# Best camera for Macro Photography 'out of the box'



## Oswoc (Jun 11, 2021)

Morning! 

Love taking snaps of my T's, potentially the most enjoyable part of keeping them IMO. 

I'm based in UK, and would love a recommendation for a camera, digital or SLR, that can get me some half-decent Macro images  without me tinkering too much with additional lenses and editing software. 

Or do I need to spend a fortune on different set ups to get some good close-ups of those sexy T 'faces'??  

Couldn't find an exact thread on this, forgive me if I missed it.

Have a good day! 

Attached is an example of a close up from my 'Galaxy Note 9' camera... this being a 'close up' of a 1cm Krachen sling


----------



## viper69 (Jun 11, 2021)

Oswoc said:


> Morning!
> 
> Love taking snaps of my T's, potentially the most enjoyable part of keeping them IMO.
> 
> ...


What you really need to ask/know is this:

1. What type, ie quality, of macro images do you want to produce?

2. What type of LENS do I need is most important over camera

3 Recognize that many macro images you see are the result of focus stacking, (tons of images over tons of hours)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## basin79 (Jun 11, 2021)

You can get incredible results with a telephoto lens and something like a Raynox DCR 250 clip on. You'll be limited to the shots you can get though. Some use a telephoto lens and extension tubes to get macro results.

Then there are dedicated macro lenses. Best thing you can do is decide on a budget. And then just look at what kit you can afford and then look at reviews online/youtube. But reviews from photographers/trusted sites.

I started off with a Nikon D5500 and Nikon's cheap is 90mm micro lens. Or it was 5 years ago. You'll need to practice a lot and get used to editing to get the most out of it. But you'll do that just by talking pics.

Reactions: Like 1 | Helpful 1


----------



## Vermis (Jun 21, 2021)

basin79 said:


> Some use a telephoto lens and extension tubes to get macro results.


Yup. I got a set of extension tubes to stick between a Lumix micro 4/3 camera and a 75-200mm telephoto lens: a shoestring option 'til I feel I can comfortably afford a genuine macro lens. (And because that money is going on a telephoto lens with a wide enough f-stop for decent long-range shots in forest gloom, first. But that's by the by) They definitely give me 'half-decent macro images'. The biggest drawback in my experience, is that the depth of field can be pretty shallow. Something that 'macro lens vs. extension tube' articles will demonstrate. My camera has a couple of different multi-shot and focus stacking options that I still have to fully explore, to see if that improves the situation.

I didn't know things like the Raynox lens existed. I'll have to check that out myself.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Oswoc (Jun 21, 2021)

Really appreciate all your input guys.

I'm going to start small as it seems this hobby could be VERY expensive if I really wanna get some great shots.

Might play around with a cheap 2nd hand DSLR to get used to all the functions first then build up to an expesinve macro lens.

In the meantime, a £10 smart phone 'macro lens adaptor' will do along with my tripod.


Finally, *I'D LOVE YOU SHARE SOME OF YOUR BEST MACRO IMAGES *using some of the set ups mentioned above. No pressure!

I've attached my current best image of a P. Regius using just my smartphone alone.

Thanks again!

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## basin79 (Jun 21, 2021)

Some of my favourites. 

A really close look at Typhon's (dog) nose. 



Hogna schmitzi with a banded cricket.




Macrothele gigas in a defensive posture.



Sicarius thomisoides with a banded cricket.



Sundew plant.



Pamphobeteus sp Costa with a silent cricket.

Reactions: Like 3 | Wow 3 | Love 1


----------



## Oswoc (Jun 21, 2021)

basin79 said:


> Some of my favourites.
> 
> A really close look at Typhon's (dog) nose.
> View attachment 388967
> ...


Incredible photos! Thanks for sharing. I can only dream of taking these kind of shots!!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## basin79 (Jun 21, 2021)

Oswoc said:


> Incredible photos! Thanks for sharing. I can only dream of taking these kind of shots!!


I have a very good camera and lens. Sony a7r iii with their 90mm macro. Although I will type you DON'T need to spend that much to get these results. I just came into some money and knew if I didn't spend it on something worthwhile I'd just end up wasting it. 

My first camera from 2016 was a Nikon D5500 with their "cheap" nikkor 90mm micro lens. Just the inbuilt flash. No diffuser. Got some cracking pics with that to say I literally knew nothing about photography or editing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Oswoc (Jun 23, 2021)

1st day with my £10 macro phone lens... so far so good! I have to hold my camera literally 5mm away from the subject though - is that the same issue when using a proper SLR camera with a 90mm lens??

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## basin79 (Jun 24, 2021)

Oswoc said:


> 1st day with my £10 macro phone lens... so far so good! I have to hold my camera literally 5mm away from the subject though - is that the same issue when using a proper SLR camera with a 90mm lens??
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No. With a camera you get to change the aperture on the lens and distance. You're not governed by the same limitations.


----------



## TechnoGeek (Jun 26, 2021)

Macro photography is more about the lens than about the body. Not even af performance is a major factor in macro because you would get the best results with manual focus. Tho I would say more mpix is definitely welcome for macro. Also definitely look for something with a BSI CMOS sensor (backside illuminated) as they tend to gather more light and have a better high ISO performance (lower noise at higher ISO values). You'll also need a good speedlight with a diffuser.

Here's what I use for macro most of the time:




The lens is Tamron 90mm F/2.8 SP VC F 017. I also use extension tubes (29mm) to focus closer to subject if needed. Finally my speedlight of choice is Nikon SB600, SB700 or SB800.

You can find multiple samples of my macros in this thread: https://arachnoboards.com/threads/lensofthenorth-photography-thread.346909/#post-3195628

Reactions: Like 1 | Helpful 1


----------



## Oswoc (Aug 1, 2021)

Update! 

Invested in a 2nd hand Pentax KS-2 DSLR, with a 300mm sigma lens that 'doubles up' as a 1:1 'macro'. Its all very basic, but I've learnt so much since getting this camera, as well as playing around with other lenses. 
Below are some examples of 'macro' shots I've taken since owning the kit. I've order a 20x macro filter which I assume will help?

also, I find theres such a shallow depth of field when taking these shots - i dunno how to get the whole image crisp without tonnes of bokeh... 

Value any input/feedback!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dry Desert (Aug 1, 2021)

Oswoc said:


> Update!
> 
> Invested in a 2nd hand Pentax KS-2 DSLR, with a 300mm sigma lens that 'doubles up' as a 1:1 'macro'. Its all very basic, but I've learnt so much since getting this camera, as well as playing around with other lenses.
> Below are some examples of 'macro' shots I've taken since owning the kit. I've order a 20x macro filter which I assume will help?
> ...


