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 camerac

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

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.

What makes 22mm? To help being out an issue that addresses the quest of: smaller the sensor, the better it is for macro idea. Also, DOF.

You can fit a 22mm subject on m43, 1", 1/1.7", 1/2.3"... sensor, just not at 1:1. Which means, you now reduce magnification and hence increase DOF... something you can with larger sensors too.

The only advantage a tiny sensor may have at that point: pixel density for enlargement.

Ok, my bad then. There must be some other reason macro photographers are flocking to m43, and here I was thinking DoF had something to do with it.........

Makes me wonder why they don't flock to 1" or smaller sensors. If smaller is better, where does your argument fit in?

When you are trying to take a photo of a fast moving ant at 1:1 you need all the DoF you can get. With a full frame camera you can only stop down so far before you run out of ISO, with m43 you don't have to stop down as much and still get enough light at the same time. Basically, all the arguments that work against m43 in the normal shooting world work in its favor in the macro world.

That did not answer my question. It was: if smaller is better, why not even smaller?

BTW, 1:1 macro of a moving ant... BTW, this ant action macro photography could be just as easily done with a FF camera. No?

Well, you still want to be able to use interchangeable lenses. I didn't say smaller was better so even smaller is even better, and I didn't say m43 was perfect, I said m43 has a good balance of size/IQ for this sort of thing. Chose not to believe it as I don't really care either way, but there's no denying people love m43 for macro photography.

 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