What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Macro shots with a 4 meg camera

elgecko

I've got a magic window!
Since Scott made this comment on another thread I made with a macro shot.

Steve has an unfair advantage with that DSLR thingy with an extension.
http://www.terraforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=915339#post915339

I need to prove that nice macros can be made with an inexpensive camera.

I bought my wife a 4 meg Canon A520 a few years ago for Christmas. It cost around $200.00 or $250.00 I can not remember exactly.

So the first shot here is a reflection in the mirror of the camera I used for the following shots. (Look close and you can tell I moved the camera when I took the picture.)

camera.jpg


aliciae.jpg


Protundiflora.jpg


slackii.jpg


Hheteradoxa-x-nutans.jpg


hamata.jpg


ceph.jpg


Denodes-1.jpg


Hope this shows that nice pictures can be taken with less expensive cameras if setting are properly set.
 
hamata.jpg



HA!.......mine aint the only hamata that needs braces! :D
 
Very nice! My camera can't take macros that close. It's 8 megapixels, but if I get too close, it blurs, if I'm not close enough, I can't really get the shot and when I edit the picture to zoom in, it kind of comes out blurred.
 
I was hoping for a shot of the famous elgecko hamata.
 
that is the famous elgecko hamata haha!

I just use a Nikon Coolpix 16 Meg, and most of my macros turn out decent or better. I really need to upgrade though.
 
Wow your camera is so small!

Also, what a healthy slackii you have there!
 
Wow... my little point-and-shoot doesn't get anywhere near that sharp an image. Very nice!
I think you may be making the false assumption that the inexpensive cameras in question have settings to adjust - my camera has neither white balance nor focus controls. Mine is pretty old; I guess nowadays you can get something nice and name-brand for one or two hundred dollars. But you have to admit that Canons aren't representative of the average inexpensive digital camera.
~Joe
 
I've played with the settings, alright. The camera moves slightly when I depress the shutter all the way. And yes, I depress it partway so it focuses. I've played with macros, closeups, the shake mode, distance, angle, lighting, etc... Too bad I'm not in SE PA anymore. This is about the best I'm getting out of it:

Picture114.jpg


Picture026.jpg


Picture010-3.jpg


Picture079-1.jpg


Picture097-1.jpg


Picture115.jpg


Picture057.jpg


100_05571.jpg
 
what camera yah using Jim?
 
  • #10
Kodak Easyshare C713
 
  • #11
i pmed yah a couple tips for better photos...........
 
  • #12
I have never used anything other than my Nikon coolpix 990 which is only 3.2 megpixel. Which is plenty for our purposes posting photos that are 1000 x 800 or so pixels in dimension. Any modern digital camera will have way more than that now so it is no longer an issue. It really boils down to the camera's quality in lenses and ability to focus sharply in a wide range of distances. What led me to the Nikon was it's ability to focus down to about a cm. Since I don't have very powerful zoom lenses the only way to get a good shot of a very tiny subject is to get very close. Which leads to it's own set of challenges in proper lighting. Equally important is the photographers ability to control lighting and adjust primarily shutter speed and depth of field to still produce a crisp photo and have sharp focus, and as much of the subject in focus as possible. Focus itself should not really be an issue if the camera is autofocusing. Unlike a good SLR viewfinder with a split image I find the lcd on a digital camera incapable of really showing how well the subject is in focus so generally let the camera autofocus and don't mess with manual focus. It can be a challenge at times to get the camera to focus on the correct subject but this is only a minor nusance.

Most problems I see with photos are either insuficient depth of field, focus not on the subject, or improper lighting.
All of Steve's photos have excellent focus. IE it is focused sharply.
They all have excellent depth of field. IE the whole subject is in focus.
The lighting is crisp and dramatic but not overdone.

Do you use a flash Steve? I prefer natural lighting particularly when doing macros since I don't have a ring flash and the camera flash is way overpowering. I find it will also cause alot of glare on Nep. pitchers at a distance.
 
  • #13
i agree Tony, megapixals are WAY over rated for most pictures for the web......i crop everything at 72dpi for the web so even though the cameras i use are 10MP i really dont need it for the web.....do need it for some of the other stuff i do though....

i also firmly agree with the rest of your post......one of the things i pmed Jim about is to NEVER use the digital zoom on the camera, stick within the optical zoom range....all digital zoom is, is the cameras computer cropping the image.......you can do a much better job via Photoshop or GIMP or any of those.....and get a much crisper picture.......as for ring lights.....i dont have one....but what you can use if your on a budget and are doing indoor pictures in a controlled setting is to get a couple of book lights that are easily positionable and use those to illuminate your subject from a couple angles at once.....they will be cheaper than any true photography light setup and do just about as good of a job for up close macro pictures
 
  • #14
Thanks for the comments everybody.

