Need a little advice for an unusual situation

[JBW]

Brian,

Sorry to hear that your mobility is limited. That's how I got started with macro. I was fortunate: surgery fixed me well enough that I am mobile again. However, I was hooked, and I still do more macro than anything else.

I agree with Randy. I don't think 14 MP will hold you back. Magnification will. I don't know what your budget is, but I think there really isn't a good alternative to an SLR with a macro lens. The good news, however, is that it doesn't matter all that much what SLR you use. Macro doesn't require a lot of fancy features, and a lot of very good macro photography is done with Canon's entry level Rebels.

I don't know what your budget is, but if you were here in the states, I would recommend looking at used gear from a reputable vendor like KEH. I just checked, and you can get a Rebel T3i (18 MP) and a canon 100mm macro lens (not the L model), both in excellent condition, for about $700 for the pair. They ship internationally, but I have no idea what the rates would be. You could e-mail them to find out (www.keh.com).

A camera of this sort would offer you a number of advantages. It would give you 1:1 magnification, which is enough for a lot of macro work. Once you are really comfortable at the 1:1 magnification it offers, you may well want more. It is cheap to get higher magnification by adding extension tubes.

Recognizing that you are on a budget and may not be able to get all this, here what my long-term macro wish list would be, for a no-frills but flexible setup. I'll put them in what I think is priority order, if bugs are the focus (no pun intended):

1. an SLR body and one dedicated macro lens, probably 100mm. Longer gives you more reach, but longer lenses are more expensive and much heavier, and they are not useful for table-top work.
2. A flash, with a home-made diffuser. This is extremely helpful for bugs. Mine looks sort of like this. My flash is a Canon 430 EX II.
3. A monopod with a tilt head for chasing bugs. It's hard to hold the equipment steady enough without some support, particularly if you add a flash. Brian Valentine, one of the best macro photographers, just uses a stick. A cheap but adequate lightweight monopod with a lightweight tilt head can be had here for under $100 for the pair. (I have an extra, a never used Oben [B&H] aluminum monopod and a Benro head, that I would happily sell, but shipping to the Philippines might cost nearly as much as they are worth.)
4. A tripod, if you decide to do flower macros, especially indoors. (In a hot setting, bugs don't usually stay put long enough for me to get my tripod set up.)

Dan

Hi Dan, shipping is the killer. That and paying off the occasional dishonest customs or postal employee. I am getting mixed messages re a DSLR versus a top end bridge. Some claim that because the bridge has a smaller sensor it has a deeper DOF and is actually better for macro.

My home made diffuser is a pair of baby mittens placed over my flash. Not quite world class but it works reasonably if the distance is enough.

I just took a look at Lord V's flicker site. That is definitely what I mean by a significant improvement. I am certain that no matter how I hone my skills some of those shots are simply beyond my camera's capabilities. But at least my bamboo stick is right up there in the tech department.I have been thinking about a new stick with a screw in the top.

The good news is that the local shops sell new Nikon D5100's with a few odds and sods thrown in for about P30,000 which pushes the budget but it would give me a good camera that would not need replacing and would accept lenses.

[chauncey]

I am not a purist with regards to bugs and, would not hesitate to capture the little suckers and chill them in the refrigerator to slow down their movements then, shoot them at the kitchen table in a contrived environment. That would allow a" photo-stacking" technique to be employed to counteract depth of field issues prevalent in macro photography. Severe cropping, as you know, is the only other way to counteract those DOF issues. "Severe cropping" means a higher MP camera, over 18, and, more importantly, a superior macro lens.
Last item, invest $10 a month and get Photoshop/Lightroom CC for your PP. IMHO

[Saorsa]

The Nikon D5xxx series would be good for macro because of the articulated screen. This allows for greater freedom in camera position when you can't get there yourself. If you get it with a kit lens though you won't be adding to macro capabilities since they don't focus all that close.

[DanK]

Brian,

Some claim that because the bridge has a smaller sensor it has a deeper DOF and is actually better for macro.

