which camera?

[VicParticipant @vic]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 30/05/2016 14:02:05:

A professional wildlife photographer I know recommend bridge cameras for macro work because they have superior depth of field because of the smaller sensors. He has ££££ of kit and was one of the pioneers of high DF macro using stepper motors to take multiple images then stitching them back together.

Focus stacking has become popular for macro work but as far as I am aware most folks use DSLR's with a good quality prime lens.

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Vic on 30/05/2016 15:08:34:

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 30/05/2016 14:02:05:

A professional wildlife photographer I know recommend bridge cameras for macro work because they have superior depth of field because of the smaller sensors. He has ££££ of kit and was one of the pioneers of high DF macro using stepper motors to take multiple images then stitching them back together.

Focus stacking has become popular for macro work but as far as I am aware most folks use DSLR's with a good quality prime lens.

You couldn't get this depth of field with a DSLR:

[Dave HalfordParticipant @davehalford22513]

To go back to original posters question.

You may find interchangeable lenses a bit of a pain after a while.

Watch the shutter reaction times some DSLR's are a bit sleepy like 50 quid compacts are.

[AjohnwParticipant @ajohnw51620]

There is always a thread on insect macro here every year.

**LINK**

I'm rather surprised by some of the shot's taken in B'ham so far this year – no signs of anything much around here.

The shots come in from all over the place. Most are using a dlsr and a dedicated macro lens. One person Geoff F takes photo's for some organisation uses the longest focal length one he can get. Others use various arrangements even adding 1.4x converters and an extension tube. The aim is to get maximum working distance. Generally a flash is used as well with diffusers made out of all sorts of things.

I'm getting better at it but still don't always get the depth of field where it needs to be. Probably less than 1/2 the times I take a shot. On M 4/3 I've found a 75-300mm telephoto lens plus an achromatic close up lens to be my best option. Not Olympus's macro lens. It's usually set at around 120 to 200mm. The quality drops off above that.

Compacts often have a macro facility. Mixed feelings. They usually do this by allowing it to focus down to 10mm or some such very short distance and at the shorter focal length end of their zoom range. There is some one on there that regularly posts shots taken with a Fuji compact although I see he has added a sony alpha to his kit now. His name is Brian and posts as JBW.

There are a number of helpful people on there that can help with all aspects of photography.

John

–

Edited By Ajohnw on 30/05/2016 15:51:40

Edited By Ajohnw on 30/05/2016 15:52:05

[Ed DuffnerParticipant @edduffner79357]

With respect to the OP and all posters, getting back to the original question, a piece of kit I have found invaluable is an off-camera flash with tilt/swivel head, especially in the workshop where direct flash produces very strong shadows, but is also recommended for general bounce flash photography. A tripod for still life and set-up shots and a comfortable camera bag for doing any kind of travel photography, day trips etc. A second camera battery is a good idea.

Also something I find really useful is a blower/puffer to remove paticles from lens'(lenses?) and occasionally from inside the camera.

Ed.

[VicParticipant @vic]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 30/05/2016 15:35:33:

Posted by Vic on 30/05/2016 15:08:34:

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 30/05/2016 14:02:05:

A professional wildlife photographer I know recommend bridge cameras for macro work because they have superior depth of field because of the smaller sensors. He has ££££ of kit and was one of the pioneers of high DF macro using stepper motors to take multiple images then stitching them back together.

Focus stacking has become popular for macro work but as far as I am aware most folks use DSLR's with a good quality prime lens.

You couldn't get this depth of field with a DSLR:

That's the point though, with focus stacking you can get far better depth of field than that.

Having said that I don't use the method myself so this was just taken with a macro lens on my Pentax DSLR and it's not too bad.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Vic on 30/05/2016 16:28:26:

That's the point though, with focus stacking you can get far better depth of field than that.

.

Neil,

Have a look at Zerene Stacker and Helicon Focus

MichaelG.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 30/05/2016 16:44:49

[V8EngParticipant @v8eng]

I may have come in a bit late on this thread having been away from home for a few days.

Not going to recommend a particular camera, just a couple of useful things (imho):-

1. A camera fitted with a variable angle LCD Disply on the back, useful for low level pictures etc. Did not get that myself and since regretted not spending a bit extra for it.

2. The ability to have WiFi operation, mine is by a plug in dongle which gives proper remote viewing and triggering (using a phone or tablet app) for things such as wildlife.

