Best camera for Macro Photography 'out of the box'

[The Snark]

@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.

 

[Oswoc]

@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]

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/

 

[basin79]

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.

 

[Oswoc]

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]

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! View attachment 396690

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

 

[Oswoc]

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?

 

[Edan bandoot]

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]

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]

Play around with different colored papers/patterns

 

[Jumbie Spider]

View attachment 405256 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? View attachment 405258

Looks great. Maybe a light diffuser?

 

[Dry Desert]

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.

 

[Oswoc]

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)

 

[TheDarkFinder]

View attachment 405256 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? View attachment 405258

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.

 

[Edan bandoot]

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.

 

[Jumbie Spider]

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

No edits, just cropped.

 

[TechnoGeek]

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..

 

[8 legged]

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

 

[TechnoGeek]

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:

 

[8 legged]

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...