Hello! I am looking to buy a real camera to try and take better photos of small insects like sweat bees and longhorn bees, as well as things that would need to be photographed from further away since they move when you get close to them (dragonflies, skippers, etc). However, my budget is pretty low and probably the most I would be able to afford is ~$500, so I was wondering if anyone has any suggestions? Thanks!
1 Like
I do have a load of suggestions!
In the past 11 years I have tried numerous macro setups, from $30 option to $5k option and I did find some really good budget options.
I have a few questions before I suggest anything:
ă»Do you mean $500 USD?
ă»Do you have any compact cameras? What model do you currently use?
Sometimes they can be very good macro cameras when used with closeup lenses (which I can explain if youâd like).
ă»Which do you need more: underwater capability, or telephoto capability (for birds etc)
ă»Are you fine with used products?
There are some past threads on this topic actually, but they are full of misleading / confusing information while some are very useful.
So, Iâd recommend reading them with some precautions.
1 Like
Sorry I should have specified, $500 USD! Right now the only thing I take pictures with is my phone, and when thatâs not available a cheap digital camera. I guess telephoto capability would be good, but I would mostly be focusing on macro photos. And also I am absolutely fine with used products. I know literally nothing about cameras, so any advice is welcome!
2 Likes
Right, thanks for the response.
Basically, there are six major routes when doing macro, and there are four which I recommend (bold letters):
1ă»DSLR or mirrorless + Macro lens
2ă»DSLR or mirrorless + normal lens + closeup lens
3ă»DSLR or mirrorless + normal lens but attached reversed
4ă»DSLR or mirrorless + normal lens + extension tubes
5ă»Bridge cameras (ââcompactââ cameras with telephoto capablity)+closeup lens
6ă»Macro-specified compact cameras such as TG-4, TG-5, TG-6 or WG series
Iâll explain one by one.
3 Likes
First of all, I need to clarify that the most important aspect of macro photography is lighting. If your light is too harsh, colours wonât appear nicely.
99% of time I use flash and a macro diffuser and I strongly recommend it.
Going with natural light is insanely difficult especially when you are shooting smaller things, and not something Iâd recommend to a beginner.
All the options Iâve written up expect using a flash.
Flash also has an effect to free the motion, so you donât get blurry image when shooting handheld.
It is easy to DIY a macro diffuser for flash, even from just one A4 paper. Google have some good info on this.
1ă»DSLR or mirrorless + Macro lens
This is the most straightforward route.
Usually it is a bit easier to take macro on mirrorless because you can focus faster using the screen (with DSLR you need to use the viewfinder for quick focus), but both works just fine.
Compared to bridge cameras, you will get better image quality and much better usability (e.g. changing the setting just with a dial instead of going into the menus etc).
One issue with this is that all macro lenses wonât allow zooming in and out, so it can be a bit limiting. (you need to move back and forward to change the composition etc)
Example of this: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/225785905
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/222720568
On ebay you can get something like Lumix G7 or E-M5 Mark ii or any older micro-four-thirds mirrorless body for $350 USD, and M.Zuiko 30mm F3.5 Macro lens for $150 USD. This macro lens is very good for smaller things that doesnât escape, but not for things you need to be away from.
There are many telephoto macro lenses in the market too, but good ones are at least around $300 USD so might be a bit above your budget including camera body. These telephoto zoom lenses are sometimes a bit too telephoto and might be annoying when you are trying to photograph something big.
Also, you can invest in an external flash afterwards (around $100 usd) for better lighting.
I havenât uploaded my images taken with this sort of setup but they look pretty much like the photos taken with macro lenses.
2ă»DSLR or mirrorless + normal lens + closeup lens
Actually I recommend this for most of iNatters, because with this setup you will be able to use a zoom lens normally and then attach a closeup lens when needed for macro. Image quality is actually quite close to proper macro lens if you use RAYNOX DCR-250 as the closeup lens that clips onto the normal zoom lens.
On ebay you can get something like Lumix G7 or E-M10 Mark ii or any older micro-four-thirds mirrorless body for around $350 USD, and then a telephoto zoom lens like M.Zuiko 40-150mm f5.6 R lens for around $100 USD, and then Raynox DCR-250 for around $70 USD.