Edited By V8Eng on 30/05/2016 16:59:22

Edited By V8Eng on 30/05/2016 17:03:18

Edited By V8Eng on 30/05/2016 17:03:57

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 30/05/2016 16:42:46:

Posted by Vic on 30/05/2016 16:28:26:

That's the point though, with focus stacking you can get far better depth of field than that.

.

Neil,

Have a look at Zerene Stacker and Helicon Focus

MichaelG.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 30/05/2016 16:44:49

I have CombineZP, but no camera racking hardware, yet!

[AjohnwParticipant @ajohnw51620]

It's hard to make insects sit still long enough to use stacking software. There is some one on photomicrography.net that seems to manage but maybe he has some sort of stay there spray. There are plenty of shots on the site that use stacking software. Zerene is popular.

On Neil's comment on depth of field this was shot with a 252mm focal length at F14 on a 7D. Not one of his best but he is rather good at it. The 252 comes about from a 180mm lens and a 1.4x converter.

John

–

[Nick_GParticipant @nick_g]

Posted by Ajohnw on 30/05/2016 13:55:31:

I don't hear Nick complaining. He's a photographer so I doubted if he would.

John

–

.

John, how wrong you are.

I should have really said this sooner. I meant to when I was making series of posts earlier but someone called round and we decided to go out.

Editing and reposting an image taken by someone else is just not the done thing. (unless requested) It may be considered OK to do so in certain places such as camera clubs but in the real world it's one of the cast in stone no-noes. Even more so since you left my name on the edited version.

Many photographers (not me) would see this as the equivalent of you coming home to find some random guy off the internet in your workshop having helped himself to some of your steel stock and using your lathe. Really they would.! – I however I can assure you am very far (I hope) from being that anal and while when I first saw the image had a WTF moment it was combined with some amusement. – In fact if you want some images to play with I will send you some. Just don't go posting them on the internet. …………………….. Especially with my name on them.

The version you posted. I have no idea what screen you are working with but on mine it looks truly awful. Her eyes have been over sharpened to the point where she would scare a police horse.

Post processing. I punched the brightness and contrast a bit and some dodge and burn was used. The healing tool was used a bit to get rid of a few tiny zits on her pretty forehead and she has a very small imperfection to the right of her mouth which was removed. This is not normally noticeable, only in cross side lighting such as this.

Certainly no skin smoothing and no blur to any part of the image as you stated. The reason is a wide lens aperture setting was set giving a very shallow depth of field from the point of focus. But I am sure you will know that anyway. So overall very little PS post work. I hate photo editing and get quickly bored, as such I do as little as possible of it. Some however love doing so. – Besides over editing the images in this case would have defeated their intended use and made them useless. Going to grab some fodder now and then I will explain later.

Cheers, Nick

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Nick_G on 30/05/2016 18:54:27:

Posted by Ajohnw on 30/05/2016 13:55:31:

I don't hear Nick complaining. He's a photographer so I doubted if he would.

John

–

.

John, how wrong you are.

I should have really said this sooner. I meant to when I was making series of posts earlier but someone called round and we decided to go out.

Editing and reposting an image taken by someone else is just not the done thing. (unless requested) It may be considered OK to do so in certain places such as camera clubs but in the real world it's one of the cast in stone no-noes. Even more so since you left my name on the edited version.

Many photographers (not me) would see this as the equivalent of you coming home to find some random guy off the internet in your workshop having helped himself to some of your steel stock and using your lathe. Really they would.! – I however I can assure you am very far (I hope) from being that anal and while when I first saw the image had a WTF moment it was combined with some amusement. – In fact if you want some images to play with I will send you some. Just don't go posting them on the internet. …………………….. Especially with my name on them.

…

Cheers, Nick

I have to say thanks to both John and Nick for making me think again about this issue.

My initial reaction was that John's modification of a picture clearly in the public domain wasn't at all unreasonable. But now Nick's explained it from his point of view I've changed my mind.

I suppose changing a digital image isn't really different from altering the sense of a typed post. I would certainly be upset if someone changed "I think MEW is wonderful" to "I think MEW is dreadful", and the new wording was apparently signed by me.

I don't suppose for a moment that John intended to cause offence. And a beneficial side-effect is that I've been educated again by forum opinion.

