Macro Photography for Beginners
August 1, 2013 11:20 AM   Subscribe

I have discovered the joy of taking photos of teensy, tiny things - like baby snails! - and would like to move beyond my cellphone's camera. Since this is a hobby, not a new career path, I'd like to spend as little as possible, and definitely remain well-under $1,000 (CAD), while getting great results. Any advice? I need to be able to buy this camera in Canada, please!

I will be using the camera to take photos of insects and leaves and odd whorls in the grass - purely for my own enjoyment (with the possibility of sharing some of the photos on my blog or with friends on Facebook) and not for any professional purposes. I'll continue to use my cellphone for the normal day-to-day pictures for my day-to-day stuff.

After a bit of research, I think I'd prefer an "advanced point and shoot" camera, rather than a DSLR - mainly because I'm not keen on hauling a lot of 'stuff' around with me, don't want to purchase multiple lenses, and because, as noted, it's a hobby. Several friends have commented that they don't use their DSLRs anymore - for all the reasons I've noted. I'm open to considering DSLR suggestions if you're completely convinced that I can't get some great macro shots with point-and-shoot.

A friend, who is a legit photographer, highly recommended the Canon Powershot G1X - and it seems to fit my criteria. I think.

I know that I need to pay attention to having a close focusing field - selectable focus points and a configurable aperture. I want to be able to set things up manually. Any other advice? Any particular cameras you'd recommend for macro photography?

(I've seen these threads and would appreciate recent, up-to-date, relevant-to-macro-photography advice!)
posted by VioletU to Technology (15 answers total) 13 users marked this as a favorite
 
I think you may want to reconsider a DSLR of some sort. Because you're going deep into the images to make small things big, I think this is one of those times that there is a good argument to make that the optics on a bigger lens will provide a meaningful difference to you in the images you're creating. Also, interchangeable lenses and a range of available equipment will be nice when if you decide to take pictures of things more than a few feet away from you.

I'm a Canon guy, but a friend of mine recently got a fancy Olympus micro four thirds camera. His photos look incredibly good and I think the cost of that kind of system may be less than a Canon or Nikon setup.

I use and really like Adobe Lightroom 3. They're up to Lightroom 5, and I hear its good, but I don't know from personal experience. One really cool thing LR3 does is automatic correction for lens shape and distortion (spherical and chromatic aberration, I think they're called). Basically, you click a checkbox and it un-warps and removes corner darkness from your photos. And lots of other useful features that don't require Photoshop-level dedication. Much more pointy-clicky.
posted by ben242 at 11:54 AM on August 1, 2013


This interview with Thomas Shahan might help with equipment choice.
posted by scruss at 12:00 PM on August 1, 2013


Macro photography is a domain where what you can shoot is very much limited by both your gear and your patience. I personally find it really rewarding, and it totally opens a whole new world, but it also can be an enormous PITA.

When you get in real close, your depth of field gets really narrow. This means you want to be able to stop your aperture down real small (f/16, f/22). Also manual focus is often the way to go. For real extreme shots a tripod can be useful or necessary.

My recommendation would be to get a DSLR and a fixed-length macro lens (100mm is nice because it lets you be a little farther from your subject for the same zoom), though this will be on the expensive end of your budget.
posted by aubilenon at 12:37 PM on August 1, 2013


I was in your position a few years ago, and I went with a point-and-shoot that had good reviews for macro photography. I didn't want to invest in a DSLR, and I feel good about that decision. here are some macro shots I've taken with a Powershot G9 and a Powershot G11. I didn't have any photography experience prior to getting the G9, and the camera makes me look like I know what I'm doing. I'm sure the quality has only gotten better and better.
posted by Jairus at 12:52 PM on August 1, 2013 [1 favorite]


I'm hugely fond of my Sony alpha Nex-3, and there are several more recent iterations that would fit your budget. I find it to be a really good blend of compact auto and DSLR. It's mirrorless and lighter than most DSLRs, can shoot with manual controls or intelligent auto, has a large sensor for more detail, and fits comfortably within your budget. It comes with an interchangeable lens that does good close-in work, and you can get more specialized lenses if you want.