Also, you can invest in an external flash afterwards (around $100 usd) for better lighting.
3ă»DSLR or mirrorless + normal lens but attached reversed
4ă»DSLR or mirrorless + normal lens + extension tubes
These are possible solutions too, but the usability is terrible for iNatting and I donât recommend.
5. Bridge cameras (ââcompactââ cameras with telephoto capablity)+closeup lens
The idea is quite similar to DSLR or mirrorless + normal lens + closeup lens setup.
You get the advantage of being able to zoom, and when you need macro you simply clip on the closeup lens - DCR-250.
This can be way cheaper, but as a downside, the usability and image quality wonât be as good - although it still takes some really good pictures.
for example @treegrow have been taking amazing photos with her setup (if I remember correctly it was SX40HS + raynox DCR-250) like this: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/16774741
6ă»Macro-specified compact cameras such as TG-4, TG-5, TG-6 or WG series
Iâd been using this for like 5 years. Can only recommend when you prioritize ultimate compactness and/or underwater photography.
The image quality is OK, but not as good as when using bridge cameras, and you need to get really close to your subject again.
However this setup doesnât require anything other than buying the camera and itâs tiny, so I know quite a few people who love using it.
It still takes great pictures, but doesnât have the vividness you get when using proper dslrs/mirrorlesses.
TG-5 is around $250 used on ebay.
For example: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/151327358
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/144970849
6 Likes
TGs are awesome, I wish I wouldâve gone for one when I first got into macro photography! Hereâs a couple of observations by @kyronb using the TG-7:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/205319650
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/241214213
Do check out the second photo of the first observation link!
Hereâs his setup:
https://bugguide.net/node/view/2288316
I use the Canon EOS Rebel T7 and kit lens for my photos, paired with a ~30mm macro extension tube part and a reverse ring for extra magnification. For proper lighting, I use a flash (although partially broken) and a DIY diffuser to soften the light. TG I think would be better though, because you get slightly more magnification, and because my setup gets a lot of chromatic aberration at high magnifications. Focus stacking is also a must for my setup, since I canât control aperture. And since I like getting most of the spider in focus, I usually have to stack around 100 images (no examples uploaded yet). If you have an aperture with a lot in focus, focus stacking doesnât have to be very large at all, even just a couple images will usually do. Stacking can be automatically done through Helicon or Zerene (although these you must purchase), but some softwares like Focus Stacking Online are free (although rather terrible for large stacks).
For focus stacking with setups like mine, you will have to move your camera forward or backward to get all the images you need to stack. If you only need 20-30 images for a stack, a TG will allow focus bracketing, which will move what is in focus for you, so you can keep your camera still rather than moving forward or backward.
If you have a large amount in focus or donât mind about small depth of field, focus stacking can be completely ignored.
1 Like
My suggestion is a Canon EOS Rebel T7 because itâs the one I use. Donât know about the price, though.
Iâm not going to make specific suggestions because there are a lot of set-ups that would allow you to take close-up/macro photos and which option is best for you will depend a lot on what your needs are. So instead, a few things to think about:
What are your goals? Do you want to take artistic photos, or is your main concern with documenting and IDing your subjects?
How large a camera do you want to carry around? Do you want something as simple as possible to use, or something that you can grow into?
How much magnification do you need? Do you need macro capacity in the narrow sense (1:1 magnification or greater) or just better close-up capacity?
Are you planning to exclusively photograph free-flying individuals or will they be captured/collected?
How complex a set-up are you willing to work with? This includes not just flash and diffusers but also things like post-processing (photo stacking on your computer â there are a few cameras that have some built-in stacking capacity).
I was in a similar situation as you a couple of years ago â I decided I needed a camera because I wanted to take better bee photos. When I started looking I thought I wanted something as small and uncomplicated as possible for a newbie (probably something like an Olympus TG), but I ended up purchasing something completely different (an interchangeable lens camera with kit zoom lens + Raynox, which I quickly upgraded to a manual macro lens). This turned out to be the right decision for me, even though I ended up spending more than I initially planned, because I discovered that I enjoy the process of taking photos with a camera and I value the flexibility of being able to switch lenses.