Looking at the bee shot, it seems  to lack sharpness. This is probably due to hand holding your 300mm lens. If you want sharp photos with your 300 lens you will have to use a Very sturdy Tripod, not a flimsy table top model. You will not find any macro lens longer than 200 mm, and that has to be used very carefully on a sturdy tripod. This is the reason the popular macro lens are in the 90/100 mm range, as that lenght enables you to hand hold, although some will still use a tripod for maximum sharpness. You should be able to pick up a decent second hand tripod on " fleabay " Preloved or gumtree. This will enable you to continue using your 300 lens plus any attachments. In the days of film the rule of thumb was - use the next highest shutter speed from the length of the lens - for your lens 300, the next shutter speed would be 450. That was a rough guide to hand holding any lens. Then the ISO and " f " stop would be adjusted to suit that shutter speed. Nothing is simple with photography. This is the main reason I still use film, can't be doing with taking 100 photos then spending a day pratting around with various software to achieve decent photos. All my editing is done in camera before I press the shutter. My phone has 45 megapixels that does me for " Micky mouse " up loads.

Reactions: Helpful 2


----------



## Oswoc (Aug 1, 2021)

Dry Desert said:


> Looking at the bee shot, it seems  to lack sharpness. This is probably due to hand holding your 300mm lens. If you want sharp photos with your 300 lens you will have to use a Very sturdy Tripod, not a flimsy table top model. You will not find any macro lens longer than 200 mm, and that has to be used very carefully on a sturdy tripod. This is the reason the popular macro lens are in the 90/100 mm range, as that lenght enables you to hand hold, although some will still use a tripod for maximum sharpness. You should be able to pick up a decent second hand tripod on " fleabay " Preloved or gumtree. This will enable you to continue using your 300 lens plus any attachments. In the days of film the rule of thumb was - use the next highest shutter speed from the length of the lens - for your lens 300, the next shutter speed would be 450. That was a rough guide to hand holding any lens. Then the ISO and " f " stop would be adjusted to suit that shutter speed. Nothing is simple with photography. This is the main reason I still use film, can't be doing with taking 100 photos then spending a day pratting around with various software to achieve decent photos. All my editing is done in camera before I press the shutter. My phone has 45 megapixels that does me for " Micky mouse " up loads.


Wow! Thats really helpful, thanks for the info, and well spotted on the handheld snaps, I've yet to try a tripod out, but will try get a decent one soon! 

If you could recommend a good 'K-mount' (for pentax) macro lens, then that would be cool. My sigma one was so cheap 2nd hand so wasn't expecting much to be honest. 

I worry if I start investing in decent lenses, that I'll be stuck using my 20MP Pentax body... maybe i should wait before investing in a better Nikon/Canon before spending £100's on a good macro lens...


----------



## Dry Desert (Aug 1, 2021)

Oswoc said:


> Wow! Thats really helpful, thanks for the info, and well spotted on the handheld snaps, I've yet to try a tripod out, but will try get a decent one soon!
> 
> If you could recommend a good 'K-mount' (for pentax) macro lens, then that would be cool. My sigma one was so cheap 2nd hand so wasn't expecting much to be honest.
> 
> I worry if I start investing in decent lenses, that I'll be stuck using my 20MP Pentax body... maybe i should wait before investing in a better Nikon/Canon before spending £100's on a good macro lens...


Don't worry about the Canon,Nikon badge name, your 20 megapixel Pentax will be fine. The best way forward is to purchase a manual focus K mount lens. Always best to manually focus for critical macro work anyway. I have just had a quick look on eBay and there is a SMC Pentax M Macro 100 mm F4  K mount. £99.95 free postage. The seller is in Brighton. I don't think you will better that, the lens has been tested, and in excellent condition. A new auto focus Pentax retails from £550 - £900 depending on model. £99.95 is about right for a good manual focus quality macro lens. Your choice though, very difficult to recommend really. If I were wearing your shoes and reading what you've said, this lens would be ideal for you until you decide if you want to delve deeper into the macry world. Photography can be very, very expensive, take my word for that.


----------



## The Snark (Aug 2, 2021)

Could you folks give your opinion of this lens?


			https://www.amazon.com/ULTIMAXX-0-43x-Professional-Angle-Macro/dp/B07C7DB955


----------



## Anubis77 (Aug 3, 2021)

If you really wanna save money, get a little weird, and learn from frustration, old lenses can be fun. I have a basic Canon Rebel T3i that I have been using a 1970s Soviet 50mm Industar 61 L/Z lens with (a copy of a Leica). All for the price of $60 and a $5 EOS-M42 adapter ring (and used $300 T3i). Just got some cheap ebay macro extension tubes and a knockoff $70 ring light flash to mess with as well.

It's frustrating to use sometimes (all manual), but being annoyed is cheaper than buying modern lenses. The strange bokeh and irregularities are more fun to wrangle with than the higher objective quality that my Canon 18-55mm lens produces. It's an old school, cinematic feel. And it only has a very slightly radioactive anti-glare coating!










Additionally, I got good results using a point and shoot Canon S5 IS for like 10 years with just a $70 Raynox DCR-250. One of the best field setups I've used. The DCR-250 either way is the best investment I've made in photography. You can slap that on to anything.

Reactions: Like 3 | Wow 2


----------



## Dry Desert (Aug 3, 2021)

The Snark said:


> Could you folks give your opinion of this lens?
> 
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/ULTIMAXX-0-43x-Professional-Angle-Macro/dp/B07C7DB955


Save your $10 and invest in a Raynox DCR 250, pretty good cheap alternative for close up results. Clips onto any lens with a diameter of 49 - 67. Gives the equivalent of a 8 - diopter close up filter. Best used on a medium telephoto lens, then you can vary your shooting distance.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Helpful 1


----------



## basin79 (Aug 3, 2021)

Dry Desert said:


> Save your $10 and invest in a Raynox DCR 250, pretty good cheap alternative for close up results. Clips onto any lens with a diameter of 49 - 67. Gives the equivalent of a 8 - diopter close up filter. Best used on a medium telephoto lens, then you can vary your shooting distance.


Picked one up for my macro lens a few weeks ago. £46 off Amazon.

Reactions: Wow 1


----------



## Anubis77 (Aug 3, 2021)

Dry Desert said:


> Save your $10 and invest in a Raynox DCR 250, pretty good cheap alternative for close up results. Clips onto any lens with a diameter of 49 - 67. Gives the equivalent of a 8 - diopter close up filter. Best used on a medium telephoto lens, then you can vary your shooting distance.





basin79 said:


> Picked one up for my macro lens a few weeks ago. £46 off Amazon.