Intelligent auto, by the way, is FANTASTIC. And I bought when the camera was first on the market 3 years ago, so I would imagine it's only gotten better from there. It will shift from macro to portrait to action, depending on what I'm focusing on, and it's usually spot-on. It is nice to have the option to override, but I'd say 99%+ of the time I'm in auto and get shots I'm thrilled with.

If you'd like to see some examples of what it can do in the hands of a not-particularly-expert user, let me know and I'll throw some up online.
posted by katemonster at 12:53 PM on August 1, 2013


I'd go with a DSLR. I have a nice point and shoot (not a canon, but a nice lumix with a fancy lens in a similar class of camera). I like to take pictures of stuff in my garden, and it is no good for that--the pictures come out blurry and grainy, no matter how much I try to manually control them.

On the other hand, I also have a Nikon D40 that my photog father-in-law was kind enough to gift to me. I generally only use the lens that came with it--an AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm. It is not an ideal lens for macro, and yet here are some recent macro shots I've taken. I only hazily know what I'm doing, but I feel reasonably confident that I'll get photos that look how I want them to look--photos I'm even proud of (even though I almost never share them anywhere!). I still use my phone for snapshots, but honestly, I almost never use the point and shoot. It's an inbetweeny option for me whose outcome is sort of . . . consistently meh for me.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 1:28 PM on August 1, 2013


Best answer: I'm going to go against the grain here and recommend against a DSLR. The main challenge in macro photography is getting the depth of field to be deep enough. When you get really close to a thing, there's only a very narrow strip, maybe a couple of millimeters deep, that's in focus. Anything closer or farther than that will be blurry. The focused area is your depth of field.

The depth of field any camera can get is related to its sensor size. On lots of pictures, you want your DOF to be shallow - portraits especially look best with a blurred background. DSLRs have a large sensor, so they're better at blurring backgrounds. But for macro you're going to have the opposite problem. A compact camera with a small sensor will have much more DOF than a big one.

The G1X is a very nice camera, but part of what makes it nice (for most things) is that is has a large sensor in it. I'd look at the G15, which has a similar amount of manual controls but a smaller sensor. Also it's a bit cheaper!

Use some of the money you have left to get a nice solid tripod. Good macro work demands good technique - you'll need to stop down to a small aperture for maximum DOF, so it's easy to get a lot of blur from camera shake if you're going handheld.

If you really like it and want to go nuts, then you can get a DSLR and a dedicated macro lens and a macro flash and start using focus stacking. But you want to be sure you'll actually like it; nothing's more expensive than the gear you never end up using. Have a go at it with a G15 or something similar and see if you like it. If so, you can move up to the next level. If not, you've still got a good all-purpose camera.
posted by echo target at 1:56 PM on August 1, 2013 [3 favorites]


You can take a step beyond the cellphone without taking a giant leap. A little point-and-shoot with a "super-macro" lens will provide plenty of play fodder for very little money, and you can decide from there whether you want to upgrade another step later.

I'm toting around a Powershot SX110IS, which is about as cheap as you can get. Several years old, only 9MP, nothing fancy at all. I wouldn't recommend for/against it specifically, but just as an example of what you can do with a hundred-dollar camera: I find it useful for taking shots of tiny things all the time.

Baby-steps. :)

(Oh, also, there's a build of CHDK for it, which I use almost exclusively for the intervalometer script. Totally unrelated to macrophotography, but these little clunkers can be supremely useful with the right hacks and an external power brick.)
posted by Myself at 2:00 PM on August 1, 2013 [1 favorite]


I upgraded from a smartphone camera to a Sony NEX-6 mirrorless and love it. Its macro mode lets me easily take photos like this using the basic lens.
posted by mkultra at 3:29 PM on August 1, 2013


Best answer: I too will recommend against a DSLR for you. The reasons why are as follows:

1. Price. You will find a point and shoot a very large step up from your cellphone without going into macro territory. Additionally, a DSLR will work best with a macro lens, which is more money - a lot of money for a quite specialised lens.