I imagine the macro photographers here will be horrified, but Iâve been relying on natural daylight without flash and my photos are taken as JPGs and cropped as needed. Most of my bee photos are of active subjects and are close-ups but at less than 1:1 magnification. I donât stack (the combination of fast-moving subjects and a manual lens is not amenable to this), though both stacking and lighting techniques are things I want to learn eventually for springtails and the rest of the 5 mm and under crowd. I am not saying that my approach is the optimal or most professional one, but I do think it is worthwhile pointing out that to start out with, it is very possible to take serviceable-for-iNat photos of small insects without a lot of extra equipment or post-processing.
Since you mentioned sweat bees, this is a really tricky group to ID from field photos (at least, Lasioglossum is â some of the other genera in this family are a bit easier). So if your main goal is to be able to ID them to species, you should be aware that a camera with good macro/close-up capability may not be enough. You may need to become acquainted with high-magnification macro techniques and it is likely that you will have difficulty photographing the necessary features without collecting specimens.
6 Likes
i wanted cheap and convenient and i just improved my cell phone with apexel macro lens for insects (quite nice) or telescope lens (clunky, hard to focus in the field, but still, it improves cell phone vastly and allows to take photos of birds or that damned dragonflies). cost almost nothing, fits into a small bag which i take with myself when walking my dog, or even in a purse i take to work.
2 Likes
Just a heads-up that the are similar past discussions which have info as well: https://forum.inaturalist.org/tag/photography
2 Likes
Hello! Itâs great that youâre looking to upgrade your photography equipment for insect and wildlife photography. With a budget of around $500, you can still find some capable options. Here are some suggestions to help you get started:
1. Used DSLR or Mirrorless Cameras
- Canon EOS Rebel Series (T6 or T7): These entry-level DSLRs are often available used or refurbished within your price range. Paired with a macro lens, they can provide excellent close-up shots of insects.
- Nikon D3400: Another affordable DSLR that works well for beginner photographers. Its kit lens can handle some distance, and you could add a budget macro lens later on.
- Sony Alpha A6000: This mirrorless option is compact, has fast autofocus, and offers good image quality. You can find used or refurbished units within budget.
2. Budget Lenses
- For macro work with insects, consider Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro or Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro for Nikon. Both lenses offer great value.
- For wildlife and distance shots, look into affordable telephoto zoom lenses like Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 or Nikon AF-P DX NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3.
3. Compact Cameras
- Panasonic Lumix FZ300: This bridge camera is known for its impressive zoom capabilities and macro mode, which can handle both close-up and distant subjects. Itâs also weather-sealed, great for outdoor photography.
- Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-HX99: This compact option offers a good zoom range (up to 720mm equivalent) and performs well in macro mode.
4. Accessories
- Tripod: A small, sturdy tripod can help stabilize your shots, especially for insects or zoomed-in shots.
- Macro Extension Tubes: These are an affordable way to turn a standard lens into a macro lens without breaking the bank.
2 Likes
@invertebratist wrote a bunch of great suggestions I would push back on this, I donât think itâs so cut and dry. I want to emphasize that there are a broad range of use cases and opinions here. No one way is the âcorrectâ way. I started out with a Canon DSLR and a decades-old old manual focus Nikon 1:2 macro lens, with no flash, and got some nice shots. I still mostly shoot macro (with a newer AF lens) and rarely carry a flash and diffuser unless Iâm going out at night.
I also find focus stacking annoying and it doesnât suit my personality, even though it can be great.
Using a flash and diffuser will get you the best quality and depth of field, but in my expderience theyâre a pain in the butt if youâre doing real hiking, and theyâre slower to use if you really want to document a lot of things, or photograph things that only stick around for brief moments, at least in my experience The main thing is that you find whatever process you use enjoyable, there will always be trade-offs. I personally would rather have my camera lighter, smaller, ready to go quickly, and be less likely to scare away bugs with my diffuser.
8 Likes
Iâm not accusing you of anything, but this somehow sounds AI generated.
