Printable View
I wonder if anyone on this forum has used a mirrorless camera for macro or closeup photography. If so, I would like to have an email conversation about how well mirrorless cameras perform for this type of photography. I need to buy a new camera since my Nikon D300 is dying, and would love going to a smaller, lighter system.
Hi Anita,
I have had the Sony a6000 (cropped sensor) since August. I purchased the Sony 90mm f2.8 G OSS macro lens. This is an outstanding lens with built-in image stabilization. I have not used it for super close-ups yet, but plan to next spring and summer. Also, I just bought the Sony a7rII as well.
This means I have to sell two cameras and about 4 Canon lenses!
Do you still have my home email address? If not, PM me here or contact me through aminus3.
Julie
Hi, Julie. I've sent you a message via your am3 blog.Quote:
Originally Posted by Julie Brown
Hello ladies, rather than doing this conversation by e-mail, could you have it here in this thread? I would be very interested to learn more about this. I've been contemplating a switch to a lighter mirrorless system too and since macro is my main type of photography, so performance on that level is a dealbreaker to me.
Jerry: We already exchanged emails elsewhere, but I would be happy to share with you what I have learned. Have you done any research on mirrorless? How much information do you want? I have lots and lots. There are many choices of cameras. There isn't much written about mirrorless for macro photography. Let me know how much and what type of info you want, and I'll be happy to send it to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry van Dijk
If you want to email me directly, my email is anita.bower@yahoo.com.
Anita
Hi Jerry,
I haven't had much time to do any macro work lately. My main interest for the last few years has been birds and sports. I will not be giving up my Canon gear any time soon, but this new technology has piqued a renewed interest in shooting more butterflies, flowers, landscapes, and even portraits! It will be interesting to see what direction Anita, you, and others might go with the mirrorless systems.
Here is a link to an image I made with the Sony a6000 during a landscape workshop in the Eastern Sierra last month:
https://julielbrown.smugmug.com/Land...15/i-F2StM8m/A
Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Julie Brown
Hi Anita and Julie, thanks for your responses. I would be mainly interested in how the IQ and especially lens quality hold up against a DSLR with a dedicated macro lens. I'm spoiled with the Nikkor 200mm. IQ is fabulous, but the downside is that it weighs almost 1,5 kg. I've started my macro career with a mirrorless superzoom camera (Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ18). IQ was acceptable. Downsides I experienced were the large DOF compared to a DSLR, making it more difficult to get a nice clean blurred BG, which I also note in the monarch photo. Upside was the low weight (450 g, which is less than the body of my D7000 alone) and the fact that the big zoomlens combined with the screw on closeup lens reached a magnification higher than 1:1.
Jerry:
You mention one of the issues I was concerned about--lack of shallow dof. Here is a link comparing dof for different sensors: http://www.similaar.com/foto/tuten/310.html
Some mirrorless cameras have APS-C sensors: Sony a6000, Fuji XT-1, Samsung NX 1.
Sony has a full frame sensor in their A7 series.
I believe the IQ is excellent in most mirrorless. Several competition categories at my camera club this month were won by images shot with mirrorless--one of them was a print which was gorgeous.
There are fewer macro lens options. Fuji makes a 60mm macro, there is a 50mm macro for Sony a6000, Olympus a 60mm macro. There may be more. This is a limitation at this time.
Anita
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry van Dijk
Thanks Anita! I think the lack of specialized lenses is what has been keeping me from switching systems so far. There also are very few super telelenses available. I do think that the developments are going really fast. IQ of some of the mirrorless cameras has reached and in some cases even surpassed DSLR quality about a year ago and I bet that the range of specialized lenses will increase soon too. But for now, I'm keeping to my current gear.
I completely understand. My situation is that my Nikon D300 quit autofocusing. That is no problem for macros, but it is for other types of photos. Hence, I'm looking for a new camera now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry van Dijk
You could consider going for a good used body as a temporary replacement. I think if you can hold it out for just a few years, you might be able to switch to a mirrorless system without compromises. I have also seen lens adaptors, that allow you to use your DSLR lenses on a mirrorless body. But you'll lose part of the weight advantage then.
