Just retired....need advice from veteran shooters

[ShooterJ]

*Raises hand*.. where IS the OP? :lmao:

Sorry.. carry on. Hehe

Sig says Texas.

Well.. I hope he enjoys reading. Lol

 

[cgipson1]

In macro, AF is useless, and in most cases, built in MF is even useless. You focus by rocking your body back and forth (handheld) or adjusting the position of the whole camera with dials and rails (if tripod mounted).

Really? I guess I have been doing it wrong then. Can you teach me the right way?

 

[Gavjenks]

The 18-55 Canon kit lens is actually able to do fairly decent macro straight up, without any extension, loss of aperture control, speed, or focusing light (tubes make it darker), extra expense of tubes that preserve those features, etc. etc.

Just attached normally, it has a surprisingly close focus ability and can achieve 0.35 magnification (you can fill the frame with an object 3x as large as the sensor). For example, a monarch butterfly with wings folded would come awfully close to filling the entire frame at the limit of your close focusing range.

So you could actually just use the kit lens alone for awhile, and then upgrade to extension tubes (with electronic connection preserved, but expensive, though not as much as a macro lens) or a simple bellows or similar (cheap as dirt, but less convenient) a little later to achieve up to and beyond 1.0 magnification.

Considering that Macro is generally defined as 1to1 ie. 1:1 capture, the 18-55 3.5-5.6 only does closeup not macro photography.

Not only does Canon's most expensive macro lens not have AF, it doesn't even have a manual focusing ring at all.

Funny, this is Canon's most expensive Macro Lens and it has a focus ring as well as AF. Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM | Canon Online Store

If you are talking about the MP-E 65, mine has a focusing ring that sets magnification and focus. (Page 5 of the user manual.) It just happens to be manual only focus.

Thank you for your nitpicky contributions that do nothing to usefully aid the OP.

1) 1:1 is neither a universal definition by any means of "macro," nor would it really matter if it were, since one's enjoyment of photographing small things does not magically begin at 1:1, and I was very clear and accurate (and actually attempting to be helpful...) in what I meant to say, even going so far as to include an example.

2) I was referring to the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x, which I suppose is their 2nd most expensive macro lens. I'm sure you knew this full well, and the point still stands that many people will focus entirely by rocking back and forth/using rails, not by using a focus ring or AF or even MF. Especially if using focus stacking, which is virtually impossible with AF.

Really? I guess I have been doing it wrong then. Can you teach me the right way?

It's certainly a valid way, but not a necessary way, and is more or less entirely redundant with physically moving back and forth.

The main reason that the lenses like the 180mm and 100mm etc. likely have focusing rings in the first place, is because you can shoot non macro photography with them, subjects at 15 meters or whatever. Otherwise the lenses could be, and in at least one case (when the long distance focusing was unneeded) were, made more cheaply without them, with no real loss in functionality. Canon apparently agreed with my reasoning.

 

[ShooterJ]

In macro, AF is useless, and in most cases, built in MF is even useless. You focus by rocking your body back and forth (handheld) or adjusting the position of the whole camera with dials and rails (if tripod mounted).

Really? I guess I have been doing it wrong then. Can you teach me the right way?

:what: Those sure are some interesting "mistakes" in your galleries...

(We have GOT to get that sarcasm font)

 

[cgipson1]

1) 1:1 is neither a universal definition by any means of "macro," nor would it really matter if it were, since one's enjoyment of photographing small things does not magically begin at 1:1, and I was very clear and accurate (and actually attempting to be helpful...) in what I meant to say, even going so far as to include an example.

Macro photography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Macro photography (or photomacrography[SUP][1][/SUP] or macrography,[SUP][2][/SUP] and sometimes macrophotography[SUP][3][/SUP]), invented by Fritz Goro[SUP][4][/SUP], is extreme close-up photography, usually of very small subjects, in which the size of the subject in the photograph is greater than life size (though macrophotography technically refers to the art of making very large photographs).[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP] By some definitions, a macro photograph is one in which the size of the subject on the negative or image sensor is life size or greater.[SUP][6][/SUP] However in other uses it refers to a finished photograph of a subject at greater than life size.[SUP][7][/SUP]
The ratio of the subject size on the film plane (or sensor plane) to the actual subject size is known as the reproduction ratio. Likewise, a macro lens is classically a lens capable of reproduction ratios greater than 1:1, although it often refers to any lens with a large reproduction ratio, despite rarely exceeding 1:1


By your definition, every cheesy A$$ 3rd party zoom that has the term MACRO in the name (to sucker in Newbies) is a true macro lens... and no, that AIN'T so!

