Macro Performance on A900 vs A700

[Mike-Photos]

Hello
I've seen comments from some that the A900 will do better macros than the A700, whereas others have stated the opposite.
Using a 1:1 macro lens, which will be better and why?

[David Kilpatrick]

I would say it's a better camera for typical macro work, because the 50/100/200 macro lenses work correctly as intended, and have an optimal field of view. If you want more magnification, then the A700 offers a little more resolution in a cropped area but the A350 would seem to be the best choice of all just for getting a small subject to maximum resolution at 1:1.

I find the A900 better on a copy stand, for example. My copystand was made to allow A3 copies with a 50mm lens, or course it can't do it with the A700 crop, but it can with the A900.

David

[Mike-Photos]

Like I said, there's two opposing views!

[David Kilpatrick]

Sadly, macro shooters can't go for maximum d-o-f any more - diffraction sets in around f8 to f11, and ruins the extremely fine detail they want to see. It never seemed to matter on film but it is very visible on digital, even on the D7D.

Agreed, it is sometimes better to shoot a subject at 1:1.5 on the A700, rather than at 1:1 on the A900. There is a benefit of a greater working distance (important for insects, and to prevent shadows cast by the camera/photographer in natural light).

One reason for macro photographers liking the A900 will be the focusing screen and viewfinder. The larger size is so much more bellows-friendly. But... the A700 can use aperture priority with manual bellows and the A900 can't. So for my bellows macro work, the A700 will probably continue to be the choice. Or maybe even the A100, which has the sort of image definition that works brilliantly for macro shots.

David

[Javelin]

then slap the new Metz macro flash on it . dial in a little shadow with the ratio control and boom your all set at F8 and above

[David Kilpatrick]

Sadly, macro shooters can't go for maximum d-o-f any more - diffraction sets in around f8 to f11, and ruins the extremely fine detail they want to see.

LOL Get real, and thanks for making my point, the smaller sensor - greater DOF advantage:

To get the DOF equivalent and perspective that the 100mm macro gives at f11on the a700 you would need to have a 150mm macro lens at f12 on the a900.

Think that first one is wrong - it should be f17 or something like that - the depth of field difference between full frame and APS-C is always around 1.3 stops for the same angle of view or focal length relative to the format size. Doesn't matter whether it is for macro or anything else, the same calculation applies to all shots where the magnification is 1:1 or smaller.

The calculation is reversed once you go beyond 1:1 and have a magnified image on the sensor - 2:1, 4:1 etc, as when using lenses on bellows. Also, you can get better subject clearance for positive magnifications with the larger format. This is why the Hasselblad system remains popular with scientific and applied users, and why 5 x 4 macro works so well for high magnifications. I sold my last pair of Minolta micro lenses (12.5mm and 25mm) to a specialist using a vertical 5 x 4 macro camera to shoot stock images for Tony Stone, and ultra-close shots for the electronic, medical and related industries. I guess that since digital imaging took over, he's no longer working the same way. I got a 'new' 25mm micro lens when Minolta closed down, but the A900 is not bellows-friendly for auto exposures (despite the mirror lock!) and I must use flash.



10X micro lens shot of my Apple Mac Monitor pixels - I've made a few hundred dollars photographing my own computer screen during idle moments. Hint - just type the right words and figures, close in on a single word, let selective blur isolate it. I'd better do a set of credit crunch and global economy collapse examples this week.

David

[pakodominguez]

but the A900 is not bellows-friendly for auto exposures (despite the mirror lock!) and I must use flash.
David

Hello David,

What this exactly means? can you meter when a non coupled lens is on the A900 but you can't use A mode? or you can not meter at all?

Regards

[David Kilpatrick]

but the A900 is not bellows-friendly for auto exposures (despite the mirror lock!) and I must use flash.
David

Hello David,

What this exactly means? can you meter when a non coupled lens is on the A900 but you can't use A mode? or you can not meter at all?

Regards

You can only use M mode - metering does work (it appears to tend to overexpose with most manual lens attachments though). The A900 works exactly like the A200-300-350, not like the A100-700.

David

[pakodominguez]

You can only use M mode - metering does work (it appears to tend to overexpose with most manual lens attachments though). The A900 works exactly like the A200-300-350, not like the A100-700.

David

What's wrong with these people?
I can understand that a A200/300/350 level camera, aimed for entry level users, but doing that to us on the A900?
How about focus confirmation?
:-/

[David Kilpatrick]

No focus confirmation unless you get a chipped adaptor.

David

[pakodominguez]

No focus confirmation unless you get a chipped adaptor.

David

I understand Nikons have the focus confirmation on any manual lens...
We better start the list for the V2 firmaware now, so we can have those updates this winter.

[Greg Beetham]

I thought that once you go beyond 1:1 on a macro lens, (such as using it on the end of tubes or a bellows) it stops projecting the standard field size for it's format, and projects a much larger field, the size of which depends on how far out in front of the camera the lens is, and all the sensor (whether it's an APS-C or FF or 4/3) is doing is sampling a small portion of that projected image field, the major penalty being light loss, even at 1:1 with a standard macro lens there is an exposure correction of 2, and it gets worse from there, the more you rack the lens forward from the sensor/film plane.

When you go up in magnification (larger than lifesize) the smaller format "should" be at an advantage over the larger format, it is in effect sampling a smaller section of the projection per extension setting (given the sensor/film to subject distance remains the same), the only reason I would use the larger format is if I thought there was a chance of putting more photosites under a given subject size with it than with the smaller format, (wide angle macro) so that would really depend on the size of the subject and how close you could get to it.
Greg