I do not know if others feel that $200-$250 is an inexpensive camera. I have to remember that I'm into photography and spending $800-$1200 for a camera every few years is common for me.

Anyway at the $200-$250 price range you should be able to pick up a very nice camera. One thing I always look for in a "point and shoot" camera is the macro along with being able to make adjustments, ie shutter speed, f-stop, etc.

I set the camera to macro mode. Set the camera to manual, forget the Auto setting for macros. I set the F-stop for the highest setting it will go. The higher F-stop gives you greater Depth of Field (DoF). I was surprised that the camera only went to F-8. Then I set the shutter speed and shoot the picture firing the flash.
A lot of times shooting that close to the subject you will overexpose the picture with the flash. I had the shutter speed set to 1/5000 of a second which was the fastest I could set it. Still some shots where overexposed. So I took a piece of white paper and placed it over the flash. At times I even double the thickness. This will diffuse the flash and help so that you do not overexposed your shot.
 
  • #15
Scott,
Your shots are looking better.
 
  • #16
Hmm interesting technique Steve. I will have to fiddle with some shots like that. Looks like my Nikon will go to f8.6 but only 1/1000 shutter. Some quick test shots here at the desk with the flash on and those settings look promising though. I could try a little piece of paper in front of the flash too. I think that might help reduce some of the harsh shadow you get with a flash sometimes. Something I am not a fan of. Sheridans idea of a little led booklight might be nice. Anyone know if that would affect the color balance though?

Tony
 
  • #17
Tony.....hard to say....i can do a custom white balance with my camera so its not really an issue....and if all else fails i can correct in Photoshop.....you can also bounce what natural or available light you have off a bright white sheet of paper to help amplify the light thats already there which shouldnt hurt your color balance.....
 
  • #18
Tony,
As rattler mt said about the book lights, it would be hard to tell until you try it.
I've had to use different white balance settings on my DSLR when adding other light to shots sometimes. Just trial and error to what looks closest to the real thing.

I also do not like harsh shadows on my pictures. On my DSLR I diffuse my flash with a plastic white rubbing alcohol bottle on the flash. Works great on reducing the shadows.

camera-flash.jpg



As for shooting macros. I've been learning since 1989 when I got my first SLR camera. At one time I had the total of 3 SLR cameras. My favorite shots are close ups in nature. A book that I learned many techniques from and still look at from time to time is John Shaw's Closeups in Nature. I would recommend this book to anyone as he does a very good job explaining how different setting will effect your pictures outcome.
http://www.amazon.com/Shaws-Closeups-Nature-Practical-Photography/dp/0817440526
<p>
<p>
 
  • #19
Scott,
Your shots are looking better.

Thanks. My camera was a Christmas gift. I was never told how much it cost but I'm guessing in the $150 range. So we're not talking about anything that a professional photographer would use. I have what I have and just have to make the best of it. Sure beats that so-called "complimentary" camera that Earthlink sent me, back in 2004!

Sheridan... thanks for the PM and I'd love to be more educated. I've read the users guide and gotten online advice, but having someone right there with me would be best. Not gonna happen right now!
 
  • #20
I thought it would be fun to do a little followup. I have been fiddling around with the manual flash and Fstop. One thing I have discovered is that with very close macros you can clearly see the light coming from the side. My camera also has a flash power setting that you can adjust, which I fiddled with a little. I have not tried to diffuse it much but not sure how much that will help as the built in flash is 1.5" from the center of the lense. I think this will make it hard to overcome the 'flash from the side' look.

I still lean towards natural sunlight since most of my shots are not real close up macros. For the few that I do though, I can still get a decent Fstop and shutter speed for most things when the sun is shining. I should also note that my greenhouse covering diffuses the light so even in full sun there is no glaring.

Anyway.. a few photos.. Enjoy!

D. gigantea was starting to open some traps.

D. gigantea in natural light but a bit dark and light coming from behind me. I probably shaded the trap a bit trying to get in close for the shot.
Dros_gigantea.jpg


The same D. gigantea playing with flash on and 1/1000th shutter and F8.3 or something like that.
Dros_giganteaFlash.jpg


We had a few days of nice sunny weather so I went back and took another photo since I wasn't entirely thrilled with the other two. This is a different trap after opening with some sunny days and showing some red flush. This has the sun coming in from behind the plant a bit. 1/128th shutter F5.4 or so. It isn't quite as sharp as the flash shot. There is a fan nearby and the depth of field is not quite as big. I like the way the incoming light from behind makes the dew POP!
Dros_gigantea2.jpg
 
Back
Top