Battle of the sensors (Part 1)

Hi guys, I just spent some time to do a comparison of different sensors. Sensor comparisons are everywhere, but what if we try them out from a macro-photography perspective? Things are a little different, since we face a different set of limitations than standard photography.


The contestants are (and their sensor specs):

1. Canon 6D:.......24mp FF,.......with AA filter,.............pi​xel pitch~6.54 microns,...pixel density 2.36 MP/cm2.

2. Oly E-M5:.........16mp M43,....with AA filter,.............pi​xel pitch~3.74 microns,...pixel density 7.15 MP/cm2.

3. Sigma SD1M:...15.4mp APSC FOVEON sensor,.....pixel pitch~4.99 microns,...pixel density 4.01 MP/cm2.

4. Sony A7r:.........36.4mp FF,.....NO AA filter,.............pi​xel pitch~4.86 microns,...pixel density 4.24 MP/cm2.

These sensors are vastly different, different sizes, different pixel densities, etc. (The Sigma FOVEON sensor is a completely different structure)

The test subject is a butterfly wing (heck, I waited months to finally find a dead butterfly on my window sil...)
The lens used is a Venus/Laowa 60mm 2x macro lens, which is in pentax mount and can be mounted to all 4 cameras via adapters. Regrettably, the sharpness of the lens is a bit lacking, but for the sake of comparability, I used it.

Strange as it sounds, the test result won't change which camera I use, coz I've already know what suits me best, but it's still interesting to learn more about these sensors, especially the following aspects:

1. Sharpness / Resolution
2. Diffraction limit
3. Presentable magnification

I've shot sets of pictures with different magnification and apertures, but before I post them, let's do a blind test first, which do you think is the best? (If you really want to know which camera it was, click on the Flickr link)

A

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/AbRv​1q

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Arao​Py

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/zwqM​KE

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/zwza​PT

I guess that if you're only concern is absolute image sharpness then you might care about the sensor performance. But there is so much more to taking a good photo than the sharpness of the pixels that I don't see how this kind of test is even remotely relevant. Sorry.

I use four different digital cameras, with four different sensors, for lots of different reasons. Sensor-based sharpness isn't even on my list of camera-selection criteria. When I choose to field my S-series P&S, I do so with its abilities and limitations in mind. Same for my 6D.

Dalantech wrote in post #17767800
I guess that if you're only concern is absolute image sharpness then you might care about the sensor performance. But there is so much more to taking a good photo than the sharpness of the pixels that I don't see how this kind of test is even remotely relevant. Sorry.

I remember that you said that gear is not important in my previous post, but ironically you're using the MP-E -- the ultimate tool for shooting Marco....I'd happily challenge you to shoot a Gobular Springtail with a 1:1 lens. I don't have the MP-E, so "cropability" is important to me.

But thank you anyways, you're right that this topic is remotely relevant, since there are barely any comments. And to be honest, it's irrelevant because there isn't too much difference between these sensor anyways. A good sensor is taken for granted these days. I have a 4mp 1D classic that I still use sparingly, to me, I am always in aw how good sensors are nowadays, testing them out is my form of respect and appreciation to technological progress, also a form of learning.

I see photography as a craft, and would surely want the best available tool. But as I've mentioned above, I won't change what I would use even after knowing the sensor differences, I know what suits me best.

Since there's totally lack of interest, there's no point of posting the full set of comparison.

HoT.Shek wrote in post #17772105
...but ironically you're using the MP-E -- the ultimate tool for shooting Marco....I'd happily challenge you to shoot a Gobular Springtail with a 1:1 lens. I don't have the MP-E, so "cropability" is important to me.

I have the MP-E 65mm because it's convenient, and I don't shoot small subjects with it at 5x (IMHO Gobular Springtails are kinda boring). But I also shoot with the EF-S 60mm + extension tubes -basically I use the tools that work for the shooting style that I'm using. To that end the quality of the sensor isn't even on my list of things to look for because just getting the photo is the important part. Absolute image sharpness is for people who only care about pixel peeping...

I guess I don't understand the comment that macro shooting introduces a new set of conditions/constraints vs other types of shooting?

- You have to stop down (which you do elsewhere)
- You want sharp IQ at nearly 100% (which most do for many other shots like landscapes, etc)
- You want to test diffraction, which can occur in a wide variety of situations

Macros are challenging more due to how you have to shoot and what you use to shoot, and not really more challenging around using different camera functions or types of cameras, etc. In other words, macro shooting is more challenging to the person than the sensor.

The test is good in the fact you used the same lens on all though, that is a great step that many forget about. To my eyes though, they are all quite similar, other than color and contrast being different. If you could somehow equalize the contrast and color settings, then the final results might show a larger difference. I think the last 2 look better than the first two, but the differences are quite small really.

Also as mentioned, if you want more than 1:1, you can use extension tubes to shorten working distance and get better than 1:1. However, you better have good lighting as you will be blocking quite a bit by time you get your lens really close to the subject.

This is as close as I have gotten to a butterfly. Fun subjects, if they would only be a bit more brave!

EXIF data would have been nice...

I must be missing something here...except for the difference in colors, I see no difference in the images.
They are too blurry to evaluate much of anything.

With the exception of shooting macros in studio, as TeamSpeed indicated, there is no difference in my technique...
everything gets stacked and merged, whether it be a Morning Dove or a Lily.
Everything is evaluated at 100%...my 3 foot images are "nose length" viewable.

Pixel-peeper paradise.

I don't see any difference between the shots that is worthy of note or that would compel me to buy one camera over another. But I'm neither a pixel-peeper nor a gear head.

joedlh wrote in post #17773108
...But I'm neither a pixel-peeper nor a gear head.

Add me to your number -I use whatever allows me to get the shot.