5 ms·

This is a fixed issue in cameras. Stop down to F16, and use a ring flash, there you go, fixed.

by sudosysgen 5y ago

bosie 5y ago
i assume fixed at 24mm because at 90mm, stopping it down to f16 won't do you much good?
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Yes, somewhere around 24mm. You'd need to step down a bit more at 90mm. However, at 90mm the object would also be farther away, so you wouldn't need to stop down a lot more than you'd expect.
  - bosie 5y ago
    at 90mm (at 1:1 or higher magnification) stepping down will not solve the issue, you still need to heavily focus stack.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      If you want to take the images in the article of a ~6mm object even at 90mm stopping down would be possible. You'd be putting the object at around 18cm instead of 2cm though.
ValentineC 5y ago
Wouldn't this also involve needing to use a tripod?
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Not necessarily, no. If you want a pin-sharp image at 48MP yes, but if you want something comparable to the iPhone jacking up the shutter speed to 1/400 makes it manageable handheld with good stabilization.
defaultname 5y ago
Few who have ever taken macro photographs would claim this is a "fixed issue". Macro photography is a giant pain. Further the difference between a 4mm focal length and a 50mm focal length, as a function of DoF, is massively larger than that 50mm going between f2.8 to f16. You'd have to go to a hypothetical F/512 to get the same advantage in that particular realm (though in reality small apertures suffer from their own problems). This is basic math. It's interesting that someone else claimed it's "physics" as a retort, when yes indeed it IS physics. It's why you can make a tiny lens fixed focus camera that seems to have everything in focus, from near to far, because the DoF becomes enormous.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  I have a macro lens in my hands and a stabilized sensor camera. I can take a picture of the crown of my watch with a fair amount of detail. You have a 4mm lens at f/2. To get the same depth of field you'd need a 50mm lens at f/25, not f/512. You don't need to use a 50mm lens though. Macro lenses are typically 24mm or so. So you need to shoot at F12 to have the same depth of field in reality, certainly not f/512... And my camera actually moves the sensor AND the lens instead of just the lens. Because of that it can stabilize in the near field MUCH more efficiently than an iPhone ever could.
  - defaultname 5y ago
    "You have a 4mm lens at f/2. To get the same depth of field you'd need a 50mm lens at f/25, not f/512." Humorously years back I had authored a giant depth of field essay with online calculators specifically because so many people just couldn't understand why their iPhone couldn't get bokeh. Yes, f/512 would be the impossible equivalent. This is easily calculated. Regardless, the lens Apple uses for macro mode has a 1.54mm focal length. The 4mm example was just demonstrating how fundamentally small cameras win on depth of field, at least if you want maximal depth of field. Conversely they lose when you want to limit depth of field, which is why we have computational bokeh. "Macro lenses are typically 24mm or so." The smallest from most makers is 35mm, but the majority are 50mm+. This conversation has turned weird. As someone who has had many SLRs, and many lenses, and has taken thousands of macro photos, I know that in the real world macro photography is a massive pain. That DoF is by far the number one obstacle (which is why focus stacking is simply necessary, often with ten or more varied focuses). Physics benefits small camera systems for that specific scenario.
sbierwagen 5y ago
Not on a full frame 35mm sensor it won't.

This is a fixed issue in cameras. Stop down to F16, and use a ring flash, there you go, fixed.

bosie 5y ago

i assume fixed at 24mm because at 90mm, stopping it down to f16 won't do you much good?

sudosysgen 5y ago
Yes, somewhere around 24mm. You'd need to step down a bit more at 90mm. However, at 90mm the object would also be farther away, so you wouldn't need to stop down a lot more than you'd expect.
- bosie 5y ago
  at 90mm (at 1:1 or higher magnification) stepping down will not solve the issue, you still need to heavily focus stack.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    If you want to take the images in the article of a ~6mm object even at 90mm stopping down would be possible. You'd be putting the object at around 18cm instead of 2cm though.

ValentineC 5y ago

Wouldn't this also involve needing to use a tripod?

sudosysgen 5y ago
Not necessarily, no. If you want a pin-sharp image at 48MP yes, but if you want something comparable to the iPhone jacking up the shutter speed to 1/400 makes it manageable handheld with good stabilization.

defaultname 5y ago

Few who have ever taken macro photographs would claim this is a "fixed issue". Macro photography is a giant pain. Further the difference between a 4mm focal length and a 50mm focal length, as a function of DoF, is massively larger than that 50mm going between f2.8 to f16. You'd have to go to a hypothetical F/512 to get the same advantage in that particular realm (though in reality small apertures suffer from their own problems). This is basic math. It's interesting that someone else claimed it's "physics" as a retort, when yes indeed it IS physics. It's why you can make a tiny lens fixed focus camera that seems to have everything in focus, from near to far, because the DoF becomes enormous.

sudosysgen 5y ago
I have a macro lens in my hands and a stabilized sensor camera. I can take a picture of the crown of my watch with a fair amount of detail. You have a 4mm lens at f/2. To get the same depth of field you'd need a 50mm lens at f/25, not f/512. You don't need to use a 50mm lens though. Macro lenses are typically 24mm or so. So you need to shoot at F12 to have the same depth of field in reality, certainly not f/512... And my camera actually moves the sensor AND the lens instead of just the lens. Because of that it can stabilize in the near field MUCH more efficiently than an iPhone ever could.
- defaultname 5y ago
  "You have a 4mm lens at f/2. To get the same depth of field you'd need a 50mm lens at f/25, not f/512." Humorously years back I had authored a giant depth of field essay with online calculators specifically because so many people just couldn't understand why their iPhone couldn't get bokeh. Yes, f/512 would be the impossible equivalent. This is easily calculated. Regardless, the lens Apple uses for macro mode has a 1.54mm focal length. The 4mm example was just demonstrating how fundamentally small cameras win on depth of field, at least if you want maximal depth of field. Conversely they lose when you want to limit depth of field, which is why we have computational bokeh. "Macro lenses are typically 24mm or so." The smallest from most makers is 35mm, but the majority are 50mm+. This conversation has turned weird. As someone who has had many SLRs, and many lenses, and has taken thousands of macro photos, I know that in the real world macro photography is a massive pain. That DoF is by far the number one obstacle (which is why focus stacking is simply necessary, often with ten or more varied focuses). Physics benefits small camera systems for that specific scenario.

sbierwagen 5y ago

Not on a full frame 35mm sensor it won't.