A spider a day keeps the mosquito away

[JBW]

quick question as we approach Christmas; considering what I shoot is there a camera that would really take me to the next level or is it more a question of improving my skill set?

[tamccain]

who is approaching Christmas? Isn't that still like more than 6 months away?

[JBW]

who is approaching Christmas? Isn't that still like more than 6 months away?

in the Philippines it starts in September.

[Dave Humphries]

quick question as we approach Christmas; considering what I shoot is there a camera that would really take me to the next level or is it more a question of improving my skill set?

Hi Brian,

Here's my answer, other macro shooters are welcome to pitch in also.

I believe you have some mobility issues, I am not sure whether the increased weight of a typical DSLR (or DSLT) plus 100mm or 150mm macro lens might be too much to hand hold? (possibly at arms length)
My rough guess is that you could be looking at 1.5 kg vs about 543 g for what you use now.

Unless you invest a lot of time with techniques like focus stacking, I think you may be disappointed with the Depth of Field with a DSLR compared to what you achieve now. Further, subject movement may make focus stacking impossible.

I am unsure how generous santa might be, but you may find you need to spend a lot more money on a DSLR camera and lens.

My view on the technical quality of your shots are that they could be improved if you:
a) had a camera that captured in a RAW format (some Fuji bridge cameras do) AND
b) had the software, time and inclination to spend a bit more time on Post Processing on your computer

This should allow you to produce shots with better controlled dynamic range (less blown highlights), although the small sensor and lens on a bridge camera will still limit quality compared to a DSLR (to counter that benefit of better DoF you have now).

So that might suggest a more recent model bridge camera that shoots "uncompressed format" (typically ".raf" if Fuji) in addition to jpg.

A further thought would be to improve the lighting by use of flash, so add to the desired spec, the ability to connect (and budget for) a flash gun - although again, I wonder if this might literally be too much to juggle while peeking between the foliage, as unlike a DSLR macro lens, I doubt you'd find a macro flash attachment that fits the end of the lens on a bridge camera.

Hope that helps,

[JBW]

Hi Brian,

Here's my answer, other macro shooters are welcome to pitch in also.

I believe you have some mobility issues, I am not sure whether the increased weight of a typical DSLR (or DSLT) plus 100mm or 150mm macro lens might be too much to hand hold? (possibly at arms length)
My rough guess is that you could be looking at 1.5 kg vs about 543 g for what you use now.

Unless you invest a lot of time with techniques like focus stacking, I think you may be disappointed with the Depth of Field with a DSLR compared to what you achieve now. Further, subject movement may make focus stacking impossible.

I am unsure how generous santa might be, but you may find you need to spend a lot more money on a DSLR camera and lens.

My view on the technical quality of your shots are that they could be improved if you:
a) had a camera that captured in a RAW format (some Fuji bridge cameras do) AND
b) had the software, time and inclination to spend a bit more time on Post Processing on your computer

This should allow you to produce shots with better controlled dynamic range (less blown highlights), although the small sensor and lens on a bridge camera will still limit quality compared to a DSLR (to counter that benefit of better DoF you have now).

So that might suggest a more recent model bridge camera that shoots "uncompressed format" (typically ".raf" if Fuji) in addition to jpg.

A further thought would be to improve the lighting by use of flash, so add to the desired spec, the ability to connect (and budget for) a flash gun - although again, I wonder if this might literally be too much to juggle while peeking between the foliage, as unlike a DSLR macro lens, I doubt you'd find a macro flash attachment that fits the end of the lens on a bridge camera.

Hope that helps,

Yes it does. The weight of a DSLR would be on many days be too much. There are days when my camera on the tripod is a little heavy to wander around with for very long. i had been considering a better quality bridge and will look into a fuji film with RAW. The flash would probably be one too many things as I try to get a shot of the latest beasty. I also agree about more time on the pp. Basically a bridge with RAW and more skills with pp is the suggestion. When I took the advice about learning to adjust mid tones I was actually asked if I had a new camera. I will be putting more time into learning the pp skills!

[ajohnw]

I had a look around on this some time ago when Brian asked last year. There may be some alternatives but more info is needed. Do you use the viewfinder or rear screen or both? What sort of working distance do you usually have between the end of the lens and the subject?

Last one may be a bit more difficult. What magnification are you using? A bit difficult as I suspect you reduce the size of most things because the sensor is so small. - another reason for the DOF. You could work that out. The diagonal of the full image corresponds to 7.5mm on the sensor. So say you photograph something 25mm long and 3 of them in the shot was as long as the shots diagonal then 25mm is going down to 2.5mm on the sensor so 1/10 size.

John
-

[Geoff F]

What you are shooting now, Brian, definitely shows a great deal of improvement to when you first started posting macro shots.

I did switch to a carbon fibre tripod to reduce the weight but even with that, when I add a 7D with 180 macro lens plus external flash it does start to become heavy and unwieldy. The external flash adds a bit of 'top weight' which needs a good grip when used without a tripod.