Hi Jerry and Anita,
I'm finding this discussion to be instructive already, because I have not done real macro work for a long time. Did you notice that the aperture I used with the Sony a6000 for that Monarch image was f5? Not the shallow DOF desired for true close-ups, because I wasn't paying attention to that, but I was impressed how clean and sharp this hand-held shot was. The lens is the Sony 90mm macro G f2.8 OSS, which has gotten great reviews. I was actually just driving around Mono Lake mid-day looking for birds when I saw the butterflies and decided to stop and test the camera. Now that I have the full frame a7rII, I plan on maybe doing some indoor setups this winter. Another feature I like is the articulated LCD which helps when you can't get your eye to the viewfinder. Also the apps and the wifi!
I think I'm going to rent the Sony A7II with the 90mm macro to try out.
Good choice. The a7II should meet your needs. I really think that lens is outstanding too. You shoot off a tripod for most of your macro work, don't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Anita Bower
I got the a7rII for the reputed AF in low light. I'm really going to put it to the test on Saturday with the 90mm when I shoot a high school basketball game. The high MP count should be helpful because I often have to crop big to isolate my subjects. It will be interesting to see how this rig compares to my 5D MKIII + 135L f2 which has been my go-to indoor sports combo.
All the tests I read rate the Sony A7R among the best out there, even compared to high end DSLR's. If the lens is good, this could be a winning combo. Only downside is the lack of cropfactor, which helps with macro. Julie, the IQ of your butterfly indeed looks very good!
Jerry, thanks for the comment regarding the butterfly IQ. I am a bit confused by "Only downside is the lack of cropfactor, which helps with macro" Are you referring to sensor size or the lens format? The Sony 90mm f2.8 G OSS macro lens is made for full frame cameras. On an a7 series camera, shouldn't the entire field of view be available?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry van Dijk
I think Jerry was referring to the 1.5x crop factor on APS-C lenses, which would make a 90mm lens become a 135mm lens. This is a benefit to macro photographers because we can be a bit further away from our subject. On the other hand, the dof of a full frame is shallower than that of an APS-C. So, as always, there are trade offs.
Thanks Anita. I do understand the crop factor concept, equivalent focal length, number and size of the pixels, etc. So, a 90mm 2.8 lens on a crop sensor camera is effectively 135, but the widest aperture is still 2.8? Or is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Anita Bower
I think I get what you and Jerry are saying regarding full frame vs crop sensor DOF:
Here are two quotes from bobatkins.com: "The subject of differences in depth of field between full frame and crop sensor images is somewhat complex since it depends on if you use the same lens or diffferent lenses on the two cameras and if you shoot from the same position with both cameras. However you can basically state that for images with the same angle of view (i.e. the same magnification), crop sensor images have a larger depth of field. This may be good for landscapes, but not so good for portraits where you often want a shallow depth of field to blus out distracting background details."
"the bottom line is that if you mount a lens marked "50mm f2" on an APS-C crop camera or a full frame camera, it's f2 on both of them and it's 50mm on both of them. The so called "1.6x digital multiplier" is really a factor which affects the field of view which is recorded and which does depend on format size. It does not affect the aperture and it does not affect the true focal length of the lens."
As a macro photographer (and you are a very good one!:S3:), you often want that shallow DOF, as well as to get close and fill the frame? Won't a full-frame mirrorless camera give you the same DOF as a full-frame DSLR?
I know for butterflies, having a little bit of distance can be good, so that the subject doesn't fly off. As I recall, on the day I shot the Monarch at Mono Lake, it was a warm day and the butterflies were active, so it was an advantage to have that bit of extra 'reach' and not have to approach too close. BTW, When I first got into digital photography, I shot butterflies at f16, 1/250s, with the popup flash on my Canon 20D with a 28-200mm lens on the advice from a guy at the 2006 NABA conference.:w3 Fortunately I know better now, but have never used a true macro lens for butterflies-my favorite lens has been the Canon 300mm f4L IS. The reputed MFD for the Sony 90mm f2.8 is 11 inches from subject to sensor. This is not a lightweight lens, but it is solid and well made, so I think you will like it when you get a chance to use it.
Did you get the Olympus rental and how did you like it?
I AM WRITING MY COMMENTS IN CAPS WITHIN THE BODY OF THE QUOTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julie Brown
Hi all, I was indeed referring to the cropfactor for the extra reach. Re. DOF for full frame on either a mirrorless or DSLR: as I understand it, DOF is very dependent on the distance between the lens and the sensor. The closer the lens is to the sensor, the higher the DOF will be, compared to the same lens at the same aperture with a larger distance to the sensor. Without the whole mirror mechanism, it is possible to place the lens closer to the sensor, hence the possibility to build more a compact camera system.