2) I was referring to the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x, which I suppose is their 2nd most expensive macro lens. I'm sure you knew this full well, and the point still stands that many people will focus entirely by rocking back and forth/using rails, not by using a focus ring or AF or even MF. Especially if using focus stacking, which is virtually impossible with AF.

I know a lot of GOOD macro photographers that focus with MF.. and only use the rocking when at FULL magnification where MF is no longer possible.

I don't believe I have seen any of your macro work??? Would be interested in doing so, though? LINK?

 

[Gavjenks]

Um, cgipson, almost every single sentence in that paragraph you just quotes includes a disclaimer about or alternative to the 1:1 definition...

From your one paragraph, there are 4 different definitions!
Definition 1: "the size of the subject in the photograph is greater than life size" (not anything to do with 1:1 RR)
Definition 2: "the art of making very large photographs" (not anything to do with 1:1 RR)
Definition 3: "a macro photograph is one in which the size of the subject on the negative or image sensor is life size or greater." (this is about 1:1 RR, however note that the sentence begins with "By some definitions")
Definition 1 is then repeated: "a finished photograph of a subject at greater than life size."
Definition 3 is then repeated (your emphasized quote).
Definition 4: "any lens with a large reproduction ratio, despite rarely exceeding 1:1" <--this isn't even grammatically clear, but since it is contrasted with definition 3, the emphasis seems to be on "any large reproduction ratio."

And there are plenty others, too:
Many companies sell "macro" adapter lenses that simply let you focus closer, but not necessarily at 1:1.
Many companies also sell "macro bellows" or "macro reverse rings" etc. which also allow you to focus closer, but by no means guarantee 1:1.
Many point and shoot cameras and similar have "macro" mode, which is not 1:1.

So there's at least 6 alternative definitions for you, 3 from your own quote. Considering that the only claim I made was "it's not a universal definition," I think I'm pretty confident in standing by what I originally wrote.

I know a lot of GOOD macro photographers that focus with MF.. and only use the rocking when at FULL magnification where MF is no longer possible. I don't believe I have seen any of your macro work???

And there are GOOD macro photographers that focus without MF at any high magnification... If you're taking offense at the term "useless," I admit that is a poor word choice. "Redundant" is more accurate. Yes, of course you need some mechanism to initially get within the ballpark of your subject for compositional purposes, but after that, it is unnecessary.

I don't do a ton of macro, but it's not because of a lack of ability to get clean focus. I can and have gotten clean focus just fine from rocking back and forth, even at significantly sub-1:1 distances. For example these were both focused entirely by rocking, despite being maybe 0.15-0.2 (?) reproduction ratio, tops:


In fact, I often rock back and forth to refocus subjects at 3-20 feet away! Especially when composing subjects off center, and doing a "center and recompose" strategy. Since turning the camera tilts the focus plane, I often lean back by an estimated correct amount right after pivoting, to compensate and bring the subject back into focus without having to fiddle with anything, even with AF on. Example of a portrait that I did final focusing on by calculated leaning away only, from 10 feet or so, at a reproduction ratio of about, i dunno, 0.03??



And rocking only becomes more and more practical at higher ratios than these.

 

[Plantman]

First let me thank all of you for your advice......I can tell you didn't come by your expertise by just shooting snaps with pin hole cameras. The Canons I used, both use lenses with FD. I thought I was screwed until you guys mentioned the possibility of an adapter.
I did consider the Canon G15, but put it on the back burner because of adaptability. The Canon SX50 reviews and ads are seductive, but I know the sensor size won't give me the quality that I want.
Based on my research and your kind feedback....I'm inclined to go with the factory refurb with kit lens. One further question, since your guys know what you're about......in digital....could you add a 1.5 or 2x to boost the "tight" magnification? As you know, getting in too close, you run into MAJOR shadow problems. BTW, I'm a Horticulturist and if it's green or blooms, I wanna shoot it. You guys have given me more bankable info that a month of fiendish searching/research on the net. In closing, I appreciate all your opinions, and consider each one.

 

[ShooterJ]

Excellent response .. but tell us seriously OP.. did your eyes bug out when you came back? :lmao:

No pun intended with the "bug out' part .. hehehe

 

[Plantman]

I get it, but mainly interested in plants and insects that cause problems. And no, I don't carry zz or top papers with me to test em out LOL

 

[Designer]

Plantman; if you have the budget for it, Nikon makes a neat flash for macro that uses two flash heads, one on either side of the lens for macro flash.

