Which Rig is better suited to cleaner, clearer Macros? This Canon set-up, the Nikon one, or the Sony? Suddenly dawned on me - I just might be doing it all wrong. So, I've decided to...

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Suddenly dawned on me - I just might be doing it all wrong. So, I've decided to put it to the Hogs, here - to see what YOU all think. My rigs at present, for purely macro shots, are as follows: Canon EOS Rebel T4i (18MP) - with the Tamron SP 60 f2; the Nikon D7000 (16MP) with Tokina 35 Pro DX Macro; and the Sony alpha a77 II (24MP) with Sigma EX 105 Macro OS HSM. Oh, yes, and I also sometimes use the Tokina on the 24MP D7100. Now, then, bearing in mind, the lower amount of MP, the larger the individual pixels, perhaps, it might be a better idea to use that Tamron on my 12MP EOS Rebel T3 - might it not? You, now -

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Chris T wrote:

Suddenly dawned on me - I just might be doing it a... (show quote)

You have all the cameras and lenses you're asking about, and it's unlikely that anybody else will have all those exact same combinations. As a result why don't you tell us, based on your experience, which setup you believe is better suited for macros? I know you have an opinion on the subject.

Maybe you can post images from the various combinations and we could help you identify which one looks the best.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

You own and are using all three of those set ups?

Why don't you tell us from your experience, then, which "rig is better suited to cleaner, clearer Macros" - whatever that means. What does that mean- "cleaner, clearer Macros?"

Mike

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Blenheim Orange wrote:

You own and are using all three of those set ups?

Mike

Yes, Mike … I wound up getting just one macro lens for each of my systems (but the Pentax) …

These were conscious choices, at the time. I guess I always envisaged getting 100 Macros for each system, plus a short one for each, too - but, so far, I've not gotten round to it … but, you never know …

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

mwsilvers wrote:

You have all the cameras and lenses you're asking about, and it's unlikely that anybody else will have all those exact same combinations. As a result why don't you tell us, based on your experience, which setup you believe is better suited for macros? I know you have an opinion on the subject.

Maybe you can post images from the various combinations and we could help you identify which one looks the best.

I already decided, long ago, Mark - the best combination for short-range shots - was the Tokina on the D7000 … and the best combination for long range shots was the Sony a77 II with the Sigma 105 Macro. The Tamron SP 60 f2 Macro - is a superb everyday prime, but, so far - I've not taken to using it for any critical macro work. But, it does perform magnificently on all three of my Canon bodies, however …

Think I'm skipping posting anymore of my pics, Mark … I don't take criticism well …

Anyway, I'm looking for opinions based on the text I've provided, and explained …

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Chris T wrote:

Yes, Mike … I wound up getting just one macro lens for each of my systems (but the Pentax) …

These were conscious choices, at the time. I guess I always envisaged getting 100 Macros for each system, plus a short one for each, too - but, so far, I've not gotten round to it … but, you never know …

So tell us what you think. What are you shooting and how? What has worked and what hasn't?

Mike

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Blenheim Orange wrote:

You own and are using all three of those set ups?

Why don't you tell us from your experience, then, which "rig is better suited to cleaner, clearer Macros" - whatever that means. What does that mean- "cleaner, clearer Macros?"

Mike

Actually - what I'm looking for, here, Mike - is a discussion on the advantages of higher resolution cameras - the more MP - the tighter and denser the res - and the lower res cameras - which have less density - and therefore, presumably - create better looking pics, overall - and this would show up - most particularly - IMHO - on Macro Shots - would it not, Mike?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Blenheim Orange wrote:

So tell us what you think. What are you shooting and how? What has worked and what hasn't?

Mike

For close-up work, Mike - I tend to use the Tokina/Nikon D7000 combination, which is less Res, and seems to give the best results. But, for long-distance work, I'm more inclined to go with the Sony/Sigma combo. But, I'm not sure it's getting better results than the Tokina/Nikon rig - so I decided to put it to the Hog - to see what others here, thought - just based on the provided text ….

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Chris T wrote:

Actually - what I'm looking for, here, Mike - is a discussion on the advantages of higher resolution cameras - the more MP - the tighter and denser the res - and the lower res cameras - which have less density - and therefore, presumably - create better looking pics, overall - and this would show up - most particularly - IMHO - on Macro Shots - would it not, Mike?

So you are using three different macro lenses, of different focal lengths and brands, on three different camera bodies to test whether or not camera touting more MP create better looking pics?

Mike

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Blenheim Orange wrote:

So you are using three different macro lenses, of different focal lengths and brands, on three different camera bodies to test whether or not camera touting more MP create better looking pics?

Mike

That's an over-simplification, Mike. The first macro lens I bought, was the Tamron - back when all of my bodies were Canon. The second was the Tokina, which I bought on sale, just before it was discontinued. The Sony cameras, I only bought recently (2014) and I chose the Sigma for the a77 II, as it was available - also, at a drastically-reduced price. So, as you can see - it didn't start out that way. But, I am interested to know, here - what others think - in regard to the vastly different - opposing resolutions, and which one might think - produces a cleaner, clearer Macro image … LESS RES, or MORE …

Bill_de Loc: US

If you are asking which of the setups you use is best, post a few pictures of the same subjects from each and somebody will critique them for you. That will tell which works best for you.

After all, it's the results that count.

---

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Chris T wrote:

Suddenly dawned on me - I just might be doing it a... (show quote)

You may be better off asking this question in the Macro forum here on UHH

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-102-1.html

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Chris T wrote:

That's an over-simplification, Mike. The first mac... (show quote)

You have a lot of experience, then, over a long period of time with this equipment. You are the person who owns and who uses this particular array of equipment. Why don't you tell us, or show us, which gives "clearer, cleaner macro images" and explain to us what you mean by "clearer" and "cleaner."

The lenses are really irrelevant to this exercise, though, aren't they, as is "macro." You are asking if more MP means better images. Right?

Mike

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Blenheim Orange wrote:

You have a lot of experience, then, over a long pe... (show quote)

Yes, but, no, Mike … actually, it's the other way around. I am asking, in fact, if folks here have opinions as to whether lesser Res - produces better macro images - than higher res cameras - bearing in mind, less RES creates LESS density - thus, presumably - better macro images ….

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Chris T wrote:

Yes, but, no, Mike … actually, it's the other way around. I am asking, in fact, if folks here have opinions as to whether lesser Res - produces better macro images - than higher res cameras - bearing in mind, less RES creates LESS density - thus, presumably - better macro images ….

So...

All other things being equal - which would mean tossing out all of the information you gave us about camera bodies and lenses, since you presented different manufacturers, different focal lengths, etc. - and when shooting images at 1:1 magnification and greater, can we make a general claim that fewer megapixels means better images?

No.

Mike