WaltR

Long or short focal length for close-up macro depth of field? Long is best, of course, with say f16, but scale is small. Short gets one up close for scale, but even at small aperture, depth of field is not the best. I can not use focus stacking, since my subjects will be fleeting and shot quickly with only a brief pause (not even the new in-camera focus stacking multi-shot feature is reasonable for several reasons). I'm think there is no really good way to do this, but I certainly don't know everything. Some point-and-shoots do better than my expensive rigs, but image quality is poor, of course. Currently using standard lens (55mm/f1.4), but only half are usable. Any thoughts?

James Van Ells

Even a moderate tele zoom lens with an extender will help. I use a 70-200 with a 1.4 and can get a closer image while still being further away. This provides a bit more depth of field.

Quixdraw Loc: x

I shoot at least half my macro type shots with an old FX 75-300 zoom on a DX camera, mostly toward the long end. For the others a 105 2.8 Macro on an FX camera. Either will get excellent results. Per James suggestion, I occasionally use an extender on the 105. IMO distance from insects = more time / more good photos.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Depth of field is entirely dependent on magnification - 1:1 with a 40mm lens has the same DoF as a 200mm lens at the same aperture. The only thing that is different is the subject to focal plane distance - aka the working distance.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

I don't know what you mean by "short gets one up for scale", that does not makes any sense whatsoever to me! Maybe you could clarify that a bit.

WaltR

Sorry, should have said, I can't get physically close enough to object to shoot with 200mm for example. Even my 645Z 90mm won't approach close enough. Mostly, I must be physically within a couple of feet. Thanks to all for thoughts thus far. Believe it or not, I'm getting the best results til now with a Sony RX1R, with its fixed 35mm. When I get the focus and distance right, it is perfect, but that is never easy to do in a fast grab, and I only succeed in about 50%.

sxrich

Older Nikon d5100 (crop) with 55-300dx, hand held, reasonable aperture ie around f11. I've also shot with a Nikon 105 2.8 macro and now use a Tokina 100 2.8 macro. I find it much easier to use a zoom lens and crop but that's my opinion.

(Download)

manofhg Loc: Knoxville, TN

If you could post some of your results, that might help for UHHers to understand better what your dilemma is. I have a 70-200 f/2.8 and add extension tubes, then use a flash to get it bright enough while I set the f-stop to something smaller than f/16 (bigger number, smaller opening).

This was shot at f/20......https://photos.app.goo.gl/qVuucsZc5KqbUL3SA

fetzler Loc: North West PA

Here are some thoughts to consider.

1. Depth of field depends on magnification (on the sensor) and the chosen aperture only.

2. A normal focal length of a macro lens is approximately 2 x the the normal focal for your camera. The m.zuiko 60mm for micro 4/3, The Nikon 85mm (and 60mm ) for APS-C sensors and the 105mm Nikor for full frame would be examples.

3. Focal length changes the working distance for a given magnification. Longer focal length = longer working distance.

4. Your camera format matters. A head shot on a 8x10 camera is a macro photograph. It is essentially impossible to take a photograph of a small object with such a camera. (well maybe with a LOT of effort and expense) Medium format is difficult as well. Micro 4/3 and APS-C cameras are very good choices for macro work as smaller magnifications can be used to fill the frame. Again smaller magnification = more depth of field.

5. Motion is your enemy. You need to develop skills at holding your camera still. Tripods are sometimes necessary. Flash can help in achieving short exposures at small apertures.

6. it is possible to take macro photos with a variety of focal lengths. There is a 15mm (FF or APS-C, I think) available for macros. Some like the 200mm Nikor lens. Both requite some skill to use. I have used lenses a short as 28mm (FF) for macro work although the magnifications were not very high.

nadelewitz Loc: Ithaca NY

If you are getting close enough, or using a longer lens, to get large magnifications, you are losing depth-of-field entirely. D-O-F is determined by MAGNIFICATION and APERTURE, not by focal length or distance.

cactuspic Loc: Dallas, TX

While Gene and others are correct that at 1:1 magnification, depth of field is dependent on only magnification and aperture, macro is a term that is often used to mean closeup at magnifications much less than 1:1 (such as 1:4). At 1:4, focal length can make a difference in the apparent depth of field. Moreover, while at 1:1 magnification, depth of field on the subject may not change with the focal length of the lens, apparent depth of field may certainly change with regard to background elements.