To make tripod shooting easier in the undergrowth, I tend to keep the leg spread fairly close and use the centre column to gain height. But this makes the whole set up unstable, particularly when the tripod is resting on uneven ground. So I have to keep one hand on the camera at all times.

Macro photography is always something of a trade off when photographing live subjects in natural surroundings. Smaller lenses tend to give better quality but you have to get closer so your options of achieving a shot before 'fly off' occurs is limited. I often start shooting with the 180 lens at 3 ft or more, then hope to gradually edge closer. But rarely get nearer than 12 ins.

Recently I did purchase a 'pocket camera' which was a Fuji X20. It does have good macro qualities but you need to get really close. However, my main point here is that it does have Raw capabilities, but that RAF format isn't widely supported. Having said that, the Silkypics Raw converter which came with the camera is quite good once you get used to it.

However, I didn't really want to work with two converters, with all the confusion that would cause me. Eventually I downloaded the latest free version of DNG Converter from Adobe which will convert Raf files to Dng which can be used with Adobe ACR Converter and most other software. It does entail one extra step but isn't too much of a problem.

[Stagecoach]

Brian,

I think the first thing you need to seriously consider is exactly what your aim is, you mention the next level but what is the next level.

Having seen the type of images you are producing perhaps these two questions are significant;

a) Do you want a system which gives equivalent magnification as at present but will possibly additionally give you the option of improving the finished image quality?

b) Do you want a system which will give you greater magnification than what you are presently achieving?


Grahame

[JBW]

Brian,

I think the first thing you need to seriously consider is exactly what your aim is, you mention the next level but what is the next level.

Having seen the type of images you are producing perhaps these two questions are significant;

a) Do you want a system which gives equivalent magnification as at present but will possibly additionally give you the option of improving the finished image quality?

b) Do you want a system which will give you greater magnification than what you are presently achieving?


Grahame

i find myself, for now, preferring shots with an interesting (to me background). the magnification and the sweet spot I have works well for detail and background. I would like a better finished product. It may well be that a better finished product will come with superior software skills.

Mind now I do hve a smakl urge to get into micro photography but that would be way down the line.

[Pappadi]

Macro or micro photography, not probably by definition but by usage, produces a macro (big) image of a micro (small) subject. So the 'subject' is very important here. The background is manipulated to help the viewer appreciate the subject or a part of it, just like the eyes and fangs of a jumping spider. Then again a photographer's interest may be in presenting a fully grown orb weaver spider (whose eyes incidentally are not much powerful as of a hunter) waiting for a prey on its intricate web. If I were shooting the eyes I would go for a micro (Nikon) or macro (Canon) lens. For the weaver, certainly I can use the micro, but I will consider a tele, with a zoom or without, so that I will not disturb the spider and get the background blurred.

Incidentally, some of my friends who are studying spiders have told me that many 'micro' photographers of the former kind kill the spiders for their splendid micros. For a scientific study that may be necessary. You may not think of such 'subtleties' while you stand in front of a dissection table. But for Nature Photographers !!

From what I have seen from your images and from your expressed preference to have shots with an interesting background at least for the present, I would suggest you call it 'closeup photography,' wherein you bring up the main subject to fill the frame with adequate background which can well be edited in pp if you so choose.
Heavy equipment becomes a pain at times but the rewards are exhilarating. I am not familiar with the camera you are using, but I have seen some beautiful closeup images taken with bridge cameras.

I am glad you are thinking of getting into micro photography. Meanwhile I would request you to share more of your closeups. The ones you have shared are certainly interesting.

[JBW]

Macro or micro photography, not probably by definition but by usage, produces a macro (big) image of a micro (small) subject. So the 'subject' is very important here. The background is manipulated to help the viewer appreciate the subject or a part of it, just like the eyes and fangs of a jumping spider. Then again a photographer's interest may be in presenting a fully grown orb weaver spider (whose eyes incidentally are not much powerful as of a hunter) waiting for a prey on its intricate web. If I were shooting the eyes I would go for a micro (Nikon) or macro (Canon) lens. For the weaver, certainly I can use the micro, but I will consider a tele, with a zoom or without, so that I will not disturb the spider and get the background blurred.

Incidentally, some of my friends who are studying spiders have told me that many 'micro' photographers of the former kind kill the spiders for their splendid micros. For a scientific study that may be necessary. You may not think of such 'subtleties' while you stand in front of a dissection table. But for Nature Photographers !!

From what I have seen from your images and from your expressed preference to have shots with an interesting background at least for the present, I would suggest you call it 'closeup photography,' wherein you bring up the main subject to fill the frame with adequate background which can well be edited in pp if you so choose.
Heavy equipment becomes a pain at times but the rewards are exhilarating. I am not familiar with the camera you are using, but I have seen some beautiful closeup images taken with bridge cameras.

I am glad you are thinking of getting into micro photography. Meanwhile I would request you to share more of your closeups. The ones you have shared are certainly interesting.

Sharing is easy. I occasionally move a leaf but I try to shoot the beasties as I find them.