Welcome to the community @Freccia
Yah, my neck and hands totally agree with you! I’m fairly conflicted about wanting better quality pictures on the one hand and the ease of getting with iPhone photos with metadata on the other. I’ve tried out a couple of macro attachments for the phone, but I have not hit on one that works well on the 3 lenses phone. There are some good macro attachments, I’m told, that are pretty cheap - leaving that critical beer and sarnie budget intact!
1 Like
you won’t get the same quality as with an EOS, but for simplicity, a pocketable zoom camera is hard to beat, i think – maybe something like the Canon SX740 HS. it should be easy to pair it up with an iPhone. for more money, less zoom, but a better sensor, a Panasonic ZS200 might be worth a look, too. as with a lot (most?) cameras nowadays, these cameras don’t have GPS built in but can get GPS information from a linked smartphone.
here’s what the process for connecting the Canon SX 740 HS to iOS looks like: Connect your PowerShot SX740 to your iPhone via Wi-Fi - YouTube.
3 Likes
Thanks for all the comments. iNat needs to sell a range of camera’s, or someone needs to invent an app capable camera.
I’m rather new to all this (consequence of long walks on my own during current situation) and as I say use the ‘Seek’ ap as much for ID as for actually posting to INat.
I know it seems easy to connect a camera to the phone, but still taking a picture, uploading it to the phone, selecting it from ‘photos’ and then asking the app to ID is a lot more time consuming than pointing the phone in ap.
I’ll have to live with it!
2 Likes
if you want to work without a second device, i think your phone has a 2x camera on it. so you could pair it with, say a 2x external lens, and that would give you 4x. Moment makes a highly regarded lens / case kit for about $200 USD. there are more budget-friendly clip-on lenses (<$50) that go maybe up to 3x, which could give you effectively 6x total. (the clip-ons take a little more effort to attach correctly, but they are cheaper.)
buying a phone with a very-high-megapixel sensor that would allow you to do a lot of cropping / digital zooming is probably beyond the budget you noted earlier.
you could also use a telescope lens on your phone. but these are very long and usually are not stabilized. so to use them effectively you almost need a small tripod, which is sometimes included. the optics are generally fine, but not stunning, like cheap binoculars. but you can get in the neighborhood of 5x to 20x. it takes a little time to attach the lens properly to your phone, but once it’s set up, you’ll be able to use Seek right with your phone.
the only other option that i can think of is to have someone else carry gear and do all the technical stuff for you. like an iNat assistant or caddy.
2 Likes
Thanks pisum, your input is much appreciated.
Love the idea of a caddy, but I’ll take a look at those phone external lenses.
1 Like
For kicks I was looking into what would be the camera for me. My research locked onto Olympus TG-6. It has everything I want except for high zoom. I might have to wait a year or more to purchase it as a replacement for my old Sony DSC-H7 (except for high zoom). It is over $500 Canadian after all.
It has GPS, macro (microscope mode, automatic focus stacking), toughness, temperature sensor, RAW format, can be used underwater, manual focus, high speed video and 4K video. Its zoom is a mere 4X (which can be doubled).
Do any of you have a superzoom / bridge that takes good shots in the evenings as well? Shots of arthropods, specifically, at twilight.
I enjoy using my Olympus TG-5 (recently bought a TG-6) for photographing plants. Features include compact camera (easy to fit in my hiking pants pocket), waterproof to 50 ft, and shock tolerant (drop my camera? NEVER!). As you know, macro is super important to capturing the details required for accurate identification (e.g. types of hairs at the base of a Brassicaceae) and the Tough camera has 4 macro modes. I particularly like the automatic photo stacking to get greater depth of field. And the microscope mode has 44.4 x. Definitely use the LED light guide (LG-1) for macro shots.
The only shortcoming is the 4x Zoom for distance. Wouldn’t take this on safari!
This is also my underwater camera. I use a housing and an external, optically synched strobe. Not as good as a big camera, but suits me fine.
1 Like
Like I have stated previously, I use the Panasonic Lumix FZ-60. I come across people carrying much heavier cameras, or a backpack full of camera equipment, in the field, and I admire their superb photographs. However, my goal is to document biodiversity, not to capture National Geographic quality photos. I find this bridge camera very acceptable for this, being able to switch from inches to infinity and from 1x to 96x.
