Need a little advice for an unusual situation

[JBW]

Macro and super macro are two settings that allow for close ups. They can be used in manual, A or S modes. the shot i just posted was done with the macro setting turned on.
B

[jcuknz]

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

The "superior macro lens" is not needed becuase we do not want to get closer but operate for better result from further back.
The CU lens is a mis-nomer becuase in our case we are using it to stay back .... instead of working at 2com but at 30cm [?] but getting a tighter framing by using the zoom. [ 30cm instead of two metres so I suppose it IS closer ] For manufacturing reasons the usual long lens and long end of a zoom cannot focus as close as the short lens/end of zoom .... lenses focus close with extension, the lens moving away from the sensor, and the longer the basic lens the greater the extension required. The CU lens sorts this out with the advantage of the camera thinks it is working within its normal focusing range but actually is much closer. But all its focusing and sensing works as if it was at distance.

If you go to the ILC you can get extension tubes with coupling between camera and lens but from what I have seen they are somewhat limited and ideally arre best used with shortish lens where the extension has more value, a larger amount compared to the focal length of the lens .... something I hope to confirm or resolve with another package coming to me

If you have the money to splurge there are exceptions to what I write above.
ie Macro lenses at up to 180mm I believe
I have posted my 'jackhammer' photo previously where with two extension tube sets and bellows together I got 230mm extension for my 135mm prime lens which resulted in 19mm of subject filling the 23mm sensor of my old APS-C DSLR .
So Macro lenses are definitely convieient but there are other ways.

[jcuknz]

As to getting sharpness ... this is a jpg SOOC back in 2003 with my Nikon 5700 bridge camera cropped somewhat and inseert the full frame for comparison. Shot at 93mm of the 35-280 range at f/7.9

Of the 2560pixels across I am using only 1100 to make the 690pixel file for here ... so it is a heavilly cropped image ... hand held without OIS in those days.

Not a bugs eye shot but fairly satisfying for me from a 5Mp camera .... another reason to question the need for another camera .. we need to help you realise the full potential of what you have I think.
have not seen one for awhile now but I think they are about a cm across and two cm long in the body plus of course the legs etc.

As we discussed before now you remind me I think the macro and super macro merely tell the AF to focus in a the closer area without wasting time trying to find infinity focus etc. I have similar on my FZ50 also a switch on the side of the lens so I can use AF to get innitial focus and then hold it by sliding to Manual focus ... and remembering not to touch the focusing ring on the lens. Not that I ever use MF but maybe I should practice for when I want to stack images

[JBW]

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

Well this is a fine can of worms but it does deserve an answer. Quantum physics would answer in the affirmative. My mere observation let alone taking a photo changes the reality the insect inhabits. Yes I have moved foliage and even rarely plucked a leaf.

The other side of the coin is that I was taught to respect life. part of that respect is shown by my becoming the steward of the temple/garden my wife and I share with the beings that surround us. As I approach a beasty I often ask their permission. I also tend to thank them afterwards.

To live in our world means that something has to die for me to live. That is simple reality. My choice is to kill as few other beings as possible and to inconvenience as little as possible that which I do not kill. Putting a tropical bug in a fridge is more of an inconvenience than I wish to make.

Now this may or may not agree with your opinions and that is okay. I admit to being just a tad extreme in some of my beliefs and i know i seem a bit of a flake to many. But I try to take the advice of a wise old man seriously, 'help where I can and where I can't help at least do as little harm as possible'.
B
PS; I am not sure that moving a leaf is in the same category as putting them in a fridge.

[JBW]

As to getting sharpness ... this is a jpg SOOC back in 2003 with my Nikon 5700 bridge camera cropped somewhat and inseert the full frame for comparison. Shot at 93mm of the 35-280 range at f/7.9

Of the 2560pixels across I am using only 1100 to make the 690pixel file for here ... so it is a heavilly cropped image ... hand held without OIS in those days.

Not a bugs eye shot but fairly satisfying for me from a 5Mp camera .... another reason to question the need for another camera .. we need to help you realise the full potential of what you have I think.
have not seen one for awhile now but I think they are about a cm across and two cm long in the body plus of course the legs etc.

As we discussed before now you remind me I think the macro and super macro merely tell the AF to focus in a the closer area without wasting time trying to find infinity focus etc. I have similar on my FZ50 also a switch on the side of the lens so I can use AF to get innitial focus and then hold it by sliding to Manual focus ... and remembering not to touch the focusing ring on the lens. Not that I ever use MF but maybe I should practice for when I want to stack images

Myra, my wife, likes your advice. truth be told more and better skills will still take me a long way with what I have.
B

[Stagecoach]

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.

