Beginner in extreme macro

A forum to ask questions, post setups, and generally discuss anything having to do with photomacrography and photomicroscopy.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

VinodkumarSelvaraj
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:18 pm

Beginner in extreme macro

Post by VinodkumarSelvaraj »

Hi Guys,

I am a research scholar in plant pathology and a beginner in extreme macro. Previously I used eos 70D to make some pictures. Now in our department, they are requesting to establish a lab for extreme macro photography of fungi. The idea is to document fungi without disturbing their structures (which happens when we put a cover slip over the samples in a slide). This is a fresh start and we are looking to buy equipments. I have some questions regarding this I would be happy if you can give some suggestions or provide links of previous threads of such discussions.

I know it is a long post. But I will be extremely happy if some one is interested helping me.

1. Which is better for extreme macro APS-C or Full frame? As we all know APS-C gives more magnification due to the smaller sensor. However, some people say FF gives better image quality so we can crop our desired portion without loss of image quality. Some say if it is cropped it will loose pixels and will not be sharp. Some say for the same pixels the APS-C have dense pixels so it will be good to go with APS-C. Some also suggest to go for a mirror less APS-C to reduce vibrations. I am afraid to go for a full frame imagining just because it will reduce the magnification. I am a bit confused with this topic and would like to know the crisp answer.

2. I would like to use the MPE-65, microscope objectives on bellows or extension tubes or on a telephoto lens.
a. Will there be any vignetting issues when we are using microscope objective+telephoto lens (200mm) on a full frame? If so then can we use 70-300 IS USM instead so that focal distance above 200 will resolve the issue?

My ultimate aim is to reach extreme magnification with better image quality. I have attached some images which i took with 70D. This is what i need. First picture - just the infected grass; second picture - image taken by reversing 18-55 shows the area that is cropped. Third is the heavily cropped image (This is the size I want to look at the structures). The image is not so good since it is just reversed macro not a microscope objective without any stacking. I want to improve from this point. Please suggest gears and guide me friends. Thanks in advance.

Image
Image
Image

clarnibass
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:33 pm

Post by clarnibass »

The decision of FF vs. APSC is a lot more specific and depends on the exact models of cameras, your intended magnification, your lenses and how adjustable they are. In general I would suggest an APSC camera for almost any macro unless you definitely need an FF camera.

Sorry if this is long and I hope I'm not confusing you instead of helping :)

I have both APSC and FF and both are 24MP. Because of the sensor size difference, I need x1.5 higher magnification to get the same frame on FF that I get on APSC. The APSC is one generation newer, but that difference is very minor. Overall, if I get the same frame (i.e. higher magnification on the FF), then the result from the FF is better, but... what is better? I can see the difference side by side. If anyone will look at a print or view it on a screen, they wouldn't even consider an issue. I know about the difference but in practice it is insignificant in most cases. Keep in mind that in this situation, if aperture is the same and you are doing a stack, the FF would have a smaller depth of field and would require more photos. This is relevant if your lens has a specific best aperture that you would want to use on either camera and less photos per stack is an advantage for you.

If you have an adjustable magnification lens such as the MPE-65 then what size are your subjects? If they are never smaller than the APSC sensor at x5, and never larger than APSC at x1, then APSC would cover everything you need. If you need x1 at FF (about x0.6 on Canon APSC) but don't need anything more than x5 on FF, then maybe FF is better. Maybe both or neither cover what you need. You xcan always add a lens to cover x1 and under.

For example if you go with the 5DS (50MP) or 80D (24MP). If your subject is small so that you use no more than the APSC sensor area for it anyway, then you would get 24MP on the APSC but only about 20MP on the FF. A small difference that might be negligible. If you are using a 6dII instead (26MP) then the difference is very big. This is called pixel density, and depends on the quality you get from each sensor too.

I don't have adjustable magnification, only a few specific setups: x1 and under, x1.9, x3.5, x5. I use the camera and magnification that give me the frame I want. For example I almost never the x3.5 because it is a more cumbersome setup. I usually use x1.9 on APSC and then "jump" to x5 on FF, which is equivalent to about x2.9 to x5 jump on the same camera.

If the MPE-65 (which I have no experience with) is better at certain magnifications, then it might work better on FF or APSC, depending on what you need. For example, if it was better at x2 than at x3, then you might be better using an APSC at x2 than an FF at x3.
Another thing is center and corner sharpness. If the lens is significantly sharper in the center, then APSC Would have less of the lens corners in the frame, which might outweigh (or not) any improvement from the FF (if there is any at all).
Maybe someone more experienced with the MPE will know about FF vs. APSC with it.

