I have been trying to figure out a good, but cheap option for macro. I was asking around on reddit and Facebook. I have a Moto g stylus 5g phone that I have been using, but everyone says the camera is bad in Motorola phones.
I was looking at either a Nikon d5100 or the TG-4. I was hoping for something I could bring with me in my purse so I was leaning towards the TG. People on Facebook and reddit are saying the TG is trash though.
I’m a bit confused. I’ve read a few threads on here and everyone seems to like the TG-4. But on other posts on Facebook and reddit people say it just a compact camera and not worth getting.
About all I could afford for the d5100 would be either a very cheap macro lens and regular lens, or use the built in lens and some macro extension tubes. Or I could get the TG-4 and the light ring thingy.
As far as I know, the Olympus/OM TG series is about as good as you can get for macro with a point-and-shoot. From what I’ve heard, the TG-4 is almost as good as the new versions. I’ve been using a TG-5 for about 8 years and it is still going strong. I recommend also getting the FD-1 or LG-1 to give you extra light when you are super close. My plant and insect photos are mostly taken with the TG-5 if you want examples. Here’s one example from it getting really close. This is about as close as you can get with it.
What @keirmorse said, plus the TG cameras are indeed tough - I’ve dropped my TG5 on asphalt and rock several times, with no harm done - and it has built-in GPS, which is really handy for iNat observations. It’s also nicely compact; I occasionally shove it in my pocket, but normally it is always in my hand when I’m out hiking. Is it as good as dedicated, more expensive macro cameras? Probably not, but I have no desire to be a “good” photographer. I just want to take identifiable photos for iNaturalist.
I actually have rarely used my larger camera with a dedicated macro lens since buying the TG-5. Yes, I can arguably get some better photos with that one, but it is a lot more work and and more difficult to get those better photos. I get a lot more usable and quality photos with the TG-5. It also has built-in in focus stacking, which can only be used in some situations, but you can get a lot more in focus by using that. Ultimately, the TG-5 photos are better in some ways and the SLR with macro lens is better in others. Most important for me is that the TG-5 is small and lightweight.
Thanks for the info and examples. Very nice photos you have taken with it.
That’s my problem with DSLR cameras. They are indeed very nice, but they are large and bulky. I would either have to carry the camera on its own with the batteries and lenses in my purse. Or get a dedicated camera bag.
The TG-4 I could throw in my purse along with the attachments and batteries. It won’t have the ability to customize with lenses, but would be super portable. I also can’t afford lenses anyways so I would have to make do with cheap options.
TG’s are a great naturalist macro cam for pack-and-go and rainy weather. I would stick to TG5 and up because you then get RAW and 4K video.
I would also recommend either the ring LED or ring flash adapter – or, a good, tiny flood – if you shoot a lot in dim places. Biggest problem with the TG? The purple-centre blob that often shows up in the middle of shoot under certain lighting conditions. AFAIK, it’s been a problem since the TG4 and has not been fixed. But better lighting almost always fixes this.
The TG-6 (and up) is an even better option because it allows you to shoot 4K video while in the microscope mode. Earlier models don’t support that. Why is that an issue? I shoot a lot of macro in 4K video because it’s so difficult to keep focus on a busy insect that I find shooting a video gives me much better odds of finding at least a few in-focus shots out of the hundreds of frames you get in a couple of seconds.
I think the bashing you read online is also connected to the small sensor vs true DSLR sensor resolution issue. Sure, a DSLR will have 4 times the pixels to work with, but if it’s too wet, too heavy, too expensive – give me something that works in those situations instead and learn to shoot without relying on heavy cropping.
I have a TG-6 and use it frequently, especially when photographing porchlight insects or blacklighting. It’s amazingly good at capturing teeny critters, especially if they’re not moving around much. The iPhone camera has gotten pretty good, but still can’t match the macro clarity of the TG.
That purple dot is sometimes an issue, but I find it only shows up in about a tenth of my photos. Whenever I see it in someone else’s photos, it gives me a warm sense of kinship with my fellow TG user :)
I got an Olympus TG-7 last week, and it has become my new best friend. So far, it’s been awesome for macro photography. I haven’t used the TG-4, so I can’t give any advice on that, but I would assume it’s good for macro as well.
If you want good image quality get a second hand DSLR and macro* lens - The TG series have pretty poor sensor performance overall although they do have some advantages (Waterproof, compact, and very durable).
I agree about the image quality advantage of a DSLR/macro lens combo. But there’s something to be said for quantity too. A ‘decent’ quality macro from a little waterproof camera that you can carry in your pocket often means you’re going to be taking it with you everywhere. And it’s that pocketable convenience that ups your overall species encounter.