Brian,

What John is referring to is an experiment I undertook a while back to 'indicate' the loss of image quality that would be experienced by using a greater camera to subject distance to increase the DOF of the subject and then cropping the image to the same frame size.

Image quality will be lost by cropping and losing pixels and the test was to show the real world affect of this with an image that was being produced purely for web viewing (limited size) such as here. Of the two macro images taken, for the right hand one the camera was moved farther from subject a distance exactly equivalent to what would increase the DOF by 2x according to a DOF calculator.

I can detect a slight loss of image quality between the two whilst they are next to one another but in the real world at this size I would suggest the additional DOF, and if you consider a bug instead of a flower, would far outweigh the IQ loss. This is assuming you want the extra DOF.



What must be considered is that I did this under controlled conditions using best practices with a decent camera and lens.

Another item that must be considered is that if you are moving farther from your subject and hand holding any camera movement will have a greater detrimental affect at your point of focus which you do not want when trying to capture the detail on tiny critters.

Grahame

[JBW]

Brian,

What John is referring to is an experiment I undertook a while back to 'indicate' the loss of image quality that would be experienced by using a greater camera to subject distance to increase the DOF of the subject and then cropping the image to the same frame size.

Image quality will be lost by cropping and losing pixels and the test was to show the real world affect of this with an image that was being produced purely for web viewing (limited size) such as here. Of the two macro images taken, for the right hand one the camera was moved farther from subject a distance exactly equivalent to what would increase the DOF by 2x according to a DOF calculator.

I can detect a slight loss of image quality between the two whilst they are next to one another but in the real world at this size I would suggest the additional DOF, and if you consider a bug instead of a flower, would far outweigh the IQ loss. This is assuming you want the extra DOF.



What must be considered is that I did this under controlled conditions using best practices with a decent camera and lens.

Another item that must be considered is that if you are moving farther from your subject and hand holding any camera movement will have a greater detrimental affect at your point of focus which you do not want when trying to capture the detail on tiny critters.

Grahame

One more problem i am finding is the further away I am the greater the probability that my AF will lock on to something other than my target.

[Stagecoach]

One more problem i am finding is the further away I am the greater the probability that my AF will lock on to something other than my target.

Brian,

Exactly. As your subject bugs head gets smaller the AF sensing area has other items to contend with. Now it may be that the greater DOF that you have gained will compensate for this but on the other hand it may not, all a matter of compromise.

This is another problem of relying on AF with macro work and even if you use manual focus which for you will be by moving the camera back and forth how good is your eyesight determining exact focus when the subject is smaller as you have moved back.

Grahame

[JBW]

Brian,

Exactly. As your subject bugs head gets smaller the AF sensing area has other items to contend with. Now it may be that the greater DOF that you have gained will compensate for this but on the other hand it may not, all a matter of compromise.

This is another problem of relying on AF with macro work and even if you use manual focus which for you will be by moving the camera back and forth how good is your eyesight determining exact focus when the subject is smaller as you have moved back.

Grahame

simply put; not good enough!

[jcuknz]

One solution to the problem is to get other manufacturers to follow Panasonic and their G and GH cameras in having an adjustable sized focusing area.... it is not on the FZ cameras I have owned and I have not inspected later models but the very small focus area along with a touch screen is a very nice feature ... probably copyrighted so a Panasonic only feature.
The solution I have used with my earlier cameras has been to focus on something at the same distance as the subject relying on deptth of field to cover any inaccuracies ... ie the leaf beside the insect rather than it itself etc. One does what one needs to to get the required result.

I will try and remember and respect your beliefs Brain when commenting.

[JBW]

One solution to the problem is to get other manufacturers to follow Panasonic and their G and GH cameras in having an adjustable sized focusing area.... it is not on the FZ cameras I have owned and I have not inspected later models but the very small focus area along with a touch screen is a very nice feature ... probably copyrighted so a Panasonic only feature.
The solution I have used with my earlier cameras has been to focus on something at the same distance as the subject relying on deptth of field to cover any inaccuracies ... ie the leaf beside the insect rather than it itself etc. One does what one needs to to get the required result.

I will try and remember and respect your beliefs Brain when commenting.

I will take a look Panasonic. And thanks.