Re some of the other options you mentioned...

I recently started a project with a macro lens with extension tubes (to get x2). Results weren't very good. Very big loss of contrast and some loss of sharpness/details. That's not necessarily true with every macro lens, but it was with mine, which is excellent at x1.

I now use coupled lenses instead. The same 105mm lens, with a reversed 55mm. This doesn't cover the FF frame at all so only usable on APSC, where it covers the frame with a little vignetting. I guess this type of setup might be ok on FF depending on the specific lenses. Results are very good with my lenses (sharpness/details/contrast). You can get excellent manual lenses to reverse.

Disadvantage of the coupled lenses is about 38mm working distance vs. about 90mm with the extended lens. This also varies depending on specific lenses.

For x5 I use a microscope lens. Mine covers the full FF frame, with a little vignetting. Almost no vignetting on APSC. A lot of microscope lenses don't cover FF. The smaller diameter makes it easier to not block light. Microscope lenses vary a lot in quality and price. There are good posts here about many different ones. They also give just one magnification (maybe there are microscope lenses with a range but I haven't seen any).

So you can see there are a million options depending on what you need to do and what kind of setup you prefer :)

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 6053
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Re: Beginner in extreme macro

Post by Pau »

VinodkumarSelvaraj wrote: 1. Which is better for extreme macro APS-C or Full frame? As we all know APS-C gives more magnification due to the smaller sensor. However, some people say FF gives better image quality so we can crop our desired portion without loss of image quality. Some say if it is cropped it will loose pixels and will not be sharp. Some say for the same pixels the APS-C have dense pixels so it will be good to go with APS-C. Some also suggest to go for a mirror less APS-C to reduce vibrations. I am afraid to go for a full frame imagining just because it will reduce the magnification. I am a bit confused with this topic and would like to know the crisp answer.

2. I would like to use the MPE-65, microscope objectives on bellows or extension tubes or on a telephoto lens.
a. Will there be any vignetting issues when we are using microscope objective+telephoto lens (200mm) on a full frame? If so then can we use 70-300 IS USM instead so that focal distance above 200 will resolve the issue?
If you want the best quality at 4X and up (magnification on sensor) the way is microscope objectives. There are thousand of posts at the forum on this subject. Some objectives can cover FF at their rated magnification but most of them don't, so in general APSC is preferable. Mitutoyo M plan apos are the most clear option with this kind of work.
Most macro lenses cover FF including the MPE
A zoom is not the best option as tube lens. With my 70-200 L IS USM I get good results from 140mm upwards with APSC, at lower FL it vignettes, I think that a 70-300 might be worse.

About vibration you want a camera with first electronic shutter (EFSC) like most Canon o even better with full electronic shutter...or to use electronic flash.

Of course you also need an adequate focus stacking rig.

And, BTW, welcome to the forum!
Pau

VinodkumarSelvaraj
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:18 pm

Post by VinodkumarSelvaraj »

clarnibass wrote:The decision of FF vs. APSC is a lot more specific and depends on the exact models of cameras, your intended magnification, your lenses and how adjustable they are. In general I would suggest an APSC camera for almost any macro unless you definitely need an FF camera.

Sorry if this is long and I hope I'm not confusing you instead of helping :)

I have both APSC and FF and both are 24MP. Because of the sensor size difference, I need x1.5 higher magnification to get the same frame on FF that I get on APSC. The APSC is one generation newer, but that difference is very minor. Overall, if I get the same frame (i.e. higher magnification on the FF), then the result from the FF is better, but... what is better? I can see the difference side by side. If anyone will look at a print or view it on a screen, they wouldn't even consider an issue. I know about the difference but in practice it is insignificant in most cases. Keep in mind that in this situation, if aperture is the same and you are doing a stack, the FF would have a smaller depth of field and would require more photos. This is relevant if your lens has a specific best aperture that you would want to use on either camera and less photos per stack is an advantage for you.

If you have an adjustable magnification lens such as the MPE-65 then what size are your subjects? If they are never smaller than the APSC sensor at x5, and never larger than APSC at x1, then APSC would cover everything you need. If you need x1 at FF (about x0.6 on Canon APSC) but don't need anything more than x5 on FF, then maybe FF is better. Maybe both or neither cover what you need. You xcan always add a lens to cover x1 and under.

For example if you go with the 5DS (50MP) or 80D (24MP). If your subject is small so that you use no more than the APSC sensor area for it anyway, then you would get 24MP on the APSC but only about 20MP on the FF. A small difference that might be negligible. If you are using a 6dII instead (26MP) then the difference is very big. This is called pixel density, and depends on the quality you get from each sensor too.