If I’m going out solely for bug hunting, and no rain is expected, I take my DSLR/Laowa lens/Flash with me. All second-hand purchases as you suggested.
But, then you just can’t beat having a ‘concealed macro’ weapon when opportunity arises. This one was taken with my TG5.
There’s another small sensor viable option that’s not quite as portable but it can do just about as good a job as the TG macros and give you a little more mag power and much greater working distance while still in a very nice small package. In fact, it’s the cheapest package I’ve ever tried.
I bought an old Cooolpix P90 at a local thrift store for $40. Then I epoxied a filter adapter to the front of the lens so that I could slap on my Raynox-250 (bought used for another $40). Maximum field width at full optical magnification? Around 8mm. Lens to subject distance? About 12cm. To reduce flash glare I threw three layers of frosted clear tape over the camera’s built-in flash glass.
I took it for a test run in the closest woods not really expecting to find much anyhow and sure enough, I spot a rare mosquitoes on a tree. Toxorhynchites rutilus – the Elephant Mosquitoe. Only 5 ever observed in Canada. But it does demonstrate how you can make even a cheap, small sensor rig work for decent detail/quality.
I am continuously surprised by the quality of the images that people make with the TG series, and I sometimes question why I am lugging around a bigger camera that is not weatherproof. If your previous experience is with smartphones, go for the TG, learn about macro and insect behaviour, absolutely exhaust your energy with the TG taking many wonderful shots, and then decide if you want something more complicated later.
I’m of the opinion that the best camera is the one you’re most likely to use. I’ve also heard a whole lot of people singing the praises of the TG series. Given what you’ve said, I’d go with a TG. You might want to compare different models and features to make sure that you’re getting all of the flexibility you want at the price that you want, but i’d suggest doing that kind of homework to anyone before they invest in new gear.
I’m something of a bridge camera partisan, myself. I’ve been shooting with them since my first digital. When I was looking for a replacement for a stolen camera last year, a TG was on my consideration list; what ultimately decided me on my current Nikon P530 was running into a sweetheart price for an apparently barely used model— in the box with all the accessories. Much as I’d love to upgrade to a DSLR or mirrorless, a couple of things stop me. First, I’m disabled with a chronic pain condition. Going out with the camera is therapy, but the weight of my gear is a consideration on days when I need a distraction. Second, the kind of rig that I would want would not be cheap. (The first person who can figure out how to refit a really good vintage film SLR with digital innards is going to have all of my money.) Hence, my love of superzoom bridge cameras with robust and versatile manual settings.
Also, for macro shots, I second the Raynox clip-on. I’m stunned by the results that you can get with one.
Thanks everyone for the information. It will likely be a while before I can get a camera. I have experience with DSLR, manual lenses, macro, etc. so I’m open to anything really. I would just like something somewhat portable.
I’m leaning towards the TG right now. As I said though, I have a few months to research
One other big consideration for macro photography is that a small sensor like the TG series has will get you more in focus than a larger sensor, which is a big bonus when you get really close.
I managed to snag a tg-4 for insanely cheap on eBay. The power button doesn’t work and so you have to remove the battery. But I’m willing to live with that until I can afford a DSLR or something.
I’ve got and use a TG-5 and TG-7. Since I spend the vast majority of my time in a high wind, salt, sand environment, I cannot use anything but a pretty robust camera, and for that environment, TG-X wins. While no one accuses me of being a photography maven, many of the good photos in my iNat repertoire use the macro mode. Further, focus stacking isn’t the answer to all problems, but it certainly addresses a lot of them. If you’ve got a TG-4 and use macro+focus stacking, nothing beats it in a tough environment. That’s most often hundreds of photos per morning session.
Although I’ve never used a TG-4, it reportedly has very exceptional macro capabilities. Although it hasn’t the best image quality, it is great priced. Check out https://www.inaturalist.org/people/kyronb, although he uses a slightly newer model, both are still similar. The Nikon D5100 is a lot less portable, but does bring slightly sharper results if used correctly. There are some cheap macro lenses out their, but basically all of them use manual focus, and can’t electronically connect to the camera. Laowa lenses are, in my opinion, the best macro lenses, but are somewhat expensive ($400-$500 USD). I use an Oshiro 60mm 2x macro, which despite its price ($130), it delivers decently sharp photos, if used correctly. To get the absolute sharpest photos, I would reommend focus stacking, which just involves moving the camera forwards/backwards, and then slowly move the camera backwards/forwards. This technique can take awhile, but makes photos much sharper. Although to do this, you will need to get a software for it. I use Helicon focus ($200), although Zerene stacker and Affinity Pro reportedly work just as well. Here’s some photos I have taken using a Nikon setup (Nikon D3100, Oshiro 60mm, Neewer Z880-N flash, and DIY diffuser)—
