For clarity, it might be worth taking a half step back here. It seems to me there's a general question buried in Shlomi's original post, which perhaps has gotten obscured a bit by the discussion of specific products.
What do you do when DOF with a 35FF DSLR setup with macro lens at optimal aperture is inadequate for a three-dimensional object you need to photograph and would like to have completely sharp through its entire depth?
* Stop down further and accept the IQ loss to diffraction?
* Get a T/S lens or bellows with movements and try to position the plane of focus so that the ill effects of inadequate DOF are minimized?
* Move to medium format and stop down further?
* Stick with the original setup, recognizing that you can't always get what you want?
Practical experience with film teaches that especially in macro work, moving to a larger format is not always helpful when you want higher IQ but insufficient DOF is your main problem. Are the "sweet spots" and optimal tradeoffs different when the capture medium is digital rather than film? What would those of you who do lots of digital macro work say, based on your experience?
I shoot a ton of commercial close-up work, and as an executive art director commissioned 20 tons more. From jewelry and speciality items for high end premium catalogs, fashion accessories, watches, rare coins ... to electronic components and industrial parts, to fabric samples for the auto industry.
"Buried" in my initial questions to the OP and subsequent answer was my take on your final question above:
It all depends on the final application ... where it will be used and at what final size. The OP answered half the question: "internet and print" ... but didn't specify reproduction size in print ... which is a critical piece of missing information. There is a big difference between shots for a catalog, or for full page in a large format fashion magazine, or use for large retail display that will be viewed close up.
These are the practical considerations that are taken into consideration when any commercial photographer is charged with producing a final image of close work with everything in focus front to back.
For example, simply back off a medium format camera/lens for more DOF ... or use a shorter lens on a T/S view camera with a higher meg medium format back for more effective DOF ... the image may be smaller on the sensor than being right on top of the subject with a macro lens, but the results are still greater in resolution than any 35mm digital camera. In this case, size matters. I often use a 90mm Rodnestock to this end rather than my 120 macro. The back used was a 39 meg which can be had used now for less than a high meg DSLR. The lenses themselves are also a contributing factor to the final quality compared to even the finest MF lenses.
There are also limits which cannot be breached in one shot no matter what solution is employed. Not an overly frequent need, but it does happen.
In these cases either the layout has to be altered, or one must employ other special digital processing techniques that were not practical with film or didn't exist at all ... such as blending multiple shots with slightly different focus points ... as one example of this:Focus Stacking using Helicon Focus software: A one year demo license is only $30. to give it a try.
http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html
Or read this to do it yourself in Photoshop CS4:
http://davidsaffir.wordpress.com/20...es-in-photoshop-for-increased-depth-of-field/
The world of digital photography is truly amazing
-Marc