Raynox DCR-250 hype. It really is the most flexible cheap option.

I just wish there was an alternative to the cheap plastic clip-on adapter. I've broken two tabs over time. It's a tight fit on my current lens. Feels like I'm gonna snap a tab again.


----------



## Oswoc (Aug 3, 2021)

basin79 said:


> Picked one up for my macro lens a few weeks ago. £46 off Amazon.
> 
> View attachment 394072
> View attachment 394073


I've recently ordered a '20x magnification macro' filter off ebay to go on the end of my sigma 'macro' lens - will this keep up with this raynox lens? Or have I just wasted £15?


----------



## basin79 (Aug 3, 2021)

Anubis77 said:


> Raynox DCR-250 hype. It really is the most flexible cheap option.
> 
> I just wish there was an alternative to the cheap plastic clip-on adapter. I've broken two tabs over time. It's a tight fit on my current lens. Feels like I'm gonna snap a tab again.


I have a great macro lens but wanted the Raynox to get some really clear ultra close ups of my carnivorous plants. Plenty of room on mine so don't have that issue.


----------



## Oswoc (Aug 3, 2021)

Dry Desert said:


> Looking at the bee shot, it seems  to lack sharpness. This is probably due to hand holding your 300mm lens. If you want sharp photos with your 300 lens you will have to use a Very sturdy Tripod, not a flimsy table top model. You will not find any macro lens longer than 200 mm, and that has to be used very carefully on a sturdy tripod. This is the reason the popular macro lens are in the 90/100 mm range, as that lenght enables you to hand hold, although some will still use a tripod for maximum sharpness. You should be able to pick up a decent second hand tripod on " fleabay " Preloved or gumtree. This will enable you to continue using your 300 lens plus any attachments. In the days of film the rule of thumb was - use the next highest shutter speed from the length of the lens - for your lens 300, the next shutter speed would be 450. That was a rough guide to hand holding any lens. Then the ISO and " f " stop would be adjusted to suit that shutter speed. Nothing is simple with photography. This is the main reason I still use film, can't be doing with taking 100 photos then spending a day pratting around with various software to achieve decent photos. All my editing is done in camera before I press the shutter. My phone has 45 megapixels that does me for " Micky mouse " up loads.


Can you recommend a tripod? Seems to be such a huge selection out there. I really don't wanna spend more than £100!


----------



## basin79 (Aug 3, 2021)

Oswoc said:


> I've recently ordered a '20x magnification macro' filter off ebay to go on the end of my sigma 'macro' lens - will this keep up with this raynox lens? Or have I just wasted £15?


Not a scoooby. Just have to wait and see. The Raynox is weird to use on a macro has you get a really really narrow focal plane. That's why I got it for plants mainly as I can move the plants to suit.


----------



## Dry Desert (Aug 3, 2021)

Oswoc said:


> Can you recommend a tripod? Seems to be such a huge selection out there. I really don't wanna spend more than £100!


Manfrotto are a good all-rounder. See if you can get a good second hand one. Tripods don't wear out, so a decent Manfrotto will serve you well. You don't want one that extends to 8 foot and is all wobbly, have one that extends to about 4/5 foot without extending the centre section. Make sure you purchase a complete tripod with a head, some tripods come without heads then have to be purchased separately. Again eBay is good for second hand, Preloved,or Gumtree.With eBay you have the money back g'tt.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## basin79 (Aug 3, 2021)

I have this Manfrotto. Handy because the legs are really manoeuvrable and the middle extends to lie down. Was £170 brand new so would imagine if you can find one second hand it'll be around £100 or less. 




I used to use a Manfrotto grip ball head but last year got myself a geared head. Absolutely love it. Let's me make big adjustments and then micro adjustments. Worth it for me because my camera is extremely front heavy and it keeps things steady.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Anubis77 (Aug 3, 2021)

basin79 said:


> I have a great macro lens but wanted the Raynox to get some really clear ultra close ups of my carnivorous plants. Plenty of room on mine so don't have that issue.


It's good to have on hand in general I've found. And yes, fantastic for plant shots or very, very still animal subjects.

The little tabs on the adapter are pretty resilient given that mine broke after basically a decade, but it takes a beating in the field and with constant swapping. I guess for $7 per replacement it's hard to complain! Also, I have no idea why I don't just use metal step down/up rings with it lol.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Oswoc (Aug 3, 2021)

basin79 said:


> Not a scoooby. Just have to wait and see. The Raynox is weird to use on a macro has you get a really really narrow focal plane. That's why I got it for plants mainly as I can move the plants to suit.


Will update with pictures this week when it arrives!

Reactions: Thanks 1


----------



## Oswoc (Aug 6, 2021)

basin79 said:


> Not a scoooby. Just have to wait and see. The Raynox is weird to use on a macro has you get a really really narrow focal plane. That's why I got it for plants mainly as I can move the plants to suit.


Similar story here. I added this to my 'macro' lens and its unbearable. So blurry on the outsides, even with f/22.

Back to the drawing board in my hunt for 'cheap' highly detailed macro shots


----------



## basin79 (Aug 6, 2021)

Oswoc said:


> Similar story here. I added this to my 'macro' lens and its unbearable. So blurry on the outsides, even with f/22.
> 
> Back to the drawing board in my hunt for 'cheap' highly detailed macro shots
> 
> ...


The Raynox does work really well when you get yourself lined up right though.


----------



## Anubis77 (Aug 6, 2021)

Oswoc said:


> Similar story here. I added this to my 'macro' lens and its unbearable. So blurry on the outsides, even with f/22.
> 
> Back to the drawing board in my hunt for 'cheap' highly detailed macro shots


Can you post some of the shots?

Narrow focal planes can be cool depending on what you're trying to do, but yeah, without focus stacking, you might not get the detail you're looking for. Also depends on the size of the subject you're shooting. The DCR-250 + a macro lens can be overkill unless you're going for detail shots of eyes or something on a larger spider.

I've been having fun messing with macro extension tubes. They increase magnification substantially without an additional lens. The biggest drawback is the amount of light you'll need to compensate, but that can be addressed with an external flash or ring light. Depending on your lens, you may also have to get way too close to the subject to focus, but a 50mm has been usable. My 135mm telephoto lens also leads to good results. I think I paid about $11 for a Canon compatible set of tubes on ebay for my prime lenses and $17 for a set that preserves the electrical connection to your lens.


----------



## Dry Desert (Aug 6, 2021)

Oswoc said:


> Similar story here. I added this to my 'macro' lens and its unbearable. So blurry on the outsides, even with f/22.
> 
> Back to the drawing board in my hunt for 'cheap' highly detailed macro shots
> 
> ...


