DX or FX for macro

<p> Do find a advantage with DX or FX when doing macro?</p>

<p>If you want to photograph very small subjects, there is an advantage to using DX.</p>

<p>For example, if you are using the 105/2.8 micro at 1:1, the DX camera will allow you to frame a subject 16x24mm, while the FX will only frame 24x36mm. The magnification is the same, the the DX is cropping more tightly, which is useful for very small bugs and flowers etc.</p>

<p>If you only want to frame 24x36mm with the DX camera, it means you have to back off a bit which gives you more working distance compared to framing the same subject with FX. Often having a little more working distance is useful, especially if you work from a tripod.</p>

<p>If you intend to do more general closeups in the region of 1:4 - 1:2, then either format is fine. For the same framing, the FX will give the appearance of a shallower DOF/more blurred backgrounds, while DX will give the appearance of greater DOF/less blurred background (about one stop difference between the two). Which is better is a matter of preference.</p>

<p>One drawback of Dx for macro is the viewfinder. If you are manually focusing, make sure you can focus accurately with the smaller viewfinder. That may not be a big issue for some cameras but for the bottom feeders like my D3200 unfortunately it is. It can be done, especially with a magnifier or on a tripod with live view, but it's harder.</p>

<p>I typically prefer FX for macros and most subjects. I used DX mainly in conjunction with super telephoto lenses to photograph small subject from a distance, such as various wildlife and especially birds. Therefore, as Roland points out, if you are doing macro on tiny subjects, the higher pixel density you typically get from DX (unless you are using some "ancient" DX body with fewer than 10MP) can be an advantage.</p>

<p>Another advantage of DX is you get one more stop of DoF. This can help macro.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I agree with Shun.</p>

<p>-O</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Another advantage of DX is you get one more stop of DoF. This can help macro.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes! DOF often presents huge difficulties shooting macro. All other things being equal, I prefer DX, or smaller.</p>

<p>Something I have learnt is that it is "always" advisable to avoid the life size... so better to shoot *smaller* magnifications if possible (well, if the format is too small resolution and/or gradation could be of an issue).<br /> I`m currently shooting details with very large formats and it`s certainly a pain. I prefer to use a smaller camera.<br /> If you can use Live View, I`d say the quality of the viewfinder doesn`t matter at all. I think you should focus using the rear screen.</p>

<p>If you shoot at slow shutter speeds such as (1/4s to 1/80s, etc.) you may find that you can get better sharpness by using electronic front curtain shutter (EFCS) which is available on the D810, D5 and D500 but not in the D7200 or D750. EFCS improves sharpness for macro shots made in available light significantly, in my experience. I initially expected to use the D7100 for macro but then realized the D810 was actually better despite its lower pixel density. However, this depends on what kind of shutter speeds you plan to use, and what lenses you have available, whether you use flash, whether the subject is able to move etc.</p>

<p>I would ordinarily suggest DX is easier to work with for macro, especially if you have a modern lens that is sharp enough for the current high pixel density DX sensors. You can work with a smaller setup and get more working distance. However, it is worth considering the availability of EFCS on the cameras that you're considering using for this application. If you plan to work with flash or if the subjects are on the move, then EFCS may not matter much if at all.</p>

<p>A DX body is always like an FX body of the same pixel count with a (perfect) 1.5x teleconverter - and you <i>can</i> put a teleconverter on some macro lenses. You get the same DoF difference, the same tolerance to diffraction, the same image in live view (put a magnifying angle finder on the DX body if you want the same dimmer but larger finder view); the exposure numbers are different, but balance out. For macro, I'd find it less likely to want the "non-teleconverted" view, so I'd find the size and flippy finder of a D5x00 to be a good selling point, but I'm not 100% sure that the D5x00 series has the control needed for automatic focus stacking, and I've lost track of whether lossless raw is an option. The tilt screens on the D750 and D500 are likely just as good, with the touch screen advantage (but slight resolution disadvantage) to the D500.<br />

<br />

All in all I doubt it makes a huge difference...</p>

DX for macro, no hesitation. Smaller formats have

an undoubted advantage when high magnification

is required, whether for macro or telephoto work.

 

The viewfinder brightness issue is lessened in the macro region for the following reason. To get a subject of, say, 24x36mm filling the frame requires only a 2:3 magnification with the DX format, and a subsequent loss of 1 stop effective aperture. The full frame camera needs to be focused to 1:1 (lifesize) and therefore loses 2 stops of aperture. Thus the viewfinder brightness of a DX camera is no dimmer for a similar framing.