In his description, the OP speaks of a standard 55mm lens. Since a true macro lens (1:1 magnification) is not usually referred to as a “standard” lens, I assume he is using a standard 55mm nonmacro lens. I also assume that when he talks about scale with his 200mm, he really means that his 200mm lens lacks close focusing ability and that his subjects are too small a part of the frame to effectively crop.

In rereading the original post, I made a number of assumptions and am not sure what the exact problems are, for they could be several. Lack of ability to fill the frame, subject too deep to hold depth of field, camera/subject movement at longer exposures. If the OP posted a few of the unsuccessful pictures, I think the advice would be more helpful.

Irwin

WaltR

Nothing quite answers what I am looking for, but that is surely on my inability to ask the question quite right. In any case, there are several comments here that put me onto thinking in the right direction. For that, thanks to all for stimulating comments. It has helped indeed. WaltR.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Some things are simply impossible to do... You have to look for ways around the obstacles.

For example, if shooting insects and unable to use a focus stacking method because the subjects are moving... try going out and shooting very early in the morning when it's cooler and the critters are less active and might hold still long enough for the multiple shots you need to make a focus stacked image.

Or, set up a realistic looking "stage" indoors, capture the insect and refrigerate it for 15 minutes before trying to make your quick series of shots.

Photographing plants, you may need to wait for a still day, no wind. Or, take the plant indoors. Or use some sort of clamp to hold the subject from moving in the breeze... Or use something to block the wind.

Macro flash is another way to freeze movement. It also allows you to use smaller apertures. I use a macro twin light for macro up to about 2X magnification... I don't care for ring light flash as lower magnification, but like and use it for 1X and higher magnification. I also sometimes simply use a standard flash that's been diffused (otherwise it's too high power for close-up shots).

The longer your lens focal length, the shallower depth of field. And, the higher the magnification, the shallower your depth of field. (Third factor, lens aperture, is discussed below.)

The reason little point-n-shoots might seem to do macro more easily and with greater depth of field is because they use a tiny little sensor. Depth of field doesn't actually change due to sensor size alone. However, smaller sensors use shorter focal lengths to give the same angle of view, and the shorter focal length does make for greater depth of field.

Take, for example, a full frame camera fitted with a 100mm macro lens. On an APS-C camera with a somewhat smaller sensor, a 60 to 70mm lens gives the same angle of view. In contrast, a compact point-n-shoot camera with a tiny little 1/2.3" sensor would see the same short telephoto effect with an 18mm lens! That shorter focal length is what makes for greater depth of field.

Displayed in small sizes and low resolutions such as online sharing, the point-n-shoot's images might look the best out of those three cameras. But enlarge the image to something you want to hang on the wall... say an 11x14" or 16x24" print... and the image from the tiny sensor falls apart badly. Meanwhile the APS-C camera's images hold up very well and the full frame camera's are excellent.

Basically, crowding 20 or 24 million pixel sites onto a 1/2.3" sensor... which typically measure 6.17mm x 4.55mm for a total area of 28.5mm square... would mean some 700,000 to 840,000 pixel sites per square mm. Each of those individual pixel sites would need to be extremely small and they'd would have to be crowded very tightly together. (Point-n-shoots don't have 24MP or higher resolution for this reason. Today there are quite a few with 20MP, but many have less than that.)

Extremely small pixels aren't as good gathering light, limiting the fine detail that can be captured as well as how high ISO can be used. Crowding the pixels tightly together also makes for more heat and cross-talk issues, further limiting how high ISO is possible with those cameras.

For comparison....

20 to 24MP is now fairly typical resolution for APS-C cameras. But their sensors... approx. 23mm x 15mm, typically with total area between 332 and 360mm square... can handle 20 to 24 million individual pixel sites relatively easily, with up to 72,000 individual pixels per square mm. That's TEN TIMES the size of the point-n-shoot camera's sensor.... with pixels that are 1/10 as tightly crammed onto the surface!