If you want what's considered to be the ultimate in macro lens at what I consider a very reasonable price, is the Kiron Macro lens that is on eBay at the moment for £176. This lens was rated to be the very best lens of its time, used to sell for thousands when first released. On the test bench results were even better than the best of best - the Nikon 105mm 2.8 micro.macro lens. Kiron was the Japanese company that used to make lenses for Vivitar and other lens manufacturers, they made the famous Vivitar 105mm macro under licence for Vivitar. The lens on eBay is in Canon FD mount, you would have to purchase a Canon fd to Pentax k adapter. They are only around 15/20 pound mark. You would have to select the aperture manually, and focus manually, but the results would be stunning. I still have a couple of Kiron lens, and if I still had my lovely Canon T90, the lens wouldn't be for sale any longer. Manual focus for macro work is preferred anyway for critical work. If you are interested just type in Kiron lens in Canon FD and it should take you straight there. I shouldn't think it will be around for long.


----------



## Smotzer (Aug 6, 2021)

Dry Desert said:


> On the test bench results were even better than the best of best - the Nikon 105mm 2.8 micro.macro lens.


The Nikkor 105mm 2.8 Micro is just my favorite lens to use. It is just a pleasure to shoot with in manual and af, not only limited to macro or insects. I use it occasionally for portraits but both the 105mm DC and 135mm DC take that cake. But overall you can go wrong with this Nikon Lens.

This was taken on the Nikon D750, 105mm f/2.8, a single shot manual focus, no speedlight/flash/diffuser, natural sunlight, in daylight under the trees. ISO 200 f/11 1/200sec.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smotzer (Aug 6, 2021)

But also quality of image is less dependent on camera body and MP, but on the lens and quality of light you have and your ability to actually compose and control images and light manually, the megapixel hype is so stupid because you simply just dont need that resolution unless you plan on having a crop contest (which nowadays a lot of the macro out there with high MP cameras is also cropped, (eh not a fan really), and are gallery printing and expensive professional printers, you wont really notice it. and most monitors cant appreciate it anyway and websites downsize all the time. I have shot on a 10 and 12mp Nikon for quite a long time, sensor pixel size and quality of light are far more important than how many megapixels you have. I had work published with those MP. 

I have a Nikon D750 that I use for a lot not only macro, I didnt get it for that, but also have a crop Canon T3i with 100mm f/2.8 and the images are great as long as you know how to take a photo and dont blow it out cropping it. #ComposeNotCrop

For example a shot taken today: Canon Rebel T3i 100mm f/2.8 USM macro. ISO 200 f/11 1/125sec. Manual Focus. Flash: Nikon SB-600. Manual fire- 1/4 at 24mm. w/ $10 amazon diffuser.


----------



## basin79 (Aug 6, 2021)

Smotzer said:


> But also quality of image is less dependent on camera body and MP, but on the lens and quality of light you have and your ability to actually compose and control images and light manually, the megapixel hype is so stupid because you simply just dont need that resolution unless you plan on having a crop contest (which nowadays a lot of the macro out there with high MP cameras is also cropped, (eh not a fan really), and are gallery printing and expensive professional printers, you wont really notice it. and most monitors cant appreciate it anyway and websites downsize all the time. I have shot on a 10 and 12mp Nikon for quite a long time, sensor pixel size and quality of light are far more important than how many megapixels you have. I had work published with those MP.
> 
> I have a Nikon D750 that I use for a lot not only macro, I didnt get it for that, but also have a crop Canon T3i with 100mm f/2.8 and the images are great as long as you know how to take a photo and dont blow it out cropping it. #ComposeNotCrop
> 
> ...


For me cropping is just necessary. There's literally nothing I could do to get this without cropping. I can't physically get the shot otherwise. And although it's all part and parcel I still feel a crop is more "honest" than a stack. 




Also this is a my best mates nose. A crop. Which again is only possible with a ridiculous amount of mega pixels. 





But it's not the point. The best camera you have is the one you have.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smotzer (Aug 6, 2021)

basin79 said:


> For me cropping is just necessary. There's literally nothing I could do to get this without cropping. I can't physically get the shit otherwise. And although it's all part and parcel I still feel a crop is more "honest" than a stack.
> 
> View attachment 394468
> 
> ...


Ohhh not speaking about you, your work is actually some of the best super macro that I’ve come across recently!! But  side by side for me I actually prefer your full nose with the detail over the cropped in image. The details are still there.


----------



## basin79 (Aug 6, 2021)

Smotzer said:


> Ohhh not speaking about you, your work is actually some of the best super macro that I’ve come across recently!! But  side by side for me I actually prefer your full nose with the detail over the cropped in image. The details are still there.


That's the beauty of taking pics. You get to post what you like. For me I personally like to focus in on a small part knowing I'm going to be using it. I'm more about the details over the composition usually.


----------



## Smotzer (Aug 6, 2021)

basin79 said:


> That's the beauty of taking pics. You get to post what you like. For me I personally like to focus in on a small part knowing I'm going to be using it. I'm more about the details over the composition usually.


That’s the great thing about it!! I’m composition focused. I learned on film and even shot in a 4x5 for awhile so composition is everything when you get one maybe 2 attempts to make a shot. I still shoot that way even though I shoot digital. I don’t take a lot of shots. But art is art, is subjective!!

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Anubis77 (Aug 9, 2021)

Dry Desert said:


> If you want what's considered to be the ultimate in macro lens at what I consider a very reasonable price, is the Kiron Macro lens that is on eBay at the moment for £176. This lens was rated to be the very best lens of its time, used to sell for thousands when first released. On the test bench results were even better than the best of best - the Nikon 105mm 2.8 micro.macro lens. Kiron was the Japanese company that used to make lenses for Vivitar and other lens manufacturers, they made the famous Vivitar 105mm macro under licence for Vivitar. The lens on eBay is in Canon FD mount, you would have to purchase a Canon fd to Pentax k adapter. They are only around 15/20 pound mark. You would have to select the aperture manually, and focus manually, but the results would be stunning. I still have a couple of Kiron lens, and if I still had my lovely Canon T90, the lens wouldn't be for sale any longer. Manual focus for macro work is preferred anyway for critical work. If you are interested just type in Kiron lens in Canon FD and it should take you straight there. I shouldn't think it will be around for long.


I think I found my next lens (not that listing specifically). I see some Lester A. Dine versions of that for some reasonable prices as well.

I still do want to try a Super Takumar macro as well though. And Tokina 90mm. And a bunch of others. Too many good options for experimenting with!


