I have a Nikon d850, but that is overkill and this lens is sold with Cannon mounts.
As for the lack of image stabilization and autofocus, I am a manual exposure purist when it comes to field macro work. I shoot with a flash at 1/250s exposure time, and for such short exposures, there is no need for stabilization.
As for focus, I believe the best technique is setting the focus manually, then moving the camera foward/backwards so that the image is in focus. This is essential for the really close 2x magnification shots. When I canāt get the camera close enough to a skittish insect, I twist the focus ring until it is in focus. I have no use for auto-focus anymore. I used to use a sigma 150 f2.8 EX DG HSM macro with autofucus and stablization, but I found the venus optics lens to be superior.
I use a Canon SX70HS mostly. I wouldnāt call it a true macro but it gets pretty close depending on zoom used. Not all zoom settings can focus to the same closeness but you learn to work with what it does.
I just got the Raynox 250 for xmas so I donāt have many hours of experience yet. It does magnify 2.5x with vignetting unless you zoom a fair bit. It also changes the working distance where the subject comes into focus and adds a maximum in-focus distance. A subject can run away to a range where the Raynox cannot focus. I have not detected any artifacts yet from the Raynox. No added softness or color fringing but Iām sure it adds something.
My gear is a compromise of weight, size, macro & telephotos needs. I get photos of most things that are pretty good. I have friends that take much better photos. Some have better gear but all spend more time getting the images than Iām usually willing to spend.
I am currently looking at purchasing either a Canon T7 or a Panasonic Lumix FZ80 point and shoot. I have an inexpensive point and shoot now. I have been able to get some good photos of insects and other things but, the camera is frustratingly slow. ( Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H300)
I already have a Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III lens. I also have a Kenko 1.5x extender. I used to have a Canon film camera many years ago. I kept the lenses when I retired the camera.
Since I have experience with both an SLR and point and shoot cameras, I can see the advantages/disadvantages of both types of cameras.
My main goal is to get a better camera for dragonflies/damselflies. I would use the camera for other things. I donāt expect good photos of birds with either camera unless they are relatively close.
I should also add that, last summer, I experimented with a monopod for dragonflies. It worked well. So, if I got the Canon T7, I wouldnāt have image stabilization. But, with the monopod, it may not be a big issue. andresvila? I highly recommend this. A monopods is easy to carry and easy to use. I have a quick-release mechanism on the camera/monopod. But, this isnāt necessary. Itās just a convenience. If you do go this route, make sure you get a good system that locks tightly.
I would also like to have manual focus. Sometimes with damselflies on a grass stalk the autofocus just canāt focus on something that small. I usually have to focus on an object a similar distance away, hold the shutter release button down, and move the camera back to the damselfly hoping the distance is the same.
So, thatās the decision I have right now: Canon T7 or Panasonic FZ80.
I wanted to add that these two choices are the price range I want to be in. Thatās important. I looked at other (higer-priced) options but, I think this is where I want to be.
The panasonic has a much faster lensā¦for me that would be a big consideration. I know a bigger DOF is good for the dragdams, but especially since it is a smaller sensor (1/2.3) that will help a lot (you have better DOF at the same f/stop on smaller sensors).
Iāve always loved panasonics for functionality and IQ, but I have not used their FZ line at all, Iām used to the LX.
However the T7 (rebel?) is ASP-C, and frankly, a 1/2.3 sensor is not a size I would consider anymore, too old tech and too noisy if you have lower light and want to push iso. Even the LX3 that I love but is old is a 1/1.6! If I were looking at a compact p&s for general and ābugsā in that price range, I would look more panasonic DZ100 (1" sensor, f/2.8-5.9, 25-250 equiv, there is a manual mode and manual focus abilty) personally just looking at raw specs.
Orā¦Iād just do it and go dSLR :) If you are into photography, honestly, why not just do it? :D You can always prob find a pancake type lens (I donāt know if cannon has any though) if you want a smaller package for certain uses. Between your two options Iād have to vote going the dSLR route.
could go with a newer camera body with IBIS, and use manual EF-to-Camera adapter. At the long end 450mm should be pretty sufficient for dragonflies, if not damselflies. If you get an ASP-C sensor you have a pretty flexible setup.
I basically keep that lens (75-300 f/4-5.6 III) on my Canon camera all the time. Like you said, itās fine for birds. But remember itās also good for Dragonflies, Damselflies, Grasshoppers, Butterflies, and any other invert with good eyes that wonāt let you get close. I then also carry a TG-6 by Olympus for the tiny critters. It doubles as my underwater camera for diving. Of course I carry my iPhone everywhere for quick observations and to get me the GPS location by taking a photo of the display on the back of the Canon. This relatively lightweight combination has served me well in 90% of situations without breaking the bank.
I read this web page. I was under the assumption that the much bigger sensor on the Canon (Yes - Rebel) T7 would give me significantly better images. Now, since I pretty much only post to iNat and Facebook, thatās not a really big deal. I donāt plan on making prints for sale. But, the better resolution would allow me to crop an image and get some details. I admit that I donāt completely understand the whole analysis of the sensors. I intend to look up some of the terms used.
