# What is the best camera for extreme closeup macros?



## jhbodle (Aug 21, 2011)

I have recently got into extreme closeup macro photography, taking pictures of insects from a few centimetres away like this one:






Currently I use my Casio EX-ZR100 compact camera for this because it can focus 1cm away from the subject. However, I want a camera that can do this easier. I need:

- The whole insect to be in focus, so I guess a small aperture and a small sensor (for less DOF) would be best
- Better image quality and sharper images would be nice
- Image stabilisation is a must as all these shots are taken handheld

Trying this with my Canon 5D MkII with 100mm L Macro lens is an exercise in futility as the insects quickly fly away when they see this huge shadow approach. It also only focuses from 35cm away, which is nowhere near close enough. I have researched and can make cases for the following cameras:

- Sony NEX-5 with 30mm Macro (10cm focusing, good image quality but will the large sensor give a too shallow DOF for my purposes?)
- Canon Powershot G12 (Hybrid image stabilisation, 1cm focusing but only goes up to f8 which I don't think will be enough)
- Pentax Q (tiny sensor that should allow for wide DOF as long as it supports apertures like f16)

Any ideas on what I should go for? Or should I pick something else entirely?


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 21, 2011)

You might want to look into focus stacking.


----------



## jhbodle (Aug 21, 2011)

480sparky said:


> You might want to look into focus stacking.



Already have - the fact that I'm hand holding at close up range and the fact that the insect flies away after a second or so scuppers the focus stacking plan unfortunately.


----------



## bigtwinky (Aug 21, 2011)

catch a bug, throw it in the freezer, remove, shoot


----------



## jhbodle (Aug 21, 2011)

bigtwinky said:


> catch a bug, throw it in the freezer, remove, shoot


Bit harsh for the bugs! But i'm out in the field when I'm taking these pics so thats not really an option. Speed is of the essence! I only have a few seconds to capture the shot before it's gone so any camera that makes this as easy as possible for this specific type of shot will get my cash...


----------



## tirediron (Aug 21, 2011)

The camera itself has little to do with macro photography, other, than as you have alluded to, the depth of field increase that comes with smaller sensors.   I don't think you're quite clear on your understanding of what a macro photograph is or what a macro lens does.  A macro lens is one that produces a 1:1 image on the camera's sensor, in other words, if an insect is 1cm long, it will be recorded as 1cm long on your camera's sensor.  How close the lens focuses to the subject has nothing to do with it.  In fact, that's why longer focal length macro lenses are so expensive:  They can achieve 1:1 reproduction at greater distances from the work.  What you may want to look into are extension tubes which allow you to achieve significant magnification by moving the lens further from the sensor, and a tank of CO2 from your local welding shop.  This will allow you to 'knock out' the insects preventing them from flying away.  That way you will be able to take the required number of images for a stacked focus shot.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 21, 2011)

jhbodle said:


> bigtwinky said:
> 
> 
> > catch a bug, throw it in the freezer, remove, shoot
> ...


400mm f2.8 w/ extension tubes.  Done.


----------



## mjhoward (Aug 21, 2011)

I think you're confused about a few things. First, the camera is going to have much less to do with macro work than the lens and lighting rig will (lighting is extremely important and often overlooked). Second, how close you can focus (working distance) doesn't really tell you much about magnification.  For example, take the Canon 60mm macro and the Sigma 150mm macro lenses.  The closest focusing distance for the 60mm macro is 7.87" while the closest focusing distance for the 150mm macro is only 15".  They both, however, give the same 1:1 magnification at these working distances.  If you want to be able to focus closer and get a larger than 1:1 magnification, you can add extension tubes.

Getting the entire insect in focus is just the nature of the beast.  The closer your subject is to the lens, the shallower the DOF is and unfortunately for macro work, DOF is razor thin.  Stopping down a lot is one option, and the other as Sparky has mentioned, is focus stacking.  Unfortunately focus stacking won't work unless your subject is still.  Stopping down is going require a lot more light if you want a sharp image handheld.  Another thing is that Image Stabilization in a lens is going to be _nearly_ useless.  IS only works in the XY plane and does nothing for your Z-axis.  So although you might get a stabilized image side to side, your subject is still going to moving in and out of focus as you breathe.


----------



## jhbodle (Aug 21, 2011)

tirediron said:


> The camera itself has little to do with macro photography, other, than as you have alluded to, the depth of field increase that comes with smaller sensors.   I don't think you're quite clear on your understanding of what a macro photograph is or what a macro lens does.  A macro lens is one that produces a 1:1 image on the camera's sensor, in other words, if an insect is 1cm long, it will be recorded as 1cm long on your camera's sensor.  How close the lens focuses to the subject has nothing to do with it.  In fact, that's why longer focal length macro lenses are so expensive:  They can achieve 1:1 reproduction at greater distances from the work.  What you may want to look into are extension tubes which allow you to achieve significant magnification by moving the lens further from the sensor, and a tank of CO2 from your local welding shop.  This will allow you to 'knock out' the insects preventing them from flying away.  That way you will be able to take the required number of images for a stacked focus shot.