I don't have adjustable magnification, only a few specific setups: x1 and under, x1.9, x3.5, x5. I use the camera and magnification that give me the frame I want. For example I almost never the x3.5 because it is a more cumbersome setup. I usually use x1.9 on APSC and then "jump" to x5 on FF, which is equivalent to about x2.9 to x5 jump on the same camera.

If the MPE-65 (which I have no experience with) is better at certain magnifications, then it might work better on FF or APSC, depending on what you need. For example, if it was better at x2 than at x3, then you might be better using an APSC at x2 than an FF at x3.
Another thing is center and corner sharpness. If the lens is significantly sharper in the center, then APSC Would have less of the lens corners in the frame, which might outweigh (or not) any improvement from the FF (if there is any at all).
Maybe someone more experienced with the MPE will know about FF vs. APSC with it.

Re some of the other options you mentioned...

I recently started a project with a macro lens with extension tubes (to get x2). Results weren't very good. Very big loss of contrast and some loss of sharpness/details. That's not necessarily true with every macro lens, but it was with mine, which is excellent at x1.

I now use coupled lenses instead. The same 105mm lens, with a reversed 55mm. This doesn't cover the FF frame at all so only usable on APSC, where it covers the frame with a little vignetting. I guess this type of setup might be ok on FF depending on the specific lenses. Results are very good with my lenses (sharpness/details/contrast). You can get excellent manual lenses to reverse.

Disadvantage of the coupled lenses is about 38mm working distance vs. about 90mm with the extended lens. This also varies depending on specific lenses.

For x5 I use a microscope lens. Mine covers the full FF frame, with a little vignetting. Almost no vignetting on APSC. A lot of microscope lenses don't cover FF. The smaller diameter makes it easier to not block light. Microscope lenses vary a lot in quality and price. There are good posts here about many different ones. They also give just one magnification (maybe there are microscope lenses with a range but I haven't seen any).

So you can see there are a million options depending on what you need to do and what kind of setup you prefer :)
Dear Clarnibass,
Thanks a lot for your long informative advice. I got good clarity. So I shall stick to an APSC with better MP rather than a FF with the same MP. Thank you.

VinodkumarSelvaraj
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:18 pm

Re: Beginner in extreme macro

Post by VinodkumarSelvaraj »

Pau wrote:
VinodkumarSelvaraj wrote: 1. Which is better for extreme macro APS-C or Full frame? As we all know APS-C gives more magnification due to the smaller sensor. However, some people say FF gives better image quality so we can crop our desired portion without loss of image quality. Some say if it is cropped it will loose pixels and will not be sharp. Some say for the same pixels the APS-C have dense pixels so it will be good to go with APS-C. Some also suggest to go for a mirror less APS-C to reduce vibrations. I am afraid to go for a full frame imagining just because it will reduce the magnification. I am a bit confused with this topic and would like to know the crisp answer.

2. I would like to use the MPE-65, microscope objectives on bellows or extension tubes or on a telephoto lens.
a. Will there be any vignetting issues when we are using microscope objective+telephoto lens (200mm) on a full frame? If so then can we use 70-300 IS USM instead so that focal distance above 200 will resolve the issue?
If you want the best quality at 4X and up (magnification on sensor) the way is microscope objectives. There are thousand of posts at the forum on this subject. Some objectives can cover FF at their rated magnification but most of them don't, so in general APSC is preferable. Mitutoyo M plan apos are the most clear option with this kind of work.
Most macro lenses cover FF including the MPE
A zoom is not the best option as tube lens. With my 70-200 L IS USM I get good results from 140mm upwards with APSC, at lower FL it vignettes, I think that a 70-300 might be worse.

About vibration you want a camera with first electronic shutter (EFSC) like most Canon o even better with full electronic shutter...or to use electronic flash.

Of course you also need an adequate focus stacking rig.

And, BTW, welcome to the forum!
Thanks a lot Pau for your reply. As per your suggestion I shall stick to an APS-C. I have two more doubts from your advice.
1.May I know the reason why 70-200 is better and 70-300 will be worse. I was thinking that if vignetting is an issue then 300mm should perform better than a 200mm and may give more magnification. Will the sharpness will be worse in 300mm? Please make me understand.
2. I know a litte about the EFSC. In canon 70D EFSC is a feature that is automatically enabled in live mode (Mode 1). But I have studied that EFSC will be disabled automatically while using a flash. So do you suggest me any continuous lighting other than flash? I have studied that in canon cameras only 5D have a silent drive mode. Please let me know if I am wrong. As far now I think 80D is the most advanced APS-C in canon to go with. Thank you.