This is correct, although there are tradeoffs. I dithered for many months before my last purchase of a camera, and that was one of my issues: moving to a larger sensor actually has some disadvantages for macro. However, you have to evaluate this in the context of the noise characteristics of the sensors. I don't know anything about bridge cameras, but when you compare crop-sensor to FF DSLRs, the much better low-light capabilities of the FF offset the shallower DOF--you can boost the ISO and shut down the lens further.

The other way that sensor size affects macro is that 1:1 macro is one of the only situations I encounter where higher pixel density is actually an advantage, and in many cases, smaller sensors have higher pixel density. This only matters if you are approaching or passing 1:1 magnification. At 1:1, a bug of any size casts a life-size image on the sensor. The higher the pixel density, the pixels there will be on that life-size image, and the more you can crop. For example, I have both a new FF body and an old crop-sensor body. The newer FF has more pixels in total, but lower pixel density. Factoring in both of these considerations, a given 1:1 image has approximately 74% as many pixels on the FF as on the crop. Of course, this advantage of a small sensor comes with the disadvantages of high density and small photosites.

Re Nikon: can't offer any specific suggestions there, as I know virtually nothing about Nikons. However, I would expect the same principle to hold: any of their current models, even the less expensive ones, should be able to produce very good macros. To make that concrete, I'll post a couple of pictures I took several years ago with a Rebel XTi (400D), a body much less capable than today's Rebels.

Dan

[inkista]

This is just me, but I think lens reversal is called for, not a new camera, given the OP's statement that a dSLR+macro lens is probably not in the budget.

A Russian photographer recently made the rounds for his home-made DIY macro snowflake setup using an old Canon Powershot A650 and an M42 Helios 44 (clicky).

All you need to do is get an old manual SLR lens on the cheap, and reverse it in front of your current camera's lens. The reason you want to use an old SLR lens is because the glass will be much higher quality than you could get out of a close-up filter, but it's essentially doing the same job as a close-up filter when you turn the lens around backwards.

I just grabbed my S90 and an old Olympus OM-mount 50mm f/1.8 [used to be $10 on the used market, but after the HD video revolution, it's closer to $50 these days] and just rested the front of the S90 against the UV filter on the 50/1.8 to shoot some tiny flowers on my potted rosemary.

Here's the closest I could get with the S90 unaided (lens zoomed all the way out, macro mode, stopped down to f/5.6 for DoF) [click on attachment to see larger size]:
untitled shoot-3989.jpg

And here's what adding a backwards OM Zuiko 50/1.8 in front of the S90 let me do:
untitled shoot-3996.jpg

Obviously, you'll need a tripod (and maybe some flash), so you won't have to up the ISO like I did to get a decent handholding shutter speed and to control where the DoF falls more accurately (but both of those would still be the case with a dSLR). And you need to put together a rig to align the lens and your camera's lens so the edge of the lens's aperture won't cause a vignette. But proof of concept.

The main tradeoff here, vs. getting one of the big guns and a dedicated macro lens, is that your focus range is very limited. You typically don't frame and then focus. You focus by adjusting the camera-to-subject distance.

And let's face it. Nobody does macro like Lord V. That guy, as far as I'm concerned, was the reason most of us know what focus stacking is.

[ajohnw]

I suspect Brian's problem may be down to distance from lens to subject - light etc so he has to crop a lot or maybe reduces the size by a fair amount to improve quality or a combination of both. The only solution to these problems really is a bigger sensor. I don't think that more pixels on the same sensor size would help that much.

The problem really if this is the case is that bridge cameras have tended to go super zoom which encourages small sensors. There are some compacts about that have gone up in sensor size of late but I'm not sure if macro facilities are still available on them. There have been rumours about bridge cameras with bigger sensors but as far as I know it hasn't happened.

John
-

[Saorsa]

I looked up the specs on his s4200 and the macro capability shows 2cm as close focus.

