Macro Pics

[fossyant]

Here we go....

 

[NotFabian]

Shiny!!

 

[gaz]

Macro is fun, you don't need expensive kit to do it either. Compact (pocket) cameras give super results as they have lenses with such tiny focal lengths compared to SLR lenses. I can get far closer with my Lumix than my Nikon D90. The main issue with close-up work is lighting. Direct flash is too powerful so buying a softbox is worthwhile. Also you can cast unwanted shadows if you get too close. Use the self timer to take the shot wile the camera is mounted on a tripod to get the best results.

The issue with compact cameras is you need to get up very close to take a macro photograph, where as with a DSLR you can get a macro lens (say 100mm) which will allow you to be much further away from the object.

 

[Rob3rt]

Advise re macro, use a tripod, turn of any vibration reduction, choose a low ISO setting, manual focus, use live view to compose, zoom in on the live view display to fine tune your focus, use self timer or a remote shutter to fire the camera.

As for lighting, get creative, forget ready made kit, improvise! Ideally, you will need off camera flash, some diffusers and some reflectors (diffusers and reflectors can be home made).

Required kit, can range from a compact to a DSLR, if you have DSLR, you needent spend loads on macro lenses, a nifty fifty and some macro rings will get you some nice results. They wont detriment IQ since they dont place any extra elements in the optical path, they just move the lens further away from the image plane allowing you to focus much closer to the object.

As you get closer to the object, getting a good depth of field will become increasingly problematic and required aperture will become smaller and smaller, any crud on your sensor will start to show and you will start to get out of your lenses sweet spot and might have to try focus stacking.

Crispness is usually improved for fixed objects using a remote/shutter wire and tripods, or adequate shutter speed and light if subject moves or hand-holding camera, and avoiding using the extremes of the lens f-stops. To manage depth of field, which is typically limited for macro shots, tilt-shift lens while expensive help - for relatively inexpensive fun I haven't tried them but have heard good things about Lensbaby.

Lensbaby lenses aren't proper tilt shift lenses, also they are super manual, aperture is changed by dropping rings into the optic which are later lifted out using a magnetic poker (awkward to do out on the move), focus is manual (not a problem) and there is no TTL metering (a bit annoying). If you want to do proper macro, forget tilt shift lenses, lens baby's and other such bollocks, invest in a macro lens, a lens designed for the job. Then learn how to handle it. With macro the problem is often getting enough depth of field, not being able to get shallow enough depth of field. For more depth of field you might have to resort to focus stacking. Tilt shift lenses are most useful for architectural photography due to the perspective correction they afford. None of this is to say lensbaby's arent good btw, they are cool, if I had cash to waste I'd be tempted to spring for one, good for "fine art" kind of stuff but ultimately, they are "novelty" lenses and much like fisheye lenses, can produce a killer shot now and then when used effectivelly, but 99% of the time will just weigh your camera bag down.

Or if you have a DSLR, buy a 100m macro lens and the focal length will give you depth of field. That way you also don't need to be htoo close to your object to get the shot (great for bugs etc..

You will still struggle with depth of field near and at 1:1 magfication. Macro lenses do often have extended aperture ranges to help with DOF, my macro lens goes down to like f32 or something and then at close focus it goes up much higher. But its not really a useful aperture value.

The issue with compact cameras is you need to get up very close to take a macro photograph, where as with a DSLR you can get a macro lens (say 100mm) which will allow you to be much further away from the object.

A 105mm lens will set you back a lot of cash and you can get very good results from much cheaper alternatives. Unless you are going to focus on macro its hardly worth it. They do double up as good portait or short tele lenses but the focus is more finetunes for close focus so will tend to hunt when at the other end.

 

[gaz]

How do you come to this? Yes a longer focal length will allow you to be further away from your subject, but a true macro lens will give you 1:1 magnification regardless.




A 105mm lens will set you back a lot of cash. Unless you are going to focus on macro its hardly worth it. They do double up as good portait or short tele lenses but the focus is more finetunes for close focus so will hunt when at the other end.

Come to what? My statement was that a 100mm macro lens will allow you to be further away and the focal length will give you depth of field. Both true statements.

A 105mm lens will of course set you back a lot of money, especially as 105mm macro lens are (to my knowledge) not made.

 

[Rob3rt]

Come to what? My statement was that a 100mm macro lens will allow you to be further away and the focal length will give you depth of field. Both true statements.

A 105mm lens will of course set you back a lot of money, especially as 105mm macro lens are (to my knowledge) not made.

