FZ1000 vs LX7 for macro?

[Vegetable Police]

Nice shots! Dreamy

I'm not sure what will give me the best detail of the human eye, right up close, or zoomed in a bit farther back? The main thing to keep in mind, is I will be taking these photos of my own eye myself. So, camera on a tripod, timer so I don't shake the camera, and hope for the best. I've been using a mirror so I could see if my eye is in focus on the LCD, so I can imagine the fz1000 with it's flip around screen would be useful.

 

[Vegetable Police]

I'm wondering what specs are most important for macro shots? Is it the big sensor? Megapixels?

It's strange because a lot of the professional IRIS cameras, are only 5 to 8 megapixels and capture amazing detail.

 

[LesGarten]

I'm wondering what specs are most important for macro shots? Is it the big sensor? Megapixels?

It's strange because a lot of the professional IRIS cameras, are only 5 to 8 megapixels and capture amazing detail.

All things being equal, MO Megapixels is MO betta'

To really see this, go to the Nikon D800 images and PIXEL peep on 36 MP Images, absolutely amazing!

 

[jkoch2]

The diplomas and certificates count, when it comes to the practice of medicine. They screen entrants, but also protect the possessors.

If misdiagnosis or malpractice accusations arise, whatever you claim you learned from DPR won't earn much credibility.

It does not matter that an LX7 might be a good macro camera or not. It does not matter that it costs far less, or works as well, as a glorified specialty device. The standard will be only what the plurality or majority of other opthamologists or other doctors do, or not, when diagnosis health conditions based on eye observations. In fact the profession may have a vested interest in the expensive gear if the practicioners garner a referral fee, or even have a stake in the income, from the dianositic service that employs the expensive, "usual" version of an LX7, which I'd imagine uses some standardized scalings or settings that use some special patented ingredient intentially difficult to replicate. The community may close ranks and seek "an eye for an eye" revenge!

 

[Vegetable Police]

Thanks for your concern. Most certified Iridologists often have to make due with fairly low quality images like the ones I provided in this thread, and still make accurate assessments about people's health concerns. They are treating people all over the world, and when a face to face consultation isn't possible, they are relying on people taking pictures of their own eyes and sending them in for diagnosis. Often with crappy point and shoots or even smartphones.

Here is an Iridologist who made a tutorial for her clients on how to take the best pictures of their own eyes to submit to her.

I can see fairly accurately what is going on in my body with the images I take, but I would prefer higher quality images to more accurately track my health progress. The better quality the image, the more detail of the body is revealed. It's exciting to me to see how great a picture I can get, so that's why I'm seeking advice here. I want to talk with people who know how to take great macro photos, and find out from them what camera might be best for my particular situation.

If you have any input towards the questions I've asked, I'd be happy to hear them.