The problem with using AF there is that a move of only a millimetre or so will cause the AF to try again, and again, and again. Given the focus range of the camera, this can take a while and be very frustrating.

That's why I suggested focussing at minimum distance manually and moving the camera. The thing is, I don't know if it has a manual focus setting.

[jcuknz]

Since we know that you can only work at 2cm at the wide end of the zoom or else you get 'fuzzies' the logical and cheaper option is to get a moderate close-up lens which will change the focus range of the lens from infinity and closer down to perhaps 20 inches and you use the zoom to get the tight framing in a way that you have not been able to to date. You definitekly do NOT need a new camera until you discover the unlikely result that the CU lens doesn't work for you.

You have a bridge camera and the way bridge cameras with their longer lenses work is to use a CU lens to enable the zoom to be used .... the difference between your current 16Mp and anything bigger will be very marginal and highly questionable for somebody with limited finances.

Kathy's suggestion of a reversed lens is a DSLR solution and there are several reasons why it would be totally unsuitable for your bridge camera. I am suggesting a two dioptre CU lens ... using camera lens will be like adding a 15 or 20 dioptre CU lens ... sounds wonderful doesn't it ... until you try it and find there are various compatibility isses which Urban wrote about awhile back ... been there .... it is NOT a solution

The 2 dioptre CU lens is my most used and virtually only accessory to fit either my bridge camera or MFT that I use. You have a 570mm AoV lens and a 2D will be ample for the job whereas with MFT I only have a 280mm AoV lens and to match what I am used to I now need a four dioptre [ arriving 26 January ... fingers crossed no further delay ... supposed to have arrived September ] My bridge camera beeing an older model is only 432mm AoV unlike the newer Panasonic FZ70 which would probably/possibly give you 'true macro' with a 6mm object filling the 6mm sensor with its 1200mm AoV lens ....

Along with the CU lens the next purchase should be a good and steady trripod and I hope your problems do not prohibit its use.

[jcuknz]

The use of a 'camera lens reveersed' brings up the need for a way of holding it in front of the camera lens and I am pretty sure that would be an undesirable practice without something like I organsied for my original Nikon 5700 with its 'tromboning' lens [ unlike the fixed lenses of my FZ30 and current FZ50].

The Nikon is only a 280 AoV lens and it was a compatible coupling with the f/1.8 50mm Takumar lens




The most often problem with your otherwise excellent results to date has been a lack of Depth of Field and this is best solved by using more of the pixels available in your small sensor by working from further back, but without cropping ... going in closer will only compound the problem. In the above example you can see how little DoF I have ... an in teresting experiment and exercise in the workshop which I have never used in practice ... the 2 dioptre on the 432mm AoV lens handles all my needs .... and I also have extension tubes and bellows available to me if they were a better way to work .... they are not ... so gather dust somewhere around the place

[jcuknz]

One of the popular mythologies of photography is that the small sensor has greater depth of field than larger cameras ..... that is only true* with 'normal' distance photography .... it is no longer true when we come to big close-up work where "The DoF remains the same for a given image size irrespective of the focal length" which is why the use of the longer lens in both bridge and larger sensored cameras works for us. I used to think that the P&S was superior until I remembered that fact which I first found explained by a Kodak publication although long before I had worked it out by drawing diagrams ... it was nice to have one's own efforts confirmed by the 'experts'

* Maybe .... I suspect it remains the same at all distances but have not tested that or read anything on the subject ... but it seems illogical that it should change with the subject to camera distance.

[jcuknz]

On the subject of flash I have found my on-board works well when the long end of the zoom is used becuase the shadow of the lens is out of the field of view and occasionally when it is a very small subject, or not using as much zoom, the shadow is out of the usable area.



The flash remains on minus one stop 7/24 which I believe helps to avoid over exposure at close distances.
I was sitting at the breakfast bar when I glanced down to see this HUGE fellow beside me.
G3 with 14-140 at 140mm with a two dioptre.

