COMPACT MACRO

[FUJI]

I have posted these to demonstrate that not having a dedicated macro lens to hand isn't always a disaster, if bugs are seen...............I have been increasingly impressed with the results that the Macro Setting on my little LX5 Compact Camera is achieving:

 

The other day I noticed that an evergreen shrub (IVY?) was absolutely buzzing with pollen-crazed insects, from Honey-Bees to Wasps....these shots are of a Bee-Fly (I think)......I seem to remember using the flash, but not too sure:

 

To get the lens pattern of the eye of an insect is one of my personal tests of good macro focussing, it certainly worked here on the second shot....both are cropped, but not too much:

 

Best viewed LARGE.....Click on Pics:

 

FUJI

[fuzzyedges]

Look okay to me Fuji

thats a nice result with a compact

[Paul]

Compacts are very good at macro - they have a different lens and sensor construction to SLR cameras which actually makes it easier to keep depth of field.

 

I think you have 2 drone flys here btw.

 

Ivy bushes are magnets for drones and hovers.

 

Paul.

[annie]

Fuji they are both lovely pictures. just goes to prove those fancy lenses are not always needed then.

[ChrisLumix]

Compacts are very good at macro - they have a different lens and sensor construction to SLR cameras which actually makes it easier to keep depth of field.

 

I think you have 2 drone flys here btw.

 

Ivy bushes are magnets for drones and hovers.

 

Paul.

 

The way my FZ bridge camera achieves that is by having the macro setting at full wideangle (27mm). It will focus within 1 cm but it does mean you have to virtually touch the thing you're shooting which effectively rules out any insects that fly.

[Paul]

The way my FZ bridge camera achieves that is by having the macro setting at full wideangle (27mm). It will focus within 1 cm but it does mean you have to virtually touch the thing you're shooting which effectively rules out any insects that fly.

Yeah - that would make things awkward, lol...

 

I assume you know that macro is 1:1 and that the size remains the same regardless of the length of the lens, as long as it is a macro lens, and that a 100mm lens needs to be twice the distance of a 50mm lens to achieve the same.

 

At 100mm I am about 4 inches maybe from the subject. 27mm would be incredibly hard, so you do extremely well so near to subjects, especially moving ones!

 

Paul.

 

Paul.

[Beth]

Oh Fuji, nothing technical from me, just a simple WOW and there is nothing wrong in my eyes with those images.  Well done my lovely x

[FUJI]

Thanks folks,

Yes, I do need to get very close to capture shots like these, but getting close to an insect or bug, is all a matter of approach.........I reckon folks must think that there is something wrong with me when they see on old fogey staring into a hedge or a bush for ages.......

What I am doing, is becoming part of the scenery as far as the bugs are concerned, no sudden movements and stealth is the way to get very close........these flies were so absorbed I don't think very much at all would have disturbed them, the wasps and bees were more lively though.

Should you have an Ivy Bush in your vicinity, go there whilst there is still a bit of warm sunshine around, the flying insects look totally drunk on them......the strange looking flowers must put out very powerful pheromones to attract insects like that?

I must try to do an experiment by using my Sony A55 with the dedicated lens fitted, then take similar shots with the tiny LX5 on the Macro setting.

FUJI

[Heather]

impressive eye detail in the second one Fuji and both great shots especially as taken with the compact. 

 

have to say my Canon G12 is very good at macro too, in fact when i was doing my 366 i use to take a zoom on my SLR canon and pocket the G12 for macro shots as it got better results... like Chris said though, sometimes you have to get very very close to get a good result for some reason 

[KateW]

Both great, but I particularly like the amount of detail in the first.

[Guest DaveW]

I may be wrong, but as I understand it at the same final magnification with the subject taking up the same proportion of the frame, say the final 10" x 8" print viewed at the same distance and taken at the same initial magnification and the same f-stop, final depth of field is the same whatever camera or lens was used to take the image? 

 

People make the mistake that the taking magnifications are not the same in that to fill a small sensor with a bug takes only half the magnification at the taking stage of filling a sensor twice the size with it, but if you enlarge the eventual image from both sensors to say a 10" x 8" print size, the smaller sensored one will have to be enlarged twice as much as the larger one and that means the circles of confusion will be enlarged twice as much as the image from the larger sensor, (meaning the original depth of field on the smaller sensor being halved in comparison to the larger).

 

"Bottom line: There are two ways of creating Depth of field; by image size and f-stop. So as in our example, if the image size and f-stop are kept constant, the depth of field will be the same regardless of focal length or angle of view."

 

http://www.bluesky-web.com/dofmyth.htm

 

http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/tips/037a_dof_lens_opening.htm

 

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-lenses.htm

 

If the final image is viewed at the same distance the more you enlarge the eventual print the more the apparent depth of field will also reduce since you are enlarging the circles of confusion until it becomes apparent to the eye they are fuzzy blur circles not sharp points. If there was a magic way of conventionally increasing depth of field with either camera sensor size or lens focal length etc it would have been discovered long ago. Only in modern times with the computer and focus stacking have we been able to get formally unobtainable depths of field really close-up

 

The computer screen is not the best medium to illustrate these differences due to it's low resolution, the equivalent of about a 3 megapixel camera, so covering them up unlike higher resolution prints which will show it.

[seajunky]

First class for a compact.

[ChrisLumix]

Yeah - that would make things awkward, lol...

 

I assume you know that macro is 1:1 and that the size remains the same regardless of the length of the lens, as long as it is a macro lens, and that a 100mm lens needs to be twice the distance of a 50mm lens to achieve the same.

 

At 100mm I am about 4 inches maybe from the subject. 27mm would be incredibly hard, so you do extremely well so near to subjects, especially moving ones!

 

Paul.

 

Yes - the FZ has such a thing as 'macro zoom' which I believe lets you focus close from further away, but I haven't yet learned how to use it. I've only had the camera 3-and-a-half years

 

Oh wait...

I just had a look at the PDF manual for my camera. It says - 

 

 

AF MACRO

 

This mode allows you to take close-up pictures of a subject, e.g. when taking pictures of flowers. You can take pictures of a subject as close as 1 cm (0.04 feet) from the lens by rotating the zoom lever upmost to Wide (1 x).

 

As you rotate the zoom lever towards Tele, the distance at which you can take close-up pictures changes in steps. The maximum distance for close-up pictures is 2 m (6.57 feet) (4x-10x).

 

Focus range

 

 The focus range changes in steps. 

 

Tele-macro function

You can take a picture as close as 1 m (3.28 feet) when the zoom is set to 11 X-18X (close to fully tele) ([TELE] is displayed on the screen).

 

lt is convenient to take pictures of flowers on the ground standing, or take close-up

pictures of insects that may run away when you get too close.

° Jitter may occur when using the tele-macro function. If you cannot use a tripod, it is recommended to take a picture in the light condition that will allow shutter speed of 1/60 or higher to maintain the jitter compensation function.

° If you focus on the subject at 2 m (6.57 feet) or less distant position with teIe-macro function when setting the optical zoom magnification in 18X and then rotate the zoom lever for setting the optical zoom magnification to 11 X or less, the subject becomes unfocused.

 

[MACRO zoom]

You can take a picture with the digital zoom up to 3x while maintaining the distance to the subject for the extreme Wide position [1 cm (0.04 feet)].

A. Recording distance range

B. Zoom range

° Recording distance range will be 1 cm (0 04 feet) to infinity during

Macro Zoom Mode regardless of the zoom position.

° Zoom range will be displayed in blue. (digital zoom range) 

° The image quality is poorer than during normal recording.

 

 

[Guest DaveW]

Digital zoom is a bit of a con, it is actually only in camera cropping, just taking part of the sensor image and blowing it up.  It is no different to just cropping part of the image in post processing and as your instructions say never as good as optical zoom:-

 

"The image quality is poorer than during normal recording."