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8668
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

The 80D has a vibration when the electronic shutter opens. It is small, but there. The 70D has it too I think. The 60D was quite bad.
The 7D Mk2 is vibration free as far as I know.

Zoom lenses usually vignette more than prime lenses, when used as tube lenses. They do it particularly if you zoom away from maximum FL, so a 70-200 is likely to do it less than a 70-300.
Chris R

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 6053
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Re: Beginner in extreme macro

Post by Pau »

VinodkumarSelvaraj wrote:C. I have two more doubts from your advice.
1.May I know the reason why 70-200 is better and 70-300 will be worse. I was thinking that if vignetting is an issue then 300mm should perform better than a 200mm and may give more magnification. Will the sharpness will be worse in 300mm? Please make me understand.
2. I know a litte about the EFSC. In canon 70D EFSC is a feature that is automatically enabled in live mode (Mode 1). But I have studied that EFSC will be disabled automatically while using a flash. So do you suggest me any continuous lighting other than flash? I have studied that in canon cameras only 5D have a silent drive mode. Please let me know if I am wrong. As far now I think 80D is the most advanced APS-C in canon to go with. Thank you.
1- Yes, 300mm will provide 1.5X magnification than 200mm and the image will look less sharp. Actual resolution on subject will be the same but with a normal 0.25 or 0.30 NA objective it will be sharper with a 200mm lens. This is because you are using it at higher F number (smaller effective aperture)
It can't be told without testing but because a long range zooms have the entrance pupil very recessed you likely will get vignette when zooming out, maybe even at 200mm

2- Yes, with Canon cameras (and most others) EFSC is disabled when you use a dedicated EX flash. If you use and non-dedicated flash it just wont fire. But because the flash illumination is very short (around 1/1000s at full power and much less at reduced power) the actual exposure time is very short preventing motion blur in most cases.
Pau

VinodkumarSelvaraj
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:18 pm

Re: Beginner in extreme macro

Post by VinodkumarSelvaraj »

Pau wrote:
VinodkumarSelvaraj wrote:C. I have two more doubts from your advice.
1.May I know the reason why 70-200 is better and 70-300 will be worse. I was thinking that if vignetting is an issue then 300mm should perform better than a 200mm and may give more magnification. Will the sharpness will be worse in 300mm? Please make me understand.
2. I know a litte about the EFSC. In canon 70D EFSC is a feature that is automatically enabled in live mode (Mode 1). But I have studied that EFSC will be disabled automatically while using a flash. So do you suggest me any continuous lighting other than flash? I have studied that in canon cameras only 5D have a silent drive mode. Please let me know if I am wrong. As far now I think 80D is the most advanced APS-C in canon to go with. Thank you.
1- Yes, 300mm will provide 1.5X magnification than 200mm and the image will look less sharp. Actual resolution on subject will be the same but with a normal 0.25 or 0.30 NA objective it will be sharper with a 200mm lens. This is because you are using it at higher F number (smaller effective aperture)
It can't be told without testing but because a long range zooms have the entrance pupil very recessed you likely will get vignette when zooming out, maybe even at 200mm

2- Yes, with Canon cameras (and most others) EFSC is disabled when you use a dedicated EX flash. If you use and non-dedicated flash it just wont fire. But because the flash illumination is very short (around 1/1000s at full power and much less at reduced power) the actual exposure time is very short preventing motion blur in most cases.
Thanks a lot Pau for making me understand. I will go with a Canon 80D + EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM and then nikon microscope objectives. Regarding microscope objectives I read some previous posts. Could you please suggest some among these or anything else other than this. I was thinking 40x should be OK for what I am looking (My previous picture of spores).
1. Nikon M-Plan 40/0.50 ELWD
2. Nikon 40/0.40 SLWD
3. Nikon CF Plan 50X 0.55 inf/- EPI ELWD
4. Nikon CF Plan 50x/0.45 EPI SLWD
Thanks again for your helping hands.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23564
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Re: Beginner in extreme macro

Post by rjlittlefield »

VinodkumarSelvaraj wrote:3. Nikon CF Plan 50X 0.55 inf/- EPI ELWD
This is an excellent objective.

It covers well on APS-C even when used with a 100 mm tube lens, so as to give effectively 25X NA 0.55 . See for example the blowfly proboscis at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 825#103825.

