John K wrote:
Luisifer wrote:
John K wrote:
I plan to get into "macro video" using an iPhone cause I can shoot well below 1x, fill the frame with the subject. and take advantage of the depth at low mag.
Magic. Higher density of the pixels mean advantage in highly effective recording of diffraction.
I'm not sure, gotta get some experience with it. I won't be shooting actual macro, cause the sensor is so small it's gonna be easy to fill the frame with the subject at very low magnification. Probably won't be shooting greater that 1/3 life size, so diffraction won't be that big of a deal.
I read here that the iPhone XS has a 4:3 sensor which is 5.6mm x 4.2mm. This is similar to the 6.17mm x 4.55mm (1/2.3") sensors in cameras that I have used for close-ups for some years. I am wondering in what way using an iPhone will provide you with capabilities that are fundamentally different from other cameras with similar sized sensors.
The reason I ask is that with a subject of a particular size filling (the same proportion of) the frame, when using equivalent (for example minimum) apertures I get images that look very similar in terms of depth of field and details with cameras with 1/2.3", MFT and APS-C sensors. So it isn't obvious to me what the particular benefit of an iPhone would be.
At 1:3 a subject around 17mm long will fill the frame of an iPhone in landscape orientation. So would that be around the minimum size of subject you envisage photographing or videoing with your iPhone? (Better I suppose to say would that be the minimum size of scene you envisage ...)
The bigger problem is going to be light quality.
FWIW: I see a lot of people arguing technical details, like the circle of confusion. But they don't understand how those details apply to actually taking photos, or video, because they have little or no experience. If they did then they'd realize that a lot of the things they make a big deal out of don't really make much of a difference...