D7100 versus D800 for macro shooting
Jul 23, 2014 11:50:56 #
Screamin Scott wrote:
I tend to switch back & forth between my D7100 & my D300 but use a 105mm macro on them both....The D300 gives me really nice images, even cropped, but I can't crop as severely with it as I can with the D7100. Thus the smaller the subject, the more likely I am to use the D7100...
I really like the 800 because i can crop for the under 2mm subjects but have enough real estate in the sensor for the big ones.
Jul 23, 2014 15:26:57 #
oldtigger wrote:
Both are good cameras and used properly should giv... (show quote)
My DX D5300 vs FX D600 same Lens same settings
CRAIG
Jul 23, 2014 15:58:23 #
oldtigger wrote:
note taken, i'm not trying to bad mouth the 7100, just questioning whether one is better suited to this specific type of shooting and why.
There seems to be more inherent noise in the 7100 shots.
I would like to extend an invitation to comment to any any canon users who have experience/opinions on the issue of large/small sensors in macro work.
There seems to be more inherent noise in the 7100 shots.
I would like to extend an invitation to comment to any any canon users who have experience/opinions on the issue of large/small sensors in macro work.
I don't have an opinion on macro work, the main tradeoffs are size/weight (D800 is considerably larger) and sensor size/megapixels. (D800 is DX and more megapixels) On the other side, (and this MAY be a non-issue) availability of cards. The D800 uses Compact Flash and SD vs 2 SD on the D7100. The D800 is going to be what ever your lens is and the D7100 you have the 1.5 multiplier to deal with. Both are through the lens so the multiplier shouldn't be a big deal but something to think about. Best recommendation is to try each (which you seem to have done) and then make the decision that is best for you.
Jul 23, 2014 16:00:56 #
CraigFair wrote:
My DX D5300 vs FX D600 same Lens same settings
CRAIG
CRAIG
d5300 lacks any definition and has high noise.
D600 is much sharper (perhaps due partially to lower noise) and has good detail.
Please don't come back and tell us you swapped the images.
Jul 23, 2014 16:10:52 #
I'm comparing the D7000 to the D600 and I see a difference over all in the clarity. More information in the fine detail. You've seen my macro and know I look for any and all advantages to gain a higher quality product. I've see it with my eyes, so I'm convinced for the cameras that I am comparing. I can't wait to do a little stacking with the D600. I'll do some comparing then also, will share the results
oldtigger wrote:
Then you think there actually is a difference not just on paper but in actual shooting?
Jul 23, 2014 16:20:08 #
oldtigger wrote:
d5300 lacks any definition and has high noise.
D600 is much sharper (perhaps due partially to lower noise) and has good detail.
Please don't come back and tell us you swapped the images.
D600 is much sharper (perhaps due partially to lower noise) and has good detail.
Please don't come back and tell us you swapped the images.
I copied those staight out of the cameras JPGE Fine, No PP or camera modifications. And yes I agree with you the D600 FX did a far better job. Exactly what I was seeing with my eyes.
Jul 23, 2014 16:32:46 #
You say no camera modifications or PP.... What you are not saying though is whether both cameras are set to the same parameters in the camera system (sharpening, saturation et al). Even if they are, do the cameras have the same processors ? That can affect the outcome as well.... Bottom line is the images should be better with the D600, but when doing comparisons, things have to be exactly the same in order for a fair comparison......Oh, and online images won't cut it. You have to print images as online images will look good due to lower monitor resolutions as opposed to printer resolutions
...
...
CraigFair wrote:
I copied those staight out of the cameras JPGE Fine, No PP or camera modifications. And yes I agree with you the D600 FX did a far better job. Exactly what I was seeing with my eyes.
Jul 23, 2014 17:31:06 #
Screamin Scott wrote:
.....Oh, and online images won't cut it. You have to print images as online images will look good due to lower monitor resolutions as opposed to printer resolutions
...
...
that last comment has come up before.
I use a standard 1920x1080 monitor and view at 400%.
Is it still true that i can only judge sharpness and detail by printing an 8x10 image?
Jul 23, 2014 17:49:12 #
UtahBob wrote:
The D7000 has a slightly higher sensor density tha... (show quote)
Yes, he was clearly talking about focus stacking and even explained how and what he was using to do it.
Jul 23, 2014 17:50:05 #
Screamin Scott wrote:
You say no camera modifications or PP.... What you... (show quote)
As I stated " Both Cameras and Lens where set up the same, Manual, SD Picture Control and no extra sharpening ect. No ADL or HDR".
Just as fair a comparison between DX & FX as I coulg get. It's why I moved up to the D600 FX, which is very close to being identical to D610.
Craig
Jul 23, 2014 18:47:14 #
I'm sure fault can be found with our home brew test procedure but it appears there is a very real difference in image quality centering around noise/sensor cell size.
It seems this may be a case where bigger really is usually better.
It seems this may be a case where bigger really is usually better.
Jul 23, 2014 21:59:29 #
oldtigger wrote:
Stacking on a desktop cognisys automated rail, fixed lighting. Same step size f number etc... Same lens, different body. Did have to change subjects cause possum ate the first one.
So those images were stacked. Seemed like too much dof for the magnification level to be individual images.
If you were using the same step size for both captures, is it possible that you don't have enough dof in each of the steps for the crop camera so when the sw goes to pick out the high contrast areas there are areas between frames that are not sharp? I can't do this in my head but perhaps the sw needs a smaller coc than perhaps a person would need? Are you using Helicon, Zerene, or PS. I can't recall which ties in with the cognisys.
That's the only thing I can fathom that might cause the blurry image we are seeing on the crop camera short of the methodology used by the stacking sw needs to be different but for me that usually is subject based and you really have the same subject here.
I generally don't have the subject being eaten problem. Mineral specimens are not that tasty ...
Jul 23, 2014 22:05:42 #
Screamin Scott wrote:
I don't fiddle with upping the ISO. I just use additional lighting...
Yep, that's true, I keep thinking about what I end up doing with flat polished mineral slabs which is either up the iso or lengthen the exposure. Usually the latter. But that's just me.
Jul 23, 2014 22:49:39 #
UtahBob wrote:
......If you were using the same step size for both captures, is it possible that you don't have enough dof in each of the steps for the crop camera so when the sw goes to pick out the high contrast areas there are areas between frames that are not sharp? I can't do this in my head but perhaps the sw needs a smaller coc .....
When i first started stacking i swapped cameras very frequently and had alot of difficulty getting a step size that worked in a predictable manner.
The zerene tables worked for one camera but not the other.
I just chalked it up to sloppy technique on my part and did not persue the solution.
Perhaps there is something in your comment worth exploring.
I've been thinking of overlap as a simple percent of available image and have constructed step tables using my 800 exclusively .
Maybe i should view it as a percent of image carrying usable information.
The amount of meaningful information in a given step size is going to differ with the sensor cell type/size. The 7100 may require smaller steps.
Such wisdom from a rock hound, who would have thought...
Jul 23, 2014 23:18:53 #
oldtigger wrote:
When i first started stacking i swapped cameras ve... (show quote)
Is it possible to take only 3 images out of a D7100 stack and process those in the same manner and see what that stack looks like. I'd expect an area of sharpness (high contrast) that is uninterrupted somewhere in that image verses alternating sharp/soft. Those photos you provided - is that at 100% crop? I wonder if you could process the 3 images, save that as a template and then color the individual files so that each clearly shows the input in the result if you run the process again.
Is it possible to post two or three consecutive images from the D7100 at 100% so we could take a look. This is so intriguing ... not like rockhounding :-D
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.