Macro discussion
Jan 19, 2019 10:59:48 #
chrisg-optical wrote:
The 60 will provide slightly more DOF
True only if you lower the magnification. Same goes for Largobob's incorrect claim.
"DOF is determined by subject magnification at the film / sensor plane and the selected lens aperture or f-number. For a given f-number, increasing the magnification, either by moving closer to the subject or using a lens of greater focal length, decreases the DOF; decreasing magnification increases DOF. For a given subject magnification, increasing the f-number (decreasing the aperture diameter) increases the DOF; decreasing f-number decreases DOF."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field
Jan 19, 2019 11:48:18 #
Yea, you can take multiple shots at different focus points then merge them togeather if you want the whole say bug in focus
Jan 19, 2019 12:03:40 #
imagemeister wrote:
I think I had an epiphany today . While shooting flowers in lower light, it occurred to me that a 60mm macro would have a less possibility for hand held induced camera blur than a 100mm macro - I do not recall this ever having been discussed here before ? ! - OR - maybe I am wrong and losing my mind ...... 
You are correct. It has to do with the field of view. A 60 mm lens has a much broader field of view that a 200 mm. The field of view depends on the angle of the arc of FOV, or the angle of view. That angle is 33 degrees for a 60 mm and 10 degrees for a 200 mm lens. Camera shake is going to alter that angle of view by a certain amount. Let us say that amount is just a mm. 1mm of camera movement will move the FOV of the 200 by 3.3 times the FOV of the 60 mm and produce 3.3 times the blur.
Jan 19, 2019 12:15:09 #
In my experience when using my 60mm, 105mm and a 200mm macro lenses the 200mm for me is more difficult to manage and I have to shoot at a higher shutter speeds. Common recommendation is to set the shutter speed to twice the focal length to avoid motion blur. Now, I truly love the reach that the 200mm gives me and I can get some shots that I may not be able to otherwise....or get stung or bit.
For me, I need to set my 200mm close to 1/400th second so light (and flash) become a critical factor compared to setting my shutter speed to 1/120th second when using my 60mm. When using my dual head macro lens mounted flash I have to put the camera in the flash high speed sync mode to get the shutter speed near 400 to work with the flash. Works great, but consumes batteries due to the way high speed sync works.
If I increase my ISO at the higher shutter speed it introduces digital noise. If I open the aperture to compensate for the faster shutter speed, my depth of field is too shallow and I miss a lot of the subjects detail.
For me, I need to set my 200mm close to 1/400th second so light (and flash) become a critical factor compared to setting my shutter speed to 1/120th second when using my 60mm. When using my dual head macro lens mounted flash I have to put the camera in the flash high speed sync mode to get the shutter speed near 400 to work with the flash. Works great, but consumes batteries due to the way high speed sync works.
If I increase my ISO at the higher shutter speed it introduces digital noise. If I open the aperture to compensate for the faster shutter speed, my depth of field is too shallow and I miss a lot of the subjects detail.
Jan 19, 2019 13:07:07 #
Paul Brannon wrote:
I am novice to many others here. But, I too experience the same, and try my darnedest to use a tripod, when ever possible, age benefits making their contributions. My problems, with macro, is not getting the whole subject in focus, other than the immediate area I focus on. Just need more studying on the objective.
What f stop are you using? My go-to f stop using my Nikon 105 f2.8 Micro lens is f16. Depth of field with macro photography is very shallow.
May I suggest you check out the Macro Photography site here on UHH. Te contributors are pretty much top of the line for helping people get started. They offer advice on cameras, lenses, flash and accessories. You will hear constantly, practice, practice, practice. I cannot improve on that recommendation.
Dennis
Jan 19, 2019 13:30:02 #
RWR wrote:
Not so. See my statement above.
Correct yes I meant to say at the same distance not magnification.
Jan 19, 2019 14:44:34 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
Yes, a shorter focal length lens is more easily kept steady....
However, when it's macro lenses we're talking about, shorter focal lengths also put you closer to your subject at higher magnifications and that can be a problem if it's a shy critter or something that stings or bites or if you end up casting an unwanted shadow on the subject or simply reducing illumination needed for the shot.
Macro flash can help, but is another thing to buy, carry around and deal with using. There are some pretty interesting alternatives such as small LED light panels which give continuous lighting that's easier to work with than flash. It's also possible to diffuse a standard flash and use it off-camera, to provide macro illumination.
Image stabilization might help steady shots, too... but with macro the higher the magnification, the less effective stabilization will be. Hence a tripod... or at least a monopod.... is an important tool for macro work.
Depth of field is another concern... it gets very shallow at higher magnifications. It's also strongly effected by focal length... the longer the lens, the shallower the depth of field will be. You'll often find that macro lenses offer especially small lens apertures, in search of additional depth of field. It's not uncommon for them to have f/32 or even f/45. However, you have to be careful using extremely small lens apertures because there's risk of loss of image quality to diffraction (Google it, if interested).
There are both internal focusing and non-IF macro lenses. The latter are usually less expensive, but extend considerably at higher magnifications. It's not uncommon for a non-IF macro lens to double in length by the time it's at it's max magnification. Of course this reduces working distance between the front of the lens and the subject.