----------



## Oswoc (Aug 10, 2021)

Smotzer said:


> But also quality of image is less dependent on camera body and MP, but on the lens and quality of light you have and your ability to actually compose and control images and light manually, the megapixel hype is so stupid because you simply just dont need that resolution unless you plan on having a crop contest (which nowadays a lot of the macro out there with high MP cameras is also cropped, (eh not a fan really), and are gallery printing and expensive professional printers, you wont really notice it. and most monitors cant appreciate it anyway and websites downsize all the time. I have shot on a 10 and 12mp Nikon for quite a long time, sensor pixel size and quality of light are far more important than how many megapixels you have. I had work published with those MP.
> 
> I have a Nikon D750 that I use for a lot not only macro, I didnt get it for that, but also have a crop Canon T3i with 100mm f/2.8 and the images are great as long as you know how to take a photo and dont blow it out cropping it. #ComposeNotCrop
> 
> ...


I just don't understand HOW you get this level of detail? I can zoom in and see individual hairs around the eyes, its incredible detail.

I've got a 20mp DSLR, tripod, and


basin79 said:


> Picked one up for my macro lens a few weeks ago. £46 off Amazon.
> 
> View attachment 394072
> View attachment 394073


this is amazing! What lens/body did you attach this to?


----------



## Oswoc (Aug 10, 2021)

So, this is the best I can do so far with my Pentax KS-2, with a £50 2nd hand Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro. I'm 'zoomed in' to 300mm before I'm allowed to flick the 'macro' switch lol
I did a touch of editing to make my P. hoffmannseggi 'pop' with colour 

Is there any way i could improve these shots? I used a tripod for the first time and that helped. I've looked into 'focus stacking', but it seems quite pricey to pay for _Lightroom _to do that.

Lastly - I'm super keen on saving up and buying a 5:1 Macro lens from 'Laowa' - a _'25mm F/2.8 2.5-5x Ultra Macro Lens_' - would people recommend this? or is it overkill? I'd love to get more detail from the eyes of my Isopods and other Inverts! 

Thanks all, and I love the shots you're getting! Who knew these 'creepy-crawlies' were so photogenic!?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Oswoc (Aug 10, 2021)

Anubis77 said:


> Can you post some of the shots?
> 
> Narrow focal planes can be cool depending on what you're trying to do, but yeah, without focus stacking, you might not get the detail you're looking for. Also depends on the size of the subject you're shooting. The DCR-250 + a macro lens can be overkill unless you're going for detail shots of eyes or something on a larger spider.
> 
> I've been having fun messing with macro extension tubes. They increase magnification substantially without an additional lens. The biggest drawback is the amount of light you'll need to compensate, but that can be addressed with an external flash or ring light. Depending on your lens, you may also have to get way too close to the subject to focus, but a 50mm has been usable. My 135mm telephoto lens also leads to good results. I think I paid about $11 for a Canon compatible set of tubes on ebay for my prime lenses and $17 for a set that preserves the electrical connection to your lens.


So this is the best i could do with that little crappy '20x' macro filter I bought - tried getting a shot of pasta, but its just SO blurry, whatever i do, I can't focus.


----------



## Oswoc (Aug 10, 2021)

Smotzer said:


> But also quality of image is less dependent on camera body and MP, but on the lens and quality of light you have and your ability to actually compose and control images and light manually, the megapixel hype is so stupid because you simply just dont need that resolution unless you plan on having a crop contest (which nowadays a lot of the macro out there with high MP cameras is also cropped, (eh not a fan really), and are gallery printing and expensive professional printers, you wont really notice it. and most monitors cant appreciate it anyway and websites downsize all the time. I have shot on a 10 and 12mp Nikon for quite a long time, sensor pixel size and quality of light are far more important than how many megapixels you have. I had work published with those MP.
> 
> I have a Nikon D750 that I use for a lot not only macro, I didnt get it for that, but also have a crop Canon T3i with 100mm f/2.8 and the images are great as long as you know how to take a photo and dont blow it out cropping it. #ComposeNotCrop
> 
> ...


The level of detail is incredible! If I zoom in on this, I can see the hairs around it's eyes and everything - how do you get such detail? Is it purely the lens? I've attached some pictures of Isopods in a recent post on this thread, and I 'zoom' in and dont get close to the level of detail you have.... very jelous!


----------



## Dry Desert (Aug 10, 2021)

Oswoc said:


> The level of detail is incredible! If I zoom in on this, I can see the hairs around it's eyes and everything - how do you get such detail? Is it purely the lens? I've attached some pictures of Isopods in a recent post on this thread, and I 'zoom' in and dont get close to the level of detail you have.... very jelous!


You can spend £3000 on the latest 100+ megapixel "X" make of camera and stick a cheap lens on it you will get crappy results. You could probably improve it to an extent with a lot of time/ software. It's not about the camera or the tripod, it's about the lens quality. Film makers don't spend £20/30 thousand on their cameras then go for the cheapest lens around. The lens of their choice will probably be another £20 thousand to ensure btoadcast quality. I appreciate we all have a budget to work to, but the money, for whatever branch of photography you're interested in, needs to be spent on buying the best quality lens you can afford. Not spent on camera megapixel, or expensive software. In the good old days of film, the saying was" a camera is just a light proof box, it's what's on the front that matters"

Reactions: Helpful 1 | Award 1


----------



## basin79 (Aug 10, 2021)

Oswoc said:


> this is amazing! What lens/body did you attach this to?





Dry Desert said:


> You can spend £3000 on the latest 100+ megapixel "X" make of camera and stick a cheap lens on it you will get crappy results. You could probably improve it to an extent with a lot of time/ software. It's not about the camera or the tripod, it's about the lens quality. Film makers don't spend £20/30 thousand on their cameras then go for the cheapest lens around. The lens of their choice will probably be another £20 thousand to ensure btoadcast quality. I appreciate we all have a budget to work to, but the money, for whatever branch of photography you're interested in, needs to be spent on buying the best quality lens you can afford. Not spent on camera megapixel, or expensive software. In the good old days of film, the saying was" a camera is just a light proof box, it's what's on the front that matters"


Sums it up perfectly. 

I have an absolutely amazing camera and lens. Sony a7r iii with Sony's 90mm macro. It's far more capable then I ever will be. Sharp as a tack.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 2


----------



## Dry Desert (Aug 10, 2021)

basin79 said:


> Sums it up perfectly.
> 
> I have an absolutely amazing camera and lens. Sony a7r iii with Sony's 90mm macro. It's far more capable then I ever will be. Sharp as a tack.
> 
> ...


I,m sure if you approached a publisher that specialises in freelance work, rather than your own online website, they would be happy to publish your work in the form of a quality book on either " The Hidden Beauty of Tarantulas" or a" macro world " There used to be a " Freelance " monthly that listed all publishers, their requirements on print quality, minimum amount etc whether its still around I dont know. 
I agree with your Mum about the plant shots, my favourite is the Sundew one.

