Is FourThirds better for macro re DOF?

[Dillybythesea]

Hi! I hope this isn't a stupid question, but I'm struggling to understand the relative merits of sensors - ie APS-C versus Full Frame versus Four Thirds - and with particular regard to macro photography.

I know a lot of people want shallow DOF for portraits and such, but for shooting insects, handheld (and without off-camera flash, just yet) means using the fastest speed poss, and the wide-open aperture necessarily cuts down on how much insect is in focus.

So, a sensor which leant itself to greater DOF would be good, surely? And I came across this >

Because of the higher crop factor, an image shot at a given relative aperture and angle of view has more depth of field on Four Thirds...

Which makes it sound as though Four Thirds cameras are best for macro?

I'd be SO grateful for any input! ATB, Rhona

[Lancashire Lad]

In theory yes.

But the total area of a four thirds sensor is 225mm2, as opposed to approx. 370mm2 for an APS-C sensor (most dslr's) and approx. 864mm2 for full frame sensor. So there is the trade off in that the smaller sensor will most likely have smaller pixels in order to maintain the high megapixel count that manufacturers insist upon these days.

It is the reason why typical point and shoot digital compacts always outperform dslr's in terms of depth of field at the macro end.

However, you will sometimes want fine control over depth of field in order to remove/reduce background distrations on your shots, and this will be potentially harder to achieve with four thirds when compared to full frame or APS-C sensored cameras.

There is a lot of information on the "dofmaster" website.

Depends on the type of shots you take, and whether the other relative advantages/disadvantages of any chosen system give you the best overall package.

Regards,
Mike.

[Dillybythesea]

Well thanks very much Mike for the info on sensor size, which I hadn't properly realised, and I shall go now in search of the dofmaster website, too, to see what that reveals! Appreciated! Rhona

[Jim Ford]

I've got an Olympus E3, which is 4/3rds, but still miss the far greater DOF that I obtained with a Nikon Coolpix 995 - which has a much smaller sensor.

With wildlife photography, I'm always struggling to get _greater_ DOF and wouldn't even consider a 'full frame' (35mm, which always used to be referred to as 'miniature') system.

Another reason why 4/3rds might be considered good for macro, is that the Zuiko 50mm macro is a superb lens, of which dpreview stated ".. it's the nearest we've yet found to a technically perfect lens"

Jim

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

However, you will sometimes want fine control over depth of field in order to remove/reduce background distrations on your shots, and this will be potentially harder to achieve with four thirds when compared to full frame or APS-C sensored cameras.

What, like this?



Or this:


(Taken with a 4/3rds camera)

[Ukwildlifeo]

One drawback maybe that lens diffraction start to kick in at a larger aperature around f7 or f8, compared to f11 on most aps-c sensor lens. Plus the noise being a problem on lower ISOs than aps-c sensors, which in macro can be a problem trying to get shutter speed at smaller apertures with out noise ruining the detail.

[Ukwildlifeo]

Originally Posted by Jim Ford

Another reason why 4/3rds might be considered good for macro, is that the Zuiko 50mm macro is a superb lens, of which dpreview stated ".. it's the nearest we've yet found to a technically perfect lens"

Jim

Ah yes the old 'best ever lens' debate. I found one the other day talking about 3 of the pentax limited series being the best ever lenses, elsewhere I've another talking about Leica lenses and another certain Canon L-lenses. Im sure I could find others on a Nikon lens being the best ever if I looked. Depends on whos doing the review in the end.

[Dillybythesea]

Wow Jim thats a great shot of the Early Spider Orchid.

And having got interested in insects with an Olympus E500 I'm very torn about making a change, and wonder if I'm not desperately seeking a reason to stay Four Thirds!!

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo

Im sure I could find others on a Nikon lens being the best ever if I looked. Depends on whos doing the review in the end.

Nikon 200-400mm f4 - "The best wildlife lens in the world" - Andy Rouse.

Dave P.

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo

Ah yes the old 'best ever lens' debate. I found one the other day talking about 3 of the pentax limited series being the best ever lenses, elsewhere I've another talking about Leica lenses and another certain Canon L-lenses. Im sure I could find others on a Nikon lens being the best ever if I looked. Depends on whos doing the review in the end.

Yes, but dpreview is considered the internet's leading camera and lens review site.

Jim