Reading mode: Light Dark

Macro with MFT compared to larger sensors

Go to last post
T

TeddyD

Senior Member
Messages
1,113
Solutions
1
Reaction score
608
Location
Vadsø, NO
Ok, I'm considering to buy a MFT body for macro with adapted Minolta lenses, MD 50mm f3.5 and 100mm f4 macro bellows ( don't try to sell me any MFT glass becouse I'm using tilt and shift so a larger image circle is essential) I'm reasoning this with the ability to use less extension to get the same photo as with larger sensors, have more DOF and with tilt/shift more play.

So a question.. Have any of you around here shooted macro with MFT and some bigger sensors and how you'd compare them?

Teddy
 
I'm using Nikon 55 and 105 mm macro lenses for close-ups with my Panasonic cameras. With magnification and focus peaking, as well as IBIS, it's working extremely well.

The smaller sensor doesn't change the fact that for macro you never have enough DOF. Some m43 cameras offer in camera focus stacking with native lenses, but I prefer to continue playing with my legacy film lenses.
 
TeddyD said:
So a question.. Have any of you around here shooted macro with MFT and some bigger sensors and how you'd compare them?

Teddy
Click to expand...
I came from Canon full-frame to m4/3. I haven't found anything of special significance for macro outside of the usual trade-offs when changing sensor size. If you are using a bellows and lens for tilt/shift I presume you are also working on a tripod or at least using flash for supplemental lighting, so you should be able to shoot at base ISO and mitigate noise that way. Depending on the camera, magnified live view and other focus aids are generally much easier to do in m4/3.

That said, macro is a relatively small part of what I shoot. It's possible I'm missing some of the nuances that don't come up in more casual macro work.
 
TeddyD said:
So a question.. Have any of you around here shooted macro with MFT and some bigger sensors and how you'd compare them?
Click to expand...
Hello Teddy,

I have used both systems and prefer the FF sensor because there are cases where the resolution of the larger sensor is more satisfying. Closeup of flower parts with fine hairs, for example.

- Richard
 
TeddyD said:
Ok, I'm considering to buy a MFT body for macro with adapted Minolta lenses, MD 50mm f3.5 and 100mm f4 macro bellows ( don't try to sell me any MFT glass becouse I'm using tilt and shift so a larger image circle is essential) I'm reasoning this with the ability to use less extension to get the same photo as with larger sensors, have more DOF and with tilt/shift more play.

So a question.. Have any of you around here shooted macro with MFT and some bigger sensors and how you'd compare them?
Click to expand...
16 and 20 mpix M4/3 sensors have higher linear resolution (pixels/mm) than any existing FF sensor, which means they are essentially better for any use were magnification is important, especially if you have enough light available or you need to stop-down for greater dof (neutralising noise related advantage of larger sensor).
 
Macro means 1:1 magnification from front of the lens to rear of the lens.

4/3" macro means you only capture 17.5x13mm area.

35mm macro means you capture about 36x24mm area.

20mpix 4/3" sensor means you need a 80mpix 35mm sensor for same pixel count per detail with the same macro magnification.

So there ain't such 35mm sensor that offers same quality.

Now do with HR MODE and you get 80Mpix, that is same as about 120-150Mpix 35mm sensor with a Bayer Filter, as HR Mode captures all colors per Pixel instead just one color.

There simply ain't anything on 35mm market for that quality, why a optical quality of adapted larger format lenses is questionable, as I would just get Olympus 4/3 mount 50mm f/2 for that, spend time to do focus stacking manually when required and enjoy results that others can't get without very serious microscope lenses and automations.
 
I shot macro using the 7Dmk2 and 5Dmk2 + 100mm f2.6 LIS and now shoot it using the EM-1 mk2 with 30mm macro

In the process of getting there I have also used the EM5, 5 mk2 and EM-1 with sigma 150 f2.8 via metabones and the Olympus 60mm macro

Mostly moving subjects, bees, bugs, butterflies, etc but some static subjects such as flowers, crystals etc

My conclusion, I find it much easier to use the EM series bodies with Olympus macro lenses and the results I am getting are at least as good (in my view better) than I was able to get with either of the canon bodies, the greater native DOF of the m4/3rds bodies being one of the helpful factors

The sigma 150 f2.8 + metabones was a disappointment
 
Tommi K1 said:
Macro means 1:1 magnification from front of the lens to rear of the lens.

4/3" macro means you only capture 17.5x13mm area.

35mm macro means you capture about 36x24mm area.

20mpix 4/3" sensor means you need a 80mpix 35mm sensor for same pixel count per detail with the same macro magnification.

So there ain't such 35mm sensor that offers same quality.

