Morris23352
Arachnopeon
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2010
- Messages
- 16
Would like to know which cameras are best for catching the best Trantula pictures
Best camera for best shots of a T
- Thread starter Morris23352
- Start date
Belinir
Arachnopeon
- Joined
- May 13, 2016
- Messages
- 17
This isn't specific enough. If you want to start macro photography I'd suggest you get a starter DSLR camera. In my opinion Nikon does the best job so far, at least if you can trust the review and comparison websites. I did a lot of research before buying and it seems the Nikon D3300 ist the most valuable entry level camera you can get. The 18-55mm lens is also doing a great job, according to some reviewers (Saw some cool macro pictures with it). You'll probably want to get some extension tubes though for a better result. At least that's what I gathered, can't wait for my package to arrive. 
Morris23352
Arachnopeon
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2010
- Messages
- 16
These are some upper echelon cameras in guessing? How much are there price range yo would say?
Belinir
Arachnopeon
- Joined
- May 13, 2016
- Messages
- 17
It's definitely a bit advanced, but for the best results you'll want to get this. I paid around 441€ for mine, maybe you can get it for less where you live. There are also some cheaper alternatives in the 200-300€/$ price range, which aren't necessarily DSLR cameras. Like this one. The problem with not having Canon / Nikon would be the mounting of the lenses, it'll probably require something like an adapter. I don't know much about these kind of cameras, but it is an alternative.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2004
- Messages
- 3,886
If you don't go as far as DSLR when shooting macro, you are likely to get a problem with the T's trying to chew your hand off, since many compact cameras have macro capabilities so limited that you have to almost touch the subject before you get a decent close-up of a detail... like fangs in action .
If you then take pictures from a distance, but zoomed in, that's what's called "fake macro". Maybe that's what you are after? You can achieve that with any half decent zoomable compact camera. What you are after as a result is high image detail of course. You get that primarily through minimum camera shake (normally provided by some form of vibration control or image stabilizer), fast enough shutter speed and a decent image sensor size. If you can get a compact that can shoot RAW (which is an uncompressed image format) you will probably be pretty happy. If you have the money to spend on a DSLR, read on...
Sadly many non-camera people get fooled by the promise of megapixels. Those actually don't tell the whole story. If you have a high megapixel count, you need the image sensor size to match. Your cellphone for example could have a 5000 megapixel camera built in, but if it doesn't also have the processing power of a super fast computer, an image sensor the size of a TV screen and memory to match, you won't get a picture better than something a 5 year old could draw in paint, plus that the resulting picture isn't going to be bigger than an ordinary sheet of paper.
That's where DSLRs come in. Ever wondered why DSLRs are so expensive, when you can have just as many megapixels in your tablet camera?
Because they have the technology to match to actually create that high resolution image and to save it on your memory card!
DSLRs are divided into crop sensor and full format* sensor (*which is a misnomer but let's roll with it). To not make this too long - crop sensor camera bodies are cheaper versions of full format camera bodies. Cost less, slightly lower image quality, blablabla. But they work fine for anybody who isn't actually taking pictures for a living. Almost any will do for a start, Nikon has very nice camera bodies, as does Canon. The difference is minimal (some fanboy is going to want to stone me now). Nikon has a slight edge in general image quality, where as Canon has a huge advantage in a much higher selection of lenses, plus that Canon gear costs less than Nikon (it's a little like the difference between Samsung cells and iPhone).
Finally I'm at the point I was trying to make: If you want to do serious close up photography, you should probably invest in a DSLR and a good macro lens (which can come for as little as $700).
It's most often "the glass" that does it. You can have what ever expensive camera body, if the lens is cheap, the image is going to be crap. However, if you have a half decent body and a good lens you can get really good pictures.
Macro photography with DSLRs can be both frustrating and very rewarding. There is a lot to think of, depending on what you want to take pictures of. If you want to do pix of pet rocks - you'll do fine with decent lighting and a large memory card so you can get that 1 good one out of 300 shots. If you want to rely less on luck you need good lighting (so you can raise your shutter speed and thus can take pictures faster, a sturdy (!) tripod, remote control, some practice and patience. But the images are going to be rewarding!
Still reading? Well, here is my last word on post processing:
Since macro lenses have a very very very shallow depth of field, you might want to take several pictures of the same subject and edit them together. Imagine you're trying to take a picture of a common fly - not doing anything but taking an ordinary macro picture with your DSLR you'll maybe get the image sharp only on the flies head. Everything else is going to be out of focus. You can twiddle with the aperture (new word?) and sort of adjust the depth of field a little, but with macro photography that doesn't help that much (besides, the smaller the aperture, the more likely you need a good tripod for stability). So there are ways and techniques with which you can take several consecutive images, where you are not moving the camera or the subject, but where you move your focus to other parts of the subject so you get many pictures of different parts of the animal that are sharp. Later in Photoshop or Lightroom you can edit them together (there are automated functions for that - "Focus stacking"). That way you get a pretty sharp picture of something pretty small, that you are not able to get with one ordinary shot - and all of it will be at very high resolution - yum!
