Macro lens vs p&s camera for macro shots

[Overread]

pys - love to see those snowflake shots! I've always wanted to mess around with lights, gels and snow/ice.

For those interested here's a series of shots at various magnifications on the same coin :

1:1 - this is the maximum magnification you get on nearly all "true macro" lenses (micro if shooting Nikon). A fullframe body will show a slightly larger area covered than in this shot; but otherwise this is what you'd get with a 1.6 crop camera body. The item is a 2p British Coin

2:1 - easily achievable with close up lens attachments/extension tubes/a 2*Teleconverter on a macro lens.

3:1 - starting to get harder to reach although perfectly doable with the right powered close up lens attachment and teleconverter combo

4:1 - you're getting into the realms where you're either reverse mounting lenses (eg a 50mm onto a 300mm); using microscope optics on a modified mount or a dedicated specialist lens

5:1 - same as above - note this is also REALLY challenging to shoot. Note with the aid of flash (or a very very fast shutter speed) you can handhold this magnification - its hard and takes practice and often you have to balance on the surface you're shooting.

And for fun this is the metal ridging on the rim of a 10p coin at somewhere around 20:1 or greater (and yes you can't handhold this shot)

MPE65mm macro lens at 5:1 + Canon 2*TC + 68mm of extension tubes + Sigma 2*TC

And another insane fun shot:

 

[dannylightning]

here is a shot with my 18-35mm lens at 35mm with one of my 3 extension tubes on it. this is a photo of my watch, the photo is not cropped... the lens is so close i had to get a flash light to light up the watch, tried a off camera flash but it kept washing out.. never looked into how to light a macro shot but extension tubes are awesome for macro..

 

[dannylightning]

i still cant quite figure out these extension tubes.. i have not really played with them much since i got them.

last night i put the 20mm extension tube on a 35mm lens and it gave me that great close up ability..

got a shiny new quarter with herons on it last night. put the 36mm, 20mm and the 12mm extension tube on a lens at 200mm and i get about the same results as far as how close i could get, with only one extension tube on at 200mm i was not able to get close enough to focus on the coin.. so i guess which tubes and how many you use all depend on the focal length of the lens..

this image is not cropped either, i had the coin propped up on a coffee cup and it was just setting on the very edge of the table, the rim of my lens was actually against the table so basically the lens was only a few mm away from the coin.. and i had a flashlight on really low power on the side of the coin to get some light in there but that was not working well for lighting so i laid the coin on my bed, and laid the flashlight on the bed and that worked half way descent.. you can even see the fibers from my bed sheets, thats pretty crazy..

 

[Overread]

Length of extension tubes in mm - divided by - focal length of the lens = magnification :1.

Eg 50mm of tubes on a 100mm lens gives:
50/100 = 0.5:1

whilst 50mm of tubes on a 50mm lens gives:
50/50 =1:1 ( a greater magnification than before).

Note in truth the native magnification of the lens also gets added to the result; but for most intents and purposes the rough maths above is what you can use for a rough idea on most (it tends to be only when you add extension tubes to macro lenses that you worry about adding up the native mangification and the extension tube magnifications)

And yes as extension tubes work by moving the minimum and maximum focusing points closer it is possible to end up with both min and maximum points of focus moving inside the lens itself - ergo rendering it incapable of achieving focus.

 

[dannylightning]

Length of extension tubes in mm - divided by - focal length of the lens = magnification :1.

Eg 50mm of tubes on a 100mm lens gives:
50/100 = 0.5:1

whilst 50mm of tubes on a 50mm lens gives:
50/50 =1:1 ( a greater magnification than before).

Note in truth the native magnification of the lens also gets added to the result; but for most intents and purposes the rough maths above is what you can use for a rough idea on most (it tends to be only when you add extension tubes to macro lenses that you worry about adding up the native mangification and the extension tube magnifications)

And yes as extension tubes work by moving the minimum and maximum focusing points closer it is possible to end up with both min and maximum points of focus moving inside the lens itself - ergo rendering it incapable of achieving focus.

kind of lost me there but i get the idea. 0.5:1 no idea what that means lol..

ok, 0.5 over 1 i guess that wold be ??. that would make sense..

 

[Overread]

0.5:1 is a ratio and means:

Size of the subject reflected on the sensor/film by the lens : size of the subject in real life

Which is why 1:1 is often called "true macro" or "lifesize" because the subject is reflected at its actual size in reality on the sensor (remembering of course that the sensor/film is very small and that the photo you see as a result is enlarged in dimensions from the sensors dimensions). Think of it like shooting film and you get a negative strip - each negative is the unenlarged version - then you'd put the setup though an enlarger to get your prints - only in digital we skip that phase.

Check back a page and you can see how increasing the size of the subject reflected on the lens increases the magnification of the coin I posted

 

[soufiej]

Seems like p&s camera is enough for getting sharp and clear shots. Just wonder, how would macro lens and p&s be difference?

Small sensors can do "semi-macro" very well IMO. Of course, it's all in the lens and not all small sensor cameras have anything beyond the most basic requirements for a lens.

Minimum focus distance is one factor where the compacts can excel. Add an adapter such as the Raynox (DCR-250 Super Macro conversion lens for D-SLR camera) and you'll also decrease DOF which lends the shot a more costly look.

Here are a few shots taken with a Canon SX50 "superzoom" (which can be had refurbished for under $200); Sx50 + RaynoxDCR250 + LR - #3 - Red Paper Wasp...The Dancer !!: Canon PowerShot Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

First time bridge super zoom camera owner, SX60: Canon PowerShot Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

canon SX50 "macro" images - Google Search

You can certainly turn out more impressive and true macro images with more expensive gear. In you're on a budget, the right compact with the right lens and adapter can go a long way.

The canon SX50 and its relatives have a stated minimum focus distance of 0.0 mm. The lens will almost always cast a shadow on the subject before you reach that minimum distance but you have the advantage with the small sensor of virtually filling the sensor with image data.