It wont really give you any useable DOF benefit at the 1:1 range, you will struggle regardless, I have edited my previous post to clarify. Shallow depth of field is a well known problem with macro photography, that's what focus stacking is for.

BTW, 105mm macro lenses are indeed made and are the cream of the crop macro lenses from Nikon and several other brands inc Sigma make 105mm macro's in both Nikon and Canon fit. You a Canon man?

 

[gaz]

It wont really give you any useable DOF benefit at the 1:1 range, you will struggle regardless, I have edited my previous post to clarify. Shallow depth of field is a well known problem with macro photography, that's what focus stacking is for.

BTW, 105mm macro lenses are indeed made and are the cream of the crop macro lenses from Nikon and several other brands. You a Canon man?

I'm a Canon man and it looks like there is one 105mm macro lens made by sigma, the others in that range are all 100mm.

Bokeh is what makes macro photography as well. The best pictures are hard to get.

 

[Rob3rt]

I'm a Canon man and it looks like there is one 105mm macro lens made by sigma, the others in that range are all 100mm.

Bokeh is what makes macro photography as well. The best pictures are hard to get.

Other than the quality of bokeh (which is subjective) its not a concern when choosing a lens as you wont ever struggle to get OOF backgrounds at macro scale shooting.

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

Lensbaby lenses aren't proper tilt shift lenses, also they are super manual, aperture is changed by dropping rings into the optic which are later lifted out using a magnetic poker (awkward to do out on the move), focus is manual (not a problem) and there is no TTL metering (a bit annoying). If you want to do proper macro, forget tilt shift lenses, lens baby's and other such bollocks, invest in a macro lens, a lens designed for the job. Then learn how to handle it. With macro the problem is often getting enough depth of field, not being able to get shallow enough depth of field. For more depth of field you might have to resort to focus stacking. Tilt shift lenses are most useful for architectural photography due to the perspective correction they afford. None of this is to say lensbaby's arent good btw, they are cool, if I had cash to waste I'd be tempted to spring for one, good for "fine art" kind of stuff but ultimately, they are "novelty" lenses and much like fisheye lenses, can produce a killer shot now and then when used effectivelly, but 99% of the time will just weigh your camera bag down.

Bollocks? Is this BJP article also bollocks in your book?

While as I stated lensbaby is just inexpensive fun, the ultimate professional macro tool is a tilt shift lens (or an equivalent fixed lens with a tilt shift body), for the simple reason that it is often the only way to deliver a natural look and adequate depth of field. The only fly in the ointment is that they are expensive, hence something like the lensbaby at only a few percent of the cost might be a worthwhile toy for an amateur.

While I can understand why a fisheye can be considered a "novelty" lens, to brand shift tilt lenses similarly makes me wonder if you have ever had to use one.

Separately, imho if one can not deal with manual everything doing macro photography with a tripod, one would probably benefit from brushing up one's knowledge of photography.

 

[edindave]

Nice shot of the ice studs

I like macro - it's addictive when you get into it - you start to see the world in a whole new way.

ISO400, f/8, 1/30s, 100mm.

Don't have enough spare time for photography these days - most of my free time is spent in the saddle!

 

[Steve Malkin]

Here's a handy tip for close-ups if like me you have an SLR camera, but cant afford the cash for fancy macro lenses (or would prefer to spend it on your bike!)
If you take the lens off and flip it round so that the 'front' element is facing the camera body then you can hand hold it there and focus really close.
Obviously, you loose all the autofocus etc, but it does work.
This was the closest I could focus on a chain link with my lens attached normally:

And this is how close I can get with the lens reversed:

 

[Rob3rt]

Bollocks? Is this BJP article also bollocks in your book?

While as I stated lensbaby is just inexpensive fun, the ultimate professional macro tool is a tilt shift lens (or an equivalent fixed lens with a tilt shift body), for the simple reason that it is often the only way to deliver a natural look and adequate depth of field. The only fly in the ointment is that they are expensive, hence something like the lensbaby at only a few percent of the cost might be a worthwhile toy for an amateur.

While I can understand why a fisheye can be considered a "novelty" lens, to brand shift tilt lenses similarly makes me wonder if you have ever had to use one.

Separately, imho if one can not deal with manual everything doing macro photography with a tripod, one would probably benefit from brushing up one's knowledge of photography.