Sometimes the quality of the shot is superb, but more often it is acceptable for species identification. And I don’t have to lug a lot of weight or switch lenses. Someday it will all be implemented in our META glasses and all we will have to do is to wish we had that photo and Wala!, but hopefully not in my lifetime.
2 Likes
That happens with all cameras🤣
Yes! Well said. And admittedly, a tough sell to much of the macro-wannabe crowd.
Speaking of macro, have you tried pairing the fz60 with a Raynox macro clip-on? It’s a lightweight, relatively low-cost way to extend a high-zoom bridge camera into macro range. (I have dedicated one of my jacket pockets just to the Raynox.)
That one made me laugh aloud.
1 Like
Thanks for the lead on the Raynox macro clip-on. I had not heard of it and will check it out. I tried using Vivitar Series 1 close up lenses but find the camera has a hard time focusing. Often it seems to pass through a good focus and ends up not being able to find a good focus. The other problem I have is that I often (usually) have to rapidly focus and take a picture before the subject takes off. Unless I am doing a walking or crawling insect or a spider, I usually do not have time to set up a photo. I have learned to snap pictures as rapidly as possible, usually at a lower magnification, and then, after I get one or two of those, zoom in. I am also using the electronic zoom and I am able to get 96 magnification. Often I have to step back to about 5 feet on macro zoom, but at 96x, I still usually get a good picture for ID and reduce the possibility of disturbing the subject. I have even stopped carrying my 10x Pentax binoculars and I now just use the camera zoom - much greater power. Just wished it adapted to my META glasses.
The thing with macro is that it’s almost ALWAYS easier to set the camera to manual and focus with the distance between the subject and the end of the lenses.
With the clip-on lens, it’s easier because it shortens the focus range right down. If a great bird flies by when you’re doing macro, there’s not much you can do unless you have an expensive macro lens that has super-depth-of-field (like some of the Laowas). But even then, you won’t have the zoom power you normally use for bird pics.
But with the Raynox 250 clip-on (I actually screw it on like a filter, rather than clip), you can use a zoom, or a super-zoom to get a lot of zoom range. For instance, I measured the ‘non-vignetting’ macro range of my Canon SX540/Raynox-250 combo recently and measured (with a ruler as my target) how wide a full-width shot would be at both ends. The range is around 90mm, and then when I zoom in, I can fill up the width with 5mm. For about 80% of my macro subjects, that’s just about perfect. But it all depends on the lens you put behind the Raynox.
The Canon540 has a 50x optical zoom. If I stick the same Raynox-250 on my (newly acquired!) Nikon P950, with a 83x zoom, the range changes to a (non-vignetting) shot that can focus anything from 8mm down to 2mm to fill the photo width. It’s actually too much zoom for most stuff. I might start looking for a Raynox-150 to expand the wider end – mostly because that’s what most stuff I shoot runs around in, and also, at 2mm, the DOF is razor thin and hard to stabilize enough using hands-only. Only for the tiniest, visible bugs under ideal conditions.
But the distance from the end of the lens to the subject with the Raynox on is pretty consistent for focusing for both cameras. Around 5-6 inches, I’d guess. That actually is pretty decent for working with small stuff, in terms of camera mobility and not having to get right on top of something to capture a shot and the spooked-off ratio that represents.
For stuff like butterflies, dragonflies, and other quick-to-fly subjects, I use two techniques a lot. One, I rely on the super-zoom lens for a decent ‘tele-macro’ shot. Usually, that requires about 12 feet of distance between me and the subject in order to catch it. But it can work great for most larger insects–but tough in many situations without a tripod.
The second technique? If your camera has a 4k video mode and the lighting is half-decent, shoot video clips and pull the ‘jewels from the muck’ (nice, crisp frames) later when you get back home. Now these frames won’t usually be as good as a still (usually less pixels to work with too), but still more than adequate for ID purposes and small prints, for sure. This is my goto for something that comes flying in fast and is darting around nectar sources, for example. Sometimes you will even luck out and capture something useable in flight! The focus options are more limited in video but because of the capture rate (vs non-video shooting), it’s become a game-changer for me. And it also works pretty good on the ground for fast-moving beetles and ants, etc. (Though when you’re in macro mode, most of the time, capturing a focused shot of a moving ant is like trying to catch a good zoom shot of a startled cheetah on steroids.)
