final nail in the coffin for me a93

is it to hard for you ? arnt you experienced enough ? id say no.

Do you even know what equivalent magnification is?
I see no evidence...
🥜🍿🍺

I don't give an aeronautical copulation about your opinion, idiot.

do you even own a microcope objective 🤔

Someone who can actually write English would have:

a) said "microscope" and

b) added a question mark to their really stupid question.

Why don't you just urinate off instead of flooding this site with illiterate misinformation?

Perhaps there's a more civil way to discuss this issue?

perhaps you can post some images like i have. you either can or you cant. its all about having fun and experimenting. what a stupid question someone just posted "do you know what eq mag is" 🤣🤣 the fov i shoot ranges from 2mm to 8mm 🤔😁

Its all good GB i can lift heavy fings 🤣🤣my daughter tells me all the time i cant spell. 😂😎

tell you a little storey GB, 30 years ago i skippered the most famous racing maxi yacht in the world. i arrived at a regatta and the news teams wanted to take some photos. on board 1 of my crew was regarded as the most powerfull man, "grinder in the world" Big Ben "clock" he seen this stunning young lady walking past and she was looking at him ,he gave her the "eye" and said, im not real smart but i can lift heavy fings, i nearly fell off the boat laughing. never forgot it.😎

trivia GB ,why does Olympus sell 18meg microscope cameras for low magnifacation microscopes and 5 meg cameras for high mangnifacation microscopes 🤔

science magazine add

Ultra high resolution microscopy cameras

GRYPHAX PROKYON: 2.3MP, 1/1.2″ colour sensor; 1920 x 1200 (scanning up to 20.7MP) resolution, 5.86um pixels, dynamic range 73.3 dB and global shutter.

[deleted]

will have to ask chat gpt 🤣🤣🙄 can someone post an image chat gpt has taken of a live spider at 10x 🤔

can you beleive that last night i was reading a pro macro site and the person stated that a 2.8 macro lens is used for low light macro shooting 🤣🤣

So one day, I'm walking from class and I see this amazing hottie. I mean, way the hell out of my league, but, nothing ventured nothing gained, right? So I walk up to her, and start talking (no memory of what I said -- it was a long time ago), but she's not responding -- at all. She's just smiling as I talk to her. Finally, I think I said something like, "So, wanna just go out to eat?" or something like that, but still no response -- just a smile. It was then, and only then, that I noticed her boyfriend was right next to her. Never even saw him -- thought she was walking by herself! Anyway, she was a goddess and the boyfriend was the type you'd expect a goddess to have. I looked at him and stammered something like, "Oh shit! I never even saw you! I am so sorry -- I didn't mean to be a dick! Just let me walk away and please don't hurt me!" They both laughed and I slinked away. Probably should have said that I could lift heavy things (which, ironically enough, at the time I could do!). 😁

Well, here's the thing, Don -- you're giving but one example, and you're making the assumption that this one example implies that fewer pixels resolves better than more pixels. It's like if I said that the 5.56mm x 45mm rifle round is used in more military weapons than the 7.62mm x 54mm rifle round and concluded that the lower energy/momentum of the former is more deadly than the higher energy/momentum of the latter, which is why it's used more, as opposed to saying the former is more than "good enough" for the intended purpose, generates less heat so the rate of fire can be higher, weighs less so soldiers can carry more rounds, and costs less overall.

Back to macro photography and MP, it's easy to understand that, due to diffraction, the benefit of more pixels is so far into diminishing returns that it doesn't really add much, whereas sensors with fewer pixels have other advantages, such as higher frame rates and/or lower cost. In short, you have noticed that a crop from the A7.4 had higher IQ than the whole of the photo from an A6300, and concluded that the reason was larger pixels, when there are so many other possible explanations, all of which you have not even considered.

OK, I'll play even though I haven't been interested in macro photography for the last 20 years or so and didn't bother to purchase an Oly macro lens when I switched from Nikon. So, to get the kind of magnification you're working at, I had to kludge together my old Tamron 90mm macro and 2x teleconverters. In front of those I reversed a Tamron 28-75mm zoom, set to 28mm (all Nikon mounts although the zoom was "mounted" by bubble gum and chicken wire so-to-speak since I didn't have an appropriate adapter. This Rube Goldberg monstrosity was attached to my Oly EM1iii via a Metabones focal reducer. My subject was a Cicada wing salvaged from a dead Cicada my grandson came across in our backyard. Lighting was a PITA given the necessity of positioning the lens set very close to the wing. The wing was rested on a ruler to give a sense of the magnification involved. Those are millimeter marks at the bottom of the shot. For comparison purposes, I've inserted a crop from Donald's a7iv wing shot posted [here]

(dprevived.com/media/attachments/5d/67/FOSduoWGudZm95BWPgIbdqefCJrP8gqVelbD27WwSWhk7mKGPuhSoL3M8FtbowiZ/a7iv-copy.jpg) and placed it next to a crop from my shot that was downsized so that the cilia appear to be approximately the same size:

Obviously, my shot isn't focus stacked, but all things considered (especially the fact that I was using those horribly tiny and "diffracted" micro4/3 pixels 😱 ), I was pleasantly surprised at the results.

