macro lens and mega pixels

[Tony Stark]

I'm in doubt. Tried searching for answers on Google and nothing came up. So here I am trying to get some answers.

Here it goes. I was wondering if a macro lens could capture more details than a portrait lens. Say if I'm taking a portrait, using an 85mm 1.4 lens, then I switch it to the 105mm 2.8 lens, which one will give me more detailed picture? I don't own n never own a macro lens before. Anyone can help me here?

And does more mega pixel means more detailed images? Say the NIKON D3s 12mp vs the D3x 24mp, both took portraits, will the D3x be sharper in details? (Eg. The mustache is more detailed..bla..bla..things like that)

 

[fixedimage]

First, I presume you mean a proper macro lens ie the Nikon 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor Lens or the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens not just a zoom with "macro focusing capabilities" ?

Second, to do any kind of comparison you'd have to have a non macro lens and a macro lens, pref both primes and of exactly the same focal length which doesn't really exist I don't think, other wise as in the example you gave of going from an 85mm lens to a 105mm macro lens, the longer focal length would bring you closer and give more detail.

For the 1st part of your question, I'd imagine that given the scenario of shooting the same portrait in the same lighting on the same camera twice and only changing the lens from a non macro lens to a macro lens of the same focal length you would reach the limits of the sensor before you got anywhere near to reaching the limits of the resolving power of either lens.

Doing the same comparison shooting onto a film stock chosen specifically to show up resolving power, sharpness etc might be a different story.

If it were possible to do a direct comparison between a macro lens and something like a cheap nifty fifty there'd be a difference in image but same could be said for comparing a 50mm f1.8 to a 50mm f1.4 or f1.2.

As for detail then basically yes, more MP = more detail.

Comaprisons between the D3s and the D3x would have to made shooting in optimal light condition though as the D3s fairs much better at high iso so would start to outperfom the D3x before long if you turned the lights down. And shooting in optimal light studio conditions isn't really what the D3s was made for.

 

[Tony Stark]

First, I presume you mean a proper macro lens ie the Nikon 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor Lens or the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens not just a zoom with "macro focusing capabilities" ?

Second, to do any kind of comparison you'd have to have a non macro lens and a macro lens, pref both primes and of exactly the same focal length which doesn't really exist I don't think, other wise as in the example you gave of going from an 85mm lens to a 105mm macro lens, the longer focal length would bring you closer and give more detail.

For the 1st part of your question, I'd imagine that given the scenario of shooting the same portrait in the same lighting on the same camera twice and only changing the lens from a non macro lens to a macro lens of the same focal length you would reach the limits of the sensor before you got anywhere near to reaching the limits of the resolving power of either lens.

Doing the same comparison shooting onto a film stock chosen specifically to show up resolving power, sharpness etc might be a different story.

If it were possible to do a direct comparison between a macro lens and something like a cheap nifty fifty there'd be a difference in image but same could be said for comparing a 50mm f1.8 to a 50mm f1.4 or f1.2.

As for detail then basically yes, more MP = more detail.

Comaprisons between the D3s and the D3x would have to made shooting in optimal light condition though as the D3s fairs much better at high iso so would start to outperfom the D3x before long if you turned the lights down. And shooting in optimal light studio conditions isn't really what the D3s was made for.

Thanks for replying. So, about the more mega pixel and the more detailed image, my question is answered. But about the macro lens vs portrait lens question, I'm still moving in circles. Let's say I took the portrait at the same exact angle. Meaning that if I use a 50mm macro vs the 50mm 1.2/1.4, ( let's say both will be mounted on a Canon 5D ) will the 50mm macro give me a more detailed image? Or is it just the macro lens is capable of getting more closer than the other 50mm?

 

[ronnus]

Never thought I'd be referencing Mr Rockwell, but the more megapixels thing is covered well here.

Not sure if this is what you're thinking about regarding pixel count, but it helped me a bit

 

[DarrenC]

Macro lens can be great portrait lens.

Getting closer is the main feature of macro, but like any lens some are better than others.

I've read the 50 1.4 is better than the 50 macro.

 

[fixedimage]

Thanks for replying. So, about the more mega pixel and the more detailed image, my question is answered. But about the macro lens vs portrait lens question, I'm still moving in circles. Let's say I took the portrait at the same exact angle. Meaning that if I use a 50mm macro vs the 50mm 1.2/1.4, ( let's say both will be mounted on a Canon 5D ) will the 50mm macro give me a more detailed image? Or is it just the macro lens is capable of getting more closer than the other 50mm?

The main difference in a macro lens is the focusing mechanism has a bit more 'throw' or 'travel' in it which allows it to focus when closer to the subject thus creating a larger - occupying more of the image area - representation of the subject which will reveal more detail.

There should be no reason why 2 identical portraits one shot with normal lens and one shot with macro should have differing levels of detail.

However, If you found that to obtain focus with a normal 50mm you had to be far enough away from your sitter that their head filled only half of the viewfinder whereas with the macro 50mm you could fill the viewfinder with their head or get even closer and still obtain focus then you would obviously record more detail in the closer, macro shot.

A lot of people find that -especially on full frame cameras - with 50mm lenses they have to compose head and shoulder portraits with a lot of dead space in the frame in order to get focus and then crop that out in PS so if you wanted to only have one lens and for it to be 50mm and you shoot a lot of head and shoulder portraits then a macro lens probably isn't a bad choice.

Never thought I'd be referencing Mr Rockwell, but the more megapixels thing is covered well here.

Not sure if this is what you're thinking about regarding pixel count, but it helped me a bit

While I generally do agree with Ken on the megapixel myth, in absolute terms more mp = more detail and to deny that i just lying to yourself.

 

[woof woof]

I've read the 50 1.4 is better than the 50 macro.