Too expensive? Too complicated? Yeah... it can be. So for beginners - get some half decent zoomable compact camera (and don't just look at the megapixel count) and do fake macro shots zoomed in. It's gonna be fine!
I have no experience with Belinir's suggested camera system, but is probably more than fine for the purpose if you don't want to jump headlong into macro photography. Unsure of what to get? There are tons and tons of camera reviews on YouTube. Reading and listening is for free, and there are lots of cameras out there who'll turn out to be nothing but frustrating. If you can, go to a camera store, tell them what you want, tell them your budget and then just don't let them sell you something more expensive. Touch the camera, see how it feels, if it's for you, you'll know it.
.If you then take pictures from a distance, but zoomed in, that's what's called "fake macro". Maybe that's what you are after? You can achieve that with any half decent zoomable compact camera. What you are after as a result is high image detail of course. You get that primarily through minimum camera shake (normally provided by some form of vibration control or image stabilizer), fast enough shutter speed and a decent image sensor size. If you can get a compact that can shoot RAW (which is an uncompressed image format) you will probably be pretty happy. If you have the money to spend on a DSLR, read on...
Sadly many non-camera people get fooled by the promise of megapixels. Those actually don't tell the whole story. If you have a high megapixel count, you need the image sensor size to match. Your cellphone for example could have a 5000 megapixel camera built in, but if it doesn't also have the processing power of a super fast computer, an image sensor the size of a TV screen and memory to match, you won't get a picture better than something a 5 year old could draw in paint, plus that the resulting picture isn't going to be bigger than an ordinary sheet of paper.
That's where DSLRs come in. Ever wondered why DSLRs are so expensive, when you can have just as many megapixels in your tablet camera?
Because they have the technology to match to actually create that high resolution image and to save it on your memory card!
DSLRs are divided into crop sensor and full format* sensor (*which is a misnomer but let's roll with it). To not make this too long - crop sensor camera bodies are cheaper versions of full format camera bodies. Cost less, slightly lower image quality, blablabla. But they work fine for anybody who isn't actually taking pictures for a living. Almost any will do for a start, Nikon has very nice camera bodies, as does Canon. The difference is minimal (some fanboy is going to want to stone me now). Nikon has a slight edge in general image quality, where as Canon has a huge advantage in a much higher selection of lenses, plus that Canon gear costs less than Nikon (it's a little like the difference between Samsung cells and iPhone).
Finally I'm at the point I was trying to make: If you want to do serious close up photography, you should probably invest in a DSLR and a good macro lens (which can come for as little as $700).
It's most often "the glass" that does it. You can have what ever expensive camera body, if the lens is cheap, the image is going to be crap. However, if you have a half decent body and a good lens you can get really good pictures.
Macro photography with DSLRs can be both frustrating and very rewarding. There is a lot to think of, depending on what you want to take pictures of. If you want to do pix of pet rocks - you'll do fine with decent lighting and a large memory card so you can get that 1 good one out of 300 shots. If you want to rely less on luck you need good lighting (so you can raise your shutter speed and thus can take pictures faster, a sturdy (!) tripod, remote control, some practice and patience. But the images are going to be rewarding!
Still reading? Well, here is my last word on post processing:
Since macro lenses have a very very very shallow depth of field, you might want to take several pictures of the same subject and edit them together. Imagine you're trying to take a picture of a common fly - not doing anything but taking an ordinary macro picture with your DSLR you'll maybe get the image sharp only on the flies head. Everything else is going to be out of focus. You can twiddle with the aperture (new word?) and sort of adjust the depth of field a little, but with macro photography that doesn't help that much (besides, the smaller the aperture, the more likely you need a good tripod for stability). So there are ways and techniques with which you can take several consecutive images, where you are not moving the camera or the subject, but where you move your focus to other parts of the subject so you get many pictures of different parts of the animal that are sharp. Later in Photoshop or Lightroom you can edit them together (there are automated functions for that - "Focus stacking"). That way you get a pretty sharp picture of something pretty small, that you are not able to get with one ordinary shot - and all of it will be at very high resolution - yum!
Too expensive? Too complicated? Yeah... it can be. So for beginners - get some half decent zoomable compact camera (and don't just look at the megapixel count) and do fake macro shots zoomed in. It's gonna be fine!
I have no experience with Belinir's suggested camera system, but is probably more than fine for the purpose if you don't want to jump headlong into macro photography. Unsure of what to get? There are tons and tons of camera reviews on YouTube. Reading and listening is for free, and there are lots of cameras out there who'll turn out to be nothing but frustrating. If you can, go to a camera store, tell them what you want, tell them your budget and then just don't let them sell you something more expensive. Touch the camera, see how it feels, if it's for you, you'll know it.
Last edited:
Belinir
Arachnopeon
- Joined
- May 13, 2016
- Messages
- 17
Really helpful here, learned some stuff from this (Since I used large image quality instead of raw for my last few fake macro shots). So, how do I get a decent range of focus? Do I have to get a bigger lense for that? Or are people commonly using focus stacking to achieve that kind sharpness? I've only seen this in really really really close up shots where a guy puzzled together thousands of pictures for the Smithsonian Museum, while using gear that looks more like a torture device, than a camera. Also: Fixed lense or zoom for decent macro? I believe fixed doesn't have too many downsides in this category of picture taking.