Regards

Dave

[AjohnwParticipant @ajohnw51620]

No sharpening at all Nick. Sorry and etc but I have deleted the photo from the album but it looks like that doesn't change what's in the post. If Neil or one of the other mods don't notice I'll ask them to remove it.

Afraid it does look blurred in places to me. I had noticed that the camera can be set to do that and there is a similar example on canon's own page on it on their web site.

As mentioned the only reason I did it was to show that photo's can be changed in none obvious ways. I don't like the result either. I'm surprised that you can get that sort of result with a rather small sensor without deliberately focusing short. To me looking at the face against other aspects, the rope and other part of the body it looked processed.

John

–

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

John, I thought you knew all about computers, try clearing your cache and the photo won't be there. Simples

The Forum software is also likely to have reduced Nicks original to a fraction of its original detail.

Edited By JasonB on 30/05/2016 20:02:11

[Nick_GParticipant @nick_g]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 30/05/2016 19:39:24:

I don't suppose for a moment that John intended to cause offence.

Dave

.

No neither do I. – That is why I offered him some images to play with if photo editing is his thing.

Back to the original question. The girl that lives with me is a photographic model and as such travels about working with lots of different photographers so gets many different and unbiased opinions.

A budget end SLR type held in good regard is the Fuji XT10 it seems. So much so that she has purchased one. I have not used it myself and neither has she much as yet. But the results I have seen so far have been very good.

It's a retro styled camera that looks to be well made for the money. She is away working in Belgium ATM where she has been putting it to use whenever she can. So when she gets back I would think she will have lots to edit. ………… She likes editing. I as said previously don't.

Nick

[peak4Participant @peak4]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 30/05/2016 15:35:33:

Posted by Vic on 30/05/2016 15:08:34:

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 30/05/2016 14:02:05:

A professional wildlife photographer I know recommend bridge cameras for macro work because they have superior depth of field because of the smaller sensors. He has ££££ of kit and was one of the pioneers of high DF macro using stepper motors to take multiple images then stitching them back together.

Focus stacking has become popular for macro work but as far as I am aware most folks use DSLR's with a good quality prime lens.

You couldn't get this depth of field with a DSLR:

Then again, with an m4/3 camera and the appropriate lens you can now do some amazing stuff with in camera focus stacking. I've not played yet myself, and it's limited to the latest bodies and just a few of the later lenses; Have a look HERE as an example

[VicParticipant @vic]

Posted by peak4 on 30/05/2016 20:10:32:

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 30/05/2016 15:35:33:

Posted by Vic on 30/05/2016 15:08:34:

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 30/05/2016 14:02:05:

A professional wildlife photographer I know recommend bridge cameras for macro work because they have superior depth of field because of the smaller sensors. He has ££££ of kit and was one of the pioneers of high DF macro using stepper motors to take multiple images then stitching them back together.

Focus stacking has become popular for macro work but as far as I am aware most folks use DSLR's with a good quality prime lens.

You couldn't get this depth of field with a DSLR:

Then again, with an m4/3 camera and the appropriate lens you can now do some amazing stuff with in camera focus stacking. I've not played yet myself, and it's limited to the latest bodies and just a few of the later lenses; Have a look HERE as an example

Thanks for that. I brought up this idea with a mate some years ago but I didn't realise that one of the manufacturers had actually implemented it! Is it just Olympus or are there other manufacturers that offer it?

[peak4Participant @peak4]

As far as I know, just Olympus, and then only with the latest software revision.

Currently I believe Focus Stacking (i.e. in camera) only works with the m4/3 60mm, 12-40mm F2.8, & 40-150mm F2.8 lenses and then only on the E-M1, I'm assuming that the new 300mm F2.8 will also work, or will be updated in firmware soon. the 1.4 converter can be used with the 40-150mm as well.

Focus Bracketing works with the E-M1, E-M5 Mk2 and E-M10 Mk2 and all M4/3s lenses (where the images are saved separately for post processing combination; Maybe only the Olympus m4/3s lenses, I'm not sure)

See HERE

Edited By peak4 on 30/05/2016 21:54:14

Edited By peak4 on 30/05/2016 21:55:24

[AjohnwParticipant @ajohnw51620]

The problem with the Olympus macro lens really is that the focal length is too short. At 1:1 and even with less it's way too close to the insect and many fly or crawl away. That's why I generally use the 75-300mm with a close up lens. A lucky buy on the close up lens. It's an achromatic one Sigma did for one of their zooms that really would do macro. It also makes it easier to use flash if needed. I often find it is.

