Skip to main content
Photography

Return to Answer

added 15 characters in body
Source Link
Matt Grum
Matt Grum
  • 119k
  • 5
  • 276
  • 436

Small sensors can be better for macro images, the standard definition of macro means a 1:1 size ratio between subject and film, so you could project an image of a 35mm object onto a single piece of 35mm film.

Because compacts (usually) have smaller sensors a true 1:1 macro lens on a compact would be capable of imagingfilling the frame with smaller objects. A DSLR ought to be capable of sharper images, but to match the reproduction ratio you'll have to go past 1:1 and look at something like the MPE-65. A reversed wide-angle is a good budget alternative. This site provides reviews of various lenses reversed for macro work:

http://coinimaging.com/blog1/

Things do get difficult once you get into super-macro territory though. Subject motion is a killer, depth of field is next to nothing, so focus stacking is often required and light losses and tiny apertures require lots of light, usually an external source.

Small sensors can be better for macro images, the standard definition of macro means a 1:1 size ratio between subject and film, so you could project an image of a 35mm object onto a single piece of 35mm film.

Because compacts (usually) have smaller sensors a true 1:1 macro lens on a compact would be capable of imaging smaller objects. A DSLR ought to be capable of sharper images, but to match the reproduction ratio you'll have to go past 1:1 and look at something like the MPE-65. A reversed wide-angle is a good budget alternative. This site provides reviews of various lenses reversed for macro work:

http://coinimaging.com/blog1/

Things do get difficult once you get into super-macro territory though. Subject motion is a killer, depth of field is next to nothing, so focus stacking is often required and light losses and tiny apertures require lots of light, usually an external source.

Small sensors can be better for macro images, the standard definition of macro means a 1:1 size ratio between subject and film, so you could project an image of a 35mm object onto a single piece of 35mm film.

Because compacts (usually) have smaller sensors a true 1:1 macro lens on a compact would be capable of filling the frame with smaller objects. A DSLR ought to be capable of sharper images, but to match the reproduction ratio you'll have to go past 1:1 and look at something like the MPE-65. A reversed wide-angle is a good budget alternative. This site provides reviews of various lenses reversed for macro work:

http://coinimaging.com/blog1/

Things do get difficult once you get into super-macro territory though. Subject motion is a killer, depth of field is next to nothing, so focus stacking is often required and light losses and tiny apertures require lots of light, usually an external source.

Source Link
Matt Grum
Matt Grum
  • 119k
  • 5
  • 276
  • 436

Small sensors can be better for macro images, the standard definition of macro means a 1:1 size ratio between subject and film, so you could project an image of a 35mm object onto a single piece of 35mm film.

Because compacts (usually) have smaller sensors a true 1:1 macro lens on a compact would be capable of imaging smaller objects. A DSLR ought to be capable of sharper images, but to match the reproduction ratio you'll have to go past 1:1 and look at something like the MPE-65. A reversed wide-angle is a good budget alternative. This site provides reviews of various lenses reversed for macro work:

http://coinimaging.com/blog1/

Things do get difficult once you get into super-macro territory though. Subject motion is a killer, depth of field is next to nothing, so focus stacking is often required and light losses and tiny apertures require lots of light, usually an external source.