topic Macro photos? in EOS DSLR & Mirrorless Cameras

Macro photos?

Tintype_18 — Mon, 15 Feb 2021 23:25:24 GMT

To start, I have used a Canon SX530 HD with +2 and +4 diopters to take photos of trout flies. The camera has the fixed lens that goes to 250mm. Now, my T7 came with a lens- 18-55mm, Image Stabilizer, Macro 0.25m/0.8 ft. I have tried everything to get a photo of a trout fly. Different settings on Macro (flower), manual settings, diopters, etc. I get nothing with any detail. I've read the T7 manual which is basic info. I read another photography book. Same thing, basic but didn't address my dilemma. The photo is an example of the SX530 HD with +2 and +4 diopters. But can't get the camera close to get a good shot but have to set the tripod way back. Fly is too small. As always, your help is appreciated. BTW, similar photos were published.

Re: Macro photos?

kvbarkley — Tue, 16 Feb 2021 00:16:14 GMT

You need the EF-S 60mm macro lens. Check out my snowflake pictures in the "share your images".

Re: Macro photos?

jrhoffman75 — Tue, 16 Feb 2021 00:36:41 GMT

The 60mm macro is a great lens and one you should get if you will be doing a lot of macro/close-up shots.

But, you have the diopters from the SX camera. You could experiment by hand holding them in front of your 18-55mm lens, and if they seem to be giving you what you want you could get a step up ring to mount them on the lens; I thing your lens is a 58mm thread, so you would want a 58-67mm step up ring.

Re: Macro photos?

Tintype_18 — Tue, 16 Feb 2021 14:20:06 GMT

I have 58mm diopters for the T7 but they don't help. To get a clear shot with any combination, I have to back off about 3 feet for clear focus but the fly is tiny. Will look into the 60mm lens but probably not in the budget right now. Thanks.

Edit- Canon has the 60mm for $469.99 which is waaaaay out of the budget right now. Need to sell more articles and photos! For right now, I'll use the 530 camera.

Re: Macro photos?

ebiggs1 — Tue, 16 Feb 2021 14:38:35 GMT

"... 18-55mm, Image Stabilizer, Macro 0.25m/0.8 ft."

This name is more of a advertising department term than an ability of the lens. It is not a true "macro" lens. The EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens is a true macro lens.

Re: Macro photos?

ebiggs1 — Tue, 16 Feb 2021 14:43:26 GMT

"Canon has the 60mm for $469.99 ..."

B&H, Adorama and others have it for $399. Used copies are in the $250 range if that helps. Stop spending money on add-on filters and save for this lens.

A good post editor is also a great, say mandatory, idea, too.

Re: Macro photos?

kvbarkley — Tue, 16 Feb 2021 15:15:43 GMT

THe EF-S 60mm is $376 in the canon refurbished lens store.

However, in your case, since your flies are dead, the EF-S 35mm macro might work well. It includes a ring light, and is availbale for $280 in the refurb store.

https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/lenses-flashes/refurbished-lenses

Re: Macro photos?

Waddizzle — Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:24:32 GMT

@kvbarkley wrote:
THe EF-S 60mm is $376 in the canon refurbished lens store.

However, in your case, since your flies are dead, the EF-S 35mm macro might work well. It includes a ring light, and is availbale for $280 in the refurb store.

https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/lenses-flashes/refurbished-lenses

The one problem with that lens is the focal length. You have to get super close to fill the frame, which is probably why they included the built-in ring light. Also, getting super close ot the subject means your DoF is super narrow, which almost requires that you perform image stacking.

I think the EF-S 60mm is a better choice. Of course the EF 100mm is even better if you are going to be doing a lot of macro work. I think the longer focal lengths may work out better for fishing flies. No image stacking required.

Re: Macro photos?

Tintype_18 — Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:50:03 GMT

Thanks to all. Will keep those places in mind but those prices are not in the budget. I'll use the other camera for now. Only negative is doesn't shoot in RAW.

Add-on filters were a very small part of the overall expenditure.

Re: Macro photos?

ebiggs1 — Wed, 17 Feb 2021 15:52:51 GMT

"Add-on filters were a very small part of the overall expenditure."

Any spending that doesn't help accomplish the goal is a waste of money.

Re: Macro photos?

Tintype_18 — Wed, 17 Feb 2021 20:28:31 GMT

Filter set is about $30, 60mm lens is much more, accoeding to previous posts. If my wife and I were still working, I could buy a few more things. I'll use the wife's camera for closeup photos. Thanks.