20 to 24MP is now fairly low resolution for a full frame camera... with a 36mm x 24mm sensor, 864mm square... would make for 23,000 to 27,000 pixel sites per square mm... 1/3 as crowded as APS-C and less than 1/30 as crowded as that point-n-shoot camera's sensor!

Searching for depth of field by stopping down your lens also has it's limits. Some macro lenses have f/22, f/32 or even f/45 apertures. HOWEVER, there's a problem...

Diffraction is an optical effect that occurs at "too small" aperture. It robs images of fine detail. The f/stop where diffraction begins to occur changes with sensor size and resolution. For example, a 20MP APS-C camera will start to see it at f-stops smaller than f/7.1... A 20MP full frame can be stopped down to f/10 before diffraction starts. But a tiny 1/2.3" sensor starts to see it occurring at f-stops smaller than f/2.5! There's very little loss at first, but it increases with each smaller aperture that's used. For example, I'll use f/11 with APS-C cameras and f/16 on full frame without much concern, but I generally try to avoid any smaller than that, with those camera formats. If I had a point-n-shoot camera with one of those tiny sensors, for good image quality I'd try to avoid any smaller than f/5.6.

Just to be clear, diffraction is similar to depth of field, in that it's not directly effected by sensor size. The indirect reason it's more severe with smaller sensors is because the images they produce require more magnification to be enlarged to any particular size, for final uses. The "diffraction limited apertures" listed above all assume an 8x12" print. To make a print that size from a full frame image means approx. 8.5X magnification. From APS-C, the same size print requires slightly more than 13X magnification. Or with a 1/2.3" sensor, nearly 50X magnification would be needed to make that 8x12" print! (Note: All these assume no cropping was done. Any cropping would further increase magnification and potentially make any diffraction that's occurring more problematic.)

Photography is all about compromises... There are limits to optics and all the other tech that goes into cameras and lenses. So you have to find ways to work within those, to accomplish the shot you want. When you come up against an obstacle, back up and look for some way around it. Often there's another tool or a different technique that will get you the results you want.

For example, another way to get greater apparent depth of field in a "macro" shot is to use a larger format, higher resolution camera from a greater distance, then crop the image! That way you can still have enough resolution to make a pretty good size print from the image. Of course, you also need to use high quality lenses to do this. Higher resolution cameras "demand better glass"! Of course, this can get pricey! (Check out the new Fuji GFX 100 medium format, 100MP camera and the 120mm macro lens to fit it! That will set you back around $12,000 to $13,000!)

nadelewitz Loc: Ithaca NY

??? What is "apparent depth of field"? Depth of field is a hard measurement. There's nothing "apparent" about it. Once more, depth of field is determined by magnification and aperture. Not what type of lens

Are you trying to make an exception to optical physical law?

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

ap·par·ent /əˈperənt/

adjective

1. clearly visible or understood; obvious.

"it became apparent that he was talented"
synonyms: evident, plain, obvious, clear, manifest, visible, discernible, perceptible, perceivable, noticeable, detectable, recognizable, observable; More
unmistakable, crystal clear, as clear as crystal, transparent, palpable, patent, distinct, pronounced, marked, striking, conspicuous, overt, blatant, as plain as a pikestaff,
staring someone in the face, writ large, written all over someone, as plain as day, beyond (a) doubt, beyond question, self-evident, indisputable;
informal : as plain as the nose on one's face, standing/sticking out like a sore thumb, standing/sticking out a mile
"their relief was all too apparent"
antonyms: unclear, obscure

2. seeming real or true, but not necessarily so.
"his apparent lack of concern"
synonyms: seeming, ostensible, outward, superficial, surface, supposed, presumed, so-called, alleged, professed, avowed, declared, claimed, purported, pretended, feigned; rare: ostensive
"his apparent lack of concern"
antonyms: genuine

Maybe in this instance it's the first and usual definition that's intended?

Take your pick of "evident, plain, obvious, clear, manifest, visible, discernible, perceptible, perceivable, noticeable, detectable, recognizable, or observable" depth of field.

Happy now?