[ajohnw]

I shied away from mentioning micro 4/3 Brian but it may be an option. Things I've tried.

A good quality manual 100mm macro lens with an adapter. Pentax and capable of 2:1. That means 34mm subjects would fill the frame - however I suspect it's possible to loose some of that on cameras that use sensor movement for image stability. I have taken a few shots that I am sure were tightly fully framed but turned out cropped. This set up isn't too bad for say spiders with a circa 6mm body. Working distance us about 200mm. Enough room to use the built in flash if needed on the Pen's I have used. The problem is focusing. A magnified view has to be used say 7x which means only part of the spiders body can be seen. Although I made sure I focused into the body some parts were still often out of focus at F11. Can't say that I would recommend this method. It's too hit and miss. Trying to focus with the lens wide open and then stopping it down with the aperture ring is awkward too.

I tried macro using the 14-42mm zoom. AF locked onto the nearest part of the body but magnification wasn't great.

Panasonic have offered a magnified view in the whole view on some of their cameras which would help focusing manually while keeping the subject where wanted in the frame. I ruled that option out as I know from using the more usual magnified view that 5x isn't sufficient.

I've since bought auto extension tubes but the few times I have gone looking for insects there has been little about.. With a 40-150mm zoom I can get to the 2:1 region with a decent working distance. Close up filters could probably improve the magnification ratio but I haven't tried that out. Currently though there is no scope for using say a 1.4x extender plus rings on m 4/3. The set up looks promising but the AF does have problems. When the camera is switched on the focus is cycled for longer. No error messages but one day there might be as the cameras "evolve". Focus is sluggish when the subject is framed and the shutter button half pressed. This is because the camera expects the focus point to change at the normal rate for the lens it detects.and it doesn't due to the extension rings. It's also important to 1/2 press the shutter at a distance where it can focus then trim up the distance for the magnification needed making sure the focusing tracks. Can't say that I would encourage anybody to spend money going in this direction without having taken lots of shots with the set up.

Last option is an M 4/3 dedicated macro lens. Panasonic do a 45mm. Minimum focus distance is 150mm in macro mode. When they mention magnification they state approx 1x /2x 35mm equivalent. If I bought one I would want to make sure 1x meant 1x onto the sensor. Mainly because of the wording in an older advert that suggest that it was 1x because the sensor is smaller that 35mm. They may have redesigned the lens since then but if they have simply doubled the magnification it's really a 2:1. Olympus spec their 60mm macro lens in the same way and the macro focusing range is 190-400mm. They mention true 1:1 magnification so maybe at one point the Panasonic didn't offer that. The Oly lens can be used on Pen's but these tend to cost a lot with sensible controls and even more so with the add on view finder. The touch screen focusing on some works very well. Touch the screen where the camera has to focus and it does just that and takes the shot. Having owned an E-PL1 and an E-P3 I feel Olympus can be rather "mean". The E-P3 moves away from compact type controls but even though both cameras use the same sensor it works a lot better in the E-P3 in a number of ways. This type of m 4/3 set up could be a good option but costs may be a problem. I suspect Panasonic will be the cheapest as Oly's cheapest DSLR look alike is the OMD-EM5. Panasonic lenses can be used on Olympus cameras but not the other way round as IS is lost. I have used 2 Panasonic lenses on my Olympus's and notice that the image quality isn't as good as the Olympus ones. Don't let that put you off though if this route is viable for you. Many of their lenses reflect that in the price. All I would say on that score is if you get into birds that pass by give the Panasonic 45-200mm a miss if you can and save up for the 100-300mm. Me - well I will buy the Olympus macro lens at some point and as I haven't yet I use the word may. In real terms I feel either mark of camera plus macro lens would be a big step up for you but the dslr routes mentioned might work out cheaper. AF may be a bit odd on these as well when used with a normal lens plus extension tubes and maybe a converter. Maybe some one who uses this sort of set up can comment.

John
-

[inkista]

Well, if we're gonna talk mft (micro 4/3)...

... The Oly lens can be used on Pen's but these tend to cost a lot with sensible controls and even more so with the add on view finder.

Just me, but macro may be one category where LCD composition/viewing may not be that much of a hindrance, if you're going to be on a tripod anyway. And the used non-EVF bodies in mft can be surprisingly low-cost, if you don't need to get the latest and greatest. For example, a used Oly E-P3, Oly E-PM2, or Panasonic GX-1 (body) on Amazon goes for US$250.