1st I will address your comment re. not able to deal with manual everything. Not that it really matters, but I can handle manual lenses perfectly well, thanks for your concern though. But the real point I was making (which it appears you completelly missed) was that the lensbaby is laboriously manual, dropping aperture rings in and fishing them out with a magnetic rod is fine, when you are sat in your studio with all the time in the world to do it carefully, but out on the field, it is fiddly, time consuming and easy to drop and lose a ring, or dirty up the optic or rings such that the next time you drop them in they mare the optic, or worse damage the front element. Only 1 lensbaby optic to date has an aperture diaphragm, the sweet 35. As for metering, yes its easy to trial and error your metering, especially with a digital camera and its not hard to do it with a separate hand held exposure meter, but it's certainly an inconvenience vs. chipped TTL lenses. Also hand held metering can actually be challenging with macro because you cant meter accurately at that scale simply because you cant see what you are aiming at as well as you can through the lens and with flash meters you cant get close enough nor on the right plane to get accurate readings (remember you will often be using lower flash power's and/or lots of diffusion for the light so it can be quite different over short distances), TTL would be much more accurate.

2nd I will address your comment that I said tilt shift lenses were novelty lenses, I did not say this, I said a lensbaby is a novelty lens. It NOT a true tilt shift lens in the sense of performing likewise (I'm not talking about technical performance here, I'm talking functionality, just to be clear) to those contained in the article you linked and shouldn't be considered as such. The lensbaby will give you the wacky effects you can get with a tilt shift, but the not so wacky stuff i.e. the most useful stuff, it cant do, even the higher end lensbaby with the fine adjustment and lockable possition. The optics are not designed for such uses.

3rdly, regarding the article you linked, that referred to product photography, not macro photography. Two different things with different challenges. The article supports my point re perspective control which is why architectural photographers use them. Additionally, the article does not argue contrary to my point made.

BTW, since you seem to think it matters, no I havent used a "proper" tilt shift lens, however I have trialled a lensbaby and a couple of the optics for abstract and fine-art style work.

 

[Rob3rt]

Here's a handy tip for close-ups if like me you have an SLR camera, but cant afford the cash for fancy macro lenses (or would prefer to spend it on your bike!)
If you take the lens off and flip it round so that the 'front' element is facing the camera body then you can hand hold it there and focus really close.
Obviously, you loose all the autofocus etc, but it does work.
This was the closest I could focus on a chain link with my lens attached normally:

And this is how close I can get with the lens reversed:

Just in case you didn't realise and are manually holding the lens in place, you can get a reversing ring that will lock into the camera mount then you can attach your lens to the body via the filter thread, might be a less risky way of going about it, should end up with less dust ingress and less chance of slipping and scratching anything. The main problem with this method is having the rear element and the connections of your lens faced out toward the elements.

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

If you want to do proper macro, forget tilt shift lenses

the article does not argue contrary to my point made.

How come the BJP article focuses specifically on tilt shift macro photography lenses then? If primary lenses from product photography were not directly applicable to the OP's original question about getting good crisp result in macro photography of bike components, which are as good examples of "products" as can be, would you care to suggest which field in photography is more relevant?

BTW, since you seem to think it matters, no I havent used a "proper" tilt shift lens

Amen.

 

[Rob3rt]

How come the BJP article focuses specifically on tilt shift macro photography lenses then? If primary lenses from product photography were not directly applicable to the OP's original question about getting good crisp result in macro photography of bike components, which are as good examples of "products" as can be, would you care to suggest which field in photography is more relevant?



Amen.

Read back closely, there is only 1 mention of macro (and 3 mentions of Makro but in refering to the same product as its in the product name) in that article, additionally and explicitly in the case of the Nikkor lens it states it can only produce half life size results, not 1:1 magnification, i.e. its not a proper macro lens by the definition most photographers would go on. One of the lenses in that article even says it is lacking in close-up ability and another is only good for 1:6 and is "not adequate for many small subjects".

There are many lenses with macro in the name, but they don't deliver true macro. Most people would define a true macro lens as a lens that can provide 1:1 or greater magnification. That article simply reviews some short telephoto tilt shift lenses, some with close focus ability. You could go and pull another play on words and say close focus means macro, but if the close focus wont focus close enough for 1:1 magnification, most photographers will say its not a macro lens in the truest sense, even if the box says macro.

Trying to play technicalities stating bike parts are products doesn't really wash. Product photography and macro photography are two different pursuits.

If you want to to lump the OP's idea into a field of photography, then that would depend how close he wants to get, what the images aim to accomplish etc. Macro and product photography might be similar in some respects (and you can use a macro lens for product photography very successfully, much like you can use them for portrait's very successfully, they are generally super sharp and have high IQ) but they are very different in others generally speaking, technically and stylistically.

BTW, people don't need to use something to be able to form an opinion on it. That's a crock!