Yep. The so-called, ‘safety-shot’. It’s very effective at upping your success rate. That’s another reason I started shooting more video. It really is an ‘odds-game’ most of the time.
Is that an optical 96x? It sounds pretty good to be able to get to 5 feet closeness and still be able to get a clear macro shot.
Binoculars. Yeah, scouting with those seems to be a part of the birder skillset that I have never been able to master. Bugs are more in my organic-optical range.
As winter closes in and the bugs have all but died off now, I am trying to up my birding skills. It does make me respect birders’ patience and also to envy – at least with most of the birders that I’ve seen-- their camera budgets!
But I discovered that by becoming better at spotting bug, it has really helped me be a better bird spotter too. Especially on the lake I live beside. Waves are kind of like dynamic-bark and anything that doesn’t match the pattern, even when far away, I find a lot easier to spot now.
Happy shooting!
Thanks for the info on the Raynox 250. I think I will put it on my (buy it myself) Christmas list.
Don’t forget to act surprised!
If you’re interested, I put together a gallery page of some of my Raynox shots, here.
2 Likes
Very impressive photos and thank you for taking the time to do this. The Raynox 250 is doing a fine job for you. I am still trying to understand the difference between this and a standard set of close-up lense adapters. I have a set of Vivitar Series 1 close-up lenses - screw-on - from my SLR days. After seeing your post I was just experimenting with them and they have some incredible macro capability but are a little finicky to focus with. When I get the magnificaiton and the distance set to what the camera wants, they work great. However, the camera has problems with autofocus if I deviate a little. Not sure if this is due to the macro attachment, the lense, or to how the camera does autofocus. Maybe I should experiment with manual focus. I think I will play with these some. One problem I have is that many times during just normal focus, the critter either flies away or moves out of sight.
The difference between the Raynox and the screw-on close-up lenses is probably lens quality, and in particular sharpness and the fact that the Raynox is much more achromatic than a screw-on lens (almost no colour-fringing).
Lens to subject distance is another variable. That’s set by the diopter rating, which is 8 for the Rayox 250 with a working distance to subject of about 10-12cm. That’s fine for most of my shots. It’s performance on an autofocus lens depends a lot on the lens and the AF system, but I prefer to shoot manual since the distance to subject is constant. I use the zoom of the lens to set the magnification (depending on the size of the subject). With the ‘peaking’ system on for manual focus, this works pretty well.
Critter-flitter is a shared problem with any system. As is shallow depth-of-field. Which is why a lot of top shots you see are done with focus stacking which some cameras automatically support, others – you just take your chances. But I’m trying to get the hang of using a high-speed shutter burst that spans the focus of the subject. It’s tricky!
Now if you want a greater lens end-to-subject distance, you need to look at dedicated macro lenses. That’s where my budget and I politely bow out. But I also like that I can take decent shots with the Raynox with my bridge Canon and Nikons, as well as with my Sony Alpha. Otherwise, I’d have to choose a camera and commit it to the macro expenses.
Plus there’s the very real problem of holding things steady enough for a clear shot the further from the subject you go – without a tripod. And for me at least, tripods and in-the-field bug-hunting just don’t add up. There’s just too few things out there that will stand still that long.
Another trick I depend on (more for ID than great photos) is using the Raynox on a camera that supports 4K video. It’s often the ONLY way I catch a flighty visitor. By moving around the camera in video mode, you are at least catching SOME frames that are clear and high-enough in pixels to do the job. But it requires going back into a video editor to find the frames that are any good. (I kind of enjoy this, as it often is the only way I get a clear look at anything that’s moving fast!)
Hope that helps and I hope that the next critter season brings you lots of macro fun. Cheers!
I really would like to learn if it is possible to use a digital capture device like Adonstar ADSM201/301 could be useful on identification processes of my unnamed and archieved fly samples.
I’d searched the whole forum but no words are spoken for the digital monitoring systems, so I’d appreciate the suggestions focused on “fly species” monitoring & capturing systems with a low budget.
Thanks!
With “archived fly samples” I understood mounted specimens? Sure it will work. Just get a good book with keys to flies in your region.