Reactions: Thanks 1


----------



## Smotzer (Aug 10, 2021)

Oswoc said:


> The level of detail is incredible! If I zoom in on this, I can see the hairs around it's eyes and everything - how do you get such detail? Is it purely the lens? I've attached some pictures of Isopods in a recent post on this thread, and I 'zoom' in and dont get close to the level of detail you have.... very jelous!


Are you shooting in full manual and manual focus? It will be hard to achieve any decent quality running off a cameras auto modes. And with the isopod shots are you already cropping them and then trying to zoom in further for detail?


----------



## Oswoc (Aug 10, 2021)

Smotzer said:


> Are you shooting in full manual and manual focus? It will be hard to achieve any decent quality running off a cameras auto modes. And with the isopod shots are you already cropping them and then trying to zoom in further for detail?


Hi mate,

Yes, manual all the way on body and lens. Auto is impossible for macro I've found. 

I've cropped the isopod shots, nearly halving the original shot. Which will impede quality I know, but it helps with the composition I want, which is something I can't always get with my crappy 'macro" lens when dealing with small subjects!


----------



## Anubis77 (Aug 10, 2021)

The isopods shots are good. I'm into the composition. Like they're legit interesting to look at, like something out of a field book. You can do a lot with even that lens if you keep experimenting.



Dry Desert said:


> You can spend £3000 on the latest 100+ megapixel "X" make of camera and stick a cheap lens on it you will get crappy results. You could probably improve it to an extent with a lot of time/ software. It's not about the camera or the tripod, it's about the lens quality. Film makers don't spend £20/30 thousand on their cameras then go for the cheapest lens around. The lens of their choice will probably be another £20 thousand to ensure btoadcast quality. I appreciate we all have a budget to work to, but the money, for whatever branch of photography you're interested in, needs to be spent on buying the best quality lens you can afford. Not spent on camera megapixel, or expensive software. In the good old days of film, the saying was" a camera is just a light proof box, it's what's on the front that matters"


It's true. But I can't help but be reminded of some friends and family who've gone all in and blew $10k on a bunch of equipment, got frustrated with the worse than phone camera shots they were getting, and quit in under a year. Camera stuff either sits in a closet or is resold for a loss. Make sure you want to stick to photography before going hard lol. Speaking of... wonder if my sister wants to sell her camera body.

I recognize I'm just a perpetual noob whose interest ebbs and flows, so I match my equipment to that. I avoid looking at modern macro lenses, because the inevitable down-time they would see would give me massive buyers remorse. Suppose the good thing about high quality lenses is resale seems to hold high.


----------



## 8 legged (Aug 10, 2021)

basin79 said:


> Sums it up perfectly.
> 
> I have an absolutely amazing camera and lens. Sony a7r iii with Sony's 90mm macro. It's far more capable then I ever will be. Sharp as a tack.
> 
> ...


You have 12 out of 10 possible points! Craziness!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Smotzer (Aug 10, 2021)

Oswoc said:


> Hi mate,
> 
> Yes, manual all the way on body and lens. Auto is impossible for macro I've found.
> 
> I've cropped the isopod shots, nearly halving the original shot. Which will impede quality I know, but it helps with the composition I want, which is something I can't always get with my crappy 'macro" lens when dealing with small subjects!


the reason I asked about that is that if you have already cropped in, and then basically zoom (or crop in) again you are going to the pixel level or past which may be whhy you think its not super in focus, when its actually that youve just gone down to the pixel level or past and that the focus was fine on the original. The photo of mine that you said when you zoomed in everything was in focus and could see all the hairs was not cropped at all, it was composed in camera, so all the resolution was in its original form and it was in focus in that area, hence why when you zoomed in you could see everything.


----------



## The Snark (Aug 10, 2021)

Just an observation. I've given up thinking macro and blowing cash on taking macros. It occurred to me what I hoped to accomplish in taking macros is quite well covered by the various posts here on AB. Just being able to take those pictures was my interest. I'm satisfied now.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dry Desert (Aug 11, 2021)

The Snark said:


> Just an observation. I've given up thinking macro and blowing cash on taking macros. It occurred to me what I hoped to accomplish in taking macros is quite well covered by the various posts here on AB. Just being able to take those pictures was my interest. I'm satisfied now.


There are only two things in photography that really affect the end result. 
1. What's attached to the front of the camera. 
2. Who's behind the camera.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## The Snark (Aug 11, 2021)

So now I'm back to looking for a telephoto. Auto focus, up to 5 or 8 x, takes perfect pictures in the dead of night, does parallax free panoramas, lets me snap shoot wildlife a couple football fields off with perfect focus, and of course cost less than the price of a 2 year old Mercedes.


----------



## Dry Desert (Aug 11, 2021)

The Snark said:


> So now I'm back to looking for a telephoto. Auto focus, up to 5 or 8 x, takes perfect pictures in the dead of night, does parallax free panoramas, lets me snap shoot wildlife a couple football fields off with perfect focus, and of course cost less than the price of a 2 year old Mercedes.


Have a look at what they term " BRIDGE CAMERAS " Made by all leading brand names. the lens is built in and can go from 28mm - 600mm. They can incorperate a 60x zoom.That will take you from 28mm Wide Angle to 600mm Telephoto. They come with in camera software so you can adjust parallex etc.with the built in benefit of having the one lens, so you dont have to worry about what lens for what situation, and you dont have to worry about getting dust on the sensor when changing lenses. I think they would fit your needs exactly. 
They also have a Macro setting thats switchable, either on the lens, or camera settings.

Reactions: Helpful 1


----------



## Edan bandoot (Aug 13, 2021)

@Oswoc so which camera did you end up deciding was the best out of the box?

 From what I read most people said to worry about lenses, but I'm still interested in your original question.


----------



## Oswoc (Aug 13, 2021)

Edan bandoot said:


> @Oswoc so which camera did you end up deciding was the best out of the box?
> 
> From what I read most people said to worry about lenses, but I'm still interested in your original question.


Ha! I'm still figuring this one out. 
It really is all about the lens though. 
I asked the original question before I'd ever owned a camera. Since getting one, I've learnt it was the wrong question. 

I've found this thread SUPER helpful though, with some stunning pictures that I can aspire to take one day


----------



## Edan bandoot (Aug 13, 2021)

Oswoc said:


> Ha! I'm still figuring this one out.
> It really is all about the lens though.
> I asked the original question before I'd ever owned a camera. Since getting one, I've learnt it was the wrong question.
> 
> I've found this thread SUPER helpful though, with some stunning pictures that I can aspire to take one day


Well what camera did ya end up with


----------



## Oswoc (Aug 13, 2021)

Edan bandoot said:


> Well what camera did ya end up with


Pentax KS-2, with various lenses.