Another consideration... as it extends a non-IF lens' effective aperture changes. An extreme example, one macro lens I use is the Canon MP-E 65mm. This is an unusual macro lens which cannot be used for non-macro purposes at all. In fact it's minimum magnification is 1:1, which is most other macro lenses' maximum! The MP-E 65mm goes as high as 5:1 magnification (5X life size... you can fill a camera's viewfinder with a grain of rice).
The MP-E 65mm's smallest selectable aperture is f/16.... however, because it's a non-IF lens that aperture changes as you increase magnification, roughly doubling in length by the time it's at max mag that smallest aperture is equivalent to f/96! That's nearly 3 stops difference and makes supplemental lighting with a flash almost a necessity. For less extreme magnification, I'm not a fan of ring lights (too flat lighting for what I do). But on this lens I use one frequently for anything greater than 2:1.
This doesn't help with depth of field or diffraction, though.
A possible solution is "focus stacking" (Google it), but that's largely limited to inanimate subjects and can be challenging outdoors with wind or other factors. Focus stacking also generally requires a tripod and a "focusing stage" or "focusing rail" device.
Macro photography is a huge subject. It's way too much to try to cover in detail here. I strongly recommend anyone interested in doing it invest in some books. If you can find a copy of it, John Shaw's "Close-ups in Nature" is a good place to start... folks used to refer to it as the "Bible" of macro photography. (And not much has changed since the days of film.... so it's still largely relevant.)
However, when it's macro lenses we're talking about, shorter focal lengths also put you closer to your subject at higher magnifications and that can be a problem if it's a shy critter or something that stings or bites or if you end up casting an unwanted shadow on the subject or simply reducing illumination needed for the shot.
Macro flash can help, but is another thing to buy, carry around and deal with using. There are some pretty interesting alternatives such as small LED light panels which give continuous lighting that's easier to work with than flash. It's also possible to diffuse a standard flash and use it off-camera, to provide macro illumination.
Image stabilization might help steady shots, too... but with macro the higher the magnification, the less effective stabilization will be. Hence a tripod... or at least a monopod.... is an important tool for macro work.
Depth of field is another concern... it gets very shallow at higher magnifications. It's also strongly effected by focal length... the longer the lens, the shallower the depth of field will be. You'll often find that macro lenses offer especially small lens apertures, in search of additional depth of field. It's not uncommon for them to have f/32 or even f/45. However, you have to be careful using extremely small lens apertures because there's risk of loss of image quality to diffraction (Google it, if interested).
There are both internal focusing and non-IF macro lenses. The latter are usually less expensive, but extend considerably at higher magnifications. It's not uncommon for a non-IF macro lens to double in length by the time it's at it's max magnification. Of course this reduces working distance between the front of the lens and the subject.
Another consideration... as it extends a non-IF lens' effective aperture changes. An extreme example, one macro lens I use is the Canon MP-E 65mm. This is an unusual macro lens which cannot be used for non-macro purposes at all. In fact it's minimum magnification is 1:1, which is most other macro lenses' maximum! The MP-E 65mm goes as high as 5:1 magnification (5X life size... you can fill a camera's viewfinder with a grain of rice).
The MP-E 65mm's smallest selectable aperture is f/16.... however, because it's a non-IF lens that aperture changes as you increase magnification, roughly doubling in length by the time it's at max mag that smallest aperture is equivalent to f/96! That's nearly 3 stops difference and makes supplemental lighting with a flash almost a necessity. For less extreme magnification, I'm not a fan of ring lights (too flat lighting for what I do). But on this lens I use one frequently for anything greater than 2:1.
This doesn't help with depth of field or diffraction, though.
A possible solution is "focus stacking" (Google it), but that's largely limited to inanimate subjects and can be challenging outdoors with wind or other factors. Focus stacking also generally requires a tripod and a "focusing stage" or "focusing rail" device.
Macro photography is a huge subject. It's way too much to try to cover in detail here. I strongly recommend anyone interested in doing it invest in some books. If you can find a copy of it, John Shaw's "Close-ups in Nature" is a good place to start... folks used to refer to it as the "Bible" of macro photography. (And not much has changed since the days of film.... so it's still largely relevant.)
Jan 19, 2019 16:58:24 #
imagemeister wrote:
I think I had an epiphany today . While shooting flowers in lower light, it occurred to me that a 60mm macro would have a less possibility for hand held induced camera blur than a 100mm macro - I do not recall this ever having been discussed here before ? ! - OR - maybe I am wrong and losing my mind ......
And 30mm on Micro 4/3 is even steadier, especially with electronic shutter, no mirror, and WiFi remote control. Plus, 1:1 on Micro 4/3 is like 4:1 on full frame.
Jan 19, 2019 17:29:14 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
burkphoto wrote:
And 30mm on Micro 4/3 is even steadier, especially with electronic shutter, no mirror, and WiFi remote control. Plus, 1:1 on Micro 4/3 is like 4:1 on full frame.
And 30mm on Micro 4/3 is even steadier, especially with electronic shutter, no mirror, and WiFi remote control. Plus, 1:1 on Micro 4/3 is like 4:1 on full frame.
