New Lumix G9 vs used Canon 5DsR - what is better for extreme macro?

[Medwar]

Hi all!
Please, I need your argumented opinions on what camera to choose.

Which camera body would you prefer for studio extreme macro work for the same money:
-Canon 5DsR, used (say 10000-40000 shots)
or
-Panasonic Lumix DC G9, new
?

They give pretty similar real resolution if use pixelshift on G9 (the images from different sized sensors scaled to the same size will be near identical in detail, thanks to pixelshift). 5DsR 50Mpix image will still be a bit more detailed than 80Mpix from G9, but don't forget G9 takes that image from 2x crop! Which is better for very extreme macro, meaning you get almost 2x smaller details from the same objective lens (if objective can outresolve the sensor of course, so non-hr Mitutoyos maybe have to be used at mags lower than their nominal with this sensors).
G9 has full electronic shutter with unlimited resourse, if shoot without impulse light, which is a plus for shooting 200-stacks.
But 5DsR is more universal and can be better if use it not only for macro, as it is FF with larger dynamic range, and it gives very sharp 50Mpix w/o pixelshift.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image- ... 5979168846

I am a bit lost in this comparison.
Could you please help?

[ray_parkhurst]

Hi all!
Please, I need your argumented opinions on what camera to choose.

Which camera body would you prefer for studio extreme macro work for the same money:
-Canon 5DsR, used (say 10000-40000 shots)
or
-Panasonic Lumix DC G9, new
?

They give pretty similar real resolution if use pixelshift on G9 (the images from different sized sensors scaled to the same size will be near identical in detail, thanks to pixelshift). 5DsR 50Mpix image will still be a bit more detailed than 80Mpix from G9, but don't forget G9 takes that image from 2x crop! Which is better for very extreme macro, meaning you get almost 2x smaller details from the same objective lens (if objective can outresolve the sensor of course, so non-hr Mitutoyos maybe have to be used at mags lower than their nominal with this sensors).
G9 has full electronic shutter with unlimited resourse, if shoot without impulse light, which is a plus for shooting 200-stacks.
But 5DsR is more universal and can be better if use it not only for macro, as it is FF with larger dynamic range, and it gives very sharp 50Mpix w/o pixelshift.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image- ... 5979168846

I am a bit lost in this comparison.
Could you please help?

I was a bit disappointed with the 5DSR. Initially the image quality looked better than what I get from my old HRT2i, but after running the T2i pics through the same "fine detail" sharpening the 5DSR uses, they were the same. I don't know much about the G9 but I can say I expected more from the 5DSR.

[RobertOToole]

Hi Medwar,

Hi all!
Please, I need your argumented opinions on what camera to choose.

Which camera body would you prefer for studio extreme macro work for the same money:
-Canon 5DsR, used (say 10000-40000 shots)
or
-Panasonic Lumix DC G9, new
?

Working as a professional photographer for almost 16 years I have had the chance to see and work with lots and lots of samples from the Canon 5DsR I would stay away from it and in my opinion, the Lumix DC G9 is the way to go given the two choices ( I used Canon professionally for about 13 years to about 2014 or so).

The main problem is the sensor, it was taken from the Canon 7D MKII parts bin, which is from 2014! The G9 is a much newer modern design, from 2018 or so I believe.

Personally I would stay away from Canon period, after shooting with them for 13 years professionally, and have turned down CPS when asked to work with them but thats another story entirely.

Hope this helps.

Best,

Robert

[chris_ma]

personally I really like pixel shift, I find it not only is beneficial to resolution but mainly it renders true textures and avoids moirée.
but it also is quite a bit slower.

never used the 5DsR myself but I agree with Robert that from what I've seen so far the sensor doesn't stand up to modern sensors anymore.

seems to me that canon really managed to get a good camera out with the R5, but that thing is expensive!
btw, rumor has it they are planning to release a high resolution R ("with around 90MP") with the price around the R5, so that's interesting.
Fuji will very likely also come out with a new 100MP GFX which should be significantly smaller and cheaper then the old one.

anyway, I guess the main question what fits better to your subjects and optics, full frame or MFT (or APS)?

[RobertOToole]

personally I really like pixel shift, I find it not only is beneficial to resolution but mainly it renders true textures and avoids moirée.
but it also is quite a bit slower.

Exactly my findings Chris.

This thread got me looking back at some of the results from a couple years ago!

MacroVaron, 1.4x, f/4.5,100% view, no sharpening, A7R III HR mode off and on.

HR mode really lets the MacroVaron awesome IQ shine

I dont think I need to label which is which

(I also ran some amazing HR images with the Printing-Nikkor 105)

Best,

Robert

[Lou Jost]

I have used both FF and MFT systems, and I don't think it is realistic to rely on pixel-shifting to make up the difference in resolution between FF and MFT. The results of pixel shifting are excellent, but as others have stated above, it takes too long to use as a standard procedure, unless you only do one or two stacks per day.

[Smokedaddy]

If it matters, I read that the screen can't be flipped out when ports are in use