Macro AND telephoto - two cameras or two lenses?

Hello iNatters! I like to take photos of both very distant birds AND tiny arthropods, and from the bit of research I did before purchasing my previous camera, it seemed there wasn’t a single camera/lens setup that could take excellent macro AND telephoto shots. Therefore, I’ve been using a compact camera with 30x optical zoom (Panasonic Lumix ZS80) which yields photos that are usually adequate for species ID purposes.

Most importantly, it allows me to rapidly switch subjects so I can capture any interesting species that comes by (e.g. from a hawk landing on a distant branch to a tiny beetle that suddenly crawls out from under a leaf).

However, after 10ish years I’m starting to get frustrated by:
(1) the amount of noise I get the moment the lighting is anything less than full sun:


(2) the lack of detail and poor color resolution on distant birds (sometimes compromising ID);

(3) the lack of detail on small (<4 mm) arthropods, particularly in low light.

I think there are three possible options to improve both macro and telephoto shots:

(1) Use one camera with two lenses (telephoto and macro) and swap back and forth between the two

  • NOTE: I would be buying a low to medium-priced camera/lens setup (e.g. Nikon Z6III)

(2) Use two cameras - one for telephoto, one for macro

(3) Use a single camera and lens that can take photos of distant birds AND tiny bugs with images equivalent in quality to a medium-priced telephoto/macro lens

  • This would be my preferred option, but it seems it doesn’t exist? There are compact cameras with better image quality than my ZS80, but they lack telephoto capabilities (e.g. Sony RX100 VII, Canon G7X MK III)

Anyone else want to capture species with both macro and telephoto but without compromising on image quality? If so, what setup did you end up choosing, and how well does it work for you?

(Some specific questions listed below, but I’d appreciate any advice on the subject):

  • Do you find you lose a lot of shots in the time it takes to swap cameras/lenses?
  • Does the weight/bulkiness of carrying two cameras or two lenses limit your iNatting activities in any way?
  • Did you compromise on price more for the macro setup or the telephoto setup? (i.e. for which type of lens does purchasing a more expensive version yield significantly improved shots?)
  • What was the learning curve like going from “point and shoot” to something more complex? (e.g. learning to do focus stacking, or figuring out how to stabilize the camera with a telephoto lens). Any resources you’d recommend that helped you learn these skills?
  • Any specific recommendations for cameras/lenses for either of these options? I’d be willing to sacrifice weight for better image quality
  • Has anyone actually found something that works for option 3?

Thanks, and happy iNatting! :grin:

2 Likes

Dedicated lenses will always provide the best outcome in the situations they are specialised for. An option may be to buy a telephoto lens and a macro clip-on (like the raynox 250). If I remember correctly, the further the clip-on is from the sensor, the higher the magnification, so you might get decent magnifications that way.
This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exwOcl6OazI) may be of interest maybe?

3 Likes

Great question! I started using two cameras (1 macro, 1 telephoto) a year ago and am curious to hear from other folks as well.

I often just bring one camera on walks because it’s simpler-lighter-less bulky. So I have to decide ahead of time what I want to focus on (birds or bugs), which almost always guarantees that I’ll see something I wish I had my other camera for :)

I usually set up both cameras with some presets (aperture, shutter speed, ISO) so that I can click in a hurry if needed. The way you work with macro (flash, manual focus) is very different from telephoto- it might be worthwhile to start with one so you don’t have to figure them both out at the same time.

In my opinion, it’s 100% worth it to have a dedicated macro camera set-up. If you want to be able to capture sharp images of tiny things, nothing else can compare. I learned a lot from youtube tutorials- especially enjoyed Micael Widell’s approach.

1 Like

If you decide you want an interchangeable lens camera, there are a couple of possibilities that would not require regularly changing lenses on the go:

There are some telephoto zoom lenses that have decent macro/close-up capacity – e.g., some of the newer lenses by Tamron (these are available for a variety of mounts, so not completely dependent on what brand body you get). The quality isn’t generally going to be as good as a dedicated macro lens, and if you want more than 1:2 or 1:1 magnification, you probably need a different solution.

You can also use a telephoto with a clip-on or screw-on macro lens such as Raynox; you would still have to take this on and off, but it is quicker and less fiddly than changing lenses on the go.

Most modern macro lenses are not limited to macro distances; you can use them for things that are further away, too. So a macro lens of 100 mm will also provide some very modest tele capacity that will work for IDable photos of medium-to-large/not-too-distant birds in a pinch, though of course without the resolution that a longer tele would offer.

Larger sensors tend to be better at handling low-light conditions, though note that the more affordable tele zooms don’t have huge apertures. For close-up subjects, you can use a flash or a small LED for more light.


I bought an interchangeable lens camera a couple of years ago primarily because I wanted to take better bee photos. Prior to that I had used nothing other than a very old point-and-shoot and my cell phone. I found the general operation relatively straightforward to learn; getting good at optimizing settings takes time, but they would not be inherently different than those on your current camera. I haven’t explored focus stacking (most of my subjects don’t stay still long enough to even attempt this). For telephoto, you can get a body and/or lens with image stabilization, which helps, as does using a fast shutter speed.