One drawback to this lens is that it has quite a bit of longitudinal chromatic aberration, which produces false colors in out-of-focus areas. Fortunately most of this color will disappear as a side effect of focus stacking. See the example at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 9228#99228 .

--Rik

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8668
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Re: Beginner in extreme macro

Post by ChrisR »

VinodkumarSelvaraj wrote: I will go with a Canon 80D
I'm checking you understood what I wrote about vibrations?
If you use the Electronic Front Shutter Curtain to avoid vibration, note that it is NOT vibration-free on some Canons.

I don't know about all the models especially current ones.
Try it in a shop
Select Live View and a shutter speed of a few seconds. You hope to NOT FEEL the start of the exposure.
Last edited by ChrisR on Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Chris R

VinodkumarSelvaraj
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:18 pm

Re: Beginner in extreme macro

Post by VinodkumarSelvaraj »

ChrisR wrote:
VinodkumarSelvaraj wrote: I will go with a Canon 80D
I'm checking you understood what I wrote about vibrations?
If you use the Electronic Front Shutter Curtain to avoid vibration, note that it is NOT vibration-free on some Canons.

I don't know about all the models especially current ones.
Try it in a shop
Select Live View and a shutter speed of a few seconds. You hope to NOT FEEL the start of the exposure.
Thanks a lot for your advice Chris. I thought the 80D have more pixels (24 vs 20 in 7D), more advanced sensor and other features (articulated touch screen and wifi to smart phone remote) so I can go for that. Please advice if I am wrong. But if the vibration in 80D is more and causes image blur then 7D II is good to go. Please suggest me. I will also compare and test them in the shop.

VinodkumarSelvaraj
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:18 pm

Re: Beginner in extreme macro

Post by VinodkumarSelvaraj »

rjlittlefield wrote:
VinodkumarSelvaraj wrote:3. Nikon CF Plan 50X 0.55 inf/- EPI ELWD
This is an excellent objective.

It covers well on APS-C even when used with a 100 mm tube lens, so as to give effectively 25X NA 0.55 . See for example the blowfly proboscis at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 825#103825.

One drawback to this lens is that it has quite a bit of longitudinal chromatic aberration, which produces false colors in out-of-focus areas. Fortunately most of this color will disappear as a side effect of focus stacking. See the example at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 9228#99228 .

--Rik
Thank you Rik.

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8668
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

If it's only for high magnification work and you might use continuous light, go for the 7D2 (or something cheaper).
20/24Mp is immaterial really, it's only about 10% on a side.


For bells and whistles, and a somewhat more modern sensor (Quality is very close), the 80D.
The folding/touch screen is definitely nice-to-have.
I prefer the ergonomics of the 7D2, but that's just me.
Chris R

VinodkumarSelvaraj
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:18 pm

Post by VinodkumarSelvaraj »

ChrisR wrote:If it's only for high magnification work and you might use continuous light, go for the 7D2 (or something cheaper).
20/24Mp is immaterial really, it's only about 10% on a side.


For bells and whistles, and a somewhat more modern sensor (Quality is very close), the 80D.
The folding/touch screen is definitely nice-to-have.
I prefer the ergonomics of the 7D2, but that's just me.
Thanks Chris for your advice. The camera will be used for high magnification work in lab as well as documenting some plant disease symptoms on the field outside. Rather than wifi and touch screen the image quality is important and that is my major concern. What do you think if I am using flash instead of continuous light? Which type of lighting will be best for fungi? They might have lot of water droplets. Based on this I shall go with your preferred camera. Also please provide some important specification needed for a flash or continuous led light. Looking for your advice. Thanks in advance.

VinodkumarSelvaraj
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:18 pm

Re: Beginner in extreme macro

Post by VinodkumarSelvaraj »

rjlittlefield wrote:
VinodkumarSelvaraj wrote:3. Nikon CF Plan 50X 0.55 inf/- EPI ELWD
This is an excellent objective.

It covers well on APS-C even when used with a 100 mm tube lens, so as to give effectively 25X NA 0.55 . See for example the blowfly proboscis at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 825#103825.

One drawback to this lens is that it has quite a bit of longitudinal chromatic aberration, which produces false colors in out-of-focus areas. Fortunately most of this color will disappear as a side effect of focus stacking. See the example at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 9228#99228 .

--Rik
Could you please suggest the best lens to fit with the microscope objective. I am a bit confused among
1. EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM
2. EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM

I know IS II will be advanced but I need to know which best suits here. Both are the same price. Please suggest one among them. Thank you.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic