R7 and Macro

charlyw64 wrote:

KevinRA wrote:

charlyw64 wrote:

Marceppy wrote:

Thanks I appreciate the information. The birding, wildlife, sporting, landscape R7 thread had pushed me back towards a 5dM4 due to the comments about the image issues with the R7.

What image issues? As often on these forums IMHO the "problems" are blown out of proportion. You have a fast mechanical shutter working at up to 15 fps, the shutter shock of the fully mechanical shutter (in case you are worried about that) is still smaller than the mirror slap on many if not all DSLR. For birding, wildlife you won't be using lenses faster than f/2 where the shadow of the second shutter curtain in EFCS would influence the bokeh highlights, so you can easily use EFCS without any problems. Yes, the sensor readout in fully electronic shutter is slow and limited to 12 bit A/D conversion (EFCS and mechanical shutter work with 14 bit A/D conversion). The place where the slow sensor readout becomes problematic will be the pre burst shooting (where you may lose the odd shot from the burst when parts of the subject move too fast for the sensor readout or your panning screws up the background) - but that option doesn't exist in the DSLR at all, so that is a rather moot point to revert to a previous technology because a new option isn't without limitations.

+1

The focus stacking though I consider a useless gimmick. Focus stacks do not work for my subjects (insects and native orchids) at all, so that is a feature that may impress NOOBs

Well your entitled to your opinion even if I think a bit harsh - IMHO focus stacking can work well with orchids and insects in the field with some effort put in, such as with Helicon Soft - with images looking fine at A3 size prints free of artefacts normally with some work.

I haven't seen a single artefact free image at that size which didn't took days to invent the areas that the focus stack can't capture for physical reasons...

but the only lens that this could work with doesn't even have an autofocus motor (MP/E 65mm f/2.8, at 5:1 magnification ratio the subject size vs. magnification changes in a macro stack between overlapping subject areas is small enough to not completely mess up the stack)...

Now get that for extreme > 1X macro.

Semi-macro 0.5-1.0 life size and the amazing range of macros available can work just fine with focus stacking.

As I said, I have been photographing macro for 20 years now and even dabbled in focus stacking at times before cameras could try it themselves - and I haven't seen a single successful image from others or myself where there weren't major artefacts from halos around elements closest to the camera where they overlapped background elements, to multiplication of limbs because of movement (proboscis or feelers are the most likely culprits), to unnatural background translations, to the lack of any sense of depth in the subject (you can't tell which feeler for example is oriented towards the camera or away from it and where it is attached to the insect... Nothing can prevent those issues and the reason the worst (the halos around overlapping elements that obscure the elements further away) are not happening is due to high (or low) magnification ratio, when the magnification ratio is high the effective aperture is big compared to the size of the subject which will render those elements completely transparent and (more importantly) the magnification ratio doesn't significantly differ from the stack layer that contains the sharp element compared to the sharp layer that contains the element further away.

technically correct I appreciate and seen it plenty of times - often can be largely remediated I'd suggest to adequate level....

IMHO stacks are a matter for technical documentation but in aesthetic photography they are lacking in oh so many ways that they are not worth pursuing (unless you need to do technical accurate documentary shots)...

So I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were the OP that focus stacking solves any problems unless his subjects are those 0.01% of subjects that don't have any overlapping areas and which look good artificially flattened as if they had been pressed flat in a specimen collection book from a 19th century botanist...

It's a discussion forum - all entitled to different perspectives.

Mine is otherwise for much more than 0.01% subjects unless one is pixel peeping at 200% or viewing an A0 print.   (Somethings yes one cant get good results - but sometimes I think especially with Helicon one can adequately and be useful and artistic).