). Can you imagine being able to walk around somewhere, and take a 5000X shot of one of the hairs off the back of a mite with "20 times the DOF of normal microscopes"?

Price? Not sure. I'm afraid to ask. You could probably buy 10 Canon EOS 1 or 15 Nikon D2X cameras EASY for the price of one of those :jawdrop

rutt wrote:

Here is an example of someone getting amazing results by taking this idea to extremes: http://www.mplonsky.com/photo/article.htm

luke_church

I have recently been taking a few macro photos of live gosling's eyes. The hit rate from a Sony F828 is substantially higher than that of the Canon 350D with a Sigma 105mm Macro lens.It can focus faster and the deeper depth of field means that you get quite a few more mm each side, which kind of matters if your target refuses to stay still.OK, so it's not true macro, but for close-up high-speed photography, I was plesantly suprisied how easy it was with an F828.Thought you might be interested anyhow...Luke

luke_church

OK, not quite sure why my last post has been 'linearised' into a single line, but hopefully still readable without much whitespace.....

Michiel de Brieder

Check Danny Young he's got the hang of it and has some good information on his site about this! I think most of the current superzoom P&S cams can be very adequate for Macro work!

I've got a Sony H5 on order, I'll let you know how it performs (If I ever get to some Macro work, I still have 2900 Bryce/Zion/post shootout pictures to go through....)

gtc

small sensors = good stuff
I used to get great results from my sony with a canon 250d achromat.

The depth of field was always very good and autofocus was not a problem at 2-3cm-which was a relief as it didn't have a focussing ring.

The only downside was that you couldnt get shallow DOF if you wanted it.

The 828 does a good job ,particularly due to the 8mp, but I found the shorter Zeiss Vario Sonnar on my old Sony Mvc-cd 500 Mavica was much sharper ,although only 5mp,and provided more than adequate working distance.

dannys site is well worth a look particularly his old sony and his lens combinations-what an inspired contraption!

he does get great results from his panasonic too but mp are the main limiting factor for commercial sales where 8mp is now the bare minimum for most places.he sells a lot to calendar companies etc where size is not such an issue

with a macro lens and sufficient lighting you should however be able to stop down to achieve good dof and if not maybe focus stack like brian 'flys eyes' lord vetinari in this forum