CO2 eh? I'll look into that, as long as it doesn't harm the insects...

I've heard of this 1:1 magnification thing, but don't fully understand why it's necessary. For example I just want the insect to fill the image so I can get the most detail out of it. Yes I can do this by zooming in from a distance away but the convenience of that 1cm macro setting is amazing.


----------



## mjhoward (Aug 21, 2011)

tirediron said:


> jhbodle said:
> 
> 
> > bigtwinky said:
> ...



That would be an extremely long lens.  You'd need 340mm of extension just to get 1:1
That would make the entire lens with tubes 27" long!


----------



## manaheim (Aug 21, 2011)

OP is nicer than me.  He's worried about hurting the insects.


----------



## Destin (Aug 21, 2011)

For the way you are describing the method you want to shoot with, it sounds like the camera you already have is going to fit the bill best. 

As is becoming clear in this thread, if you wish to dive further into macro photography, you'll need to change your shooting style to work around the optical limitations. 

You might consider looking into a macro flash setup as well, as it would make a greater DOF easier to achieve, and help with freezing motion.


----------



## jhbodle (Aug 21, 2011)

I'm sure I am in need of education on this as this area of photography is new to me. At the moment, I walk around, see a cool insect, whip out the Casio and take a picture of it from a few centimetres away. I'm sure it doesn't have 1:1 magnification, but the insect fills the frame and is nice. With the 5D MkII it seems so much harder! Focusing from 35cm away even with f16 only part of the insect is in focus and that part changes as soon as I breathe. 

Will a macro flash be useful even in daylight?


----------



## Destin (Aug 21, 2011)

jhbodle said:


> I'm sure I am in need of education on this as this area of photography is new to me. At the moment, I walk around, see a cool insect, whip out the Casio and take a picture of it from a few centimetres away. I'm sure it doesn't have 1:1 magnification, but the insect fills the frame and is nice. With the 5D MkII it seems so much harder! Focusing from 35cm away even with f16 only part of the insect is in focus and that part changes as soon as I breathe.
> 
> Will a macro flash be useful even in daylight?



Yes, a macro flash would be useful in daylight. You could actually use it as your only source of light, and eliminate all ambient light if that's what you wished to do, simply by selecting a low iso/fast shutter speed(within your sync speed)/small aperture. This is something you'll learn down the road though, just work with ambient for now and build your skills. Dedicated macro flash systems can get expensive. Actually, I'm not sure if Canon even makes one. I'm a Nikon guy, and I know that they make a great one. 

The most important thing for macro photography, outside of the camera and lens, is a GOOD tripod. If you don't have your camera on a solid base, you don't stand a chance. 

Also, you said you're using a 5D II, which, obviously is a full frame camera. You would have an easier time getting a deeper DOF on a crop sensor DSLR, such as the 7d. I wouldn't run out and sell the 5d. Not a chance. But if you get serious and can afford another body, I'd say that a crop sensor is better for macro. And 4/3 would be better yet.


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 21, 2011)

One with a knowledgeable photographer behind it.  Who understands lighting, etc. 

Really, any DSLR with a macro lens will be appropriate. Lighting is VERY important as well.


----------



## mjhoward (Aug 21, 2011)

Destin said:


> The most important thing for macro photography, outside of the camera and lens, is a GOOD tripod. If you don't have your camera on a solid base, you don't stand a chance.



I don't completely agree with this.  Yes, a good tripod is important if you're subject at environment allows the use of one, but sometimes a tripod just isn't going to do it.  What are the odds that the fly you're trying to capture lands right in your focal plane directly in front of where you've setup your tripod.  Or the chance that it wont fly off by the time you re-setup your tripod and focus.

In my opinion, at least for insects/moving subject, a portable macro lighting rig is much more important.  I had a very primitive lighting setup for this photo, just a single in the shoe SB-600 and a foam diffuser.  It was also handheld:






I'm in the process of building a better lighting rig myself for this purpose.


----------



## jhbodle (Aug 21, 2011)

mjhoward said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > The most important thing for macro photography, outside of the camera and lens, is a GOOD tripod. If you don't have your camera on a solid base, you don't stand a chance.
> ...



Thank you for understanding this, it's the problem I have most. I have to shoot handheld if I want the spontaneous shots of random bugs I see as I walk along.

I am looking into flash rings and have purchased Canon's MR-14EX, hopefully this will help me use the 5D MkII to better effect with this type of photography!


