Photography filter: Next step up from "digital macro"?

March 23, 2008 8:09 PM

Photography filter: Next step up from "digital macro"?

I've fallen in love with my "digital macro" features on my Canon SD700. I thought it took great shots, up until I searched saw Flickr's selection of macro photos. 2 questions:

1: How does Canon's "Digital macro" mode differ from actually having a macro lens?
2: What is the next step up in getting better hardware for macro shots (camera+lenses)? I'm willing to spend $500-$750 and I don't want it to have a large learning curve.

I'm not a pro and don't want to be. I just want something noticeably closer and clearer than what I have.

Thanks for any help!

posted by colecovizion to Technology (7 answers total)

There are any number of ways to go true macro. I think (but am noy sure) that the 'digital macro) simply is a different way of saying "digital zoom" (i.e. pixel magnification).

Once you have a camera with removable lenses (a DSLR or SLR) there are a number of ways to get macro shots. One of the sipmlest ways (although it requires some advanced knowledge of photoraphy is to buy what's called a reversing ring. This will allow you to take your standard lens and mount it on the camera backwards by screwing into the filter threads, turning your lens into a huge magnifier. Here's an example I did with a Nikkor 50mm f1.8 reversed on my D50. Here's another.

The second way is to buy a set of extension rings or bellows to put between your camera and the lens. This moves the focal point away from the film plane, thus magnifying the image.

Option 3 is to buy a dedicated macro lens (although dedicated is a misnomer, most 'macro' lenses operate perfectly well as normal lenses.) It's the most expensive option, although easiest in practice since you can still use your camera's normal metering and shooting modes.

Hope this helps, I'd be happy to follow up with any specific questions.
posted by pjern at 8:30 PM on March 23, 2008

I'm not familiar with your camera, but I have dabbled (very lightly) in macro photography. Here are two things you need to consider which might lead to the purchase of accessories.

At super-high magnification, you have less light overall in a given frame. A given "density" (ambient brightness) of light, but a smaller real-world area = less total light hitting your camera. This leads to:

1) A need for extra light if your subject moves at all, or if the camera is hand-held (e.g. photos of living insects, butterflies, your cat's ear).

2) If the light isn't that great (and I mean more great than you'd normally need), then your exposure time will be longer, leading to a real need to stabilize the camera. If you don't have a tripod, you'll need one.

Good luck! What subjects are you considering photographing?
posted by amtho at 8:37 PM on March 23, 2008

the difference is that what you're doing right now is simulating a macro lens by manipulating the digital file post capture while a dedicate macro lens interprets the light before it ever hits the sensor. so your image quality goes down.

your budget does not really allow you to get the entry level dslr's i.e. canon offers and a dedicated macro lens, which would be the next big step. the canon rebel xti or canon 30d dslr camera will pretty much fill your budget as-is, though they are certainly both worth it.

the canon 100mm f2.8 macro is probably the most desirable lens in your price range (it costs about $450) and it also does portraits well but again, that's in addition to a body, so you might want to look around if you can find a bit for one.

a step up would be the canon 180mm f3.5 macro but that one is out of your price range. a cheaper canon macro lens is the canon 50mm compact macro lens but do read the linked review before you jump onto it.
posted by krautland at 8:54 PM on March 23, 2008

I'm only familiar with Canon, but I'd recommend (if you're really into it) getting a Rebel XT (old or new, mine is 2 years old and works great) and a real macro lens. A Rebel body will run you ~$500 and a macro lens at least $200 but you can buy used. You'll want an extra light too but if you have a tripod and your subject isn't moving too much, you'll be okay. It might be a little over what you're looking for, but if you really want those beautiful shots its the best way. Here's one macro lens (at a good site).
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 9:01 PM on March 23, 2008

As pjern points out, if you want to get serious about macro photography, you need to upgrade to an SLR. Which your budget can probably cover... Maybe a Nikon D40 ($488 because you have to buy a zoom lens), 50mm lens ($200 @ amazon, but I bought mine for $90), and a reversing ring ($30)? Or a Canon Digital Rebel XT ($400), 50mm lens ($87), and reversing ring ($15).

IIRC, I think that reversing a lens gives you pretty shallow depth of field, compared with buying, say, a dedicated macro lens. On preview, yeah, if you can get a good used macro lens for $200, that would br pretty awesome too. Some links: 1, 2, 3

Or you could see if you can refine your technique with these tips for macro photography with your point-and-shoot, but it will only take you so far, as you have discovered.
posted by misterbrandt at 9:25 PM on March 23, 2008

Unfortunately, the SD700 doesn't have filter threads on the front of its lens (as is often the case with point-and-shoot cameras that have telescoping lenses), so you can't just screw an add-on diopter lens onto it. Do not, however, rule out the possibility of just using another point-and-shoot camera. As the people in the above comments have pointed out, a couple of half-decent lenses for any DSLR are likely to cost you as much as the camera again. DSLRs are not a hobby for the poor, and there are lots of point-and-shoots with excellent close-up capabilities - classically Nikon have been very strong in this area.

There are workarounds for penny-pinching DSLR users, though.

Assume you've managed to get yourself a DSLR, which probably means a new one, because bargains are hard to find in the used DSLR market. There are now two ways to get yourself good macro capabilities on the cheap.

Way 1: Get a good-quality prime lens, like Canon's EF 50mm f/1.8 II, and use extension tubes to turn it into a macro. Now you won't have infinity focus any more, but you will have very close focus, with something approaching the lens' original optical quality. The down side is that the tubes will eat a lot of light - but at $US90 for the lens (which price means ALL Canon DSLR owners should have one, on general principles; the focal length isn't the most useful with the 1.5X-ish crop factor of all affordable DSLRs, but f/1.8 is invaluable for low-light shooting) and $US170 for a set of three stackable Kenko tubes (it's OK to buy crappy-brand extension tubes, since they have no glass in them), you can't beat the price.

Way 2: Get the finest, cheapest DSLR macro lens in existence, the Phoenix/Promaster/Vivitar 100mm f/3.5, actually made by Cosina and available with several popular lens mounts. It only goes to 1:2 magnification unless you screw the included magnifier onto it (which removes your infinity focus, again), and it feels like a piece of plastic crap, but it only costs $US130 or something, yet is a real grown-up macro lens that you can use for serious photography.

I ramble on a bit more about macrophotography on the second page of my old photo tutorial.
posted by dansdata at 5:20 AM on March 24, 2008

Response by poster: Thanks everyone for the detailed responses. I truly appreciate all of the time put into answering my question. It looks like there isn't a smaller step up from my Point and shoot other than to go DSLR. I expected this, but was hoping that there was something else to get great macro shots and still remain lazy (and ignorant) with my little pocket cam :). I'll have to save up for the DSLR, so I'll keep this in my favorites for when I'm able to make a purchase. Thanks again for helping out a nb. I'm a smarter person for it now.
posted by colecovizion at 10:21 PM on March 24, 2008