Are smaller pixels/sensors better for macro.

A7iv 6 x magnifacation. live tiny moth. the eye would be no more than .5mm 104 stacked images. 10 frames per/sec
please post your shots for discussion.

pin at 10 x mag sony A7iv 146 stacked images 10 frames per/sec

Great captures! I've done quite a bit of experimentation in the range between 5x to 15x on full frame but no real "tests" so to speak... because that's not really my strong suite.

My impression - just by looking at extreme macro images - is that APS-C is the most common sensor size among photographers heavily interested into this subject. There might be a scientific explanation why that's often preferable (pixel-size) but I think one of the most important factor is the coverage in terms of image circles. Many lenses/microscope objectives don't cover full-frame sensors and even if they do, quality drops significantly towards the edges. With APS-C that's not the case.

All that being said, I shoot full-frame exclusively and so far it worked out okay for what I'm going after:

A big drop is just around the corner... by simple.joy, auf Flickr

I'll try, so your color can be felt, pen! by simple.joy, auf Flickr

Dried and true by simple.joy, auf Flickr

Scale the wall to freedom? by simple.joy, auf Flickr

A tree within! by simple.joy, auf Flickr

Rose-tinted by simple.joy, auf Flickr

Happy berriesday by simple.joy, auf Flickr

All of those are between 5x and 15x I guess...

Perhaps some of the people with real knowledge about sensor and pixel size etc. here can explain why it seems like smaller sensors are preferable for macro shooting and if not, you can always try to look over at www.photomacrography.net/forum/

I'm sure this must have been discussed there multiple times in any detail imaginable...

One thing I'm curious about:

If you're shooting 10 frames per second, are you

a.) doing so handheld?
and
b.) what kind of light do you use?

Yes interesting one Don and nicely done.

Bob, diffraction seems to be not that important in macro. Yes it must be there, but doesn't seem to show it's head as much. I shoot high ratio macro and always at F/32. To get that I use a ring flash, but always at F/32 no matter what. It might have something to do with enlarging the details already. No doubt it's there, but not something I worry about when it comes to getting more DOF.

Red admiral, no cropping.

That's on APS-C.

From m4/3

Like I said, I would take DOF over diffraction.

I used a Canon FD 200 macro Don and also an FD 50mm. Finally I ended up with using a Canon FD 100-300 F/5.6L with a Raynox DCR-250 on front. Got rid of the macro lenses after that. The advantage with that setup is that it has a variable macro ratio.

When it comes to sensor size all work well, no doubt about it. We can always add extension tubes or a 1.4x TC, etc if we do use a larger sensor if needed. Also got a Canon bellows if needed, but really when we can always hit a 4:1 - 6:1 without it, do we need to worry too much. As you know there are plenty of other objectives that can be mounted, even the specialized Canon and Olympus bellow lenses (5-10x). So at the end of the day, sensor size doesn't come into as much as how you go about it mate.

Sensor size, all work at the end of the day.

I have a fairly unique setup for live subjects, i have a studio for my portraits so i made a micro studio for my live subjects. im using led 6x8 inch panel which works a treat. .but the most exciting thing about todays experiment is using my a74 which i hadnt used before. and what a surprise it can shoot at 10 frames using electronic shutter with no blackout 😁 first camera i have owned that can do this. i also move the subject not the camera like everyone else.

I needed to get off my backside as i hadnt shot any extreme macro for a while. you are quite right stacking FF images has taken away the advantage of the smaller sensors dof. But there is alot more effort needed to get the superior results. saying that the most fun macro camera i used when i started has to be the lumix fz150 with stacked canon closeup filters. it was a blast using the system in the field single handed while holding off camera diffused flashes in the other.
the other thing is when using microscope objectives your shooting at f4 so diffraction is a none issue but DoF at 10x is minute 100 frames per MM 😁

Thanks a lot! Yes - I've seen some setups which move the subject in studio, seems to work very well if everything is stable enough. The last part is my most significant problem at this stage. I don't have a completely stable floor, which has a significant impact. Wish you lots of fun with your A7 R4 macro experiments - I'm sure that's a blast! 👍

after my testing today with my a74 and stacking the images in Zerene i can say without a doubt that the a74 produces the sharpest most detailed extreme macro
images i have shot over the last 5 years. my a6300 was better than my em12 and em52 but the a74 is in its own league. when you stack images the software stacks detail and noise is detail. so with my m43 sensors it would take me hours to clean the images up from blobby noise. the a6300 was much better and so was my a7r2.
but after comparing images from all my past cameras using the same microscope objectives and lighting the a74 stacked image were basically noiseless before i took them into PS for final editing. i also think with the better seperation and less pixel bleeding zerene can stack the images more precisely as well. if you look at the moth i posted it has pixel level detail. ive never seen that before with my images.

tell me about it, a stable floor 🙄 my set up is completely mechanical and even though its very heavy and stable using mechanical shutter at 10 frames must add some shutter blur for sure. but today using a wire remoted and silent shutter was the ants pants. I use the old tea strainers to catch my bugs and spiders but being winter atm my favorite jumping spider trees were bare today 😌 but i did see a few webs so they are still around so maybe better luck tomorrow. i shoot them in a optical glass windowed cylinder that they run around in and i can rotate it to any position so i can pose them 😁 when im finished with them i have my fav spider tree where they breed and thrive , i havent done it for a while so im basically back to the start.
I love your work its very creative.

nice images mate.

heres one of my fav images from the em52 and the good old 14 150 olympus zoom. with canon closeup filters.

Some flys eyes.

comparrision between m43 and FF, the detail from the FF is so much more defined.

sample images

Having comparred the 3 systems m43, apsc, FF im not going to throw this image in the bin from the em12 😂🤨

Excellent - good luck finding some interesting ones!

Thanks a lot - glad you think so! You've shown a lot of high class images in a variety of genres. I appreciate the versatile and creative work!

Great captures! I get why you're shooting at f/32 and I agree that the drop in quality is insignificant enough a lot of the time without worry. Your combination of zoom lens + diopter seems like a great appraoch for outdoors.

Really outstanding shots - love the colors and wonderful details as well!

There isn't really any disadvantage for smaller sensors for macro with significant DOF, because that DOF means that you are operating within the range of practical equivalence. Many FF sensors do have more pixels though, than the typical smaller sensors used for macro (excluding things like 108MP cellphone sensors). Pixel size is only relevant in context. If smaller means more of them on-subject, then that is a plus. If one system has smaller pixels but puts less of them on-subject, then it has no advantage; just a resolution disadvantage.

That all assumes equivalent usage (same entrance pupil size and distance from subject).