no point in buying a mirrorless camera

Started May 11, 2014 | Discussions thread
Tone Row Regular Member • Posts: 334
Re: no point in buying a mirrorless camera

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

adymitruk wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

adymitruk wrote:

Because I got some great "macro" shots with the G11 quite easily. I'd have to resort to photo stacking to get a similar shot with the a6000 or use flash or crank the ISO.

How do you define a macro shot? As in just getting a closeup? Or, is magnification a part of

I guess both

Then I must assume, only the first. Check the magnification. When you shoot at a lower magnification, you get more DOF. What is the larger subject width can you image at 1:1 magnification in a G11? On an APS-C sensor, about 25mm.

Not sure. I sold the camera last year. The smaller the sensor the greater the depth of field, right?

With close ups, you have to consider magnification. With ILCs, one buys macro lenses to get 1:1 or 1:2 magnification. When you shoot at this range, you will have limited DOF requiring you to stop down. However, if you reduce magnification to 1:4 or 1:5 or smaller, you get more DOF. With cameras like G11, you are not shooting at high magnification, just a close up. In fact, I have a fantastic camera that has been with me for 10+ years, Sony F828. You can shoot very close at wide end (28mm equiv, f/2) as well as take close ups using the tele end too (200mm equiv, f/2.8). In latter case, the distance is actually not so close (great for shy bugs). However, DOF is never an issue mainly because the magnification is on the lower side even when shooting from about an inch. I actually have a test shot comparing closeup using a Tamron 90/2.8 on a55 vs F828 and will try to post later.

A ruler is placed horizontally, facing the camera. As expected, at 1:1 magnification, almost 24mm of the ruler is captured with Tamron 90 (APSc sensor is about 24mm wide). But you can't get that magnification with F828, even if the front element touches the ruler (of course, being a 1/1.7" sensor, it would need better than 1:1 magnification to record 24mm).

If you reduce magnification, you increase DOF. It is when you want large magnification of a larger subject that you may need to stop down significantly.

But he is correct in saying the smaller the sensor the greater the depth of field at a given aperture. That equation is why you see a lot of macro photographers gravitating toward m43 which provides a better balance of IQ and DoF at those close distances than APS-C or full frame.

Do you think magnification plays no role? I am talking shooting lifesize or a fraction of. Let us say, your subject is 22mm across that you want to capture lifesize on APSc sensor (1:1 macro). How would you accomplish that on a m43 or smaller sensor?

If you need a full size 1:1 reproduction of something 22mm across then of course you can't do it with a sensor less than 22mm diagonal. What makes 22mm important in the world of macro photography? The point I was making is that an m43 sensor will produce a wider depth of field at 1:1 at a given aperture than APS-C or full frame at the same magnification and same aperture, and that's important to people who want to stay away from stacking as much as possible.

 Tone Row's gear list:Tone Row's gear list
Sony SLT-A55 NEX5R
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow