Thinking of taking macro pictures with a common point & shoot digital camera, my questions:
A) What are your personal suggestions to get the best pictures (more details / zoom).
B) I recall reading a suggestion combining a magnifier with the camera. Anything I could try? My attempts on this regard have always failed.
C) Using the best daylight instead of a poor illumination inside, always works better. Can anyone say why? Shutter speed related?
D) Been suggested to use the maximum possible of megapixels the camera can do. My tests with 2 and 8 Mp gave what I believe are equivalent results.
If your camera doesn't have a macro mode, you're hosed. Luckily all decent cameras do.
With a basic Canon powershot A590IS:
If you're limited to a budget, get yourself a simple point-and-shoot camera. I used a little Canon Ixus IS90 (a bit old now but still does a good job). It has a built-in macro mode. You'll probably find most if not all the major brands will. I find I can get fairly close with the IS90 and the results are very good, even in low light.
If you have a bit more to spend, invest in a Digital SLR and buy yourself a good quality macro lens.
Use a tripod, cable or timed release, a light tent.
C) Using the best daylight instead of a poor illumination inside, always works better. Can anyone say why? Shutter speed related?
Yes, The smaller the aperture the greater the depth of field.
Unless you are shooting a moving object, the amount light should be little consequence as you have control of the shutter.
Better having a predictable, controllable and known source IMHO.
Sorry to all
I asume that nowadays, point & shoot cameras all have macro mode.
Mine has.
Firstly, don't bother counting pixels. Because the number of MP is a marketing status symbol, most cameras have sensors with way too many pixels for the quality of their optics. All that those pixels really achieve is to waste storage capacity, and of course, make the camera look better on a spec sheet comparison with other models.
Daylight works well because it's diffuse. With macro shots, getting enough light onto the subject is key, and well diffused light ensures that no parts of the photo will be in shadow. Bear in mind, all the light needed for your photo has to come from a very small area, so that area has to be brightly lit.
Set your camera into macro mode, and zoom the lens to its widest. Most lenses will focus closer at the wide end of their zoom range than at the telephoto end, so even though it's tempting to use the tele end to 'zoom in' on a small subject, you'll actually get greater magnification by setting it to the wide end and bringing the camera closer.
An on-camera flash really isn't useful, it's a very harsh light and it's located in completely the wrong place. You're much better off turning the flash off and using a desk lamp instead. If you have a mini tripod, use it. If not, hand-held is OK but use a high ISO setting to avoid camera shake.
You don't need expensive hardware to take passable macro shots. I keep a Canon Ixus 800IS in my desk drawer, which I use to take quick snaps of boards to document assembly problems, modifications and so on. Take the time to light the subject properly and, above all, get it in focus. The depth of field when close-up can be very shallow (use a small aperture if you have enough light), so take the time to make sure the important part of the subject is as sharp as possible.
If you want really good macro shots, there's no substitute for a DSLR with proper off-camera flash or ring light. When quality is really important, I shoot with a Canon 5DmkIII, a 550EX flash (triggered from an ST-E2 transmitter), and a 50mm f/1.4 lens mounted on a set of Kenko extension tubes. The simple 50mm lens is optically excellent, and the extension tubes allow it to focus as close as necessary.
The image quality in terms of sharpness and detail from the DSLR is great, of course, but what really makes for better photos is better lighting. The 550EX isn't ideal, but I can place it exactly where it's needed, and a business card makes a good diffuse reflector to bounce light into areas that would otherwise have been in shadow.
DSLR are not cost effective for macro (certainly not a budget path without guidance)
The large sensor and concurrent register mean that very specialist lenses are required to get near macro ratios.
TBH 50mm is not really macro, extension tubes or not.
If you are DSLR, get a reversing ring and try that on your 50 mm for some cheapo macro fun.
Point and shoots can get really close to the subject, mega pixels do not matter (within reason, meh 4Mp?))as you normally have no problem filling the frame with subject, so no cropping.
Light tent>daylight.
Couple of cheap halogen desk lamps and some cloth to form an open faced cube.
Subject in cube, lights outside illuminating the panels to suit.
Colour temp can be set, light can be counted on any time day or night.
Pop up flash are pretty useless, at least stick a couple of Rizla over the front if you must use one.
Unless you are shooting a moving object, the amount light should be little consequence as you have control of the shutter.
Not in a point & shoot as far as I know.
Unless you are shooting a moving object, the amount light should be little consequence as you have control of the shutter.
Not in a point & shoot as far as I know.
Thought pretty much all cams have a manual mode if you dig through the menus?
The point being if the camera wants to sit there for 15 seconds with the shutter open, it doesn't matter, cam is on tripod and subject is still.
Get a reversing ring 3Room, it will be cheaper and MUCH more effective.
Here is a sample photo I took just now using my Canon Ixus 90 IS. It was taken freehand in a darkened room and illumination was nothing more than a 60 watt (240VAC) bedside table lamp.
Camera settings were:
Macro Mode
ISO 800
1/50 shutter
F2.8 aperture
Auto White Balancing
The image size has been reduced by 50% and has further compression applied (due to the upload size limit). The original file was a touch over 5MB.
You can get some quite nice results even with basic cameras. Keeping in mind, I bought this camera about 5-6 years ago now. The newer stuff will have even better optics and image processing.
The depth of field is fairly shallow in this image but with some tweaking and more light, you'll get some nice looking images (I had it set to full-auto just for a snappy demo).
C) Using the best daylight instead of a poor illumination inside, always works better. Can anyone say why? Shutter speed related?
Yes, The smaller the aperture the greater the depth of field.
with my limited know how --> natural light is full spectrum, not all artificial light source is 100% full spectrum, in fact, there isnt any iirc. so light source will affect color of image and amount of light "signal" captured
all CCD/CMOS capture device have noise at level X, the lesser the light (=signal) ... the lesser the picture, relative to noise floor. turn that up in photoshop, you also turn up the noise. just like audio noise floor, the bloody hisses. come to a certain threshold, the picture just cannot be "seen" by the capture device, not within its sensitivity anymore. CCD with low noise and high ISO, can crank it up, but its far and few, noise vs useable image. latest low noise monster i believe is the sony A7S, half million ISO?, star gazers are swearing by it ! super long exposure pitch black sky, photo results are ... i didnt think they were real ... but its a monster alright!
there are also special macro lens, but most stock lenses are able to do close focus @ 30cm or less, from there a full zoom usually is enough to take a roughly 3-5cm region filling the full frame of the picture, unless you want to fill 5mm area into the full frame, that will be special macro lenses
It dose not matter if day light or artificial, the problem with taking macros is the depth of field, the smaller the aperture the greater the depth of field but the smaller the aperture the brighter the light needs to be this is even noticeable with your own eyes go outside into bright light and your pupils constrict (miosis) and you depth of vision increases compared to indoors.
Light,exposure and depth of field is something I have had endless lectures about all my life from my father who has been a professional photographer all his life. My father has a photograph that he took while in the RAF at the Ely hospital using an aerial photography camera, it is of an operation and the depth of field is so small that the edge of the scalpel blade is in sharp focus and everything else is blurred. It dose not matter what the light capture device is if the lens and its F stop number are not right you will not get what you want.
Try adjusting the focus and zoom setting for distance to lens, but yes you won't get a great deal.
The image ratio is high though!
Should really shoot macro on manual focus too (loss of af is no worry).
As said the DOF is so tiny that AF is like cracking a nut with a sledge hammer.
Don't use a dslr for stop motion, they have an electromechanical shutter and will wear out (mine has life of about 50K actuations).
Better get a cam with entirely electronic shutter, I think lots of points and shoots are like this (possibly evil cameras too!).
Keeping in mind, I bought this camera about 5-6 years ago now. The newer stuff will have even better optics and image processing.
Dunno if I would trust this. It's difficult to do good optics for a low cost, I would say old vs new could be a crapshoot.
Keeping in mind, I bought this camera about 5-6 years ago now. The newer stuff will have even better optics and image processing.
Dunno if I would trust this. It's difficult to do good optics for a low cost, I would say old vs new could be a crapshoot.
Better sensor? Better high ISO performance? Better image processor? Probably.
Better optics? Probably not.
There are many exceptional old lenses out there, made well before the dawn of digital photography.
Get a droplet of water on your cellphone camera lense and you will take macro pictures everybit as good.
Here is an unretouched photo using macro mode on my Canon SX150 IS done freehand with poor illumination and without adjusting the focus making it a worst case situation. I cannot get any closer because the edge of the lens bezel is pressed against the printed circuit board.
As pointed out earlier in the discussion thread, illumination is key and using a narrow zoom for magnification is counterproductive because it limits the minimum focus distance.
Keeping in mind, I bought this camera about 5-6 years ago now. The newer stuff will have even better optics and image processing.
Dunno if I would trust this. It's difficult to do good optics for a low cost, I would say old vs new could be a crapshoot.
Better sensor? Better high ISO performance? Better image processor? Probably.
Better optics? Probably not.
There are many exceptional old lenses out there, made well before the dawn of digital photography.
Indeed the lead free drive screwed over the photographers too, all glass is compliant now and widely considered inferior AFAIK.
Then there's the old radioactive glass, "just leave it in the sun for a few days and it will become clear again"?!
Evil (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens)cameras are probably worth a close look for macro work (arf
)
They have no optical viewfinder and view through the LCD panel on rear.
This means that they tend to come with focus aids such a live mag and focus peaking.
They also are incredibly flexible in connecting to other manufacturers lenses from through the ages.
Nothing wrong with modern lenses, just you will pay for performance.
Again not forgetting things like auto focus and aperture are nigh on useless in macro IMHO.
Edit: Just to say I am not a macro photographer, just messed about with it.
Was more into wildlife, and have just sold my 400mm L for testgear.
Will have a nosey through some harddrives and see if there are any interesting shots to post (macro). Might have a punt at shooting some PCB to see what the results are with the kit and zoom lens. Something of interest could crop up. (ouch! apologies for that pun!)
