Macro using high megapixel cameras

[chauncey]

I'm gonna upgrade during the Black Friday deals...what problems might I encounter jumping
from 22MP to 50MP for stacked macro work.

[DanK]

I've never tried it, but my guess is that the major difference will be much slower speed.

I would check two other things: whether your software has any size limitations, and whether you have enough computer memory. When I moved up from 15 to 22 MP, I had the latter problem. I stack in Zerene using 16-bit TIFF files, which are very large. My old 32-bit Windows computer couldn't handle it. Once I switched to 64-bit with more memory, everything was fine.

[chauncey]

My homebuilt computer, by my geek kid, wouldn't be a problem.
I'm just asking about the camera performance in shooting macro...the practical aspect.

[Manfred M]

One issue could be that your setup may become "lens limited", i.e. the sensor's ability to resolve the image may end up outperforming the lenses ability to deliver. Macro shooters will go with small apertures to maximize the already very shallow DoF and you might find diffraction effects more noticeable. Even very small amounts of camera movement (shake)may be noticeable.

All that being said, as any system is limited by the weakest component in the system. The lenses lack of sharpness is already there, it's just that the sensor can't resolve it, same story with diffraction and and camera shake. By upping the resolution, the weaknesses of other parts of the camera system will show themselves.

With respect to the computer, you will find slower load and save times and you will burn through your disk space much more quickly. My experience of stepping up from a 12MP D90 to a 36MP D800, disk space was the most noticeable impact. If you primarily edit non-destructively in Photoshop and use plenty of layers, expect some HUGE Photoshop files (some of mine approach 2GB and if they get larger, I have to use the *.PSB Large Document Format to save the files to get over Photoshops 2GB files size limit.

[Dave Humphries]

Key question is; are the sensor (physical) sizes the same?

If so, then I'd not really expect any noticeable problem - unless Manfred's ideas bite you.

If not; say if moving from APS-C to FF, then you'll lose some Depth of Field (for a given f number on each camera system).

But I've not tried it myself.

[William W]

. . . I'm just asking about the camera performance in shooting macro...the practical aspect

I assume the upgrade is to a 5DS or 5DS R.

Apropos the lens(es) which you intend to use: CPN released a paper in June 2015; the extract which I've quoted below should be of benefit

“The EF system goes back 27 years now and some of these lenses available today were designed back in the days of film. The technical demands of digital cameras on lenses has meant there has been a need to update lenses over a period of time to match newer cameras’ capabilities.”

“The EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R have the capability to produce a stunning amount of detail and in order to resolve all that fine detail then obviously you need to make sure you are using the best lenses on the market. To get the best out of these cameras you need to put the very best piece of glass in front of the sensor.”

Mike Burnhill
CPN Professional Imaging Technical Support Programme Manager
Canon Europe

Canon recommends the following lenses for getting the best from the EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R:

Wide angle fixed focal lenses

TSE17mmf/4L
TSE24mmf/3.5L II
EF24mm f/1.4L II USM
EF24mm f/2.8 IS USM
EF28mm f/2.8 IS USM
EF35mm f/2 IS USM

Telephoto fixed focal length lenses

EF85mm f/1.2L II USM
EF85mm f/1.8 USM
TSE90mmf/2.8
EF100mm f/2 USM
EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
EF100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
EF135mm f/2.0L USM
EF200mm f/2L II USM [sic]
EF200mm f/2.8L II USM
EF300mm f/2.8L IS II USM
EF400mm f/2.8L IS II USM
EF400mm f/4 DO IS II USM
EF500mm f/4L IS II USM
EF600mm f/4L IS II USM
EF800mm f/5.6L IS USM

Standard fixed focal lenses

EF40mm f/2.8 STM
EF50mm f/1.2L USM
EF50mm f/1.4 USM
EF50mm f/1.8 II
EF50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro

Zoom lenses

EF8 15mmf/4L Fisheye USM
EF11 24mmf/4L USM
EF16 35mmf/4L IS USM
EF24 70mmf/2.8L II USM
EF24 70mmf/4L IS USM
EF70 200mmf/2.8L IS II USM
EF70 200mmf/4L USM
EF70 300mmf/4 5.6LIS USM
EF100 400mmf/4.5 5.6L IS II USM
EF200 400mmf/4L IS USM EXTENDER1.4x

REF: “Fit the best to the best: Canon’s recommended lenses for EOS 5DS and EOS 5DSR”
CPN E-Document; June 2015.

WW

Extract of Copyright Document republished and referenced under Fair Usage / Educational Purposes.

[William W]

One issue could be that your setup may become "lens limited", i.e. the sensor's ability to resolve the image may end up outperforming the lenses ability to deliver . . .

haha! Yes. I was busy finding my CPN documents when you were writing.

Bill

[chauncey]

My current lenses of choice mounted on my Canon 1Ds3 are a 300mm f/2.8 or a 180 macro...
both are noted for great MTF tables.

FWIW, checking a DOF calculator indicates that DOF changes don't seem significant twixt different MP's

[pnodrog]

FWIW, checking a DOF calculator indicates that DOF changes don't seem significant twixt different MP's

Seems logical. Once a sensor exceeds the resolving power of our vision and assuming we are going to view the total image the DOF has essentially plateaued. We may have to review how we define DOF....

[Manfred M]

FWIW, checking a DOF calculator indicates that DOF changes don't seem significant twixt different MP's

DoF has nothing to do with sensor size / MP of the camera. Where DoF comes into play is the point where (based on some assumption on image size and viewing distance) is that a higher resolution sensor WILL be able to discern diffraction due to the size of the photodectors in the sensor for a specific aperture.

