# Built for Macro DSLR



## Sabaki (Jun 1, 2016)

Would you buy a small sensor DSLR in order to take macro images with greater depth of field?

I've been in awe of some macro/close up images taken with smart phones as the detail continues far beyond the 5-8mm I generally get with my 7Dii and was thinking perhaps Canon should consider a designed for macro DSLR. 

What you guys think? Good idea or weak idea?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jun 1, 2016)

In this case, it would not be a DSLR ... It would be a compact with integrated lens, optimized for macro distances. Something like the Canon G7 X Mark II.

Logic says that cameras with sensor smaller than APS-C would be seriously affected by the diffraction already aperture F11. This explains the fact that cameras point and shoot does not allow apertures more closed than F11.

See the link below, where you realize that the 7D Mark II in aperture f16 is more affected by the diffraction than the 6D, both with the same lens and the same magnification of the object.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=819&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=7&LensComp=458&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=7


----------



## chauncey (Jun 1, 2016)

Dah...ya want greater DOF...learn photostacking for unlimited DOF.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 1, 2016)

My wife runs a magazine, and they run a monthly feature on regional wildlife pictures submitted by readers. 

http://northernwoodlands.org/photo-gallery/archive

I'm frequently amazed by the DOF some of them get because they're running sensors the size of a pinky nail. About least once every other month, there's a capture that inspires me to think to myself, "I couldn't have gotten that."

These are situations where the target is moving rapidly and focus stacking is as relevant as the idea of bringing a studio along with you in the woods. 

This is NOT a general endorsement for small sensors. Many of the submissions suffer greatly. But for DOF with flying bugs, your idea has some merit. 

To comment on one of the comments above... I wouldn't see this at all as a fixed lens camera. You need different macro focal lengths for different applications. With moving things, you'll want something like the Tamron 35 VC, which is practically a macro with its tiny MFD. 

If you convince Canon to make it, I'll get suckered into buying it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 2, 2016)

Weak idea. Sorry, but the DoF 'advantage' of a smaller sensor is a myth. It exists only after you've stopped down the lens in front of your larger sensor to as narrow an aperture as possible, and at that point you're losing enough resolution to diffraction that the difference is moot.


----------



## nielsgeode (Jun 2, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Weak idea. Sorry, but the DoF 'advantage' of a smaller sensor is a myth. It exists only after you've stopped down the lens in front of your larger sensor to as narrow an aperture as possible, and at that point you're losing enough resolution to diffraction that the difference is moot.



How about my situation? high-magnification macrophotography (e.g. 10-50x)? In this case, you will need much more magnification on FF compared to APS-C to have the same FOV. Here, the extra magnification will cause extra diffraction on FF compared to APSC. So APS-C has an advantage then?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 2, 2016)

nielsgeode said:


> How about my situation? high-magnification macrophotography (e.g. 10-50x)? In this case, you will need much more magnification on FF compared to APS-C to have the same FOV. Here, the extra magnification will cause extra diffraction on FF compared to APSC. So APS-C has an advantage then?



Magnification doesn't cause more diffraction. There's still no 'APS-C advantage' or 'small sensor advantage'. However, smaller _pixels_ do give more pixels on target, which can be an advantage. But, for example, the FF 5Ds would have a significant 'small pixel advantage' over the APS-C T3/1000D.


----------



## dak723 (Jun 2, 2016)

While not exactly macro, I use my m4/3 Olympus E-M1 for most all of my flower pics. In many cases, I can't get enough DOF with my FF 6D. So, yes, it real life situations, sometimes the smaller sensor works better.


----------



## scottkinfw (Jun 2, 2016)

I would stick ff. To get a crop camera for me would be a waste (for my interests) because I would likely only use it for macros.

sek


----------



## Zeidora (Jun 2, 2016)

Agree with Neuro. Once you take pixel size and number of pixels the object is occupying on sensor into account, then the small sensor "advantage" evaporates. A small sensor cannot change physics. Sorry. 
The small sensor "advantage" comes through in small file sizes, low res shots. However, you could just as well take a large hi-res sensor and use only part of the sensor. Then you get identical DOF.
Once you try to print a magazine spread from a small sensor, it gets really ugly. That's where high MP count sensors shine.