Here are two of my fake macro shots I took yesterday at a design convention, they are cropped down to 1280px though:
Here are two of my fake macro shots I took yesterday at a design convention, they are cropped down to 1280px though:
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2004
- Messages
- 3,886
(Nerd alert...)
I mentioned RAW because you can change a lot of the lighting and colour. JPGs (no pun intended) ... in contrast... are pretty much locked to what they look like or you can make them look worse. With RAW and the appropriate image processing software you can change pretty much most aspects of the picture. You can also to a degree increase the overall sharpness of a picture at the cost of graininess, but you can't really change focus. You took the picture that way, and you can't change that, unless you change it by completely re-editing your photo in post-processing.
Actually I'm not too sure of there being any zoomable macro lenses for DSLRs; if you are talking proper macro lenses that is. There are some lens manufacturers which pretend that their zoomable lenses have macro or macro capability. It's not really macro either however, it's just the fact that the lens has a pretty close focusing distance. A so called super zoom lens (an allround travel lens that can do a little bit of everything at the cost of reduced image quality) can be used for "macro" shots if you can take the camera pretty close to the subject before the image loses focus. The resulting picture is a nice close-up. The super zoom lens was just an example, there are others to which the claim of macro capability is often attached.
To settle what's called macro and what not:
It's macro if the reproduction ratio is 1:1 - that means that the size of the image of the subject on the sensor of the camera is the same as the size of the subject itself.
2:1 = Photomicrography
1:2 = Commonly still called macro photography
1:3, 1:4... and on, not really.
The above explains why a proper macro lens can't really be a zoomable lens - if you could zoom in and out, the reproduction ratio would change above or below 1:1. Moving on...
About "how to get a decent range of focus" - yeah, that can become pretty complicated if I try to explain that.
For short - if you have done anything more than point and click photography, you might have noticed that there are four things you can do to influence what an image looks like. That's: ISO, aperture, shutter speed and lighting. All those influence each other and I was about to type this up because I like to be able to give a good explanation of this myself, however, I gave up since it's just too much info and I don't even know if you're interested.
Here are some good videos (except some dorky moments in the first one) explaining how things relate to each other, if you still have questions on the details after watching those, just ask away, I'll try to answer.
ISO - light sensitivity of the current shot (previously light sensitivity of the film)
Aperture and f-number/f-stop - how much light gets let in to the camera through the iris of the lens (and at what cone angle) and even though complicated, that video explains it well.
Shutter speed - for how long you let light in, obviously
All those things influence your shot, but especially in macro those become pretty extreme.
A decent range of focus means that you need a small aperture. Small aperture means that you also need a lot more light to come in through the lens. You can do that by either illuminating the subject more (for example with a handy ring flash) or by lowering your shutter speed (and thus you need that sturdy tripod to keep your camera still, and preferably a remote control) or by raising your ISO, but also risking a lot of grain, thus making the shot worthless.
Good lighting is the easiest to provide. Lower your ISO to get a crisp image, use a shutter speed fast enough so the camera doesn't shake while you take the picture, and set your aperture as small as possible, just keeping the subject in focus. Most often you want just one thing in focus, not everything you are looking at, like wanting a spider in focus, not the texture of the table cloth beneath it which it is walking on.
Macro, like most things, takes practice if you do it properly.
If you are okay with fake macro, go with a good old zoom lens, zoom in as much as you can (or need to), try not to shake, and click. You might get a lot of decent pictures that way, but with that technique you will have a hard time getting out of focus areas (or even bokeh - you don't really get that at high focal lengths i.e. with tele lenses) while having the subject in focus. It's more likely most of the picture will be in focus thus not isolating the subject in an artistic way. But that can be somewhat compensated for with the right settings.
I mentioned RAW because you can change a lot of the lighting and colour. JPGs (no pun intended) ... in contrast... are pretty much locked to what they look like or you can make them look worse. With RAW and the appropriate image processing software you can change pretty much most aspects of the picture. You can also to a degree increase the overall sharpness of a picture at the cost of graininess, but you can't really change focus. You took the picture that way, and you can't change that, unless you change it by completely re-editing your photo in post-processing.
Actually I'm not too sure of there being any zoomable macro lenses for DSLRs; if you are talking proper macro lenses that is. There are some lens manufacturers which pretend that their zoomable lenses have macro or macro capability. It's not really macro either however, it's just the fact that the lens has a pretty close focusing distance. A so called super zoom lens (an allround travel lens that can do a little bit of everything at the cost of reduced image quality) can be used for "macro" shots if you can take the camera pretty close to the subject before the image loses focus. The resulting picture is a nice close-up. The super zoom lens was just an example, there are others to which the claim of macro capability is often attached.
To settle what's called macro and what not:
It's macro if the reproduction ratio is 1:1 - that means that the size of the image of the subject on the sensor of the camera is the same as the size of the subject itself.