----------



## Overread (Aug 21, 2011)

Macro photography is great fun, but can also be a great challenge; however it is one of the few areas where a point and shoot can trump a DSLR in some respects such as the depth of field - so I can well appreciate the difficulty of moving from one system to the other and having to get used to a new ballgame as it were.
You might find some assistance with regard to equipment, shooting and method as well as lighting in the following threads:
Juza Nature Photography Forum &bull; View topic - My macro gear
Juza Nature Photography Forum &bull; View topic - Scheimpflug'ing through not-even-near-hits + lots of misses
Juza Nature Photography Forum &bull; View topic - Macro techniques, tips and problem solving
Juza Nature Photography Forum &bull; View topic - Getting closer with the MP-E 65mm

I would also reccomend reading the following few sites as well:
No Cropping Zone
^^ Dalentech does a lot of high magnification work and does not use the focus stacking method - a great example of how to use limited depth of field very effectively. 

NatureScapes.Net - Article on Increasing Depth of Field through Focus Combining

Flickr: Lord V's Photostream
Flickr: johnhallmen's Photostream
Flickr: linden.g's Photostream
Flickr: steb1's Photostream

The last few are gallery links on flickr, but don't let that fool you - each one is a great lesson in macro photography and have shoot details and comments (John Hallmen especially puts a lot of effort into almost each photo he posts with regard to commentary on them) 

And just to balance things out remember its not all got to be tiny apertures, focus stacking and big depths of field to get good photos:
Flickr: Mishele21's Photostream



As an additional point with regard to finding bugs try to go out early in the morning or after quick rain showers/drops in temperature. That helps ensure that more insects are in a more cooled and thus docile state naturally without using quick cool methods - which not only can cause death to the insect, but also result in problems since when you move the insect from the cold to the open to shoot many will start to move internal muscles (causing motion) to warm up. 
Evenings are also good for many as they start to "roost up" for the night.


----------



## mjhoward (Aug 21, 2011)

Overread, great links!  If I could add one more... Post Your Set Up! - FM Forums


----------



## Ronaldo (Aug 21, 2011)

mjhoward said:


> Getting the entire insect in focus is just the nature of the beast.  *The closer your subject is to the lens, the shallower the DOF* is and unfortunately for macro work, DOF is razor thin.  Stopping down a lot is one option, and the other as Sparky has mentioned, is focus stacking.  Unfortunately focus stacking won't work unless your subject is still.  Stopping down is going require a lot more light if you want a sharp image handheld.  Another thing is that Image Stabilization in a lens is going to be _nearly_ useless.  IS only works in the XY plane and does nothing for your Z-axis.  So although you might get a stabilized image side to side, your subject is still going to moving in and out of focus as you breathe.



Does this mean a lens that provides for a greater working distance will also give a greater DOF?  For example, a 200mm macro lens will give a greater DOF than a 100mm macro lens - - for an otherwise exact same setup/subject??


----------



## mjhoward (Aug 21, 2011)

Ronaldo said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > Getting the entire insect in focus is just the nature of the beast.  *The closer your subject is to the lens, the shallower the DOF* is and unfortunately for macro work, DOF is razor thin.  Stopping down a lot is one option, and the other as Sparky has mentioned, is focus stacking.  Unfortunately focus stacking won't work unless your subject is still.  Stopping down is going require a lot more light if you want a sharp image handheld.  Another thing is that Image Stabilization in a lens is going to be _nearly_ useless.  IS only works in the XY plane and does nothing for your Z-axis.  So although you might get a stabilized image side to side, your subject is still going to moving in and out of focus as you breathe.
> ...



Not necessarily, focal length also is a factor.  I meant all other things being equal, a closer subject will give shallower DOF.  There's a nice online DOF calculator here: Online Depth of Field Calculator

With this, you can know exactly how much DOF you'll have for any focal length at any working distance.


----------



## Overread (Aug 21, 2011)

Ronaldo said:


> Does this mean a lens that provides for a greater working distance will also give a greater DOF?  For example, a 200mm macro lens will give a greater DOF than a 100mm macro lens - - for an otherwise exact same setup/subject??



Nope, far as I can tell once you're into macro photography depth of field is most strongly linked to the magnification rather than to the lens focal length. If there is any difference then its so marginal as to be not detectable. What you will get however is a shorter focal length macro lens rendering the background with less blurring than a long focal length lens. This means a short focal length macro can seem to have a bit more depth because the background may not be as thrown out of focus as on a longer focal length macro. 

Note that this issue is somewhat complicated since most modern macro lenses do reduce their focal length and effective aperture as they near 1:1 with most f2.8 lenses ending up at around f5.6 effective aperture (a further confusing issue is that Nikon reports this chance to the user, whilst canon cameras do not). Other methods of increasing magnification can similarly have effects on the effective working aperture - thus creating some confusion when comparing setups where the apertures may not be all equal despite what the camera settings say. The limit however is that diffraction will kick in to limit the apertures one can work at before detail is lost to diffraction softening. So even if you use a method that gives a smaller working effective aperture, the diffraction limits will still be there to put a hold on how far you can go.


----------