Use the advanced settings of: https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...htm#calculator and enter the 50MP sensor. The calculator will show that a moderate aperture of f/8 will allow the sensor to pick up the softening effect of diffraction. If I throw in the 36MP that my D800 delivers, I'm "safe" up to f/11.

What does this mean in layman's terms? The sensor resolves so well (given the assumptions that were previously mentioned), that it will BE CAPABLE of picking up the softness due to the light hitting the edges of the iris blades in the lens (this is the root cause of diffraction). The diffraction is always there, but lesser sensors are not capable of resolving to that degree, so they never pick it up. Pop in a 100MP sensor (for a full frame camera) and it will be diffraction limited at f/5.6, at which point other lens performance characteristics (look at the MTF chart) will start impacting the quality of the image.

[DanK]

I don't think either DOF or resolving power will be much of an issue. If the sensor outresolves the lens, you just won't get all the additional detail that the sensor can offer.

As Manfred pointed out, the lens will be diffraction-limited at a wider aperture, so if you want to preserve all that detail, you may have to shoot at a wider aperture and stack more slices.

If you don't print very large or crop a lot, I wonder if you will see much difference. Without cropping, your current camera can print to almost 13 x 19 with no upresing on a Canon printer with a native resolution of 300 ppi. But then again, I have never tried--my 5D3 is the highest-resolution camera I have ever owned.

[pnodrog]

Simple: If diffraction becomes a greater issue than the struggle for DOF then one answer could be to go to a wider aperture and increase the stacking.

My gut (no rude comments please) feeling is that diffraction would only become a major issue if the temptation to take advantage of the additional sensor resolution is given into by excessive cropping.

[xpatUSA]

My Sigma cameras can produce truly binned 1/2 size raws, and I shoot macro quite a bit. Therefore I have the luxury of either 15MP or 3.6MP at the flick of the Quick-set button. The pixel pitches are 5um or 10um respectively.

At the lower resolution, the sensor itself only sees diffraction at about f/16+. At the higher resolution, maybe f/10 or so.

As has been already said, calculated DOF is rather more dependent on the viewing output. I myself get very good DOF at home due to my poor eyesight and my 0.294mm dot-pitch monitor. Probably twice as much DOF or more compared to average humans looking at their 10x8" 300 ppi prints at exactly one foot from their nose

[george013]

My current lenses of choice mounted on my Canon 1Ds3 are a 300mm f/2.8 or a 180 macro...
both are noted for great MTF tables.

FWIW, checking a DOF calculator indicates that DOF changes don't seem significant twixt different MP's

One of the arguments for a magapixel camera is the crop argument. When cropping, you'll have to calculate with a different CoC. And some more factors.

George

[IzzieK]

My experience upgrading from my D300s to my D800e and D810 is that it made me think I am a better photographer seeing all those pixels at close-up. It certainly looks that way especially after using a large birding lens and zooming ever so close even after pp...then I went back to my D300s using DX lenses and found out it was my thinking that needed upgrading. To sum it up, upgrading my camera is a good thing for the heck of it and it makes me feel good too. So go for it! Then think of the many lenses you can uses with it...OUCH!

[chauncey]

Thanks all...great points to consider...especially the DOF limitations due to diffraction.

think of the many lenses you can uses with i

Izzie...ya know I love ya but, sometimes you can be as mean as a snake.

[george013]

Thanks all...great points to consider...especially the DOF limitations due to diffraction.

Izzie...ya know I love ya but, sometimes you can be as mean as a snake.

I don't think that's right.

George

[Manfred M]

Tthe DOF limitations due to diffraction.

I'll have to agree with George, this statement is not correct. While DoF and diffraction are definitely related to the aperture used, but they are separate effects. Both are related to the size of image you are looking at and the distance you are viewing it from (and as Ted points out) your eyesight.

If you want to get really that nit-picky, then you'd have to get a new macro lens as well. Your 180mm macro is not on Canon's list of lenses that are "good enough" for use on the 5DR that Bill posted. .

Just enjoy your new toy if you end up getting it and stop worry about the details. The new body is certainly not going to give you worse images than you get today.

[DanK]

Now I am confused. I think DOF limitations are linked to diffraction by their shared correlation with aperture. Here is how I think of this. Someone tell me if I am wrong.

First, let's hold print size, viewing distance, eyesight, and sensor size constant to get a minimal contrast: higher vs. lower pixel density, and therefore smaller vs. larger pixels.

Pixel size is negatively correlated with the physical aperture at which a lens becomes diffraction-limited: the smaller the pixels, the larger the aperture at which diffraction limits resolution. OK so far?

So, if you want to limit yourself not to shoot at narrower apertures than those at which diffraction becomes a factor (a limitation I don't impose on myself), moving to a sensor with smaller pixels means imposing a larger maximum aperture (smaller f-stop number). This will give you narrower DOF.

What am I missing?

[george013]

Now I am confused. I think DOF limitations are linked to diffraction by their shared correlation with aperture. Here is how I think of this. Someone tell me if I am wrong.

First, let's hold print size, viewing distance, eyesight, and sensor size constant to get a minimal contrast: higher vs. lower pixel density, and therefore smaller vs. larger pixels.

Pixel size is negatively correlated with the physical aperture at which a lens becomes diffraction-limited: the smaller the pixels, the larger the aperture at which diffraction limits resolution. OK so far?

So, if you want to limit yourself not to shoot at narrower apertures than those at which diffraction becomes a factor (a limitation I don't impose on myself), moving to a sensor with smaller pixels means imposing a larger maximum aperture (smaller f-stop number). This will give you narrower DOF.

What am I missing?

DOF is based on the CoC. Based on the idea that you can distinguish a point from a circle. It's purely based on the magnification of the sensor in mm. As long as the Airy disk is smaller as the CoC it's said that it doesn't have an effect.

George