Re 10-50x magnification, you can do that with SLR if you want. However, I find a stereomicroscope (or even compound microscope) much better suited for such situations. With my 5DsR, I only go up to 4:1 with the MPE 65. After that I go to my microscopes. I z-stack on all of those systems.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 2, 2016)

Zeidora said:


> Re 10-50x magnification, you can do that with SLR if you want. However, I find a stereomicroscope (or even compound microscope) much better suited for such situations.



+1, in that mag range I still use a dSLR, but the 'lens' is a Zeiss Stemi DV4 Stereomicroscope with a 2.5x eyepiece adapter for a final range of 20-80x.


----------



## Zeidora (Jun 2, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Zeidora said:
> 
> 
> > Re 10-50x magnification, you can do that with SLR if you want. However, I find a stereomicroscope (or even compound microscope) much better suited for such situations.
> ...



+1. ... but I only use the dSLR on the compound. Stereo has dedicated peltier cooled microscope camera.
Zeiss Discovery V20 mot, planapo 0.63 and 1.5x, Zeiss Axiocam HRc on trinoc ergotube. 
Zeiss Axioskop 2+, EC epiplan Neofluar 2.5x or planapo 5x (plus some others), optovars, 5D2.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jun 2, 2016)

In fact, OP refers to the best way to achieve *DEPTH OF FIELD WIDEST POSSIBLE* with macro. Microscopes are a great choice for flat objects, but are not a solution for three-dimensional objects, such as insects and flowers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 2, 2016)

Zeidora said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Zeidora said:
> ...



The Stemi DV4 is one I own personally (also have an Olympus compound scope at home). As for research scopes at work, I had many – an Axioskop40 with a co-observation port and an ICc5 camera in my office, and in the lab, a pair of AxioImagers with four camera ports each but none with a dSLR (each with an AxioCam HRc and HRm and a MicroFire video camera for stereology, one with a Nuance multispectral camera, the other with a Pariss hyperspectral camera) and objectives from 1.25x to 100x, an AxioImager with three observation ports, an upright confocal (LSM510 Meta), and an inverted multiphoton system (LSM510 Meta NLO). Here's the multiphoton setup...


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 2, 2016)

Yeah, Neuro, I was going to get the same rig, but I then I read the DPReview piece on it. After they took it out to the same dark, dank waterfall landscape type of site they frequent and attempted to retain the highlights with a 5-stop push, the results were less than spectacular. It didn't even focus well at infinity either. The form factor was tough on the backs of the hipster porters they had to hire, too. Because they and I believe their audience members tend to like these forays; regularly shoot from a tripod; and disdain taking pictures of moving objects, I got the Sony instead.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 2, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Zeidora said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Post some VIF (virus in flight) images


----------



## SwnSng (Jun 2, 2016)

But does it have 15 stops of DR


----------



## old-pr-pix (Jun 2, 2016)

Olympus OMD-E-M1 was mentioned earlier in the thread. What could make sense for Canon would be to mimic some of the software features that Olympus has added to both OMD and their high end P&S "Tough" series cameras. Olympus provides ability to select focus stacking in camera. Not as flexible as 3rd party stackers or as good as computer controlled rail moving the body, but very handy in a lot of situations. Select near and far focus points and specify how fine the increment (# in stack), camera does the rest. Seems to be a great way to get people interested and produces much better results than just stopping down way too far. E-M1 actually creates the resulting stacked image in camera as a jpg (limited stack size) or you can output the collection of images in the stack to process outside the camera.


----------



## Zeidora (Jun 3, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Zeidora said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



The DV20 (and an other DV12) and the Axioskop 2 etc., are all my personal scopes. The only institutional one is the EVO40 XVP.


----------



## Zeidora (Jun 3, 2016)

[email protected] said:


> Yeah, Neuro, I was going to get the same rig, but I then I read the DPReview piece on it. After they took it out to the same dark, dank waterfall landscape type of site they frequent and attempted to retain the highlights with a 5-stop push, the results were less than spectacular. It didn't even focus well at infinity either. The form factor was tough on the backs of the hipster porters they had to hire, too. Because they and I believe their audience members tend to like these forays; regularly shoot from a tripod; and disdain taking pictures of moving objects, I got the Sony instead.