 

[SCraig]

I've shot a Canon 35mm for years. I want to upgrade to digital. My problem is a $500 budget. I shoot mostly macro of plants and occasionally need zoom for distant tree subjects. I've looked at the Canon SX50, but can get a factory refurbished Nikon 3100 for about the same money.
I'm concerned about the Canon image quality with that small sensor. I would also like RAW. The Canon SX40 has a hack that will enable RAW, but don't know if I'm computer savvy enough to get it to work. The Nikon comes with the usual 18-55 lens, but don't know how that would do on macro.

ANY opinions would be appreciated as I'm about to go nuts muddling through the technical jargon.
Will the small sensor in the SX50 and 40 yield "snapshot" images? The zoom on the SX50 is a moot issue to me, what normal amateur can hold that 50x lens steady?

Please give me some feedback/opinions. And yes I realize my budget is a factor....but it is what it is.

Thanks in advance for your time and expertise.

Now that you've gotten a lot of feedback on varying subjects I'll throw my 0.02 in.

Since you have some photography experience I would not recommend the D3100. It is Nikon's very bottom-end camera, and while it will do a decent job I feel like you are going to run into a lot of limitations in that body rather quickly. My recommendation would be a used D90 as it has many features lacking in the D3xx and D5xx series of cameras. Pair it with a used Sigma 17-70 macro lens and a couple of off-camera speedlights (The D90 has a built-in speedlight commander mode) and you have a pretty potent closeup system. I have those components and they do work very well together.

You won't get it for $500 though. The D90 is about $425 used and the lens is about $400 used (both priced on KEH.com today).

 

[Buckster]

Plantman; if you have the budget for it, Nikon makes a neat flash for macro that uses two flash heads, one on either side of the lens for macro flash.

Just F.Y.I., so does Canon, and since he appears to be sticking with Canon gear...

 

[cgipson1]

I don't do a ton of macro, but it's not because of a lack of ability to get clean focus. I can and have gotten clean focus just fine from rocking back and forth, even at significantly sub-1:1 distances. For example these were both focused entirely by rocking, despite being maybe 0.15-0.2 (?) reproduction ratio, tops:
View attachment 48821View attachment 48822

In fact, I often rock back and forth to refocus subjects at 3-20 feet away! Especially when composing subjects off center, and doing a "center and recompose" strategy. Since turning the camera tilts the focus plane, I often lean back by an estimated correct amount right after pivoting, to compensate and bring the subject back into focus without having to fiddle with anything, even with AF on. Example of a portrait that I did final focusing on by calculated leaning away only, from 10 feet or so, at a reproduction ratio of about, i dunno, 0.03??

View attachment 48823

And rocking only becomes more and more practical at higher ratios than these.

If it is less than 1:1, it is not macro... if it is 1:1 (LIFESIZE!) or greater, it is macro. If it is significantly greater than 1:1, than it moves into Micro.... (oh.... and feel free to check other dictionaries on the definition.. majority states image is same or larger than lifesize, as in MACRO!)

So I take it you have no Macro shots to post... just butterflies from a distance? Considering the size of a Monarch butterfly... those are not Macro (as you mentioned!).. just insect shots! Why rock? Why not just focus and shoot? MF or AF? At distance, AF would work fine.... These are not even that sharp!

And I guess I am missing your point about the Horizontal Portrait... if you have to rock on longer distance images... I would suggest trying to correctly learn to use a focus ring / AF.

 

[cgipson1]

First let me thank all of you for your advice......I can tell you didn't come by your expertise by just shooting snaps with pin hole cameras. The Canons I used, both use lenses with FD. I thought I was screwed until you guys mentioned the possibility of an adapter.
I did consider the Canon G15, but put it on the back burner because of adaptability. The Canon SX50 reviews and ads are seductive, but I know the sensor size won't give me the quality that I want.
Based on my research and your kind feedback....I'm inclined to go with the factory refurb with kit lens. One further question, since your guys know what you're about......in digital....could you add a 1.5 or 2x to boost the "tight" magnification? As you know, getting in too close, you run into MAJOR shadow problems. BTW, I'm a Horticulturist and if it's green or blooms, I wanna shoot it. You guys have given me more bankable info that a month of fiendish searching/research on the net. In closing, I appreciate all your opinions, and consider each one.

Properly used.. a bridge type camera like the SX50 can give excellent IQ, and detail. Sensor size helps.. but is not the end all.... for instance, this was with a Nikon Coolpix 510! Macro is a little tougher though.. since you have less control! But it can be done....


Tri-Colored Heron Headshot by CGipson Photography, on Flickr

 

[cgipson1]

Plantman; if you have the budget for it, Nikon makes a neat flash for macro that uses two flash heads, one on either side of the lens for macro flash.

R1C1 flash units.. very nice flash for macro. just like the Canon versions.. MT-24EX's