The easiest way to not worry about blur or camera shake affecting the image is to use the IBIS of my E-M1 mrII when I put on my 90mm f2 macro film lense (120mm field of view in 35mm terms) and choose an appropriate depth of field for the shot. Back in the film days, I spent a good bit of time calculating how to get enough DOF for a shot with either my 50mm f2 macro or my 90mm f2 macro. One of the reasons that I bought the E-M1 mrII was specifically to to be able to shoot macro without all the calculations and tripod. With good technique, 1:1 handheld shots at just about any aperture and shutter speed become possible. This gives one a lot of control over the depth of field for a shot.
Jan 19, 2019 17:36:32 #
wdross wrote:
The easiest way to not worry about blur or camera ... (show quote)
Yep. Same can be said for the Lumix G9 or GH5. With O.I.S. Panasonic lenses, they provide DUAL IS 2, a second generation harmony use of in-body and in-lens stabilization, coordinated.
Jan 19, 2019 17:52:26 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
burkphoto wrote:
Yep. Same can be said for the Lumix G9 or GH5. With O.I.S. Panasonic lenses, they provide DUAL IS 2, a second generation harmony use of in-body and in-lens stabilization, coordinated.
It will be interesting to see how the new E-M1X gets the extra stop of stability (supposedly 7.5 stops, 6.5 of it IBIS). And the new 150-400 f4 lens is suppose to be 5 axis IS (!?!). Not sure now that can be, but maybe it is some of that "second generation harmony".
Jan 19, 2019 17:54:22 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
OK...I reread this before posting. I think it makes sense if you take a breath before reading...
Magnification is exactly the same in both cases for equivalently framed images. A movement of, say 1mm of the object will result in a movement of the image by the same 1mm, because the object (the subject) and the image on the film are exactly the same size at 1:1 reproduction and are also of exactly the same size (but not equal) for any other equivalently framed images. If the camera is what is moving, however, it takes less camera movement to <effectively> move the subject that 1mm because of the longer working distance with the larger lens...look at CatMarley's diagram. On the other hand, there may be an offsetting influence in the other direction because of the increased delicacy required to manage the closer working distance with the smaller lens. I have both a 60mm micro and a 105mm micro. I find that in practice, they pretty much net out to the same. The 105mm lens has VR, so in the overall scheme of things, it wins.
Magnification is exactly the same in both cases for equivalently framed images. A movement of, say 1mm of the object will result in a movement of the image by the same 1mm, because the object (the subject) and the image on the film are exactly the same size at 1:1 reproduction and are also of exactly the same size (but not equal) for any other equivalently framed images. If the camera is what is moving, however, it takes less camera movement to <effectively> move the subject that 1mm because of the longer working distance with the larger lens...look at CatMarley's diagram. On the other hand, there may be an offsetting influence in the other direction because of the increased delicacy required to manage the closer working distance with the smaller lens. I have both a 60mm micro and a 105mm micro. I find that in practice, they pretty much net out to the same. The 105mm lens has VR, so in the overall scheme of things, it wins.
Jan 19, 2019 19:13:23 #
An interesting discussion going on here. I am enjoying it.
I won't say once again that you do not need a tripod to shoot macro, since camera shake can be stopped with shutter speed and flash. Especially flash at low power with other settings to compensate. One can also use a steadying pole to reduce camera shake, however, and this tool also makes the process of standing still at awkward angles a lot less tiring. I promise I will sit on my hands and not go into all that again. 😇
I won't say once again that you do not need a tripod to shoot macro, since camera shake can be stopped with shutter speed and flash. Especially flash at low power with other settings to compensate. One can also use a steadying pole to reduce camera shake, however, and this tool also makes the process of standing still at awkward angles a lot less tiring. I promise I will sit on my hands and not go into all that again. 😇
Jan 19, 2019 20:23:43 #
Spot-on correct. That's one of the reasons why Don Komarechka uses a micro 4/3 camera as a highly recognized macro photographer.
Jan 19, 2019 20:39:07 #
Mark has helped me as a fledgling in my efforts with great advice and inspiration. I was having great difficulty holding my camera with all of its attachments and the 200mm lens still enough to get sharp shots. He recommended that I use a rod or pole (much like a pool cue) to rest the camera against on my hand to help steady it and it made a world of difference. My focus hit rate increased many fold.
His other advice of setting the flash power down is good advice as well. The power of a tube type flash is derived by the duration of the flash. A lower power setting lights the bulb a shorter time than when it is on a higher power. It's the duration of the length of time that stops the motion. Thus, if you want to reduce your camera shake (or a twitch of the insect), set your flash to a low power such as 1/64 or 1/32 or even up to 1/8th power (plus your batteries will last longer too).
His other advice of setting the flash power down is good advice as well. The power of a tube type flash is derived by the duration of the flash. A lower power setting lights the bulb a shorter time than when it is on a higher power. It's the duration of the length of time that stops the motion. Thus, if you want to reduce your camera shake (or a twitch of the insect), set your flash to a low power such as 1/64 or 1/32 or even up to 1/8th power (plus your batteries will last longer too).
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.