All 2nd hand, as its an expensive hobby!

Reactions: Like 1 | Thanks 1


----------



## Oswoc (Aug 18, 2021)

Recently got a Sigma 70mm f/2.8 EX DG macro lens, my first 1:1 macro - and its amazing! Finally happy with the quality of images I'm getting! 
I've attached a few samples, the eye one is random lol
I've uploaded these via phone so detail isn't so good. 

Composition is defo more important, as I prefer the 2nd creepy image with the fangs in focus lol even though it wasn't 1:1. 


Anyway, thanks again for all your help! And look forward to seeing more of your pictures elsewhere! 

Peace

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## The Snark (Aug 19, 2021)

@Oswoc Right out of the box? Whoa. Fangs up there is ripe for photoshop. Leave the fuzzy blurry, fix the contrast and brightness, then mega digitally enhance the fangs. The stuff nightmares are made of.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Oswoc (Aug 19, 2021)

The Snark said:


> @Oswoc Right out of the box? Whoa. Fangs up there is ripe for photoshop. Leave the fuzzy blurry, fix the contrast and brightness, then mega digitally enhance the fangs. The stuff nightmares are made of.


I can't afford photoshop lol and it looks SO complicated...


----------



## The Snark (Aug 19, 2021)

Oswoc said:


> I can't afford photoshop lol and it looks SO complicated..


Now that I'm done banging my head against the wall....
PS is complicated. There is also probably 50 quality courses on it just on Youtube. Post processing is a must. To give you some idea, my friend was trying to think of an eye catching image for his new restaurant. At one moment as I was taking snapshots with a crappy film camera his wife turned her head and got in the picture.

It took me five minutes in PS to turn a lousy contrast blurred image with an ugly kitchen vent in the background into this


Spoiler












PS, GIMP is as capable (and complex) as Photoshop, and it's for free. https://www.gimp.org/

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## basin79 (Aug 19, 2021)

As per snark's advice editing is a huge thing in photography. Of course you should always try and get as close as possible to what you want. A slower shutter speed will have brightened up the fang post. Although with editing you could easily get the fangs brightened up. For a few years I was using snapseed. It's a free phone app. Although there are much better free programmes available. I myself use lightroom classic now as it gives me a couple of fantastic apps on my phone too.

Reactions: Helpful 1


----------



## Oswoc (Aug 23, 2021)

Ok so I've downloaded GIMP (glad I found the right thing on google...) and I'm keen to start 'focus stacking' - i hear a lot of macro lovers talking about this, and will be keen to try it. In the meantime, here's another 'macro' of my indian stick bug - it's a bit blurry (not sure why, even with a tripod on f/16), and I had to crop slightly, but I'm still super happy with it!


----------



## basin79 (Aug 23, 2021)

Oswoc said:


> Ok so I've downloaded GIMP (glad I found the right thing on google...) and I'm keen to start 'focus stacking' - i hear a lot of macro lovers talking about this, and will be keen to try it. In the meantime, here's another 'macro' of my indian stick bug - it's a bit blurry (not sure why, even with a tripod), and I had to crop slightly, but I'm still super happy with it!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's blurry because you used a low f/stop. So your depth of field is very narrow. The higher you go the greater the depth. But you'll have to increase the lighting or slow down your shutter speed. You can also bump up the iso but doing so can create "noise" in your shot. 

I'd leave stacking well alone until you've got the basics and then some down.

Look at this pic. I just wanted the the front in focus (crickets head, the sand around it) as apposed to the whole spider as well. So I used a low F stop. f/5.0

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## Oswoc (Dec 6, 2021)

Hi guys, been practising as much as I can, and would love some feedback on these shots of my H. cyaneus. Getting a good depth of field seems so hard with Macro! Please be harsh with criticism! How could I improve?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Edan bandoot (Dec 6, 2021)

More interesting backgrounds, lookup how macro photographers use coloured paper to make things look nicer

I really like the detail though, these could be in a textbook lol


----------



## Oswoc (Dec 6, 2021)

Edan bandoot said:


> More interesting backgrounds, lookup how macro photographers use coloured paper to make things look nicer
> 
> I really like the detail though, these could be in a textbook lol


Thank you! 
Any tips on what background colour I could use to improve things? I deliberately used a white table to make the dark scorpion 'pop' out more... not sure if that worked. Ideally a more natural background would be better too I imagine (wood/foiliage) Helpful feedback though, and thanks for the compliment!!


----------



## Edan bandoot (Dec 6, 2021)

Play around with different colored papers/patterns


----------



## Jumbie Spider (Dec 6, 2021)

Oswoc said:


> View attachment 405256
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Looks great. Maybe a light diffuser?

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Dry Desert (Dec 7, 2021)

Oswoc said:


> Thank you!
> Any tips on what background colour I could use to improve things? I deliberately used a white table to make the dark scorpion 'pop' out more... not sure if that worked. Ideally a more natural background would be better too I imagine (wood/foiliage) Helpful feedback though, and thanks for the compliment!!


Use plain backgrounds, plain white or plain black, depending on the subject.
Always focus on the eyes and everything else will fall into place.
Purchase a Ring Light , the type of flash that fits on the end of the lens. Some come with 2 or more flash tubes so you can select right tube, left tube or all tubes together.
If you are going to include natural items keep it to a minimum, or it will be too fussy, and distract from the main subject.
Try to take your shots at the same level of the subject, not from above or below, then the viewer will be led straight into the picture and with the main focus point, the eyes, will lead the viewer further into the picture, and won't be looking around the frame at unimportant items.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Oswoc (Dec 8, 2021)

Here's another attempt! Tried dark background this time with my Peacock Mantis. More feedback please! (Ignore the watermark, i was screwing around and i dunno how to get rid of it yet lol)

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TheDarkFinder (Dec 8, 2021)

Oswoc said:


> View attachment 405256
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A few pointers. 

1.) light control. Pick up some cheap led panel. Like this. 


			Amazon.com
		

Flood the subject. Take one photo with white paper and fire away. The more light you bring in the better you are. When you open gimp, use the first white page to set color balance, then you can then copy that to the rest. 

2.) while I love the heck out of the 70-300. The problem is the 300mm. It is some serous math to calculate DOF. Lucky we have the internet. https://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof
If you play around with it, you find the problem. At 300mm, your DOF is going to range from .18 of an inch at f5.6 to 1 inch at f32. F16 wiill only get you .5 of an inch DOF. 