2. Depth of field. Smaller sensors mean that more of your macro picture will be in focus. This is one of, if not the biggest, challenge with macro photos. It will be much easier for you to take good pics with a smaller sensor camera. Additionally, I would recommend purchasing a cheap raynox diopter (150 and or 250) for use with your camera.

3. Size. Smaller camera is undeniably easier to use for macro, and it lessens camera shake etc.

this guy has taken some of the most stunning macros I've ever seen with a P and S. It is absolutely no barrier to taking great pics.
posted by smoke at 4:17 PM on August 1, 2013 [1 favorite]


Not a macro shooter but despite owning a Canon 7D and a couple of expensive high-end lenses I'd recommend not getting a DSLR for the reasons you mentioned and because, as mentioned above by a couple of posters, shallow depth of field - which is what many people love about DSLR images - is the enemy of macro.
posted by puffmoike at 7:52 PM on August 1, 2013


I would get a used P&S that can shoot RAW, either natively or through CHDK. Buy a used model of something that had been top of the line a few years ago, such as an Olympus XZ-1 or Canon S90. If you want a bell and whistle, get a camera with an articulating screen.

FWIW, the Pentax WG series cameras have a little macro ring flash built in, which is cute. They're also waterproof/crushproof/apocalypseproof. They don't shoot RAW, though.
posted by Sticherbeast at 8:12 PM on August 1, 2013


Best answer: I bought a P+S Canon Powershot in 2007 - the 710 IIRC. One of the main reasons for me getting this was the 1:1 macro - I spent ages researching which compact had the closest range. Now I have a DSLR and a dedicated macro lens (mine is the Sigma lens for a Canon), I can see the difference - the DSLR lens is longer, meaning I don't have to lean right into my subject like I did with the P+S which makes it easier for a clumsy person like me to get a decent shot - but a 1:1 macro on a compact was perfect for a lot of the macro shots I wanted to take. I used to use the macro for capturing details for eBay or taking shots of flowers and insects, and it worked very well indeed - the jump up from your cellphone camera to any camera with a dedicated macro mode will be a great leap forward, and as others have said, will be a good stepping stone while you improve and decide whether you want a DSLR.

I haven't had my DSLR for that long and I'm still at the stage where I'm getting frustrated with the technical aspects of taking photos with it - though when it works, it really works. I think a Powershot or similar high-spec compact with a good macro will be what you need,
posted by mippy at 3:36 AM on August 2, 2013 [1 favorite]


Best answer: Oh hey, do I have a simple solution for you. This is also my hobby, and when I first started out I couldn't afford much either. Here is what you need. A superzoom point and shoot camera, I use a 6-7 year old Panasonic Lumix FZ8 and some Raynox macro diopters, specifically the DCR-150 and DCR-250.

It looks like you could duplicate my setup for about $150ish. Shooting with a point and shoot like this is dead simple. The smaller sensor size leads to an amazingly deep depth of field, meaning that even though you are shooting macro, almost everything is in focus. SDeriously, this is the cheapest, easiest way to do macro, and your results will be amazing. If you added a newer camera you could even beat the image quality that I have.

Check out my results here.
posted by sanka at 6:14 AM on August 2, 2013 [2 favorites]


Response by poster: All of your photos and links made me totally and completely happy - and filled me with hope. Thank you!

I ended up buying the G15 this morning - thank you echo target for that recommendation - after spending a chunk of today at the local photography store, talking about what I wanted and touching cameras and squinting at tiny things. It was actually the first camera that they recommended to me!

With it being a long weekend in Canada, I'm really looking forward to experimenting and spending some time lying face-first down in the grass.
posted by VioletU at 9:20 AM on August 2, 2013


« Older Rearranging the formula for Compound Annual Growth...   |   We Can and WILL Force the Hand of Amazing (East... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.