Hopefully the foregoing suffices to satisfy your requirement, Donald. I realize that you continue to fail to grasp what all those microscope-related explanations are getting at when they talk about the relation between diffraction, resolution and "recommended" pixel size, so I'll try approaching the issue from a bit of a different direction. As a lapsed micro4/3 user, you'll probably recall the old Oly "lens cap" lens. It was a bit of a joke as a f/8 "prime" lens. The lens was mediocre to begin with and that's before considering the fact that, at f/8, it's clearly within the diffraction danger zone for the m4/3 format. If ever there was a lens/aperture combination that couldn't benefit from more/smaller pixels, that would be it, right? Well, consider the Sharpness results for the lens from DXOMark. It was tested with a bunch of Oly and Panny cameras that ranged from 12mp (e.g., the Oly EP2) to 20mp (e.g., the Oly EM1ii). Guess what? The highest P-Mpix and Accutance scores are achieved with the EM1ii (65.5 vs 57.8 center accutance and 7 P-Mpix vs 3 P-Mpix for the EP2). In the real world, shots taken with the Oly lens cap lens will be very mediocre, regardless of how many megapixels the camera has. The benefit of using a higher megapixel camera may be invisible or virtually invisible, but that's NOT the same as saying that the higher megapixel camera will produce images from that lens that are LESS sharp/LESS resolved than a lower megapixel camera. That's what this issue boils down to - i.e., the value and improvement in image resolution from higher megapixel cameras for ultra high magnification macro shots diminishes to the point of being virtually invisible but that doesn't mean that they are actually less sharp/resolved. And that's all that the literature you keep referring to is saying. It's just not worded particularly well. Here's another example that says it a bit better than the one you quoted (but it's still trying to deliver the same point about diminishing returns:

Hope this helps you understand what EVERYONE else in this thread is trying to explain. It's not a matter of all of us not owning microscope objectives, it's a matter of you not correctly understanding the source(s) of any differences you're seeing when you match your microscope objectives to different cameras.

Hey knickerhawk! Didn't know you posted here! In the quote from your link, I do take issue with the latter portion:

Given that light is being collected from a smaller area of the slide at higher magnifications, the larger pixels will also contribute towards increased sensitivity of the camera. This lends itself well to other applications where low light is an issue and high sensitivity is required.

This will be true if the aggregate electronic noise from the smaller pixels covering the same area as the larger pixels is greater than the electronic noise from the larger pixels covering the same area. If the electronic noise for a 1x1 pixel is half the electronic noise as a 2x2 pixel, then the electronic noise will be the same. I don't know how this pans out in practice, however. Regardless, this would only be an issue in very low light, and my understanding is that most microscopy is performed with copious amounts of light (either via longer total exposure time or large amounts of external light added) so that it is a non-issue.

Typically, with "normal" photography, even if the smaller pixels are intrinsically more noisy for a given area, noise filtering will work better on the more detailed photo resulting in an overall benefit for more smaller pixels, even when more intrinsically noisy. However, this presumes there is "enough" detail to gain the benefits of the noise filtering. For a photo that is deep in the realm of diffraction softening, there may not be enough detail for this benefit to be manifest beyond a certain pixel count.

circata hey. my wing was only 20 times smaller than yours 🤔 the wing frame on my shot was the size of a human hair. 😁

1/20th the size of a human hair

not even disscussing this any more GB as no one here has any experience shooting macro, its just wasting my time. you havent mentioned once the about how small light particals, are. you keep refering to normal lens, thats ok extreme macro is a specialist field. when anyone can post images like mine i will listern, other wise its a merry go round.

For some light relief from the on-going bombastic posts in this benighted thread, I asked AI:

• Is it possible to show a linear cross-section showing the light path from the object to the sensor?*

LOL:

Hilarious!

"macro" - where the object to image plane magnification is at least 1:1, such a shot commonly being called a "macro shot" by everybody but @DonaldB