Good camera for detailed close ups?

[GothHobbit]

Y’know, if you aren’t opposed to a bridge camera, you can get that kind of functionality without having to switch lenses, although there are clip-on options for macro work that extend the capability. I use two: a Nikon and a Sony. They have different strengths: the Sony has a bigger zoom, and more manual control. On the other hand, Sony buried the macro setting deep in the camera menu. The Nikon is comparatively dumbed-down when it comes to setting flexibility, but the macro button is right there on the back of the body. The Nikon also has a pretty darned good zoom, and its wide-angle lens and bigger aperture means that it’s less fussy about low light conditions.

Both are older models; I haven’t looked at the Sony’s specs, but the Nikon doesn’t automatically record GPS in the metadata. There’s a firmware update available on the website, but I haven’t downloaded it. (Most of the places where I’m shooting, ‘close enough’ is good enough.) This is one of those ‘your mileage may vary’ issues.

I’ve also been doing some research on the Raynox DCR-150 snap-on macro lens, which doesn’t require a bayonet or threaded mount, so it works with zoom lenses. Lots of folks have posted reviews and demo photos, and I’ve been impressed with the results. The 150 is on my summer purchase list; you might be more interested in the 250 for its really up-close capability. (The reviewer at the link also likes the bokeh created by the 250.)

For your purposes, I wouldn’t worry too much about megapixels; a lot of manufacturers are pushing high numbers, but unless you’re going to make large-format prints, a 16mps – that is, 1.6 million pixels – sensor should be adequate. A versatile bridge camera also means no having to carry multiple heavy (and expensive!) lenses. The Canon Powershot series even has a telephoto attachment, but it’s a whole lot more portable (and less expensive) than a DSLR lens.

If you want, you can send me a private message, and I’ll be happy to go into more detail about options.

[fffffffff]

For id purposes flash is one of the key components, OP said they have no problems with money, there’s no need to start with phone when you can afford something normal.

[meteorquake]

I have to agree, bridges are good, though I’m no expert.
I’ve been using a 2nd-hand Panasonic DMC FZ70 for many years on auto (macro/normal/huge long zoom) and it does very well, though there are later versions now.
But I bash it around a lot (exposure function now gone, “replaced” with point exposure pointing at the right spot or something put in briefly to get the right level then taken away) and was looking to buy a new one. I did lots of research that hurt my head and some of the camera experts living near me said pop by and they’ll show me their setup which will be much better, and I went round, and my bridge outperformed theirs and they were pretty astonished and said better to use what I had!
One takeaway I did learn from my reading is that small sensors were better for such macro than large, though there’s a light sensitivity loss.
My own main requirement has been for plant closeups and the ability to take masses of photos, so fiddling around lenses is not good, I need to be able to march about and take 1000-1500 photos on a walk in great detail.
I looked at the TG6 and wasn’t convinced it was any improvement for me. I would still love to find a replacement that’s even better (with exposure working!) so am definitely all ears for any suggestions, but in sum my experience has been very positive with bridge format with built in macro and sensor on the smaller side, downside being photos in darker environments/woods etc.
David

[broacher]

@fffffffff

there’s no need to start with phone when you can afford something normal

The trouble with normal is it always gets worse.

That’s a line from a song from a famous Canadian songwriter (Bruce Cockburn).

I think it applies here because I think starting with macro on the phone opens it up to way more people than just those who can afford a ‘normal’ priced camera.

But you’re right, the OP didn’t seem concerned about cost, but they did seem to be concerned about weight, size and steep learning curves. These are also formidable barriers for many would-be naturalists.

Macro is such a key and fantastic way to start with engaging and motivating nature study.

A big part of that draw is the fact that it doesn’t require a lot of travel time and expense to get going. Many have proven time and again that terrific macro results are obtainable by going no further than an urban neighbourhood park or even a small backyard. We need to support and leverage that reality much more.

One way I would love to see (perhaps volunteer to help develop?) with iNat is a program that really explains and shows how to start with macro on the most limited budgets.

Or how about a way to optimally allow owners of decent older, but still very capable camera gear donate it to good outdoor education programs in poorer, inner city neighborhoods?

