RE The (yet another) brand vs brand tribalism, I think its pretty obvious that Olympus/M43 is very capable, and for some maybe even the best option, *WHEN* photographing only macro magnifications in a studio with controlled lighting. Its limitations are when your photography is more diverse than just macro in a studio or basic macro in the field. I just think that should be mentioned when people start advertising a camera system in an otherwise brand neutral thread, or really, he shoots Nikon so not sure why selling cameras for Olympus came up. Seems like it should have been solutions within and for Nikon.
See, that's what I do not get....why only in a studio with controlled lighting?
Here's a video of my setup outdoors...
EM1 Mark 2 with the MC-20 teleconverter, 16mm Pixco extension tube, Olympus 60mm macro lens and a Raynox 250. I backed off of 1:1 a little which gives me 5x magnification.
Focus bracket mode 1/10
245 images stacked. I had my iso at 320, and f stop at f5.6 which I have since found that f4.5 is sharper with my setup....
here's the final image I had from my stack. I was pretty happy with it.
What is that a picture of?
Ugh, I edited my post and added a ton but it didnt save for some reason.
In essence I said 1) I also said "basic macro in the field". This shot isnt stressing camera settings or any limitations. Its when you are in scenarios you have to start jacking up ISO or areas smaller sensors have drawbacks with the optics, like wider FOV or scenarios you want shallower DOF. That isnt saying you cant get good portraits or landscape photos or that you absolutely have to stay at base ISO. But its saying there are limitations you have to work within OR just buy a larger sensor. The same is true for FF or APSC vs Medium format, but thankfully I dont really have a need for medium format. Because my primary interest is macro, I looked at m4/3, whether it was adding a system or changing systems and it was a very fast hard no after a little research.
Im not going to get into a my camera brand can beat up your camera brand thing, but...You are clearly a knowledgeable photographer, and even if you solely shoot macro, you needed to learn general photography too, so Im sure you know the limitations even if they dont effect your work. I just think its good practice to include the cons, especially when its in a thread someone says they shoot Nikon and you attempt to sell them on an entirely different system.
of course. For me it was about ease and speed of photographing detailed forcus brackets out in the field at 5x or more. I didn't care about full frame or not since most of the subjects I am interested in are best around 4x magnification, which is about 2x full-frame. There are limitations of course - but once I get inside my office, and I switch to a microscope objective and the Qool Rail 250 I feel like its an even playing field...you just either have a field of view of X or you have 3/4ths of that, or 1/2 that.
Achieving smaller FOV can always be solved with different lenses, microscope objectives, tubes, bellows, etc etc. Its a non issue, and larger formats with more magnification is virtually always better than cropping and m43 is essentially just cropping, but with even higher pixel densities. I forget some of the reasons, but there have been tons of in depth comparisons between APSC and FF in years past on this forum.
This is still limited to macro, which was my point. I pay for most of my gear with portraits. I photograph birds in Fall and Winter when birds are away. I enjoy landscape...but what I really want to dive into is deep space/astro eventually. I also shoot insects and flowers, mushrooms, whatever, sometimes, below macro mags and in natural light. In all of these, but especially portraits, m/43 clashes with my style. I highly prefer my fullframe over my APSC for portraits, let alone what it would be in m43 format.
I have yet to see a system that can do 7.5x with focus bracketing in the field without need of a rail...and something that can do even focus bracketed shots up to 999. That is why I went with my setup, because it is unprecedented for out in the field...for photographing snowflakes at 7.5x for a field of view of just over 2mm for the final image...
Both of my cameras automate focus brackets up to 999 shots. I dont have any objectives but Ive seen plenty done with 10x objectives. I was just going over work with a guy that was shooting 8x in the field with a manual rail and the stacks were flawless. He said over that, he needs automated rails. I see some focus banding in some of your higher mag shots, presumably bc you are bracketing with focus rather than using rails in them. Its been my understanding that beyond 2 or 3x, using focus becomes much worse but I dont have a ton of experience. I did an 70 shot stack of an old RAM stick on my R7 last night and it was pretty flawless, but it was just at 1:1. The issue with bracketing on my camera is that you cant simultaneously use flash. Its all electronic shutter and electronic shutter doesnt allow for flash. Not sure if Olympus is same for in body stacks?
I am not saying it is the sharpest, but I do believe it is the most efficient and provides good enough results to compete with other systems....
Its more than good enough and your shots prove that. You make strong photos and I dont say that unless I really think it. I says it likes I sees it :). But your use case scenarios is a very narrow range within the infinite world of photography. That is my point. If someone is asking for a great tool to connect 2 boards, an obvious answer would be hammer and hammers are a pretty perfect tool for what they do, but if he needs to use glue and screws, a hammer suddenly isnt that great of an option
I do agree with you though. thank you for your post...
Cheers!
-- hide signature --
**********-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-********** Some of my photos here: https://flic.kr/ps/2i6XL3 “You're off to Great Places! Today is your day! Your mountain is waiting, So... get on your way!” --Dr. Seuss
Fujifilm's X-H2 is a high-resolution stills and video camera, that sits alongside the high-speed X-H2S at the pinnacle of the company's range of X-mount APS-C mirrorless cameras. We dug into what it does and what it means.
Holy Stone produces dozens of low-cost drone models aimed at consumers. We look at the HS710 and HS175D to see if they stack up to other sub-250g offerings. Are these secretly great or more like toys?
The EOS R6 II arrives in one of the most competitive parts of the market, facing off against some very capable competition. We think it rises to the challenge.
Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.
There are a lot of photo/video cameras that have found a role as B-cameras on professional film productions or even A-cameras for amateur and independent productions. We've combed through the options and selected our two favorite cameras in this class.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? These capable cameras should be solid and well-built, have both the speed and focus to capture fast action and offer professional-level image quality. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing around $2000 and recommended the best.
Family moments are precious and sometimes you want to capture that time spent with loved ones or friends in better quality than your phone can manage. We've selected a group of cameras that are easy to keep with you, and that can adapt to take photos wherever and whenever something memorable happens.
What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.