Now do with HR MODE and you get 80Mpix, that is same as about 120-150Mpix 35mm sensor with a Bayer Filter, as HR Mode captures all colors per Pixel instead just one color.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much what I've reasoned so far..
Member said:
There simply ain't anything on 35mm market for that quality, why a optical quality of adapted larger format lenses is questionable, as I would just get Olympus 4/3 mount 50mm f/2 for that, spend time to do focus stacking manually when required and enjoy results that others can't get without very serious microscope lenses and automations.
Click to expand...
Might be true thou there's no way I'd invest in several ecosystems what comes to glass. I'm also very pleased to the quality of my Minolta macro lenses and the tilt and shift to adjust DOF even further. I'm a bit of gearhead and investigating nowadays the hardware route rather than software. I was involved in software development, communication electronics and photo PP back in the -90's and got the T-shirt and not going there anymore..

A few bodies with different sized sensors adapted to good manual lenses that's my plan. Have the lenses and now looking to buy a FF for astro and scenery (A7s or a Nikon) and a MFT when needs magnification or more T/S the APS-C can provide. In that I'm just beginning to look what's available but I'd like to have in body IBIS, good EVF, Wifi remote & app, at least 16 Mpix, focus peaking and magnification, plus popup flash.

BR Teddy
 
TeddyD said:
Ok, I'm considering to buy a MFT body for macro with adapted Minolta lenses, MD 50mm f3.5 and 100mm f4 macro bellows ( don't try to sell me any MFT glass becouse I'm using tilt and shift so a larger image circle is essential) I'm reasoning this with the ability to use less extension to get the same photo as with larger sensors, have more DOF and with tilt/shift more play.

So a question.. Have any of you around here shooted macro with MFT and some bigger sensors and how you'd compare them?

Teddy
Click to expand...
I do a lot of macro work, but not with bellows or tilt shift. I use a variety of dedicated macro lenses, close up diopters, and long teles with extension tubes, to get the shots I am looking for. I do mostly flowers and insects for my subjects, and prefer to do hand-held work, so I appreciate good image stabilization when available, (but make do when I don't have it).

My favorite legacy macro is the Micro Nikkor 55mm f3.5 non-AI lens. I've used it adapted on every M43 body I have had, as well as the Sony A7, when I was using that system. Great lens. I have used a number of others (Minolta AF 50mm f2.8, 100mm f2.8, Tamron 90mm f2.8, etc), and the only one I kept was the Nikon.

In my excursion into FF territory, I found that I did miss the inherently greater DOF due to the crop factor that I had become used to on my M43 cameras, when I was working with the A7. So, when I returned to M43, it was, in part due to that, plus the advantage of being able to get extra reach with long tele lenses without paying a massive weight penalty that I would with the FF gear. That being said, DOF with really close up lenses in M43 is still going to be mighty shallow, and I find that I do still end up using focus stacking at least some of the time, especially with shorter lenses that are used very close to the subject.

My native M43 macro lenses are the PL 45mm f2.8, and now also the Oly 30mm f3.5. Oddly enough, however, last summer I found that I was having a lot more fun using my PL 100-400mm with extension tubes to do most of my close-up work with insects and flowers, rather than with the dedicated macros. Go figure....

As to bodies? I would STRONGLY suggest that you get one of the 20MP sensored bodies for your macro work. There are some improvements in tonal and color gradation in that sensor, as well as shadow noise, that are particularly obvious when doing macro type work with floral or natural subjects. I have owned a number of the 16MP bodies, and would not have switched back from the A7 completely to M43 had I had to work only with one of those. The 20MP, for this type work, is a significant step up, and ended up meeting my needs just fine. (I have the GX8).

Hope this helps....

-J
 
" last summer I found that I was having a lot more fun using my PL 100-400mm with extension tubes to do most of my close-up work with insects and flowers, rather than with the dedicated macros"

likewise, I find its excellent for shooting bees in flight in particular
 
For a few reasons I found it better and more fun shooting Macro on a m43 compared to APS-C/FF camera (Nikon in my case).

The reasons that spring to mind:

1.Focus peaking

2. An effective mirrorless live view, allows me to gain focus via the viewfinder or rear screen, no matter what contortion I'm pulling to get that shot.

3.Lighter setup

4.Better resolution at any given magnification (as long as available light provides correct exposure)



 
I couldn't speak for larger sensors, but I use a rokkor 100mm f3.5 macro with g6 and now g85 and am quite pleased with combo. with 1:1 extension tube and spacers 1, 2 & 3 you can get some pretty serious magnification but dof is tough. I find without extensions can shoot handheld reasonably well, its easier to just set focus to magnification desired and then move head back and forth to achieve focus. shooting high speed burst works well with that
 
Hello!

... cameras for macro since going digital in 2000. My preferred cameras to this day are Foveon based cameras since their fine detail rendering really excells at macro (also the typical "false" detail). Sobif you want the utmost fine detail at base ISO I would recommend looking into that route as well.