2:1 = Photomicrography
1:2 = Commonly still called macro photography
1:3, 1:4... and on, not really.
The above explains why a proper macro lens can't really be a zoomable lens - if you could zoom in and out, the reproduction ratio would change above or below 1:1. Moving on...
About "how to get a decent range of focus" - yeah, that can become pretty complicated if I try to explain that.
For short - if you have done anything more than point and click photography, you might have noticed that there are four things you can do to influence what an image looks like. That's: ISO, aperture, shutter speed and lighting. All those influence each other and I was about to type this up because I like to be able to give a good explanation of this myself, however, I gave up since it's just too much info and I don't even know if you're interested.
Here are some good videos (except some dorky moments in the first one) explaining how things relate to each other, if you still have questions on the details after watching those, just ask away, I'll try to answer.
ISO - light sensitivity of the current shot (previously light sensitivity of the film)
Aperture and f-number/f-stop - how much light gets let in to the camera through the iris of the lens (and at what cone angle) and even though complicated, that video explains it well.
Shutter speed - for how long you let light in, obviously
All those things influence your shot, but especially in macro those become pretty extreme.
A decent range of focus means that you need a small aperture. Small aperture means that you also need a lot more light to come in through the lens. You can do that by either illuminating the subject more (for example with a handy ring flash) or by lowering your shutter speed (and thus you need that sturdy tripod to keep your camera still, and preferably a remote control) or by raising your ISO, but also risking a lot of grain, thus making the shot worthless.
Good lighting is the easiest to provide. Lower your ISO to get a crisp image, use a shutter speed fast enough so the camera doesn't shake while you take the picture, and set your aperture as small as possible, just keeping the subject in focus. Most often you want just one thing in focus, not everything you are looking at, like wanting a spider in focus, not the texture of the table cloth beneath it which it is walking on.
Macro, like most things, takes practice if you do it properly.
If you are okay with fake macro, go with a good old zoom lens, zoom in as much as you can (or need to), try not to shake, and click. You might get a lot of decent pictures that way, but with that technique you will have a hard time getting out of focus areas (or even bokeh - you don't really get that at high focal lengths i.e. with tele lenses) while having the subject in focus. It's more likely most of the picture will be in focus thus not isolating the subject in an artistic way. But that can be somewhat compensated for with the right settings.
Belinir
Arachnopeon
- Joined
- May 13, 2016
- Messages
- 17
I see. Thanks for the rundown on the 4 sliders. I learned it by this video. But hat trouble understanding aperture. It determines how much the lense is opened? So, a higher aperture means less light coming through, means either better lighting, longer shutter or higher Iso? So, Iso is always the worst way to increase light in a picture and shutter means blurry picture if you move the camera or blurry picture if the object itself moves.
Guess I'll get a decent tripod, a ring flash and once I can afford a good macro lense I guess I'll go with that. From what I've read my D3300 should have the capabilities to take some good pictures with a very good lense. I also am a student in Communicational Design which also features courses on how to do photography (probably not indepth, but it's called studying because you learn everything yourself anyway, so I want to be the best I can become in this field too)
I also played around with raw pictures I took, since my A. Chalcodes was out again. Once I try to open them in Photoshop the Nikon Picture Viewer opens and I can do quite some stuff like fixing the vignetting and increasing detail etc (gets grainy quickly though), it's definitely nice to process the picture and go over it in Photoshop again.
Guess I'll get a decent tripod, a ring flash and once I can afford a good macro lense I guess I'll go with that. From what I've read my D3300 should have the capabilities to take some good pictures with a very good lense. I also am a student in Communicational Design which also features courses on how to do photography (probably not indepth, but it's called studying because you learn everything yourself anyway, so I want to be the best I can become in this field too)
I also played around with raw pictures I took, since my A. Chalcodes was out again. Once I try to open them in Photoshop the Nikon Picture Viewer opens and I can do quite some stuff like fixing the vignetting and increasing detail etc (gets grainy quickly though), it's definitely nice to process the picture and go over it in Photoshop again.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2004
- Messages
- 3,886
Yes the aperture is the mechanism that decides how much light gets let through the lens.
And yes:
Small aperture, means narrow hole, but high f-number vs. large aperture meaning wide hole and low f-number.
High aperture values need longer shutter speeds (or brighter light), but more of the picture is in focus vs. low aperture values need fast shutter speeds or less light
Acutally, you can see it like a triangle - if you have a point in the triangle and move it to any other position in the triangle you can see what will happen. Every one thing influences every other. But generally the thing you want to keep as low as possible - yes you said it - is ISO. You want that as close to 100 as you can at all times, but you also need pretty expensive cameras and large aperture lenses to keep it down there. Ideally it's enough to keep ISO somewhere where your camera can still safely get a sharp image without it getting grainy. In some cameras that's at ISO 400, for some it's 1600. Some full frame cameras can get to ISO 12800 or so before things start to get grainy. Some even higher, but they are pretty expensive.