I did look at other Panasonic point and shoot cameras. But, the FZ80 is about the price range I want to be in. I should have mentioned that right off the bat. Sorry.
Benefit of small sensor: better depth of field (how much is in focus) at a wider aperture setting (a low number for f/stop) but thats about where it ends. Youll have to stay low ISO (200, maybe 400) to not be grainy and lose definition. The sensor size on it really kills any benifit at that level.
T7: with the much larger sensor you can crop in post and still have detail if you were not able to get close enough, and you can push ISO a lot farther to use a smaller aperture to make up for the depth of field. (Higher ISO makes things grainy. On a Aspc sensor you should be able to push 800-1600 fine especially with good post processing.) Plus, You already have a nice lens for it and it has more flexibility for future.
FZ80 has same sensor size as cybershot. image wise there wouldnāt be a big difference. FZ80 does have OIS and much longer reach, that can make life easier dealing with small flying subjects. Though I think you may find the OIS inadequate beyond 800mm effective FL.
APS-C T7 would get a much better image, but can be frustrating for the lack of stabilization.
Personally Iād go with the larger sensor T7. the zoom lens with TC and APS-C crop factor will put you right around 600mm effectively. 600mm is quite good for all but the farthest subjects, beyond 800mm atmospheric shimmer, and minute body motion, even heart beat, will be the main obstacle to a clear image.
I have two of those lenses (the 150 and 250) and I love them but there are some drawbacks.
You will be limited to a certain focal distance between lens and subject (a little bit longer for the 150 vs 250, which can make the difference between startling an insect into flying away or not). It can be tricky to find the focus āsweet spotā especially with handheld cameras, so that will require some practice, patience, and an approach of taking lots of pictures and deleting all the out-of-focus ones. The autofocus on my camera struggles sometimes. The best approach I find is to lock the focus and rock the camera back and forth while taking a burst of pictures hoping to hit the right focal distance.
The biggest limitation once you get nice pictures I guess is very shallow depth-of-field. Iāve combined Raynox pictures with focus stacking to get around that, but if you are shooting handheld you may not get a nice enough stack to do that with.
Iām experimenting with stacking captured 4k vid frames through a Raynox and having some very decent results. Especially for the 5 to 2mm subject range. Which I can achieve with my Nikon P950/Raynox 250 combo.
Shooting handheld stills in that range is really tricky, but the video has more stability in the shot range, even though it means having to spend a fair bit of time scrubbing for frames.
This week I got a NiSi macro extender for my Nikon and I canāt wait to field test it. Itās subject-to-lens distance is about 12 inches which is about 3 times further than the Raynox gives me.
And because it covers almost the full lens of the camera, I can also take āpretty clearā (with some distortion) shots zoomed out to 35mm before any vignetting kicks in. Thatās a lot faster than switching off the lens extender or reaching for a phone to get a reference āenvironmentā shot.
And at a12 inch distance, it should cover anything in the macro range down to the 4mm range. After that, itās pretty much a crapshoot and/or focus stacking.
I also have both the Raynox DCR-150 and DCR-250 and very much agree with this post. They are both excellent optically and result in no noticeable loss in image quality. Keep in mind that the magnification and depth of field highly depends on the focal length of the lens you are using these with. The longer the focal length, the greater the magnification becomes, and so the smaller the depth of field and much greater the difficulty of use. I find that the 150 is the better choice for a longer telephoto lens (e.g. > 100mm) where the depth of field and working distance are the limiting factors. The 250 is better for shorter focal length lenses (say < 75 mm).
I mainly use these with the Olympus 75-300mm lens, which is a good combo for the range of magnification you get from the zoom range. I initially got the DCR-250, and while I did get some good shots of very tiny insects with it, it is rather difficult to use handheld, and the field of view was too small for larger insects (e.g. a honey bee is already getting a bit too large to comfortably squeeze into the frame). So then I got the 150 instead, and find it the much better match for this lens (and can still get the higher magnification if desired by zooming in more). The 250 is still nice to have though in going nicely with my 45mm prime lens for a more compact solution.
Prior to getting the Raynox, I was using extension rings with a kit zoom lens (14-150mm), which was a much easier setup to use, with much longer working distance, and worked well at ~ 90mm. The end results were sharp enough, but not the prettiest otherwise in terms of rendering.
Finally I managed to get myself the dedicated Olympus 60mm macro lens, which is great for flexibility and ease of use, just sometimes can be a bit slow to focus (it has a dedicated focus limiting switch which can help), and I will it was a little bit longer in focal length / working range (there is the new OM 90mm macro, but that is a whole lot larger and more expensive).
So my kit these days consists of the 75-300mm, with the option of quickly clipping on the Raynox DCR-150 if I want to just take the occasional macro shot in between other wildlife shots, as well as the 60mm macro lens for use when macro is the main focus. (My dream would be if the 75-300mm could close focus and then would be the perfect all in one wildlife lens and I would never have to change it )
)