Most of my observations are not documented because I don’t have a device capable of high-quality photography. I currently use a Samsung A53 5G, which has a macro mode that takes decent photos of insects, but only if they are stationary and I can get the camera very close. Recently, I read about the Google Pixel Pro—apparently, it allows for macro photos from a further distance, even when the subject is moving. Has anyone had experience with this device? Is it really that good?
What’s the price and why won’t you consider a non-phone option? I remember reaching the same frustration level with my phone’s macro limits and got a used TG5, 2 years ago. It fits easily in the pocket and has a lot of features besides decent macro. I got mine for $150.
Next I bought an old Canon Powershot and a Raynox clip-on. Bigger than a TG, but not as big as most bridge cams. That was about 250 bucks total. Much better subject to lens distancing too.
T5 example’: https://www.inaturalist.ca/observations/312773859
Canon Powershot sample page:
6 Likes
I have a Google Pixel 8 Pro (I think they’re on 10 now), which I use for some of my observations, and a non-phone camera I use for other observations. The best camera is the one you have on hand, and I just about always have my phone. I’d say the Google Pixel 8 Pro does a pretty decent job for a fair bit of macro photography.
For comparison, here’s one of your recent bee observations:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/318483251
While my Pixel recently did this bee:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/339525632
And one of your recent ladybug observations:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/323076614
While my Pixel recently managed this ladybug:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/289612353
Regarding macro photography distances, I’m not familiar with your Samsung, so I can’t say how much of an improvement a Pixel Pro would be. Generally, I find with the Pixel Pro that how close I have to get to the macro subject isn’t often the determining factor regarding whether I can get the photo. My proximity isn’t scaring away hardly any moths and most spiders aren’t startled. Bees are maybe 50/50. Butterflies remain a bit tough but are sometimes/often viable:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/298981805
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/298981343
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/298013238
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/294047487
Dragonflies/damselflies are rather difficult but occasionally possible.
You’re not going to be able to get good photos of any of the above species at a distance, like you often can with a dedicated camera - you’ll need to be right there pretty close to the subject. I suspect you’ll want to be within a foot or so of moths/bees/spiders (although the closer the better, sure). Interestingly, you can pick up some butterflies from about 10 feet, as they’re often a bit bigger, can be somewhat easier to ID, and the phone’s telescopic lens is an option that far out (although again, the closer the better).
Regarding any motion - the Pixel will still struggle:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/283811172
You’re not going to be able to get a viable photo for identifying a scurrying ant or an active spider. Even photos of stationary ants and smaller spiders won’t be particularly satisfying; the phone will struggle to get the detail you’d typically want for a viable species identification. (Getting the camera to focus on a spider in a web is also sometimes difficult). You’re not going to get a butterfly on the move. The phone does, however, do surprisingly well in low-light situations (although the more lighting the better). One final pretty cool thing - although not macro photography, that telescopic lens on the Pixel Pro will allow you to do some birds, which isn’t really a viable option with a lot of phones. This guy was across the street and 30 feet up:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/337240776
Another across-the-street shot:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/293224034
This guy was at least 50 feet away:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/257986652
Not perfect bird shots - and if they’re moving, there’s no way you’ll get the photo - but it’s sure pretty neat to do with just a phone.
I 100% agree that some decently priced non-phone options can do better things. But as far as phone cameras go, those Pixel Pros are remarkably capable. I moved from the Pixel 6a to the Pixel 8 Pro a while back in part for the camera (which I mostly use for iNaturalist observatons, haha), and I certainly haven’t been disappointed.
4 Likes
Fairly limited working distance if one wishes to take close-up photos of insects in flight, however. And we don’t know the asker’s reasons for wanting a phone instead of a camera. If things like pocketability, in-body GPS, etc. are important, most cameras except something like a TG are not going to suit the purpose.
I spent my first year on iNat taking photos of insects with a phone. I have an older Samsung, so newer phones may offer better quality and more flexibility, but in general, I would not recommend photographing bees with a phone – it is simply not a particularly pleasurable experience. You have to get very close (often not possible with flighty subjects) and most phones simply do not manage the level of detail that is often needed for IDing hymenopterans and dipterans.
3 Likes
I would like to also recommend the Raynox clip-on close-up lens. It’s easy to use. It clips on quickly. I use it with my Panasonic Lumix FZ-80. I can now move closer to things like moths and dragonfly larva in tubs. I get significantly more detail.