The venus len you are talking about would have a 1 inch field of depth at f16. That is the difference between 25 mm compared to 300mm. 

3. Now about the venus 25mm 2.5-5x lens. I have the mp-e 65mm canon micro. I love that lens and I hate that lens. I really hate that lens, but I really love it. It will make you throw things. the venus and canon are the same basic lens. They have a fix focus area. So you move the camera closer and futher away from the subject to get the subject into focus. You have to get very close, 6 inchs for the venus and 9 inches for the canon. Your DOF at 5 times will be the same as your 300mm lens. Because of the magnification it is acting like a zoom. It is my second favorite lens, 95 tilt being my favorite. And I get soo mad that I have to walk way. I would not recommend it for anything subject living. You need to get very close to the subject and you need to have it hold still. It takes some really good close ups. But you don't have working distance. 


If you do get it, and if you do a lot of close up work, i say get it. get a track with it, https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009SJ7UWU/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

It will save you a lot of headache.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Edan bandoot (Dec 11, 2021)

Dry Desert said:


> Use plain backgrounds, plain white or plain black, depending on the subject.
> Always focus on the eyes and everything else will fall into place.
> Purchase a Ring Light , the type of flash that fits on the end of the lens. Some come with 2 or more flash tubes so you can select right tube, left tube or all tubes together.
> If you are going to include natural items keep it to a minimum, or it will be too fussy, and distract from the main subject.
> Try to take your shots at the same level of the subject, not from above or below, then the viewer will be led straight into the picture and with the main focus point, the eyes, will lead the viewer further into the picture, and won't be looking around the frame at unimportant items.


Most macro photographers I've talked too have told me to stay away from lens mounted ring lights as they're hard to defuse. They've all said that a top mounted speed light with a defuser produces the best results.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Jumbie Spider (Dec 11, 2021)

Recently picked something up to play around... still learning...













No edits, just cropped.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TechnoGeek (Jul 26, 2022)

This might be controversial, but I thought it's worth posting. Nowadays, I can say a flagship phone might be enough.

Ofc I'll begin by emphasizing "enough", no phone will beat an interchangeable lens camera with a decent macro lens, period. 

However, S22 Ultra and iphone 13 pro with their macro modes now come close enough for the normal person, and they're much much cheaper. The most affordable budget macro kit I would recommend is a Nikon Z50 with the FTZ adapter, and the Tamron 90mm F/2.8 SP VC F017 macro. You'll also need a speedlight, diffusers, and a tripod, and maybe an extension tube set. All in all it would cost you about 1600 dollars if you're careful. I managed to snag my S22 Ultra 512GB for about 1100 USD.. and it does way more than take pics..

Reactions: Like 1 | Helpful 1


----------



## 8 legged (Jul 26, 2022)

Nice pics, but far away from a good photo   But that is all in the eye of the beholder...

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## TechnoGeek (Jul 26, 2022)

In photography, as with everything, it's very important to have the right expectations. Like I said, no phone beats a high end macro lens, but if you have reasonable expectations, they're very detailed for a phone. Here's what the Nikon mirrorless and Tamron could produce:



















This too should show how close and detailed the S22U can get:

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## 8 legged (Jul 26, 2022)

You're right. Last year I thought long and hard about buying a decent camera, but I still use my old Nikon bridge camera. It is readily available and serves its purpose. I take nice pictures with it, but not good photos. You also have to do justice to the people who invest and make an effort. But often the "lucky" snaps are the more interesting images. Photos from smartphones also have their charm, but are immediately recognized as such even in the high-end sector...


----------



## Oswoc (Jul 27, 2022)

I think the key to all of this is finding what you enjoy the most and keeping with that. I LOVE my 'ebay' 1:1 Sigma macro lens, with my 2nd hand Pentax KS2 - gets me the shots I want - but I'm also aware it takes a fair bit of time and faffing around to get those shots, whereas on a phone it's so much more portable and easy to take snaps.
I just wish I had photoshop so I could i learn 'focus stacking'. I only have Lightroom at the moment.

The other thing I WISH I WAS TOLD SOONER, is to shoot in 'RAW', not jpeg, as I get so much more detail out of my photos.  

Secondly, composition is king, a really emotional, unique and captivating photo taken on a phone is always better than a boring yet graphically/technically perfect shot on a Mirrorless.

Anyway, attached are few more recent attempts with my DSLR set up. And I love them

Reactions: Like 4 | Love 1


----------



## AlbaArachnids92 (Jul 27, 2022)

Finally taking the plunge to ask something relating to this topic......I hate and love this specific thread.......
The pictures  really nice! And you can see improvements from page 1 to page 5! Love them.
The feeling I need to wise up about cameras and buy one as another utensil for my T keeping! Hate it! 

My use of camera equipment has always been as a feature of smart phones (Samsung S20 FE - currently).
I feel like I am outgrowing the convenience factor and would like to try my hand at the real deal for the first time but even after reading through here a good few times I still don't feel like I could make an educated choice so:

I'd like the option to use this for my inverts as well as for landscape/scenery shots. I'm not desperate to get into macro right off the bat but would definitely like to have the option in the future.

Would anyone care to recommend a good starting point / camera for a complete novice photographer?

Is there a camera equivalent to an Airsoft M4 platform? Reasonable quality, reasonable price and an extensive range of interchangeable parts/accessories?

I feel going into DLSR might be expensive overkill at this stage or would it be worth the extra investment?

Many thanks!


----------



## TechnoGeek (Jul 27, 2022)

Answering your question about a DSLR (mirrorless is even better and they're equally affordable nowadays) should be easy.

If you only want to take macro shots of inverts and Ts then the answer is probably no. But if you're really into photography, like you think of it as a hobby and really like taking pictures, then yes it might be very much worth it.

Reactions: Thanks 1


----------



## AlbaArachnids92 (Jul 27, 2022)

TechnoGeek said:


> Answering your question about a DSLR (mirrorless is even better and they're equally affordable nowadays) should be easy.
> 
> If you only want to take macro shots of inverts and Ts then the answer is probably no. But if you're really into photography, like you think of it as a hobby and really like taking pictures, then yes it might be very much worth it.



Ah I see, my noobie-ness showing through there  It's really the T's and likes of family and scenery etc, so yes.....more than just macro of the beasts.


----------



## Jumbie Spider (Sep 5, 2022)

Oswoc said:


> I LOVE my 'ebay' 1:1 Sigma macro lens


I have a Sigma 1:1 macro lens too, it's awesome.


----------



## arthurliuyz (Oct 6, 2022)

Anubis77 said:


> Raynox DCR-250


Has anyone used Kase macro lens for cameras that snap on? Can't seem to find Raynox in my country.


----------