... Panasonic lenses can be used on Olympus cameras but not the other way round as IS is lost.

Um... depends on your definition of "can be used". You can use either brand of lens on either brand of camera body, but stabilization can be an issue if you attempt to put a Panasonic OIS lens onto an Olympus body, because the in-lens and in-body stabilization systems don't play well together, and on the older Panny lenses, they didn't give you a way to switch it off. You want to use one system or the other, but not both. Losing stabilization, however, doesn't mean you can't shoot with the lens.

Olympus lenses on Panasonic, however, have no issues at all, because none of the Oly lenses are stabilized. I happy put the Oly 45/1.8 onto my Panasonic G3 all the time.

... All I would say on that score is if you get into birds that pass by give the Panasonic 45-200mm a miss if you can and save up for the 100-300mm.

Just me, but with mft, unless you're going to get a EP-1/EP-5/GX-7, birds in flight are gonna be a tough subject no matter the lens. And you will want an eye-level viewfinder for this, so the expense will go up, camera-wise.

However, if a $500 lens is out of your budget, and you can only consider a $250 one, and you like perched birds, then don't be afraid to use the 45-200--just learn good supertelephoto technique. I've found it a quite decent lens for my purposes. I continually read opinions slagging off the 45-200, and I honestly think the bad reputation is undeserved--particularly given the price of the lens, and that technique issues with it will only be exacerbated by the 100-300 being longer. The 100-300 is sharper (and longer) at the extreme end, but it costs twice as much and doesn't autofocus any faster. For backyard shooting, the 45-200 is more than adequate and fits a lower budget better.

OTOH, I'm shooting with it on a Panasonic body.

BTW, of the mft macro lenses, the Oly 60/2.8 tends to get the nod far more often than the PL45. Probably because of Ming Thein's comparison. He does professional watch product photography with his mft gear, so his opinion on macro capabilities is worth reading. But he is something of a gear eccentric, so you'll want to read a few of his articles to get a sense of where he's coming from.

[xpatUSA]

Hi, because of my health I rarely leave our yard. This means that I have a never ending supply of bugs and insects plus flowers galore to photograph. In short lots of macro and still lives but not much need for a zoom for long shots. I currently use a FujiFilm Finepix S4200 which gives some very nice results and is a great learning camera. With 14 mega pixels it can capture a lot of detail.

I would like to upgrade to a camera that would be a significant upgrade in the macro department. I am imagining a bridge camera with say... 20 mega pixels? I am on a pension so buying specific lenses for a DSLR is probably never going to happen.
Suggestions?
Brian.

I too take shots out in the yard, mostly hand-held and I am a bit shaky. My greatest success with bugs is with the Panasonic GH1 and G1 before that. I believe you should at least consider a 16MP GH2. The advantages for you are:

Huge live view swiveling LCD.
Manual Focus with 10X live view.
In-lens Image Stabilisation.
Pop-up flash if you need it.
Light weight.

I would recommend the early model 14-45 kit zoom lens for general use. And the wonderful Panasonic Leica Elmarit 45mm f/2.8 macro.

Hand-held, standing on wobby steps, flash used, 12MP GH1+Leica 45mm:

[xpatUSA]

Well, if we're gonna talk mft (micro 4/3)...
For backyard shooting, the [Panasonic] 45-200 is more than adequate and fits a lower budget better.

+1. I also have that one and it works well for me.

[ajohnw]

I sold my 45-200mm and 100-300mm Panasonics and had no problems using them on any of the Olympus bodies even with both IS's on when I forgot to turn one of them off.

The thing that would concern me about Pen's is the difference between an E-PL1 and an E-P3. I bought the E-PL1 used to see what the format was like. Great in decent conditions so went for an E-P3 as a substitute for a compact. All of a sudden the camera would focus in a dimish living room. Might just be because it was an upgraded sensor but. all they seem to have done is thin down the anti aliasing filter to reduce fringing. ISO performance the same as far as I could tell. 1600 rather remarkable if auto and jpg's are used. Raw review tests are a little strange and don#t make sense. I have no idea what the current line up of Pen's is like nor Panasonics similar offerings.

I wondered about a Sony NEX but their macro lens is a 30mm and only has a 24mm working distance at 1:1. It may be the most affordable solution. As with, Pens and Panasonics and even Canon DSLR's people use adapters to allow earlier manual focus lenses to be used for macro. I have mixed feelings about using the magnified view. Great when the thing is square on like this one or shallow but when it isn't.........

http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...82543/original

Pen plus the pentax 100mm at 2:1 and cropped. It needs expanding to see the detail.