I've read that the 50mm f2.5 is Canon's sharpest 50mm and one of the sharpest lenses they make. I have one and it is good but I'd say that the Siggy 50mm f1.4 is a match for it's image quality at any aperture setting. However it isn't a true macro and therefore not much good in this thread... Anyway, I don't believe that a macro is necessarily better than any other lens at anything other than macro.

More resolution can only help when shooting macro if only because you can crop the image more and still produce a good sized image and for macro that must be an advantage with some subjects.

 

[ronnus]

While I generally do agree with Ken on the megapixel myth, in absolute terms more mp = more detail and to deny that i just lying to yourself.

I think you've said some interesting stuff here, but I believe there's a lot more to this discussion than just "detail", tho it becomes a bit of a semantic argument.

If more megapixels = more detail, why aren't we seeing 40MP DSLR sensors, which are possible from a technical POV? Foveons don't count... and that's probably a whole other thread

 

[fixedimage]

I think you've said some interesting stuff here, but I believe there's a lot more to this discussion than just "detail", tho it becomes a bit of a semantic argument.

If more megapixels = more detail, why aren't we seeing 40MP DSLR sensors, which are possible from a technical POV? Foveons don't count... and that's probably a whole other thread

We will be soon if the rumors about the D4 are to be believed.

But I think the current lack of 40MP DSLRs is probably because that kind of camera would have very limited market.

While the megapixel myth is very prevalent in the consumer camera market, those cameras are build/sold/bought with a very particular budget in mind.

The type of buyers that could afford/would spend the money for a 40mp DSLR are the kind of prosumers and pros that realise mp count isn't everything.

Currently it seems like mp count comes at the cost of iso performance and frame rate etc as can be seen in Nikon D3 family.

The higher mp count cameras are slow studio princesses and if that's your bag, you'd get better resolution from the likes of a Hassy H4D and it's not like there's a massive price difference between the 25mp D3x and the 31mp or even 40mp H4D.

 

[ronnus]

We will be soon if the rumors about the D4 are to be believed.

But I think the current lack of 40MP DSLRs is probably because that kind of camera would have very limited market.

While the megapixel myth is very prevalent in the consumer camera market, those cameras are build/sold/bought with a very particular budget in mind.

The type of buyers that could afford/would spend the money for a 40mp DSLR are the kind of prosumers and pros that realise mp count isn't everything.

Currently it seems like mp count comes at the cost of iso performance and frame rate etc as can be seen in Nikon D3 family.

The higher mp count cameras are slow studio princesses and if that's your bag, you'd get better resolution from the likes of a Hassy H4D and it's not like there's a massive price difference between the 25mp D3x and the 31mp or even 40mp H4D.

I haven't read about the D4, damn me for not keeping up with the Nikon rumour mill... but your post is pretty much bang on and a good read

Isn't the Hasselblad medium format tho? Hardly fair to compare that sort of monster sensor with a DSLR's!

 

[fixedimage]

I haven't read about the D4, damn me for not keeping up with the Nikon rumour mill... but your post is pretty much bang on and a good read

Isn't the Hasselblad medium format tho? Hardly fair to compare that sort of monster sensor with a DSLR's!

Yeah the Hassy is MF but that's my point, if you were in the position to be looking at buying a 40mp DSLR, wouldn't you just spend another little bit and get mf Hassy and reap the benefits assosciated with an even larger format?

At peak I've seen the D3X and the 1DS3 on sale for around the £9k mark.
If the D4 is going to be 40mp I'm sure we could expect it to have a launch price around £12-14k.
That's firmly in the range of the H4D Hasselblads.
Unless you have a considerable investment in Nikon glass wouldn't you want the bigger sensor of the Hassy?

 

[EOS_JD]

I think you've said some interesting stuff here, but I believe there's a lot more to this discussion than just "detail", tho it becomes a bit of a semantic argument.

If more megapixels = more detail, why aren't we seeing 40MP DSLR sensors, which are possible from a technical POV? Foveons don't count... and that's probably a whole other thread

Look at the new 80Mp medium format digital cameras!

 

[Mr G]

Look at the new 80Mp medium format digital cameras!

Prices start at around $22,000 and go up.

 

[Tony Stark]

More resolution can only help when shooting macro if only because you can crop the image more and still produce a good sized image and for macro that must be an advantage with some subjects.

That's just what I thought too. But say if given a 12mp camera and a 6mp camera. Both took landscape. The same picture and were resize to to the same size, will we see a dramatic difference between both pictures?

And thank u guys about the macro lens thingy. I understand now

 

[fixedimage]

That's just what I thought too. But say if given a 12mp camera and a 6mp camera. Both took landscape. The same picture and were resize to to the same size, will we see a dramatic difference between both pictures?

And thank u guys about the macro lens thingy. I understand now

Would depend what the same size they resized to was.
10x8, A3 etc not likely you'll see much difference.

 

[Tony Stark]

Would depend what the same size they resized to was.
10x8, A3 etc not likely you'll see much difference.

Thank u sir. Then my doubt is answered now. So I better off buy the sigma 85mm 1.4 for portraits then. But if money falls down from the sky, then I can go with the 85mm 1.4G

 

[EOS_JD]

The differences

aperture - 85 wins
closest focussing distance - macro wins
AF speed - 85 wins
Sharpness - Probably not a lot in it

As a portrait lens, the 85 would win but the macro is a good dual purpose lens.

 

[hollis_f]

I'm afraid Mr Rockwell is just as wrong abour smeggypickles as he is about everything else.

Assuming that blur caused by diffraction, camera shake and/or subject motion is smaller than the pixel pitch then more smeggypickles will alwys produce a more detailed image. If the blur is greater than that, then the higher-sensity sensor will produce an image equally as bad as a lower-density sensor - but no worse.