Tripod - getting the one for your needs can be a difficult thing. I decided upon mine depending on whether or not it could fit into my hand luggage, if I want to take it on a flight. You can pretty much skip any tripod that already has a head attached to it. They tend to be cheaper tripods. You don't need carbon fibre, even if they may weigh 400g less than their aluminium counterparts. They cost too much and if it's heavier, all you do is adapting by building more muscle for two weeks and then you're fine. Yeah, what more? I wanted mine with a rotatable centre column because that helps with macro photography. I think I have the Manfrotto 190 XPRO4. I bought a fitting head with handle for it that cost extra but covers my needs and is sturdy enough for oddball angles and for holding a heavy camera and lens setup. It can also spread the legs wide and go very low to the ground, which is useful. It's very sturdy, and due to it's metal construction it helps to stand steady even in windy conditions (so heavier isn't always a bad thing). The smallest segments of the legs are still pretty thick. You have to remember if you buy a tripod that can stand very very tall, you will have spindly tiny legs at the bottom and they'll probably be pretty unstable and bendy. Put a 3-4 kg camera on top of that and the tripod will start groaning from the strain. That's no good. As you see, there is a lot to think about and you always have to ask yourself - what do I really need it for? Read a lot of reviews on tripods, see why people use certain types for certain tasks. The top of the line tripods can cost a fortune, so you want to find something that is just right, for a decent amount of money. Reviews, reviews, reviews!
I advise you to get the ring flash only once you've bought the macro lens. The flash will have to go in front of that. There are also different types of ring flashes - those that are off by default but which light up only when you take the picture - those can make it difficult to set the right exposure settings. Then there are ring-"lights" which are turned on all the time, and with that the camera can itself help to calculate the right light settings, and then there are combos which do both light up AND flash when you need it. They don't have to be very expensive, so it won't be a big problem finding something befitting your needs I'm sure.
Yeah, RAW format opens up a lot of possibilities for editing. That's for sure.
In case you actually speak German, this guy has some good reviews usually. I think there is a new version of that Tamron lens out, it's supposed to be quite a bit better than the one featured, but also costs quite a bit more. I'm not sure what they managed to improve because it's already one of the best mid price macro lenses out there.
Nice picture.
As you see, you have quite a few options for lens correction if you can get the right profiles for your lens to load in Photoshop (you have some profile loaded, only you know if that was the lens you were using ). That will help reduce vignetting and some other problems like barrel distortion, if you have that. Rather nifty!
Anyway, in the histogram I see that white is pretty much over max, as you can see the white bottom of the histogram is clipping on the left side of the histogram frame. Ideally you want to keep the white wave at zero value on both extremes of the histogram frame. There are one button fixes for that. It doesn't hurt either to go slightly darker in the shadows, as they can create nice contrast, depending on the texture of the picture, as long as the subject doesn't get too affected by it. But you'll see that when you twiddle around with the settings a bit.
And yes:
Small aperture, means narrow hole, but high f-number vs. large aperture meaning wide hole and low f-number.
High aperture values need longer shutter speeds (or brighter light), but more of the picture is in focus vs. low aperture values need fast shutter speeds or less light
Acutally, you can see it like a triangle - if you have a point in the triangle and move it to any other position in the triangle you can see what will happen. Every one thing influences every other. But generally the thing you want to keep as low as possible - yes you said it - is ISO. You want that as close to 100 as you can at all times, but you also need pretty expensive cameras and large aperture lenses to keep it down there. Ideally it's enough to keep ISO somewhere where your camera can still safely get a sharp image without it getting grainy. In some cameras that's at ISO 400, for some it's 1600. Some full frame cameras can get to ISO 12800 or so before things start to get grainy. Some even higher, but they are pretty expensive.
Tripod - getting the one for your needs can be a difficult thing. I decided upon mine depending on whether or not it could fit into my hand luggage, if I want to take it on a flight. You can pretty much skip any tripod that already has a head attached to it. They tend to be cheaper tripods. You don't need carbon fibre, even if they may weigh 400g less than their aluminium counterparts. They cost too much and if it's heavier, all you do is adapting by building more muscle for two weeks and then you're fine. Yeah, what more? I wanted mine with a rotatable centre column because that helps with macro photography. I think I have the Manfrotto 190 XPRO4. I bought a fitting head with handle for it that cost extra but covers my needs and is sturdy enough for oddball angles and for holding a heavy camera and lens setup. It can also spread the legs wide and go very low to the ground, which is useful. It's very sturdy, and due to it's metal construction it helps to stand steady even in windy conditions (so heavier isn't always a bad thing). The smallest segments of the legs are still pretty thick. You have to remember if you buy a tripod that can stand very very tall, you will have spindly tiny legs at the bottom and they'll probably be pretty unstable and bendy. Put a 3-4 kg camera on top of that and the tripod will start groaning from the strain. That's no good. As you see, there is a lot to think about and you always have to ask yourself - what do I really need it for? Read a lot of reviews on tripods, see why people use certain types for certain tasks. The top of the line tripods can cost a fortune, so you want to find something that is just right, for a decent amount of money. Reviews, reviews, reviews!