I would say that, if you are going to stick with a phone, you can get good photos. A buddy of mine just had the knack of moving very, very slowly to get shots of dragonflies and other skittish critters. But, it takes a lot more patience and a lot more luck than using a camera because you must be very close to the subject.
3 Likes
Size and weight have an impact on success. Sometimes it’s counter-intuitive.
I mean, sometimes it’s easier to work with something that’s easier to hold, center, or point at the right spot. Or to stabilize and minimize movement when focusing. Or even just to plant an extended pinky on a surface for stability.
I’m talking handheld here, of course. I remember a very brief stint of trying to get better shots with a tripod, but that was a wasted effort unless you came across something hardly moving for a long time. Which for me is almost always an exception.
Phones may optically work for many, but I found looking through a camera viewfinder SO much easier, and ultimately more productive.
1 Like
Flight subjects are a challenge in almost any form. And you usually have to be very prepared and have a good plan.
One trick I’ve used that can actually work with many phones is to go in with the video mode on slow or super-slow rolling.
When you get close enough to ‘flush’ the subject, there’s a good chance you can review the frames (it’s just a drag along the thumbnail view on my Samsung) of your approach for hopefully, a decent frame or two, or more! Timing is critical because most phones will only give you a few seconds at most for the highest frame rate.
2 Likes
As I noted, I found that I prefer photographing with a camera.
But the query was about a phone, and presumably there are reasons for this (maybe the poster needs a new phone anyway, maybe they don’t regularly carry a bag and need something that is truly pocketable and have with them all the time, etc.). In this context, I don’t see how it is useful to the poster to go straight to discussing cameras without first taking a moment to check with them and find out their requirements and why they are looking at phones rather than cameras.
Maybe they would be happier with a camera – many people are. But maybe they would not. Or maybe they have already considered it and it is not the direction they want to go right now. Unless we know more, it seems considerate to respond to the actual question that was asked instead of telling them they should get something completely different.
Yes, but there are some set-ups that work less well than others. And a set-up (Raynox) which has a greatly limited focal range is not one that is particularly well suited to quickly moving subjects. Again, I was questioning whether this is the best recommendation to make for someone who may very well have different needs than you.
I don’t personally recommend a phone for bees not because of difficulty getting in-focus photos, but because of difficulty getting close enough and getting enough detail for good pictures with a phone. Note that I never claimed it isn’t possible – in fact, I used a phone for bees for a good year before deciding that it didn’t meet my needs; this does not mean that I found it a pleasurable experience compared to using a camera.
1 Like
Hey, I’m not saying my choices and/or experiences are a good fit for anyone else’s needs or styles. I just thought sharing them might open up the conversation a bit. There’s a whole spectrum of shooting approaches at play on iNat and I’d like to hear more about others’ experiences too and if possible, give them a try. Why?
I have always tended to hover more in the cheap seats, as far as gear goes, and that’s where I see the biggest gaps between phone shooters and camera shooters. If you follow conventional ‘pro’ advice, that is.
And that’s why I was questioning the idea of investing in an expensive new phone vs looking at say, a used small bridge point-and-shoot with a Raynox. For me, that was a major but very affordable leap in my macro efforts. There are very strong ‘economic class’ divisions in photography, which is why I try to find new ways for more people to gain some entry into the world of macro. Because macro is where the most potential of discovery per buck seems to lie. Mostly because – it’s everywhere!
And it can be much lower than the cost of a new phone. For instance, how about a 2MP safari with one of those cheap pocket-sized digital microscopes? If you play around a bit and are patient…
I’ve seen some great macro stuff (much better than this!) done with modest phone gear paired to some ingenious improvised lens fiddling. Like the lens from an old flatbed scanner, for example. (I tried it on my TG5, and it actually did work for some situations!
That’s what makes me try and get more discussion going about alternatives to the higher economic restrictions of traditional paths to macro. And like any restriction, it can often inspire innovation.
The biggest unsung story about macro is that it brings you into an amazing world that’s already all around you. I think that the more effort we can make to have that world become accessible to more newcomers, the more connections will be made. And isn’t making those connections what iNat is all about?
1 Like
I have cheap Apexel - they help but still you have to move very close
With my current phone plan, I thought I could upgrade my phone at no cost. It turns out I have to upgrade my plan first, so for now, I’m sticking with my current phone. I don’t want to carry extra device - this is why i use my phone.
Thanks for the thorough breakdown. Based on the photos, that phone looks much better than the one I’m using now. As I mentioned in my other reply, I’m not planning to switch devices anytime soon. However, when I finally do, the Google Pixel will likely be my first choice.
1 Like