[JBW]

I am not a purist with regards to bugs and, would not hesitate to capture the little suckers and chill them in the refrigerator to slow down their movements then, shoot them at the kitchen table in a contrived environment. That would allow a" photo-stacking" technique to be employed to counteract depth of field issues prevalent in macro photography. Severe cropping, as you know, is the only other way to counteract those DOF issues. "Severe cropping" means a higher MP camera, over 18, and, more importantly, a superior macro lens.
Last item, invest $10 a month and get Photoshop/Lightroom CC for your PP. IMHO

I am hardly a purist in anything but I try not to disturb the beasties and putting them in the fridge would (to me) be disturbing them.

The superior macro lens and over 18 are a possibuility.
B

[JBW]

The use of a 'camera lens reveersed' brings up the need for a way of holding it in front of the camera lens and I am pretty sure that would be an undesirable practice without something like I organsied for my original Nikon 5700 with its 'tromboning' lens [ unlike the fixed lenses of my FZ30 and current FZ50].

The Nikon is only a 280 AoV lens and it was a compatible coupling with the f/1.8 50mm Takumar lens




The most often problem with your otherwise excellent results to date has been a lack of Depth of Field and this is best solved by using more of the pixels available in your small sensor by working from further back, but without cropping ... going in closer will only compound the problem. In the above example you can see how little DoF I have ... an in teresting experiment and exercise in the workshop which I have never used in practice ... the 2 dioptre on the 432mm AoV lens handles all my needs .... and I also have extension tubes and bellows available to me if they were a better way to work .... they are not ... so gather dust somewhere around the place

it is pre coffee but if I understand you I would get better dof using macro and super macro further back than right up close?
B

[JBW]

I suspect Brian's problem may be down to distance from lens to subject - light etc so he has to crop a lot or maybe reduces the size by a fair amount to improve quality or a combination of both. The only solution to these problems really is a bigger sensor. I don't think that more pixels on the same sensor size would help that much.

The problem really if this is the case is that bridge cameras have tended to go super zoom which encourages small sensors. There are some compacts about that have gone up in sensor size of late but I'm not sure if macro facilities are still available on them. There have been rumours about bridge cameras with bigger sensors but as far as I know it hasn't happened.

John
-

there seems to be a definite line of thought developing that a larger sensor may be at least as important as more pixels?

[ajohnw]

One of the popular mythologies of photography is that the small sensor has greater depth of field than larger cameras ..... that is only true* with 'normal' distance photography .... it is no longer true when we come to big close-up work where "The DoF remains the same for a given image size irrespective of the focal length" which is why the use of the longer lens in both bridge and larger sensored cameras works for us. I used to think that the P&S was superior until I remembered that fact which I first found explained by a Kodak publication although long before I had worked it out by drawing diagrams ... it was nice to have one's own efforts confirmed by the 'experts'

* Maybe .... I suspect it remains the same at all distances but have not tested that or read anything on the subject ... but it seems illogical that it should change with the subject to camera distance.

I've had problems at times with M 4/3 in a similar fashion. The depth of field in full frame terms produces the same sized circle of confusion at the extremes of field what ever the size of the sensor. Problem - the circle has to be scaled according to the size of the sensor for the same sized final image because the magnification needed to get to that size is greater.

John
-

[flashback]

Brian,

At this juncture maybe you need to ask yourself what exactly it is that you hope to accomplish.
You don't want to disturb the critters yet, isn't your mere presence a disturbance to them? Are you using flash (spider have 8 eyes typically so imagine that flash blindness)? Are you moving foliage to garner a better (unobstructed) view? Are they exposed to greater/lesser sunlight? Does your presence/photography cause any of them to walk/run/jump/fly away? Answer yes to any of the above and I suspect you are already a disturbance in their force. My point? As has been suggested, chilling them down and shooting them under more controlled conditions can get you those shots you're after without any (additional) harm. Unless we're delving into a philosophical or moral dilemma, in which case, should you even be shooting them

[jcuknz]

there seems to be a definite line of thought developing that a larger sensor may be at least as important as more pixels?