I advise you to get the ring flash only once you've bought the macro lens. The flash will have to go in front of that. There are also different types of ring flashes - those that are off by default but which light up only when you take the picture - those can make it difficult to set the right exposure settings. Then there are ring-"lights" which are turned on all the time, and with that the camera can itself help to calculate the right light settings, and then there are combos which do both light up AND flash when you need it. They don't have to be very expensive, so it won't be a big problem finding something befitting your needs I'm sure.
Yeah, RAW format opens up a lot of possibilities for editing. That's for sure.
In case you actually speak German, this guy has some good reviews usually. I think there is a new version of that Tamron lens out, it's supposed to be quite a bit better than the one featured, but also costs quite a bit more. I'm not sure what they managed to improve because it's already one of the best mid price macro lenses out there.
Nice picture.
As you see, you have quite a few options for lens correction if you can get the right profiles for your lens to load in Photoshop (you have some profile loaded, only you know if that was the lens you were using
). That will help reduce vignetting and some other problems like barrel distortion, if you have that. Rather nifty!Anyway, in the histogram I see that white is pretty much over max, as you can see the white bottom of the histogram is clipping on the left side of the histogram frame. Ideally you want to keep the white wave at zero value on both extremes of the histogram frame. There are one button fixes for that. It doesn't hurt either to go slightly darker in the shadows, as they can create nice contrast, depending on the texture of the picture, as long as the subject doesn't get too affected by it. But you'll see that when you twiddle around with the settings a bit.
Vanessa
Grammostola Groupie
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2016
- Messages
- 2,423
Or, you can use the flash and close your aperture to ensure that the photo isn't blown out. That allows for a much higher ISO and much better focusing. It also eliminates shadows that you will often get while working with subjects who are in enclosures.
Of course that doesn't work if you are working with light sensitive subjects. Still you have the option of diffusing the flash with lots of different things - I've even used tissue paper - to cut down on the flash bothering them.
I use a Sony A57, which I love, and have several lenses - including two macros which I use all the time. I never considered using the HDR software that I have to cut back on the shallow depth of field - thank you for that tip. Still, you might have bits and pieces out of focus if you are that close. You can always back the camera away from the subject a bit to get more of them in focus. Those macro lenses really do have such a shallow depth of field, although I do use my 50mm macro sometimes for portrait stuff and it is a nice lens. Although nothing like my 50mm f/1.4. That lens is the best money I ever spent and it will always be my favourite.
Of course that doesn't work if you are working with light sensitive subjects. Still you have the option of diffusing the flash with lots of different things - I've even used tissue paper - to cut down on the flash bothering them.
I use a Sony A57, which I love, and have several lenses - including two macros which I use all the time. I never considered using the HDR software that I have to cut back on the shallow depth of field - thank you for that tip. Still, you might have bits and pieces out of focus if you are that close. You can always back the camera away from the subject a bit to get more of them in focus. Those macro lenses really do have such a shallow depth of field, although I do use my 50mm macro sometimes for portrait stuff and it is a nice lens. Although nothing like my 50mm f/1.4. That lens is the best money I ever spent and it will always be my favourite.
Belinir
Arachnopeon
- Joined
- May 13, 2016
- Messages
- 17
@Cirith Ungol Thanks for the triangle. Really helpful to take a quick look at. Are you doing photography as a hobby, or is this work for you? You seem to know quite a lot and use some of the more expensive equipment, judging by the weight of the cameras and lenses.
It'll take a while for me to get some of the more advanced equipment, since photography isn't unexpensive. Especially if mid-range prices are around 400-500€ for lenses. But I guess I'll just save some money for that, it'll be worth it after all. (I also watched the video and yes I'm german, looks like a great channel!)
I switched to Adobe Lightroom now to edit my RAW files, which is way more handy and accurate and easy to use. It's even nicer, that it can compress even big pictures into less than a megabyte sometimes.
(933kb)
(1220kb)
The left side of the histogram represents the darker values, right? Does a flash even them out (zero the values on both ends)? I tend to let the ISO do its thing most of the time, since my camera flash blows out the colors and makes it look crappy overall.
@VanessaS I guess my only real light sensitive specimen are my dubias, so I guess that technique could work, since they're mostly pinned down by a scorpion or tarantula when I take shots of them The picture in the spoiler is an exception, since that was a big and pretty nice looking specimen. Still hard to get good shots of these guys, since it doesn't need a flash to make them run.
It'll take a while for me to get some of the more advanced equipment, since photography isn't unexpensive. Especially if mid-range prices are around 400-500€ for lenses. But I guess I'll just save some money for that, it'll be worth it after all. (I also watched the video and yes I'm german, looks like a great channel!)
I switched to Adobe Lightroom now to edit my RAW files, which is way more handy and accurate and easy to use. It's even nicer, that it can compress even big pictures into less than a megabyte sometimes.
The left side of the histogram represents the darker values, right? Does a flash even them out (zero the values on both ends)? I tend to let the ISO do its thing most of the time, since my camera flash blows out the colors and makes it look crappy overall.
