Best test subject?

Hey guys, I'm planning to do a test which might be of interest to all of you. Since I have a bunch of different cameras at home, namely Canon 6D, Sigma SD1M & Olympus EM-5 (Also 600D and Sony A7 which might be of lesser interest), I am really interested in finding which sensor (both size and type) is best for macro photography.

But first, I need a good test subject, do you guys have any good recommendations? Preferably a common household item. Of course I would like to use a bug, but it would be impossible to standardize the test!
Also any recommendations of testing method? I have never done any standardized tests before.

Please let me know anything you guys want me to test as well. I'm gonna head out to buy a Venus 2X macro lens in Pentax K mount, it can be mounted on all my cameras.

Thanks in advance!!!

Depends on what you mean by best, but assuming you mean IQ or image definition rather than say High iso performance in lowish natural light, I would suggest a subject with plenty of small scale detail that you can then do 100% crops from. eg a butterfly wing or something similar.

Brian V.

Brian, you are spot on. I want to compare the sensors under full-flash conditions.
I think a butterfly wing would be an excellent test subject, but I'll just have to wait until I come a across a dead butterfly that is in good shape :P

Honestly I don't think it makes any difference. IMHO the goal of any photographer should be to produce photographs, and to that end I want the viewer to be looking at the frame as a whole and not at the individual pixels. If someone sees one of my images printed poster size and their first inclination is to look at it from a few inches away then I've failed as a photographer...

for macro, something very textured would be good. Maybe something like sand paper, where you can even draw lines or dots as markers. A fine threaded screw, small text printed on a piece of paper? Just throwing out some ideas

Dalantech wrote in post #17628127
Honestly I don't think it makes any difference. IMHO the goal of any photographer should be to produce photographs, and to that end I want the viewer to be looking at the frame as a whole and not at the individual pixels. If someone sees one of my images printed poster size and their first inclination is to look at it from a few inches away then I've failed as a photographer...

I think it does matter, the first reason is that us macro photographers are naturally filled with curiosity, and gaining more knowledge can only be a good thing. Second is that macro photography is vastly different from other photography genre. We are capturing things that can't be seen by the naked eye, and thus, at least for myself, I always want to see more. If a particular set of tools would enable me to see more, I'd happily pick that. Third, posting on the web / printing for others to see is one thing, examining pics on my own computer is another. I simply enjoy pixel peeping, counting hairs on a spiders' leg.

phantelope wrote in post #17628134
for macro, something very textured would be good. Maybe something like sand paper, where you can even draw lines or dots as markers. A fine threaded screw, small text printed on a piece of paper? Just throwing out some ideas

Thanks for the advice! But I suspect these items won't have enough detail to be examined at 1X to 2X magnification....

HoT.Shek wrote in post #17628526
Thanks for the advice! But I suspect these items won't have enough detail to be examined at 1X to 2X magnification....

You could try with just about anything. I am by no means a macro specialist; I just have fun shooting anything really such as ordinary objects around the house like snow on the cover of the freezer, only to discover that it was ice with lovely hexagonal structure, or oil drops on water. I have actually attached some examples for you to judge Have fun

How about a housefly?

HoT.Shek wrote in post #17628524
*snip* ...posting on the web / printing for others to see is one thing, examining pics on my own computer is another. I simply enjoy pixel peeping, counting hairs on a spiders' leg.

That's exactly where a lot of macro photographers get into trouble though -looking at their images at 100% pixels. The only time per pixel sharpness makes any difference is when you are looking at your own work, or when other people who pixel peep are looking at it. John Q. Public doesn't care cause he's going to be viewing your work edge to edge. I guess it depends on what "audience" you want to "play for". Keep in mind that no one prints 100% crops, saves them to their desktop as wall paper, and there are no 100% crop competitions...

The other reason why I don't care about equipment tests is that too many people think that it's the gear, and not the photographer, that makes the image. I've lost count of the number of times someone has seen my work, bought the same gear, and then became pissed off because good photos didn't magically jump into their camera. Ever time someone tells me that the want my MP-E 65mmm macro lens I tell them that what they really want is the eight years of experience that I have using it...

Sorry -not trying to pick on you. Just don't care what sensor is "best" because it really doesn't make any difference. The best equipment is whatever I have available when I'm trying to take a photo...

I agree, almost all wildlife photography is a compromise with real world factors. You only see the gear "performance" with test cases - this is hard to do consistently for macro anyway.

Sure if you want to shoot bug x or bird y it helps if your kit can frame the subject tightly enough.

But once you have that 5x macro-photo or 600mm tele it is down to getting as close as you can to the available hardware performance despite the real word issues.

The experience John mentions is about mitigating the real world issues in my mind.

You mentioned a "common household item"...

Well, for getting "great macro shots", that can be pretty limiting, although you can take some cool "abstract" shots around the house...BUT, if you are just wanting to test things out, then yeah, you can set yourself up...

One very common setup that people use to check on focus capabilities: they set up s few objects at different distances. A common example would be to stand several batteries up in a diagonal line, have the camera/lens on a tripod close to the minimum focus distance, and then take photos using your focus options, focusing on say the center object, and see how things behave, using a wide aperture/narrow depth of field, and switching from Auto Focus to Manual Focus, and changing your focus point from front-middle-back. This is a good way to test out new gear, whether for macro stuff or not!

Lester Wareham wrote in post #17634690
...The experience John mentions is about mitigating the real world issues in my mind.

That's exactly it. I could do an image deconstruction on my blog for the following image and the only gear issues that I'd mention is using the EF-S 60mm macro lens + extension tubes cause I wanted to keep the weight down -the vast majority of the article would be on technique and subject behavior.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/uXjK​yh