Other than that I greatly enjoyed the output of the Fuji S5 for it's tonal and dynamic range specifics.

All other cameras I have used are in between, none being "bad" at macro, where light and technique are the most important factors imho.

I also use my OMDs for macro sometimes and like it as well, also with an MD 50/3.5 amongst others. I would not specifically buy into MFT for macro though, because I don't feel it has anything special to offer over other cameras for macro. It will do really well, but so will mos other cameras.

Best,

Alex
 
Okapi001 said:
TeddyD said:
Ok, I'm considering to buy a MFT body for macro with adapted Minolta lenses, MD 50mm f3.5 and 100mm f4 macro bellows ( don't try to sell me any MFT glass becouse I'm using tilt and shift so a larger image circle is essential) I'm reasoning this with the ability to use less extension to get the same photo as with larger sensors, have more DOF and with tilt/shift more play.

So a question.. Have any of you around here shooted macro with MFT and some bigger sensors and how you'd compare them?
Click to expand...
16 and 20 mpix M4/3 sensors have higher linear resolution (pixels/mm) than any existing FF sensor, which means they are essentially better for any use were magnification is important, especially if you have enough light available or you need to stop-down for greater dof (neutralising noise related advantage of larger sensor).
Click to expand...
Which means the camera phone would be even better, actually the best.

Nikon D800e Vs. Nokia Lumia 1020

But is that really a convincing argument not to get the real camera instead? As someone would say - there is way more to it, than just the resolution alone.

--
- sergey
 
Last edited:
Okapi001 said:
TeddyD said:
Ok, I'm considering to buy a MFT body for macro with adapted Minolta lenses, MD 50mm f3.5 and 100mm f4 macro bellows ( don't try to sell me any MFT glass becouse I'm using tilt and shift so a larger image circle is essential) I'm reasoning this with the ability to use less extension to get the same photo as with larger sensors, have more DOF and with tilt/shift more play.

So a question.. Have any of you around here shooted macro with MFT and some bigger sensors and how you'd compare them?
Click to expand...
16 and 20 mpix M4/3 sensors have higher linear resolution (pixels/mm) than any existing FF sensor, which means they are essentially better for any use were magnification is important, especially if you have enough light available or you need to stop-down for greater dof (neutralising noise related advantage of larger sensor).
Click to expand...
And the Nikon 1 system is better still, and my Pentax Q just sublime.
 
bobn2 said:
Okapi001 said:
TeddyD said:
Ok, I'm considering to buy a MFT body for macro with adapted Minolta lenses, MD 50mm f3.5 and 100mm f4 macro bellows ( don't try to sell me any MFT glass becouse I'm using tilt and shift so a larger image circle is essential) I'm reasoning this with the ability to use less extension to get the same photo as with larger sensors, have more DOF and with tilt/shift more play.

So a question.. Have any of you around here shooted macro with MFT and some bigger sensors and how you'd compare them?
Click to expand...
16 and 20 mpix M4/3 sensors have higher linear resolution (pixels/mm) than any existing FF sensor, which means they are essentially better for any use were magnification is important, especially if you have enough light available or you need to stop-down for greater dof (neutralising noise related advantage of larger sensor).
Click to expand...
And the Nikon 1 system is better still, and my Pentax Q just sublime.
Click to expand...
 
Sergey_Green said:
Okapi001 said:
TeddyD said:
Ok, I'm considering to buy a MFT body for macro with adapted Minolta lenses, MD 50mm f3.5 and 100mm f4 macro bellows ( don't try to sell me any MFT glass becouse I'm using tilt and shift so a larger image circle is essential) I'm reasoning this with the ability to use less extension to get the same photo as with larger sensors, have more DOF and with tilt/shift more play.

So a question.. Have any of you around here shooted macro with MFT and some bigger sensors and how you'd compare them?
Click to expand...
16 and 20 mpix M4/3 sensors have higher linear resolution (pixels/mm) than any existing FF sensor, which means they are essentially better for any use were magnification is important, especially if you have enough light available or you need to stop-down for greater dof (neutralising noise related advantage of larger sensor).
Click to expand...
Which means the camera phone would be even better, actually the best.
Click to expand...
True, provided you can get a good enough lens for the camera phone.
 
SiFu said:
I also use my OMDs for macro sometimes and like it as well, also with an MD 50/3.5 amongst others. I would not specifically buy into MFT for macro though, because I don't feel it has anything special to offer over other cameras for macro. It will do really well, but so will mos other cameras.
Click to expand...
How many can do focus bracketing, or even focus stacking? How many support high-definition (80 mpix), which is a fantastic option for all macro photography where you don't need exposures shorter than 1 sec?
 
Hello!

It purely depends on what type of shooting you do - I can't use any of these features for my shooting/environment. In general these are nice features for sure.

Best,

Alex
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top