@VanessaS I guess my only real light sensitive specimen are my dubias, so I guess that technique could work, since they're mostly pinned down by a scorpion or tarantula when I take shots of them
The picture in the spoiler is an exception, since that was a big and pretty nice looking specimen. Still hard to get good shots of these guys, since it doesn't need a flash to make them run.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2004
- Messages
- 3,886
Nah it's a hobby. I am pretty happy with my equipment as I try to get quite good stuff, but I don't go full out pro since that's not at all worth it for me. You can have the best camera in the world however, if you don't know what you're doing, you miss out on some pretty awesome results. And the next bit is - if you really know what you are doing, you can do very nice stuff with cheap equipment too, most of the time. I like my toys though.
Lightroom - did you get it with the subscription? There is an option to buy and own it, but it's very very difficult to find on Adobes homepage. They are trying to get everybody to subscribe instead.
Lightroom - did you get it with the subscription? There is an option to buy and own it, but it's very very difficult to find on Adobes homepage. They are trying to get everybody to subscribe instead.
Vanessa
Grammostola Groupie
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2016
- Messages
- 2,423
Buying Lightroom was one of the best decisions I have made. I love it and recommend it to anyone who is looking for a good editing software. I wouldn't use anything else.
I have found a number of lenses, for really decent prices, on online selling websites. Being in Canada, I use Kijiji, but I bet you would find some good deals on places like Craigslist. If you join a photography forum, I bet you will find a lot of people selling equipment there too.
I bought one of my macro lenses used and it was one of the best deals I have ever found. All of the equipment that I have purchased has been in perfect condition and I have never regretted any of it. Lots of people upgrade their equipment frequently and some good deals can be found.
I have found a number of lenses, for really decent prices, on online selling websites. Being in Canada, I use Kijiji, but I bet you would find some good deals on places like Craigslist. If you join a photography forum, I bet you will find a lot of people selling equipment there too.
I bought one of my macro lenses used and it was one of the best deals I have ever found. All of the equipment that I have purchased has been in perfect condition and I have never regretted any of it. Lots of people upgrade their equipment frequently and some good deals can be found.
Belinir
Arachnopeon
- Joined
- May 13, 2016
- Messages
- 17
@Cirith Ungol
I see, I hope to learn the technical aspects as quick as possible to get the best out of my equipment. I wonder how good my pictures can get with a starter DSLR like the D3300. But I'll probably find out once I get a much better lense, right?
I do get it from the photography subscription, because I need Photoshop for my work. I didn't know, that you could get Lightroom as a standalone, but that's Adobe's plan probably. Yet I'm fine with the subscription, since I can update my Adobe CC with it.
@VanessaS Yes, I found it very intuitive to use, it literally has no downsides. I found an older photography forum a few days ago which has a buy and sell section, I'll check it out. Maybe some people are selling their 2014 90mm Tamrons for the new one.
I see, I hope to learn the technical aspects as quick as possible to get the best out of my equipment. I wonder how good my pictures can get with a starter DSLR like the D3300. But I'll probably find out once I get a much better lense, right?
I do get it from the photography subscription, because I need Photoshop for my work. I didn't know, that you could get Lightroom as a standalone, but that's Adobe's plan probably. Yet I'm fine with the subscription, since I can update my Adobe CC with it.
@VanessaS Yes, I found it very intuitive to use, it literally has no downsides.
I found an older photography forum a few days ago which has a buy and sell section, I'll check it out. Maybe some people are selling their 2014 90mm Tamrons for the new one.
Vanessa
Grammostola Groupie
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2016
- Messages
- 2,423
That is exactly the macro lens that I bought online a 90mm Tamron. I love it and it even came with a nice filter on it for protection.
The other one I have is a 50mm.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2004
- Messages
- 3,886
What kind of filter? Can it be the dreaded UV filter?
That's what many people use for protection. I did too in the beginning, I even bought a 95mm UV filter for my telezoom for relatively much money... and one day I was trying to get the maximum sharpness out of the lens by fiddling with all possible settings, managed to get it to get a little sharper. Then I thought of taking off the UV filter, because maybe it was a little dirty, and took a picture without it, and all of a sudden I COULD SEE! Sharp! -ish. Cleaned the filter, put it back on - haze. Took it off - sharp!
Maybe there are UV filters that don't influence performance, but they are probably super expensive. I leave them off, and don't waste my money on them any more. In stead I have an insurance that covers accidents.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2010
- Messages
- 2,086
You will do fine with the D3300. It is more about the lens and lighting. I would recommend the Tokina 100mm f2.8 for best bang for your buck for a macro prime. It will not autofocus on the D3300 but who uses AF for macro?@Cirith Ungol
I see, I hope to learn the technical aspects as quick as possible to get the best out of my equipment. I wonder how good my pictures can get with a starter DSLR like the D3300. But I'll probably find out once I get a much better lense, right?
I do get it from the photography subscription, because I need Photoshop for my work. I didn't know, that you could get Lightroom as a standalone, but that's Adobe's plan probably. Yet I'm fine with the subscription, since I can update my Adobe CC with it.
@VanessaS Yes, I found it very intuitive to use, it literally has no downsides.