Most contemporary microscopes actually use infinity corrected system; just the infinity focus is towards the eye/camera  I know, I digressed. Neuro may get a chuckle out of it.


----------



## niels123 (Jun 3, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> nielsgeode said:
> 
> 
> > How about my situation? high-magnification macrophotography (e.g. 10-50x)? In this case, you will need much more magnification on FF compared to APS-C to have the same FOV. Here, the extra magnification will cause extra diffraction on FF compared to APSC. So APS-C has an advantage then?
> ...



What is then the reason that images from my Mitotyo 5x NA 0.14 are very sharp, from the 10x NA 0.28 they are still quite sharp, although slightly less sharp and images from the Mitu 20x NA 0.42 clearly show diffraction? I also have the 50x NA 0.55. These photos are never tag-sharp and always soft.


----------



## Zeidora (Jun 3, 2016)

niels123 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > nielsgeode said:
> ...



Most likely you use a coverslip objective (usually denoted with mag x /0.17 for the 0.17 mm cover slip thickness) for an object without coverslip. At around NA >0.3 using the proper objective becomes important. Then you want to use a true epi objective (denoted with x/infinity symbol). See the photomicrography forum for further details.
The next question is, how well corrected are your Mitus? achromatic, plan, neofluar, planapo? The differences become more pronounced at higher magnification. 
Then, for even higher mag objectives, you often adjust for variation in coverslip thickness. I have a Zeiss planapo 40x/0.95 corr, an notice the difference. Images a free of chromatic errors when properly adjusted, this is for histological semi-thin plastic sections. Needless to say, it comes at a price (~US$5K). EDIT: $7K now
Last but not least, also consider the resolution limit of microscopy images. Most modern cameras have more pixels than any lens can resolve. Again, physics. Ideally it is 250 nm, in the real world at best 500 nm (minus NA limitations). There are formulas to help you calculate it. Don't remember them off the top of my head.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 3, 2016)

old-pr-pix said:


> Olympus OMD-E-M1 was mentioned earlier in the thread. What could make sense for Canon would be to mimic some of the software features that Olympus has added to both OMD and their high end P&S "Tough" series cameras. Olympus provides ability to select focus stacking in camera. Not as flexible as 3rd party stackers or as good as computer controlled rail moving the body, but very handy in a lot of situations. Select near and far focus points and specify how fine the increment (# in stack), camera does the rest. Seems to be a great way to get people interested and produces much better results than just stopping down way too far. E-M1 actually creates the resulting stacked image in camera as a jpg (limited stack size) or you can output the collection of images in the stack to process outside the camera.



Automated focus stacking is very handy - I've used the HeliconRemote software - but alas it only works with lenses that AF. The crowning jewel of Canon's macro hardware is the MP-E, which is MF only, so in-camera automated focus stacking would not be possible. You'd need a (motorised) focus rail for that.


----------



## Zeidora (Jun 3, 2016)

scyrene said:


> old-pr-pix said:
> 
> 
> > Olympus OMD-E-M1 was mentioned earlier in the thread. What could make sense for Canon would be to mimic some of the software features that Olympus has added to both OMD and their high end P&S "Tough" series cameras. Olympus provides ability to select focus stacking in camera. Not as flexible as 3rd party stackers or as good as computer controlled rail moving the body, but very handy in a lot of situations. Select near and far focus points and specify how fine the increment (# in stack), camera does the rest. Seems to be a great way to get people interested and produces much better results than just stopping down way too far. E-M1 actually creates the resulting stacked image in camera as a jpg (limited stack size) or you can output the collection of images in the stack to process outside the camera.
> ...



Alternative for MF lenses is to move the sensor back and forth. That was done back in film days by the Contax AX body. The "AF" was very slow, but it added limited AF to Zeiss lenses. However, it also made the body very thick. It also acted as a built-in extension tube, which was cool. I very much doubt that this will come back, though.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 3, 2016)

Zeidora said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > old-pr-pix said:
> ...



I thought about that, but they couldn't move the sensor enough, surely? Not without changing the camera body design too much, and even then... Impractical to say the least!


----------