<p>Thanks for the info, been going back and forth what I want to upgrade to, D500 or D750, right now Im using the D300 , my lens are Nikon 105mm mac and the 200mm mac with tubes</p>

<p>Sorry if I caused confusion with the viewfinder brightness comment - I was actually arguing that most DX (pentaprism) viewfinders are brighter but smaller than an FX viewfinder at the same effective aperture. That is, the 1.0x viewfinder (which is big for a DX finder) on a D500 is slightly smaller than the 0.7x finder on a D810, but once you've allowed for the effective aperture difference of the larger sensor and stopped the D810 down one stop (potentially using a teleconverter to do this rather than the aperture!), the FX finder is dimmer - the same amount of light is spread over a wider area. For a D5500 with only a 0.82x viewfinder magnification, the difference is more significant - although the D5500 loses some light through being a pentamirror (which is probably <i>why</i> it's only got 0.82x magnification - 1.0x would be dimmer).<br />

<br />

All of which should be moot anyway, because as others have said, when macro shooting you're probably best off in live view.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thanks for the info, been going back and forth what I want to upgrade to, D500 or D750, right now Im using the D300 , my lens are Nikon 105mm mac and the 200mm mac with tubes</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do you specialize in macro photography? If so, I don't think the D500 makes much sense. Its main advantages are Nikon's state-of-the-art AF at this time and 10 fps. Neither one is important for macro work.</p>

<p>If you want to go DX, a D7200 or even D7100 seems to give you much better value for your money. Both of those have slightly higher pixel density than the D500. However, they are smaller than the D300 and D500, and their controls are a bit different, more like those on the D750. Whether a small DSLR is an advantage or disadvantage is a matter of your preference. Otherwise, the D750 is an excellent general-purpose camera.</p>

<p>I have a D500 (and a D750 and D7200), but I rarely mount any lens that is shorter than 300mm onto it.</p>

<p>While the slightly reduced pixel density of the D500 compared with the other DX bodies is a disadvantage, I would say the D500's tilt and touch screen might be handy. I've never been all that fond of touch screens for focus (mouse pointer, yes, but seeing exactly where I'm touching on a 3" screen with something the size of a finger can't be all that precise), but they have merits. It depends what you're macro shooting, though. If you've got something at head height with tripods locked down, a tilt screen doesn't make a lot of difference. If you're trying to get flowers and insects at ground level, I can see some merit to avoiding having to lie on the floor. The same applies to the D5x00 series, if the other limitations of those cameras don't bother you.<br />

<br />

Pedantically, I'd be interested to know whether the 10fps comes in handy for focus stacking - but then I really think that Nikon should have focus stacking configurable in the camera by now without resorting to something like Helicon Remote.<br />

<br />

Anyway, I completely agree with Shun that the conventional advantages of a D500 don't really apply to macro (and when I last used a D500 I didn't use it for macro at all). I'm just pointing out some exceptions to that statement in case they're relevant.</p>

<p>Whether using DX or FX, extension tubes offer increases magnification without loss in image quality.</p>

<p>Which format is better? Chances are you would not see a difference between the two for most typical macro applications assuming good technique is used.</p>

<p>Well, extensions tubes let you get (the lens) closer, which isn't quite the same thing as increasing magnification - especially if you're trying to get light on your subject. And the "without loss in image quality" does depend a bit on how well your lens is corrected for doing this kind of thing. None of which is to say that extension tubes are a bad idea, just that - like all the other options - they have limitations. But at least they're just a hole, so they're not adding their own bad optics!<br />

<br />

Out of interest... I've never tried Nikon extension tubes, but I gather there's a flappy aperture lever controller. I've no idea whether they work with AF-S variable aperture controlled by the camera/lever. One thing I always liked about Canon's extension tubes is that they have pass-through wiring (metal pins) so that the aperture and autofocus keeps working; I don't know whether Nikon yet have anything that will make an AF-S/E lens behave as nicely. Autofocus doesn't matter as much for macro, but still, nicer to have than not, especially if you're focus stacking. What's out there these days?</p>

<p>You can take the optics out of a TC-E converter and use it as an extension tube with full functionality. ;-) Nikon's Ai extension tubes don't work a G or E type lens, but AF, AF D, and Ai(-S) lenses should. It may be possible to add a chip to the tubes to make it work with newer lenses.</p>

<p>https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/18874/~/using-nikkor-lenses-with-auto-extension-tubes</p>

<p>Thanks, Ilkka. If anything, it's the -E that I was wondering about. There seem to be some third-party extension tubes out there with electronic connections, but whether they work fully with the new lenses is another matter. Not that I'm in a hurry to investigate unless I start finding tiny subjects and get a lot more patient with them. My macro lenses (that I might extend) are G, but not E.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If so, I don't think the D500 makes much sense. Its main advantages are Nikon's state-of-the-art AF at this time and 10 fps. Neither one is important for macro work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agree to that Shun, but the D500 also adds an electronic first curtain shutter option in mirror-up mode, to avoid blur due to shutter shock , and this helps a lot for Macro work !</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There seem to be some third-party extension tubes out there with electronic connections, but whether they work fully with the new lenses is another matter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Kenko Tubes work with G lenses anyway, I do not own any new -E lenses ( I do own a very old 'E" lens but that "e" has a different meaning.. :-) ) </p>