First Pentax MF

When I do macro work, I stack, either with a Cognisys rail or focus bracketing.

I agree .larger sensor is much better for stacking extreme macro work. the larger sensor and larger pixels produce less noise than the m43 sensors. when you stack say 40 images using zerene the program stacks the noise into blobs and very hard to remove. i find my sony a6300 stacked images much cleaner and sharper detail and basically no noise removal needed at all at mags of 10x and 4x. havent put my a7iv to the test yet it has even bigger pixels. the a7r2 was basially the same as the a6300. dont get me wrong i have taken some great images with m43 but apsc and FF for macro is better, smaller sensors are easier to shoot macro and get good results ,but for ultimate IQ larger is better.

Pixel size has very little to do with it.

do with what ? stacking a clean image ?

Start a thread, if interested.

Not interested just shot a 6x live bug with my A7iv. larger pixels win hands down. the most detail and noise free extreme macro i have shot to date ,and i mean pixel level sharpness 😎😁😜

quick and dirty test shot.

You are wrong again.
Ciao.

At best that can be considered just your opinion and nothing more because you haven't posted anything that you compared it to in order to come to that conclusion and secondly because you are a proven liar on these forums.

Who knows where that image actually came from and what post processing and editing might have been applied to it after the raw data was acquired 😀

The beauty of a CCD sensor is all pixels are exposed simultaneously and the exposure is halted and the data is “marched” off sensor for the ADC and follow on digital processing. That is a global shutter. It will be awhile before CMOS sensors have global shutters.

this technique is above your pay grade.

The technique itself is not being questioned.

It is the quality of its execution and the source of the actual image that is doubtful 😎😎 given your history here and on dpreview.

@Maoby I'm not comparing picture quality of a Disc camera to that of a FF EOS. Obviously the EOS wins. What I'm saying is the Canon is bigger than many medium format cameras, but only manages to expose a 24x36mm rectangle. The film/sensor size compared to camera size is inefficient. There may be good reasons for the inefficiency, but it still is a measure of camera design.
Thanks,
barondla

Thank you for your enlightening comment 👍🏻

But all the monoblocs of the time (DSLR) had considerable volume.

Canon EOS-1D (2001) / Nikon D1x (2001) by Marc Aubry, sur Flickr

Canon EOS-1D (2001) / Nikon D1x (2001) by Marc Aubry, sur Flickr

What's more, the Canon EOS-1D is equipped with an APS-H sensor, and the Nikon D1x has an even smaller APS-C sensor.

And if we go back even further in time, the EOS DCS 5c has a 1" mini sensor with a multiplication factor of 2.6x.

Here it's the EOS-1D MK IV that looks tiny. 😄

Kodak Canon EOS-1n DCS 5c (1997) / Canon EOS-1D Mark IV (2009) by Marc Aubry, sur Flickr