Well, just to split my half hair, if the spheric seed is opaque, you cannot see from any angle more than half of it, so you only need half inch of depth of field

The question of the OP I think can be generalized beyond the macro field. If you use a 200 mm lens, on whichever camera, to take a shot of a landscape, and there is a certain bell tower in this landscape, the absolute size of the bell tower on the film will be the same regardless of the dimension of the photogram. On an APS, 135, 120, or LF film, given a certain focal lenght, the dimension of the object is the same, and the DOF is the same.

We have the "impression" 200mm is more a tele in a small format because we don't get, and don't print, all what would have been "around" the bell tower.

So if you use a 200 mm with a 4"x5" and with a 135, if you only print a 24x36 portion of your 4"x5" film, you have the exact same results.

The same applies to macro photography. So, strictly speaking you need a larger format than 24 x 36 only if you need a 1:1 reproduction, on film, of a subject that is "bigger than 24 x 36". (Or you need LF because you need movements and it is easier with LF).

At the end of the day, you can always use LF with movements, take a LF picture, and only print a 24x36 portion of it, but you will have used the Scheimpflug law.

Post #3 seems to suggest that maybe the OP deems that the actual f/value of 44 has an influence on the DOF. If this is the case, I'd like to say that to my (quite imperfect) knowledge, it has not. The light fall caused by extension tubes, bellows, or teleconverters, is not accompanied by a correspondent DOF increase, nor by a correspondent diffraction increase, because DOF and diffraction, as far as I know, depend on diaphragm aperture.

Fabrizio