Sorry, I digressed. Yes, good lighting is important, but so is good software. I shoot most of my macro sans flash but rely on very good anti-noise software that allows me to select high ISO speeds to compensate.

I have tried flash and diffusers and have seen what a boost that they can bring to image quality and detail, but I also see what a constraint that can be in many macro field situations. Particularly in getting into tight shooting situations where it’s so easy to spook the subject just trying to get in there with all the lighting gear overhead.

So having the higher ISO advantage means that I can focus on keeping the camera light, small, and quick to setup. No tripods, flash hoods or cables or bags means I can carry things longer, and have less mental tech setup calculations, and instead go right into a sighting almost instantly, and have better odds at capturing more photo opportunities.

For phones, to me, the next big portable macro breakthrough seems likely to be in the form of low-cost phone hardware firmware that would deliver the denoising power of a desktop app such as PureRaw. Start optimising the RAW files from phone sensors before they’re de-mosaiced and you would really open up the phone macro potential by giving much sharper low light results.

Sorry, I’m not very good at staying on topic, am I? Macro tech is evolving rapidly. And that’s a great thing. More choices and hopefully, more affordable choices. Meanwhile, if you’re sneaky and perhaps clever enough, there are all kinds of bargain ways to get there.

[fffffffff]

Top light set ups are huge, but you don’t need them, a ring flash is good enough for me for iNat photos, I got a new, bigger one, and it still doesn’t prevent me from getting close to subjects, they’re more spooked by myself than camera, ofc phones are good enough for a start, maybe, I’d say a bridge camera is better, but still, it’s diverging to one of previous topics on macro more than answering to OP needs. They also said that they an deal with weight if it’s inevitable.
Denoising loses clarity, for myself even the lowest iso is too much noise (likely top cameras have it better), but I wouldn’t put photos through that, cause flash on 1/32 is more than enough to light up a scene.
Imo if you have the interest, hop to the level you can afford, you still will learn what you need to learn, but you won’t spend years photographing with worse tech than you could. Especially if you’re an adult.

[sunguramy]

Panasonic Lumix is awesome brand, I still love and use my Lumix LX3 (circa 2008) when my LX100 is out. Most of the higher quality Lumix line follows Leica…check models, but a lot is same lens and practically same camera with cheaper name slapped on it ;) A lot of Lumix cameras would meet someone’s needs for documenting species with nice photos, easily, all in one little body.

[benjamin_fabian]

@sunguramy

Sony know they are the Apple of cameras - you will buy into Sony gear and add ons (like flash systems, etc, which for macro you may get into!) only, for the mostpart, where as the other three (Nikon, Canon, Pentax) you can typically use 3rd party stuff.

And what is this based on?
You can just as well use third party lenses/accessories for Sony as you can for the other brands.

[broacher]

If you’re in the mindset that all macro lenses must be brand-specific automatics, then yeah – your cam body brand choice can cast a long shadow on your future choices.

But – if you embrace the manual macro lens route, your only real concern is adapters. Plus, you’re much more likely able to cross body brands and enjoy a very, very much longer practical lens lifespan that can easily span decades.

Then there’s the Laowa route – stick to manual and deliver excellent optics for a very competitive price range.

For me, I much prefer the control and practicality that manuals gives you in the diverse shooting environment of field macro shooting.

My current wish? That someday the bridge cam makers would include a manual override option.

[sunguramy]

Because I tried one myself after everyone talking them up. It would not work with any of my universal kit that works with just about everything (for sure nikon, pentax, lumix, olympus, all of which Ive had and used before or have and use now and my universal stuff works on all of it), and when I looked it up, its a well known “problem”. Google it. I wish I had before i tried it. Could I have bought new triggers new lights new flashes? Sure. Am I gonna invest in all that too again? Nope. Do people love Sony? Sure. If your just getting into it likely fine. But know what youre buying into is all.

[kaphn8d]

Macro is shot close to the subject, not from a huge distance, you can’t do it from far away.

This is not entirely accurate. There are various ways to increase working distance when imaging macro… using telephoto lenses with long(er) focal lengths and some form of bellows or extension tube between the lens and the camera body is one of the more popular options. You will lose some optical clarity, but you can still gather enough detail for observation purposes.