John
-

[Stagecoach]

Brian,

I would suggest that what we are starting to see on this thread from John and Ted's 'real world' examples of macro work are that the cost of the equipment package used to do this is similar or possibly more than the DSLR route.

I'm not saying or suggesting DSLR is the way to go but financially as an example from a quick search;

a) Nikon D3100 14MP plus one kit lens £270
b) Tamron 90mm Macro lens £360 (The most popular macro lens used by serious shooters as an alternative to Canon/Nikon with quality on a par according to many that I would agree with for web images)

Grahame

[ajohnw]

I think Brian likes to use available light rather than flash Grahame. Not sure if the tamron comes with IS but the Sigma 105 macro does at £399 from a quick look at prices. More or less the same price as the Olympus 60mm macro but allows for a cheaper dslr. Minimum focusing distance for 1:1 is 312mm, 127mm long so may allow the use of built in flash if needed. People make diffusers up that also guide the light if that aspect is a problem. They don't specify the lens to subject distance but it should be possible to find out what that is. It can also be used with their teleconverters to increase working distance.

I can only find a 60mm tamron macro lens on their site. Not much info.

Ted also photo's blurry albatrosses in his garden with his 45-200mm zoom. I only mentioned birds because Brian already has a camera that can do work like that and come to some conclusions about focal length needs. Most people who shoot birds reckon nothing is long enough. A sharp lens helps a lot with cropping to get round some of that problem. It's surprising how small even a duck is using 300mm on m 4/3 at say 20m. Probably less distance than that actually.

John
-

[Stagecoach]

I think Brian likes to use available light rather than flash Grahame. Not sure if the tamron comes with IS but the Sigma 105 macro does at £399 from a quick look at prices. More or less the same price as the Olympus 60mm macro but allows for a cheaper dslr. Minimum focusing distance for 1:1 is 312mm, 127mm long so may allow the use of built in flash if needed. People make diffusers up that also guide the light if that aspect is a problem. They don't specify the lens to subject distance but it should be possible to find out what that is. It can also be used with their teleconverters to increase working distance.

I can only find a 60mm tamron macro lens on their site. Not much info.

Ted also photo's blurry albatrosses in his garden with his 45-200mm zoom. I only mentioned birds because Brian already has a camera that can do work like that and come to some conclusions about focal length needs. Most people who shoot birds reckon nothing is long enough. A sharp lens helps a lot with cropping to get round some of that problem. It's surprising how small even a duck is using 300mm on m 4/3 at say 20m. Probably less distance than that actually.

John
-

John,

I have been following Brian's postings carefully and many of these are using natural light, in fact the lighting is often to too much, one advantage of being in a hot sunny climate. Some of the better shots he has also used on camera flash and has already learnt the advantage of home made diffusers which worked very well for him.

As for IS/VR on the lens general opinion is that this is not of much benefit with macro due to the close distances but as a user with VR on my macro lens the way I see it is that any benefit however small gives an advantage.

What interests me at present and hopefully will be useful for Brian is that every time the subject of 'macro' and equipment comes up we seem to have lots of opinions of what can be achieved way cheaper with alternate kit to basic, and some will say old fashioned, DSLR/dedicated macro lens but how often do we see an image posted 1000 to 1200 px wide with a subject shot at a 1:1 magnification ratio of good IQ. I think the answer to this sums things up very much.

Having followed Brian's work and the direction that this has gone I can understand that the bug has bitten him and he wants to produce 'better' images the problem being the best way to do this. The only way that I can see that a change in camera/lens combination is going to provide the 'better' part of the equation is if it provides a significant increase in magnification he can achieve from what he has now. In other words no upgrade is going to correct, compositional, sharpness and lighting problems which are all user generated.

Grahame

[JBW]

John, Grahame, et al, Grahame has summed it up rather well. I do prefer natural light. I have the macro bug bite. 90%, maybe more of the improvements will come from improving my skill set. Equipment is of course crucial for the other 10%. Greater magnification has to be part of the equation. Just how that is to be achieved is (as this thread shows) open for discussion.

I shot this grasshopper this morning. Natural light, macro, and fairly close in. The major improvement in clarity comes from using a chair so that my yaw and roll is minimized. It is an unusual crop but I was trying for a 'I'm coming to get you sort of feeling'.