Re: Macro photos?

Waddizzle — Wed, 17 Feb 2021 20:45:56 GMT

@Tintype_18 wrote:
Filter set is about $30, 60mm lens is much more, accoeding to previous posts. If my wife and I were still working, I could buy a few more things. I'll use the wife's camera for closeup photos. Thanks.

Macro Extensiton tubes are far better than those screw-on filters, which only work with lenses that have a matching filter thread size. Extension tubes can be used with any lens that can properly mount on the camera, AND they do not contain any optical components to degrade the image.

If you decide to try extension tubes, there two things to consider. First and foremost, you want an extension tube that allows the lens to communicate with the camera. There are some really inexpensive tubes out there, and that is why.

The second thing to consider is a combination of things. Extnsion tubes come in various sizes, and can be stacked to create even longer sizes. Their sizes are conveniently measured in mm, just like a lens. The rule of thumb says you want an extension tube with a length that is 25-40% the focal length of the lens that you are using.

If you go shorter than that, then you may not see very much magnification. If you go too long, then you get so much magnification that the focus plane may fall within the lens barrel itself. This latter case usually mans that you will unable to focus on anything.

Re: Macro photos?

Tintype_18 — Thu, 18 Feb 2021 00:32:24 GMT

The screw in filters work with the wife's camera but not mine. It seems the one marked "macro" I have isn't a true macro filter. Filters I was thinking of is the UV, CPL, etc. Should have made that clear.

Got two magazine articles out and waiting to hear if they accept them or print them off and hang them on the stall in the restrooms. Those sales will determine future purchases.

Re: Macro photos?

Waddizzle — Thu, 18 Feb 2021 06:19:20 GMT

@Tintype_18 wrote:
The screw in filters work with the wife's camera but not mine. It seems the one marked "macro" I have isn't a true macro filter. Filters I was thinking of is the UV, CPL, etc. Should have made that clear.
Got two magazine articles out and waiting to hear if they accept them or print them off and hang them on the stall in the restrooms. Those sales will determine future purchases.

If you wish to product shots, then you need an image editor so that you can absolutely nail the pure white backgrounds. That should be your primary goal at this point. The only way to nail the pure white backgrounds is in post, not in the camera.

Re: Macro photos?

Tintype_18 — Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:11:38 GMT

Wadizzle, not sure of what you are saying. White backgrounds? Could you expand on your post, please? Thanks.

Re: Macro photos?

kvbarkley — Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:37:12 GMT

He seems to be answering another thread.

Re: Macro photos?

ebiggs1 — Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:00:02 GMT

"Macro Extensiton tubes are far better than those screw-on filters, ..."

I totally agree. Anything is better than those screw on filters. However, extension tubes ar not cheap. Not even off brands like Kenko. It is still money that can be, could be, placed toward a real macro lens.

Re: Macro photos?

ebiggs1 — Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:02:58 GMT

"...you need an image editor so that you can absolutely nail the pure..."

Again totally agree. However, it doesn't matter a if true white BG is the goal or not. For the best work a good post editor is not a nice thing to have, it is mandatory. Some are ever free, BTW.

Re: Macro photos?

wq9nsc — Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:14:29 GMT

Listen to Ernie regarding those add on adapters and extension tubes. They are OK if you have a one time need for a specific setup and output quality is less critical but they are not a substitute for the proper device when it is an ongoing photographic process.

As a retired marketing prof, I sometimes wonder about a study comparing photographers to those who are heavily into audio equipment. The former often purchase accessories in an attempt to accomplish a task at low cost with clearly observable shortcomings in the final product while the latter often purchase incredibly expensive accessories that have neither a discernible nor measurable with lab grade equipment impact upon the output. The classic example were those cryogenically treated, oxygen free, broken in prior to sale 6 foot replacement power cords that sold for over $7,000. If the same fools exist in the photography world, then there is a market for a very expensive "rare crystal" lens filter that will filter out the electromagnetic radiation coming from distant galaxies leading to decreased contrast and loss of sharpness along with subtle color shifts that are not readily visible but still lead to a reduction in the emotional impact of the image.

Rodger

Re: Macro photos?

Tintype_18 — Thu, 18 Feb 2021 23:09:43 GMT

Adapters? Are you referring to the diopters? Would like to add some things as the 2X magnifier and the 66mm macro lens but I'm financially embarrasseed at this time.