I have the 40-150mm 2.8 but in some ways am disappointed as it's a pretty heavy lens. Like many I went for the format to reduce size and weight. I've not tried that on macro really yet but suspect I wont be able to get the mag I will often need.

For static stuff even with a microscope I can't bring myself to kill insects just to photograph them. If they are causing me or others I have no problem swatting them so some species shouldn't trouble me really but many can be hard to find.

To be honest I may revert to APS for macro. Nothing else though as I don't think that there is much point. Just marginal improvements in noise. To go even smaller I have been playing with a Nikon 1. They would be brilliant if they had put a lower resolution low noise higher dynamic range sensor in them but as they are the one I have has more noise than the next model down as it has more pixels and exposure can be tricky when the important bits need to be dead right there's scarcely any room for error even from raw.

Anyway sounds like I should update the firmware in my EM1 after making sure I don't loose anything that I use,

John

–

[AjohnwParticipant @ajohnw51620]

I just cleared my cache Jason and it's still there. Just add maybe it's in some one else's ISP etc.

John

–

Edited By Ajohnw on 30/05/2016 23:59:40

[peak4Participant @peak4]

Posted by Ajohnw on 30/05/2016 23:53:27:

The problem with the Olympus macro lens really is that the focal length is too short. At 1:1 and even with less it's way too close to the insect and many fly or crawl away. That's why I generally use the 75-300mm with a close up lens. A lucky buy on the close up lens. It's an achromatic one Sigma did for one of their zooms that really would do macro. It also makes it easier to use flash if needed. I often find it is.

Anyway sounds like I should update the firmware in my EM1 after making sure I don't loose anything that I use,

John

If you have the cash, and a 4/3-m4/3 adaptor, there's always the Sigma 150mm F2.8, a spectacular performer in most people's estimations.

Incidentally, my previous post should have read 300mm F4 :The 300mm F2.8 is the larger 4/3s format lens.

There's one for sale at a very good price on the UK Olympus forum HERE

Edited By peak4 on 31/05/2016 00:27:17

[Enough!Participant @enough]

Posted by Ajohnw on 30/05/2016 18:09:20:

………but maybe he has some sort of stay there spray.

Years ago, it used to be suggested that a quick puff of the "freezing spray" used during electronic trouble shooting – then wait a few seconds for the residue to boil off – is enough to slow the insect down for photographic purposes.

Never tried it myself but it sounded good.

[roy entwistleParticipant @royentwistle24699]

A friend of mine who photographs butterflies puts them in the fridge for a few minutes to stop them moving

[VicParticipant @vic]

There is a chemical that can be used to subdue insects that a friend of mine tried but it proved to be fatal on a number of occasions so he stopped using it. Even popping them in the fridge for a while can be fatal. It's surprising how tough they are when you want to get rid of them and how fragile they can be when you don't!

[AjohnwParticipant @ajohnw51620]

Funny you should mention the Sigma 150mm macro. Often when I have sold bits and pieces I buy something else so bought one a few weeks ago. Canon fit as my son gave me his 100D and I also have some Canon stuff with the original Rebel I've kept. This is why i decided to sell my Nikon gear. My son's off to America for 3 weeks and for some reason just had to go full frame. He also has a 7D II so no idea why. I must admit that the new 5D's are smaller and lighter than my original 5D but I can't see myself going that way again.

Canon do seem to have tried to make the 100D convenient for some one who is really interested in photography and no need to worry about it crawling around in fields. So I am going to give it a try. If m 4/3 proves easier the lens should be easy to sell. The problem with the long zoom with the close up lens on is sometimes it's better to use it without and it has to be unscrewed. That's made worse by the flash I use. I dismantled one of their tiny flash guns they provide with the camera and arranged for it to mount on the lens hood. There has been several case where I could have photo'd some insect with the close up off but couldn't get close enough with it on.

Actually there is also a small telescopic aerial on the part that now clips into the camera flash socket but I haven't tried mounting the flash on the end of it yet.

I have tried several of the older 4/3 lenses with an adapter but feel that lenses have moved on since they were made. I mean the do coat all of the separate lenses in the lens now. As surprising as it may sound the often didn't in the past which is why modern dslr lenses tend to give more contrast.

John

–

[Author]

Posts