4 Likes
Since you mentioned both close-in macro, and also things like dragonflies that are hard to approach, you should know that it can be rather difficult to do both of these with a single inexpensive camera.
Given your criteria, I would suggest looking at one of the older (used) superzoom âbridgeâ cameras, along with a close-up adapter like the Raynox DCR250. Examples are Canonâs SX series and Nikonâs P series. This will give you a very versatile setup with decent image quality, for both macro and general nature photography. Most of these cameras also have a hot-shoe so you can add a cheap flash and DIY flash diffuser to play with later. If you want super-sharp high-resolution macro images of very small bugs, you pretty much want a DSLR or Mirrorless camera with a dedicated macro lens. The Olympus systems are very attractive for the price point, since the older models are widely available on the used market and there are several inexpensive options for macro lenses. They also do excellent focus stacking/bracketing when paired with the native Olympus/OM macro lenses.
PS: In many cases, you can see what kind of camera people are using for their iNat photos by clicking on the small âiâ icon at the bottom of the image. Example: https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/430532382
3 Likes
I like photographing insects but I use my telephoto lens because 1. I donât scare them off 2.I can get pretty good detail (but I do have a professional level camera and lens) 3. If you are only going to have one lens on your camera and you are also a birdnerd, then this works. I do have a macro lens at home but I actually donât use it that much.
4 Likes
TG6 /TG7 seems to be the go to, dosent seem there are big changes between the older and newer one.
One thing to think about with buget is second hand gear, from a trusted photo store (P2P markets are possible, but have much higher risks, vs a expert reseller who looks the gear over and then are resposible if they sell you a dud).
Until my latest camera most of mine have been used (like ex-store models), and that helped me get gear a step above my price range.
Most of the key stuff is covered above, so its more a question of what do you want to get out of the gear.
3 Likes
This describes me as well.
1 Like
Thanks for the extra information Tony. I love the spider shots youâve taken with your setup.
Indeed this can be very true depends on type of flash and setting etc. For me itâs not a problem, as Iâve found a few very efficient flashes, some lightweight setups and straps to help carrying.
But without those, it wouldâve been pretty stressful indeed.
I would disagree, especially when someone ââreally want to document a lot of thingsââ, like me. I used to think like that in the past, but after 10 years of struggle Iâm not going back to natural-light only.
With natural light alone, it would be quite hard and time-consuming to photograph a moving ant for example, but with flash and diffuser it can be done fairly quickly and with much more detail for identification.
Having more detail means you can iNat much smaller things like mites as well.
When photographing something with natural light, you have to raise your shutter speed to stop motion, so often you have to give up or tolerate a lot of noise hiding the details needed for ID when sticking with natural light.
Using flash allows you to freeze the motion instantly (because the light of flash only flashes for a few thousandths of a second).
And of course you can narrow down your aperture a lot, meaning much more areas will be in focus.
Obviously flash isnât needed when itâs sunny enough but itâs not always the case, especially because things are often hiding under vegetation during daytime.
Also, having a telephoto macro setup means you can always turn off the flash and use it with natural light when condition is ideal, especially for sketchy insects like dragonflies.
If someone doesnât find many smaller things and mainly photograph things that are large and doesnât move very fast, maybe itâs fine without the flash.
However, to someone who specifically asks for a insect photography setup, I really have to recommend flash because it makes it so much easier.
Natural light is certainly enjoyable and I sometimes do it too, but I wouldnât do it all the time as itâs not particularly suited for showing ID features.
2 Likes
I use an Olympus TG-6 with a small flash diffuser that mounts directly to the camera. I can leave it on all the time and it barely takes up more space than just the camera by itself. I donât get the best possible shots with this setup, but itâs much better than using the flash without a diffuser. Sometimes itâs necessary when the camera itself casts a shadow on my subject. Anyway, I keep this in a fanny pack as my âemergency cameraâ - itâs definitely light, small and ready to go quickly.
3 Likes
i suppose it depends on what anyone really wants. with a setup, flash, good quality camera, one can take superb photos.
it also fits into a large separate backpack, with tripod in your hand, takes time to set up. most of the bugs i captured with improved cell phone would be long gone by then.
1 Like