It depends on what you intend to do with your photos ... currently apart from the lack of a CU lens you have what you need to do what you are showing us.
To repeat what I said earlier more positively .... the more you crop the more pixels you are throwing away ... if you can fill the sensor with your subject you are using more of the available pixels. As a small sensor shooter I have noticed a distinct tendancy of larger sensor owners to shoot wide ... probably becuase the cameras are not inherently designed to be used for close work without usually expensive accessories ... also owners lack the discipline of selection which I was forced to learn by using smaller formats. Princply when I used 8mm movie film in contest with 16mm and then later in TV using 16mm bearing in mind the degredation that came from the analog signal being rebroadcast down the chain of repeaters.

Whatever ... the larger sensor with its larger individual pixels will be useful in low light situations and provided the camera is capable the larger sensor will produce better pictures from a technical point of view. On the other hand the larger sensor requires longer lenses with reduced depth of field ... though on that bear in mind my statement about 'same sized images= same DoF' ... I am not sure I have resolved the two statements in my own mind yet.

I am a confirmed believer that the bridge camera is the 'digital camera', a type which wasn't around in film days, and my solution to the small sensor problem was to go to MFT with the only zoom lens available ... a rather expensive exercise it turned out to be though prices have come down somewhat since I spent up.

So unless you have ideas for other uses of your photos, and you should be able to make good 12x10 inch prints when you use most of the pixels, with the exception of the CU lens you have what you need and I hope you will not strain your finances by thinking the typical newbie thought that more expensive gear will produce better results. It is you that counts and you seem to have learnt it well to date.

When you end up with your cropped image work out the pixel count of it and subtract from the 16Mp and you will see how few you are actually using ... any crop very quickly becomes very wasteful of resources

[JBW]

It depends on what you intend to do with your photos ... currently apart from the lack of a CU lens you have what you need to do what you are showing us.

I am a confirmed believer that the bridge camera is the 'digital camera', a type which wasn't around in film days, and my solution to the small sensor problem was to go to MFT with the only zoom lens available ... a rather expensive exercise it turned out to be though prices have come down somewhat since I spent up.

So unless you have ideas for other uses of your photos, and you should be able to make good 12x10 inch prints when you use most of the pixels, with the exception of the CU lens you have what you need and I hope you will not strain your finances by thinking the typical newbie thought that more expensive gear will produce better results. It is you that counts and you seem to have learnt it well to date.

When you end up with your cropped image work out the pixel count of it and subtract from the 16Mp and you will see how few you are actually using ... any crop very quickly becomes very wasteful of resources

This whole discussion has been quite an education for me. This morning the sun was shining and I went out to experiment. I did NOT move in as close as I usually do, I took out a seat and made myself very stable with seat and stick. because I was further back I still needed to crop more than I wanted but it was the only way to show the detail. I think it is as sharp a shot as I have gotten yet. I also think the DOF improved with being further back.

[FrankMi]

It's good to see you applying what you are learning and trying fresh approaches Brian!

[jcuknz]

it is pre coffee but if I understand you I would get better dof using macro and super macro further back than right up close?
B

Not sure what you mean by 'macro and super macro' but Grahame pointed out to us a while back and I proved it to my own satisfaction with a not very good test which I wont re-post .... for equivalent image size you get more DoF from someway back ... Grahame explained the maths which went over my head so maybe he will repeat or you can find his post. Although you are throwing away pixels by cropping you get more DoF. Like many things in photography it is a question of balancing the pros and cons for the acceptable result.

Kathy's comment about stacking is another way though how we manage this with our particular gear remains a question and my feeble attempts to date have stopped at the camera but I hope to resolve my problems one day.

My first 'stack' was a very simple two frame business and encouraged me but not really relevant to what you are doing.

But if you come across a "two bodied Gazumptia Bettle" it could be worth trying Here I brought the two elements closer together for the final result so if it looks right it is But I think PSP is rather more capable than what you are using to edit with which could be a useful expenditure for any spare cash.