I've never done macro photography before, so this might be a silly question - but could you really get shots like this from a single DSLR image? Most macro photos I see have some part of the image in razor sharp focus, then a strong bokeh effect for the rest.
Macro photography in my limited experience is as much about technique as equipment. No matter the camera, with that level of magnification you have to stack the images to get that much of the subject in focus. You can increase the depth of focus using the Scheimpflug principle and a smaller aperture, but there are real physical limits to how much. Decreasing the diameter of the aperture is limited by diffraction -- the image becomes less sharp even if more is in focus.
you can use the same software this guy was using, and take multiple photos and stack them https://www.heliconsoft.com
the comment you're replying to was pointing out that using a camcorder and extracting stills from the video is a PITA, and it would be more straightforward to use a DSLR that can simply take stills. and they're right, but if the blackmagic was all this fellow had... well, it clearly worked well and a DSLR or mirrorless would've cost a few hundred dollars more.
since he was using a 3D printed adapter instead of buying one for $10, i can only assume he blew his entire budget on the blackmagic hardware.
The actual article said he didn't want to wait for 4 weeks while something shipped from China, so he 3D printed. Nothing implied not being able to afford a $10 part.
I would also stipulate that someone with a BMD 6K camera has other cameras as well. The BMD is typically the upgraded to vs started with type of camera. Sure, edge cases and what not
Not from a single image. The reason for the set up is to obtain many images at different focal distances. That can be done by either moving the camera (of any kind) or by changing the focus for each image.
Typically, it is not done by adjusting focus, and uses a sliding rig to change the position of the focal plane. For most camera lenses, the precision of the focus ring mechanism is too dodgy to precisely change the focus. With the slider, the focus ring is left alone, and the precision of the slider is use to bring the next "layer" into focus. The author even commented on the slider he used was not as precise due to it being belt driven and that switching to a lead screw system would have provided more accuracy.
Communicating directly with the lens' focus motors does sound more appealing and more compact than a sliding rig. However, "Helicon FB Tube automatically shifts the focus by one step with each shot thus producing a stack of images of unlimited length that can be rendered into a fully-focused image." That would mean that it is waiting for a shutter release type of signal from the camera body which would not be useful in shooting video as the original article's workflow.
According to a web page I found from 5-minute googling[1]:
Depth of Field[mm] = (2 * u^2 * N * c )/ f^2
where:
u = distance to object[mm], N = f number(focal length divided by effective aperture diameter), c = diameter of acceptable circle of confusion[mm], f = focal length[mm]
Assume Sony A7M4 with Milvus 2/100: let u, N, c, f = (160mm, f/22, 4um, 100mm): DoF = 0.396mm ~ 1/3rd of a penny thick
The answer is no, not possible without focus stacking. But focus stacking is a SLR technique anyway, so the part that he's flexing his fancy camera a bit is true.
I think the flex here is photographic quality images from a video camera. 6000 pixels across is a higher resolution than the top digital cameras from a few years ago. Combine that with an easy way to extract hundreds of frames which can be stacked and you have a relatively simple way to create these deep macro photos. Similar techniques (e.g. lucky imaging) have been used for years by astro-photographers even in the days of 320x240 webcams.
It’s a mirrorless with 24MP APS-C sensor. Top mirrorless from a decade ago already had 24MP APS-C sensors. Top smartphone from a decade ago had better resolution(41MP).
I’m not saying the camera can’t be impressive, I’m saying you’re vomiting marketing script.
I'm not doing anyone's vomiting for them. I'm not in the target market here. There's no way I'm dropping $2000 on a camera that shoots only video.
As far as marketing goes, 41MP of noisy pixels from a 1/1.2" 2012-vintage sensor is not comparable to 24MP from today's APS-C sensors. Here's an image sample linked from a DPReview article from 2013 to get my point across.