I would steer you away from using a ring flash. They and unpredicatable, leave hotspots and are not easy to properly diffuse. Diffusing your flash is very important if not the most. @Cirith Ungol focus stacking is for cheaters!
This was shot with a D3100, the 18mm-55mm kit lens reversed and a cheap speedlight diffused with a soft box.
2i Psalmopoeus reduncus spiderling - 1/2" DLS
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2004
- Messages
- 3,886
Haha!
I haven't actually tried it yet. I probably will at some point though. For quite some time I've actually also gone around thinking of different ways how people are cheating, and that you should always be as true as possible to the original, in light, in colour, angles, distortion... but at the end of the day all you have is an image - not the true thing. And the truth is in the eye of the beholder - at that particular time the beholder happens to be a camera and a lens. So what is ever true to the original? You can get close, but you can never replicate the exact thing. In the end of the day people will always go for what is nice to look at, if it's the real thing or not, and as soon as the moment of the photo is gone, the light has changed, something has moved, and the moment is gone and a new reality has taken shape. That's why I have started to relax a bit about this "cheating" thing. I want things to look natural most of the time, but its no sin to put things in place the way you get the most out of them.
I haven't really experienced any problems with my ring light, but that's not what you are talking about. Ring flashes I would agree are pretty unpredictable. I have a constant ring light (on all the time) with possibility of a flash boost. I haven't noticed anything there yet... I would never use that for portraiture however, as some seem to like. I just like that reflection in the eyes.
Very nice shot! Thanks for posting.
I'll see when I can get some macro pictures in in the coming weeks. I'm waiting for some crickets to arrive next week.
Belinir
Arachnopeon
- Joined
- May 13, 2016
- Messages
- 17
@advan Not sure if I would prefer the Tamron over the Tokina. The Tamron has some benefits, but I don't know if it's worth the money. Compared them on a website and it doesn't come down to much. How they perform is a different thing, though. Guess I'll have to watch some reviews of both again. But a cool shot you got there. And you're right, using auto focus for macro is kinda weird.
About focus stacking: That's the same debate as using photobashing in digital art, which is my job. If it does the trick, it's fine. Like Ungol said, it comes down to one picture in the end, it doesn't matter how you got there. (As long as you're not plagiarising someone elses work of course)
And I'll be careful about ring flashes then, diffusing sounds kinda tricky on them, since they are in a ring shape. Guess I've got to get some knowledge about how to diffuse right then.
@Cirith Ungol Would be cool to see some of your macro shots. By the way, would you say, that the Tokina Advan mentioned is more of a multi purpose lense, than the Tamron?
Edit: On second thought it bothers me, that the Tokina doesn't have image stabilisation. Shake would be eliminated by a good tripod, but I like to take freehand too, makes it easier to get more angles. Especially when working with quick subjects.
About focus stacking: That's the same debate as using photobashing in digital art, which is my job. If it does the trick, it's fine. Like Ungol said, it comes down to one picture in the end, it doesn't matter how you got there. (As long as you're not plagiarising someone elses work of course)
And I'll be careful about ring flashes then, diffusing sounds kinda tricky on them, since they are in a ring shape. Guess I've got to get some knowledge about how to diffuse right then.
@Cirith Ungol Would be cool to see some of your macro shots. By the way, would you say, that the Tokina Advan mentioned is more of a multi purpose lense, than the Tamron?
Edit: On second thought it bothers me, that the Tokina doesn't have image stabilisation. Shake would be eliminated by a good tripod, but I like to take freehand too, makes it easier to get more angles. Especially when working with quick subjects.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2004
- Messages
- 3,886
To each their own. Nobody can tell you what is better. You have to find out for yourself. Photography, lenses, equipment - they are mostly as personal as can be. So, as usual I can only speak for myself:
When being in nature you don't always have the possibility to rig a tripod. The beetle isn't going to hang around for 2 min while you get your gear set up. You will be trying to get those goodie shots free-hand. And if you have no VC you need damn good lighting so you can keep those shutter speeds high. Do bugs usually run around in the brightest light? Wouldn't think so, and even if they did, it's possible that your sorry behind is creating a big shadow on the little thing. So there you are. You want something that can do low f-numbers, VC and if possibly you'd want to add extra lighting in form of a ring light (note the difference between that and a ring flash).
I'd go with.. ah.. you guessed it. Been very happy with the Tam.
To give you a straight answer that is just pure on merit - the two lenses are basically very very similar, the only difference is that the Tamron has vibration control, thus making the Tamron more versatile. You can always turn VC off if you want the challenge. That is indisputable. With which you will do the better shots depends on you.
The first pic is a fake macro, taken at an effective focal length of 800mm from a distance of about 3-4m. You can see the huge DOF which covers about a quarter of the picture frame. The ant is a red forest ant, maybe 12mm long.
The second pic is taken with the a Tamron 90mmm at an effective 144mm fl, distance maybe just over a foot. As you see, the DOF is hardly a tenth, with just maybe one millimetre, that little critter may have been 4mm long. Like the ant, that thing was walking constantly.
.
Last edited: