Point-and-Shoot with Good Macro Capabilities

[havanai]

<p>My sister makes jewelry and needs a camera with which to take close-up and extreme close-ups shots of her work. I am a photographer, but generally work with and am aware of DSLRs. Does anyone know of a good point and shoot camera that has good macro capabilities when compared with other point and shoot cameras? Thanks.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

Almost any tiny sensor P&S with close up focusing would be good. The DOF

advantages make it a cinch for folks who aren't dedicated photographers.

 

Take a look at the Nikon J-series, currently discounted with the 10-30 VR

kit zoom. Great value, and while the CX or one-inch sensor is larger than

than typical P&S, it's still small enough for the same DOF advantages. If

the zoom's built in close-up isn't enough you can add a threaded adapter

for a close-up diopter.

 

Having to stop down to only f/5.6 or so also makes it easier to get good

results with lighting as simple as daylight balance CFLs in flex-neck desk

lamps (although white balance may be tricky).

 

But if she'd rather use flash, choose another model. The Nikon 1 System

is a pain in the neck for flash. You'd need to deflect the J-model pop-up

flash, while using it to trigger off camera remotes, and deal with the

hassles of using manual flash or bypassing the TTL preflash. In summary:

PITA. Nikon's main mistake with that system. But for natural or

available artificial light it's terrific.

[colin carron]

<p>Just a word of caution : it is surprisingly easy to scratch the front element of the lens when doing macro shots with some of these P&S cameras. I suggest you fit a UV filter to the front to prevent this happening.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>There is a general pre-occupation or belief that to get tight framed shots of small objects you need to get close to them. This is just one way and an altenative is to use a long focal length lens from a bit further back. Often the longer lens is incapable of focusing close enough to permit this so we use a moderate close-up lens which gives us a working distance further back but using the zoom or long lens to achieve the tight framing.<br>

ie my x12 zoom camera fills the sensor with a 1.5 inch across object from a distance of 13 inches when I add a two dioptre or 500mm CU lens .... either screwed into the filter threads or cellotaped in position.<br>

The advantage of working this way is that there is more room for lighting to reach the subject. There is no difference in depth of field when the image size remains the same whatever focal length is used. A secondary aspect is that there is more DoF if in-camera you stay back but enlarge in editing for the composition you want. With the average modern camera there are usually plenty of pixels to permit cropping for web use if that is the aim.<br>

The camera mentioned above is a Panasonic FZ50, still available new or s/h, with its 430mm Angle of view lens. Currently I also have a Panasonic G3 or GH2 with the 14-140 lumix lens which gives me a 280mm AoV lens, though this option is more expensive and doesn't get me such a tight framing. To enable it to match the FZ50 I use a 4 dioptre CU lens.<br>

This approach is not very effective with the shorter zooms found in P&S cameras. <br>

As suggested above for jewelry it is less camera but the lighting which is important.<br>

<a href="http://www.tabletopstudio.com/documents/jewelry_photography.htm">http://www.tabletopstudio.com/documents/jewelry_photography.htm</a></p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Everything that JC said! Also, there's no difference in the DoF capabilities between formats. While this may seem counterintuitive at first, e.g. because a tiny format camera at f/5.6 will yield much greater DoF than a larger format camera at f/5.6, the tiny format camera is more severely diffraction limited and cannot be stopped down as much before the image degrades from diffraction. As a result, the lens on the larger format camera can be stopped down much more, resulting in the same maximum DoF as with the smaller format camera before the diffraction limits are reached. If necessary (and it's not necessary with jewelry), the larger format camera can be operated at a higher ISO to maintain the same shutter speed as the tiny format camera with roughly the same level of noise, all other things being equal.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Y'all are making this more complicated than it needs to be. For practical applications by non-geeks who just need to get the results they want as easily as possible, the smaller sensor digicam solves this specific application neatly.</p>

<p>Yeah, you can do this "better" with a larger sensor dSLR or larger format film. And that nifty $1,500 tilt/shift macro lens. And the complications of stopping down significantly more, which demands brighter lights, or longer exposures. Don't foget to add focus stacking, if you want to make this as complicated as possible.</p>

<p>Or just suggest a good small sensor digicam with macro focusing capabilities.</p>

[jay a. frew]

<p>I agree with Lex on this one. However, I will go one step further and recommend a point-N-shoot camera that has the capability to save image files in RAW and/or *.jpg format.</p>

<p>I have attached a link to my public flickr photo page that illustrates my point (click on the photo to go to my flickr page).<br>

<a title="P1030837GardenCentreBee by toxonophile, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/toxonophile/11507586136/"><img src="http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3794/11507586136_57ac4e275b_z.jpg" alt="P1030837GardenCentreBee" width="597" height="640" /></a></p>

<p>The 1st three images were taken with (a now ancient by digi standards) Panasonic ZS-3 ~ A point-N-shoot/auto-only camera that saves images in *.jpg format only. The next three images were taken with a Panansonic LX-7 ~ an advanced point-N-shoot that can save files in RAW or *.jpg</p>

<p>Both are quite capable cameras and produce good results (with practice) in a wide variety of situations ~ including macro. However, the ZS-3, *.jpg files allow VERY Limited options when it comes to editing the images with photo software, whereas the LX-7, when set to RAW mode, gives you many options in image editing. The LX-7 can also be used as an automatic point-N-shoot with *.jpg-only output ~ but ~ it gives you much better options if you decide to use them at some point.</p>

<p>Oh...and I'm not trying to sell you on Panasonic products. I'm sure most comparably-specified cameras from other makers will give you similar results. These just happen to be mine. Practice and the study of macro techniques will give you better results than a specific camera brand ;~))</p>

<p>Cheers! Jay</p>

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>Y'all are making this more complicated than it needs to be.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think so, Lex. I think you're saying to use a P&S. I'm saying it really doesn't matter what you use, at least for reasons of depth of field -- just to pick a camera and use it. This notion that P&S cameras give you greater depth of field than larger format cameras isn't really true. All cameras are created equal on that end of the DoF continuum.</p>

<p>And JC is saying you don't need a P&S camera to get really close to the jewelry for macro shots -- that you simply use a longer lens (perhaps with extension tubes) on whatever interchangeable lens camera you've got. You don't need a P&S to photograph a ring.</p>

<p>This is not to say you can't use a P&S, but rather that you don't <em>have</em> to do so, which = more options, which = more freedom, which = less complicated, IMO. You can cast the geek label towards those who try to explain why, but that still doesn't negate the fact that we are suggesting using what is available and dispensing with the notion that you have to buy another camera for this specific task. While this might not be true for many tasks (e.g. astrophotography, shallow DoF photography, etc.), it's certainly true for photographing a ring in a light tent.</p>

[GBarrington]

<p>Just to stay square with terminology, close focusing and macro capabilities are 2 different things with some overlap in functionality. The first does close-ups, the second does close-ups with an incredible flatness of field. While a macro lens can, and often is, used for general close-up photography, it was designed for photographing VERY flat things like newspaper pages, prints of other photos, etc. and as a result, the plane of focus is extremely narrow at normal aperture settings and accurate focus becomes essential. But not all close focusing lenses are good for macro, and not all macros are good for general purpose close-up work. So it is good to know what it is you are looking for. However it is a wonderful thing when the two merge since you have a truly 'do-all' close focusing lens.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"I don't think so, Lex. I think you're saying to use a P&S."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, because that was Kurt's original question. He's a photographer and longtime member of photo.net. He didn't ask about the technicalities. More than likely he's aware of them. He asked for recommendations for a P&S with good macro capabilities for his sister to photograph the jewelry she makes.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Lex, very few photographers understand that all formats are created equal on the "deep" end of the DoF spectrum. You yourself referred to a DoF advantage in tiny format. Because so few photographers (even experienced ones) understand this, I thought it appropriate to point out that there's not really any DoF advantage. Maybe with this info, the OP would realize that his old 20D and some old lens with a cheap extension tube, or somesuch, would work great for his sister -- no need to buy new equipment. Just throwing out useful options, as was JC!</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"You yourself referred to a DoF advantage in tiny format."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. It's a convenient shorthand way of getting directly to the point... and shoot. Quibbling over shorthand here is akin to quibbling over whether it's appropriate to describe a 6mm lens on a 1/1.7" sensor digicam as "equivalent to 28mm". It's just a convenient frame of reference in a 35mm/24x36mm-centric photoverse. And a useful way of avoiding digressions. Like this one. Usually. But not this time.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>I'm not quibbling over shorthand. I'm saying your shorthand refers to something that doesn't exist at all. There is absolutely no such thing as a DoF advantage of one format over another, unless you're talking about a DoF advantage of larger formats over smaller ones on the "shallow" end. You raised this myth in the first response to the OP. I was merely attempting to dispel it, anticipating that it might even be the basis for the OP's apparent choice of one format over another.</p>

<p> </p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Both are correct. Small format sensors do have a DOF "advantage" but they run into the diffraction wall at smaller apertures. So if you're shooting at f4, you get more DOF with a small sensor camera for a given angular coverage.</p>

<p>If you're shooting at f22 you have no choice since no small sensor camera lets you shoot at f22 because the image would be all mush due to diffraction effects.</p>

<p>If you shoot with the <em>smallest aperture that won't give you measurable diffraction softening and you fill the frame with your subject</em>, then smaller formats generally don't give you any DOF advantage. That aperture is probably something like f4.5 for a digicam with a 4.8x7.2mm sensor and f14 for an full frame DSLR, with a 20mm lens on the digicam and a 100mm lens on the DSLR. Of course with both sytems you can probably stop down another stop (or two) and not really notice any significant diffraction softening in smaller prints and web images.</p>

<p>The answer to the OP's question is that these days just about any P&S will give you good macro capabilities, but usually at the widest focal length setting and with the subject within mm of the lens and typically that's not very convenient.</p>

<p>I've gotten decent "macro" shots (depending on how you define "macro") with the Powershot SX50HS with the lens zoomed out to 1200mm, shooting from a distance of about 4ft! See <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_powershot_SX50_HS_review.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_powershot_SX50_HS_review.html</a></p>

<p>What I'd recommend is a P&S that allows you to mount filters (usually via an adapter). That way you can add closeup diopters and get higher magnification at longer focus distances with the P&S lens zoomed out. For example the Canon Powershot G12 (and G15/G16, as well as the SX50 HS) have an available adapter that allows 58mm filters to be added. That allows you to attach something like a Canon 250D (+4 diopter) or even stacked diopters for higher magnification (as long as you don't need extreme sharpness is large images). Single element closeup lenses are quite a bit cheaper, but not as sharp as lenses like the two element Canon 250D.</p>

<p>If you don't mind a little DIY, you can adapt any decent lens (e.g. a binocular objective lens or any achromatic doublet) to the filter holder for an inexpensive way of getting higher magnification.</p>

<p>I'm not aware of any consumer oriented small sensor digicams that have good macro capability at their telephoto lens settings without adding a closeup lens (diopter) to it.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>Assuming you are a DIYer you can mount a step up ring on the front of the "minus filter thread' lens and use it to mount filters or CU lens .... I did this with my first bridge camera Nikon 5700.<br />Otherwise if you get a lens whose outside diameter matches that of the camera lens mounting it is easy to cellotape the CU lens in place ... with the warning about the cellotape perhaps dissapearing into the camera body on shut-down and gumming up the works.<br />The point about jewelry photography is that it is advantageous to be some way back from the subject to permit light to get at the subject.<br />I doubt really that the subjects are 'that' small so we are not talking about 'true' macro capabilities. <br />As until recently mainly a bridge camera user I have learnt to very much prefer the CU lens on a telephoto lens as a quick and efficient way of taking reasonably tight framed shots.<br />Finally getting in close is possibily not desirable anyway becuase I recently found out that if you stay back and crop you have more DoF than if you get the tight framing in-camera.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>" <em>if you stay back and crop you have more DoF than if you get the tight framing in-camera</em>"<br>

<br>

Technically, using the strict definition of DOF, that's not really the case for macro work, but there are certainly advantages to staying further back and cropping as long as the crop has enough resolution for your intended purpose. You get more working distance and less <em>apparent</em> "wide angle" type distortion and background inclusion. A closeup lens on a telephoto is often more convenient than using the close focus wideangle mode that most digicams offer.<br>

<br>

Most of the better digicams offer an attachment method for filters without resorting to glue and duct tape!<br>

<br>

You can also find low end or used DSLRs for less then you might pay for a decent digicam. For example you can get a Canon EOS Rebel T3 with an 18-55 lens brand new for $349. </p>