 

http://www.digital-photo-secrets.com/secrets/2/use-optical-rather-than-digital-zoom/

 

https://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/13632/~/difference-between-optical-and-digital-zoom

 

However digital zoom confuses the casual camera user and just like more megapixels it sells cameras. Always go for the best optical zoom range when buying a fixed lens camera and completely ignore digital zoom.

 

[ChrisLumix]

Digital zoom is a bit of a con, it is actually only in camera cropping, just taking part of the sensor image and blowing it up.  It is no different to just cropping part of the image in post processing and as your instructions say never as good as optical zoom:-

 

"The image quality is poorer than during normal recording."

 

http://www.digital-photo-secrets.com/secrets/2/use-optical-rather-than-digital-zoom/

 

https://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/13632/~/difference-between-optical-and-digital-zoom

 

However digital zoom confuses the casual camera user and just like more megapixels it sells cameras. Always go for the best optical zoom range when buying a fixed lens camera and completely ignore digital zoom.

 

I know that Dave. In fact, the FZ never does more than x2 digital zoom, and that level of degradation is barely noticeable. On the other hand, if it brings me closer to the subject when composing the shot, then I don't have strong feelings against it. 

 

If there was a compact camera that offered x12 zoom (x3 optical in small print), I'd have nothing to do with it, for the reasons you gave.

[NannyFerret]

The Fzs are really good cameras, and the Macro facility is excellent.
I can't say that I have noticed any degradation in the Macro shots and as said you can shoot from further away than normal Macro.

[NannyFerret]

I have posted these to demonstrate that not having a dedicated macro lens to hand isn't always a disaster, if bugs are seen...............I have been increasingly impressed with the results that the Macro Setting on my little LX5 Compact Camera is achieving:

 

The other day I noticed that an evergreen shrub (IVY?) was absolutely buzzing with pollen-crazed insects, from Honey-Bees to Wasps....these shots are of a Bee-Fly (I think)......I seem to remember using the flash, but not too sure:

 

To get the lens pattern of the eye of an insect is one of my personal tests of good macro focussing, it certainly worked here on the second shot....both are cropped, but not too much:

 

Best viewed LARGE.....Click on Pics:

 

FUJI

These are really good, Fuji. I was very impressed with your compact camera when I had a play with it. 

By the way, I can't remember if you posted the shot that I got of you with it.

It was very easy to hold too.

[Guest DaveW]

It's probably a case of "pixel peeping" where they have blown part of the image up Nanny to see any differences, it always comes down to the final method of reproduction though. We all use over specified equipment for our end purposes such as Web posting, or viewing on computer screens. The differences that may show up on a high quality print may not be obvious on a computer screen with the resolution of around a 2-3 megapixel camera where such differences are masked. Really we only need cameras and lenses good enough for our final method of image reproduction.

 

For instance you can get away with smaller apertures close up for greater depth of field for shots posted on the web, simply because the low computer screen resolution masks the diffraction effects that would be obvious on a print.

 

The same applies to digital projection. The projection screen has a fairly low resolution just like a computer screen and a friend of mine did an experiment at a lecture he gave with two projectors and screens side by side, one projecting images from a small sensored cheap compact camera and the other from a larger sensored top of the range multi-pixelled DSLR, and none of the audience could see any differences, or reliably pick out which was which.

 

As they say "a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link" and from the resolution point at the moment for digital it's the low resolution of the computer or projection screen.  It is only if we routinely print out do we need our wonderful highly pixelled cameras. The main advantage of DSR's then for most of us is lens interchangeability and the ability to add extension behind the lens if we are macro photographers, plus lens interchangeability and a few other "bells and whistles" for those having other specialised interests.

[NannyFerret]

It's very rare that I have ever used the digital zoom. The Panasonics normal zoom is so good.

[ChrisLumix]

It's very rare that I have ever used the digital zoom. The Panasonics normal zoom is so good.

 

This needed the DZ as there was no other way to get close enough. But as you say Nanny, the quality is fine (any softness is entirely due to camera shake as this was the equivalent of 1000mm at 1/125 second.)