I read back through this discussion but I am still confused, so let me ask: (1) Is DOF shallower on a full-frame camera because the lens is closer to or farther from the sensor? (2) Does a cropped sensor provide a better magnification ratio because of higher pixel density? (3) What magnification ratio is considered to be true macro?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry van Dijk
Originally Posted by Anita Bower
I think Jerry was referring to the 1.5x crop factor on APS-C lenses, which would make a 90mm lens become a 135mm lens. This is a benefit to macro photographers because we can be a bit further away from our subject. On the other hand, the dof of a full frame is shallower than that of an APS-C. So, as always, there are trade offs.
I can understand why you are confused, and fear I won't be much help. I know the effects, but I don't know the reasons.
My understanding is that the shallower dof on a full-frame is related to sensor side, not the location of the lens. As the sensor gets smaller, the dof for the same f stop gets larger. I don't know if there was an explanation as to why this happens on one of the above links or not.
I can't explain how the crop factor works. But, I imagine there are lengthy explanations somewhere on the web.
A true macro is 1:1, but I don't really know what that means.
Do get the sense that I don't understand how cameras work?
A question for you: how much smaller and lighter is the A7II version that you have?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julie Brown
Quote:
A question for you: how much smaller and lighter is the A7II version that you have?
I have the a7rII. It is smaller and lighter than my 5D MKIII, but still has a significant feel to it-unlike the a6000 which is very small and compact.
Attachment 157272
I love the a6000, btw! I took it to a family gathering on Thanksgiving and used it for stills and video. Excellent quality-clear bright images with indoor lighting.
Have you had the chance to try the a7II yet?
Here are some specs I found interesting:
a6000
12.13 oz / 344 g with battery and memory card
4.7 x 2.6 x 1.8" / 120.0 x 67.0 x 45.0 mm
24 MP: 6000 x 4000
a7rII
625 g with battery and memory card
5.0 x 3.8 x 2.4" / 126.9 x 95.7 x 60.3 mm
42 MP: 7952 x 5304
a7II
1.22 lb / 556 g
5.0 x 3.8 x 2.4" / 126.9 x 95.7 x 59.7 mm
24 MP: 6000 x 4000
5D MKIII
1.89 lb / 860 g
6.0 x 4.6 x 3.0" / 15.2 x 11.7 x 7.6 cm
22.1 MP: 5760 x 3840
Nikon D300s
29.63 oz / 840 g Body only
5.8 x 4.5 x 2.9" / 14.7 x 11.4 x 7.4 cm
12.2 MP: 4288 x 2848
Julie:
Thank you for this info. I have not had the chance to hold the 7ii. Might be able to do so today as I'm visiting my son in the Seattle, WA area where there are large camera stores. I live in a rural area of Pennsylvania with fewer shopping opportunities (which suits me fine). In the meantime, I am enjoying the challenge of using my Canon s100.
Anita
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julie Brown
Sorry for my late response, my membership expired so I wasn't able to post for a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by Julie Brown
I did some digging on the internet, but wasn't able to dig up enough info on the position of the lens to the sensor to give you a conclusive answer about that part. I do have some answers to your questions here:
1) Full frame or crop factor DSLR's do not necessarily differ in the distance between the lens and the sensor. This is mainly true for SLR's and mirror-less systems. In principle, DOF at the same focal length is equal for FF and crop factor camera's. However, to get your subject to fill the frame as it would with a crop factor camera, you need to be closer to your subject with a FF camera, or use a larger focal length. Both will result in less DOF.
2) the magnification ratio of the crop sensor is not related to the pixel density. Because the crop sensor is smaller than a full frame, it basically provides a crop of the full image projected by the lens (hence the term crop sensor). Like with cropping in PS, you'll end up with less pixels on the subject, than you would have had if the subject had filled the frame on the FF camera (for which you would have to be closer to your subject). Hence the need to have a higher pixel density on the crop sensor cameras. There have been endless debates about this subject here on BPN, you'll probably be able to dig it up if you search for 'crop factor' in the forum.
3) true macro is considered to have a magnification ratio of 1:1 or larger. 1:1 means that the subject is projected true life size on the sensor.
I found the site of Cambridge in Color very helpful to understand this stuff:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...ensor-size.htm
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...h-of-field.htm
If I find more info regarding distance between lens and sensor I'll post it here.