As an example, this was imaged from over 12 feet away:

[kaphn8d]

@broacher

We need to change the script on macro and make everyone realize that you don’t need to spent thousands to start enjoying real macro photography.

Agreed.

When I first started learning macro photography, I had a very low-end point and shoot camera and picked up a cheap, off-brand DSLR 50mm lens at a garage sale and would physically hold the lens in front of the point and shoot lens with it turned around backwards (reverse direction) to achieve magnification on a budget. There are lots of tips and tricks to create decent macro images on a budget.

Since the OP mentioned buying “a camera” and desiring “close-up” macro images with “a lot of detail”, it sort of narrows the options to answer the question asked, but I agree with many that have posted here that if all that is needed is close-focus for iNat observations, a clip-on style macro lens for one’s smartphone would do the trick (especially since all the GPS tagging stuff is done automatically).

[fffffffff]

That’s hard to call macro, but I wouldn’t call 3 metres (or whatever distance you meant) as really far away.

[nellse]

I bought a Olympus TG6 based on many recommendations here and I’m terribly dissapointed. A well known (I know now) problem of the TG series is that in macro mode in some settings of light and zoom and whatever an artifact appears in the center of your picture, a pink blob.
For reference, some of my observations with this blob. If you look through my other observations of the last year you’ll notice it on lots of pictures. Google ‘Olympus purple dot’ for even more details. There seems to be a portion of luck if your specific camera will produce the dot more often or not but to me it makes the TG6 basically useless for macro photography.
+the battery only lasts about 2-3 hours if you have GPS enabled and use focus stacking

Examples: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/133351739
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/136473709

PS: quite new, not much used TG6 for sale ;-)

[ginsengandsoon]

Hi Nellse, if you set your TG6 so that the LED comes on (lightning bolt on bottom wheel, flashlight at far right), it should clear up “pink blob” problems in low light situations.

[nellse]

Unfortunately it doesn’t. It makes the blob less visible, true, but it’s still there.

Both pictures were taken some minutes ago, it’s bright daylight in my living room. Macro mode, zoomed in a bit, not much. Picture 1 without addictional light, picture 2 with LED light.

(Yes, I have cats )

[fluffyinca]

It’s barely noticeable in the first photo and I can’t see it at all in the second, so my impression is that the “fix” worked.

[permiandon]

@nellse: Wow, I’ve never seen the “pink blob” in my Olympus, but it’s a TG-4. Pretty old now. And I seldom shoot closeups in low light.

@ekimbro: YMMV, but I carry the Olympus TG (for most shots, and especially closeups) and a Canon for longer shots. The little Olympus has a few settings for macro / closeup shots; the setting I use most takes several exposures and merges the sharpest parts of each into a single image. Examples in the leaf and flower closeups in this obs: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/158169273. However, any motion – like wind moving the plant around – usually defeats the multiple-image stacking process.

I’ve also used the TG-4 for underwater shots, and it does OK. It has a 4X zoom, not a very long lens, but enough to let you frame a shot to some degree.

I carry a Canon SX70HS for very long shots. The Canon is a “bridge camera”: it is not a professional-quality single-lens reflex camera and does not have interchangeable lenses, but it has a 65X zoom (equivalent to a 21 to 1365 mm lens on a professional camera). And it’s lightweight. A picture taken at just about max zoom is in this obs: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/162336925. These photos were taken with an older Canon SX, which is now defunct; my new SX70HS takes sharper images. Not nearly as sharp as my friend gets with his $6000+ setup. But sufficient: the Scott’s Oriole in that obs was so far away I didn’t even know what kind of bird I was seeing until I looked at the picture.

[nellse]

ok, I’ve taken some more pictures, different scenario.
Outside, bright day, evening sun. Both macro mode, somewhat zoomed, first without LED, second with. (Please ignore the lack of focus, it was just for the blob).

From my reading I understand that not everybody has this problem, but it is also not a rare occurence on the TG series. I wish I had known before I bought it.

[fluffyinca]

You’re right, it didn’t help much in that situation. I was unaware of this problem, as I’ve never had it with mine, but I can see how annoying it would be!

[headsoup]

Can you get it returned under warranty? That’s a pretty big issue and easy to demonstrate.