Since my main interest is in small arthropods, I have a macro lens (a manual lens from Laowa/Venus Optics) that I generally just leave on my camera. This set-up has the advantage that it is small enough to carry around with my in my handbag so I can go out looking for bees after work. If I am going somewhere where I expect to see birds, I will take a telephoto lens along and switch as necessary. This is not ideal, as it sometimes means missing quick-moving birds and I find the long minimum focus distance on my telephoto somewhat frustrating if I want to photograph a few plants while waiting for the swifts to wheel back around. So I am considering a different telephoto with better macro capacity. I have also used a Raynox but it isn’t so practical for the close-up (20-30 cm) but non-macro distances.

1 Like
  • I haven’t missed many shots swapping lenses, but you never know when the one you really want is going to appear for just a few seconds! I don’t travel much atm, so I don’t do many bird shots, as I ‘have’ most of the local ones already, and digiscoping is fine when I do want to.

  • I prefer lightweight/less bulk, even for one camera, since I tend to combine naturalising with walking, and i also travel a lot by foot/bicycle/motorcycle, so I’m biased more towards smaller setups, and have recently swapped a DSLR for a EOS M range camera. For birds I just take horrible photos with my phone, or digiscope if I have my binoculars with me.

  • If you are experienced you can do ‘more with less’ in macro in comparison to telephoto. A contactless macro lens from 7artisans (~$150) or laowa (~$250) can produce nice results, but for telephoto I really feel like you have to spend >$400 to get comparable shots. But equally, I think it’s harder to do macro well with a ‘normal’ setup, than it is to just crop a well taken shot with a normal set up.

  • For the learning curve it’s not so bad, and you can start simple and pick it up with time. Chances are with compact cameras you already know about lighting and composition.
    For macro with flash, you really don’t change the settings that much - ~1/200 exposure, ~f8-16, and ISO as high as required
    For telephoto you can choose the shutter priority mode, and it will adjust ISO to match, so I feel that it’s not too bad.

  • No recommendations for cameras/lenses as my preferences are for cheap/light, at the expense of poorer image quality.

  • As for option 3, there are some 100-400m zoom lenses that seem ok, and you could always try putting a raynox on the end. If it doesn’t work you still have a nice zoom lens, and you can always buy a nice macro lens afterwards.

Disclaimer: I say all this as someone who hasn’t used a telephoto lens in ~10 years.

1 Like

One camera, one lens; I literally just photograph arthropods and stuff from a few steps away!

You want to look at the Nikon P950 bridge. Small sensor, great zoom (83x optical), light weight. Then you need to find a Raynox-250 clip-on macro adapter.

Bug&Birder I call this. The Raynox is small and sturdy enough to safely slip in the back pocket.

Shoot RAW and please get DxO PureRaw, the batch RAW denoiser (and more) that quickly delivers clear DNGs from high ISO shots.

For birding, you’re getting the full DSLR zoom equiv to a 2000mm. Yeah, everyone is saying, but you lose a ton of pixels with the small sensor.

Sure, but if you can only afford a 600 or even a 800mm changeable lens, you’re almost always still cropping to same 16mp of the one lens P950 anyhow to get the same. And it’s a different experience to get that close without ‘hoping’ those details you can’t see will be there once you crop in them out is to actual see them in shooting mode. It doesn’t break your back, or your bank balance. Under 3 pounds.

With the Raynox on you can actually zoom in to around a 2mm frame width, but that’s where the small sensor cells fall apart and more realistically, it’s more like 5 or 6 mm width before that shows up as a major concern. It’s my travel camera choice. For macro only though, yeah – my Sony Alpha 6300 and a Laowa 100 manual. Heavier, bigger, great sensor and low-light performance for a used 600 buck sub-c.

There’s more, but that’s the gist.

These were both taken recently on a short afternoon hike through a local park

5 Likes

if you want to stick with a compact camera, there’s only so much you can do about image quality on the telephoto end.

macro is easier. rather than buying a new camera for this, you might find that you get better results than the FZ80 by just adding a clip on macro lens to your phone camera.

There is no single solution. I use a high end camera with a great zoom that can focus close-up to far away - but I still find I want either a longer zoom or more macro. I could buy more lenses - but I dislike carrying/changing lenses.

One of the best ways to improve macro shots is to provide more light (as you showed in many of your examples) so a LED light source or flash is a great help.

I’m actually looking whether I can get a new phone/clip on lens that better covers my macro photography requirements (sure the sensor is worse, but it’s very light/portable, and small size makes taking macro pictures easier).

1 Like

Check out the Raynox-250 on your bigger cam’s tele first. That’ll remove your concerns about sensor size and give you far more control and options than you will get with a phone. It fits very readily into the back pocket too and gives you more cam-to-subject distance than a phone clip lens. And in the short often cramped confines of most macro ops, that’s huge.

3 Likes

Just another up vote for the Raynox clip-on. I use it on my Panasonic Lumix FZ80. Very easy to carry and use. Definitely worth looking into.

I checked your shots and see that you’re using a Sony A7-IV and a Tamron A067. That’s a great macro combo but if all you’re after is say, a 60% ‘boost’ to your macro range, definitely look at the Raynox. I have a SONY A6300 with a Laowa (manual) 100mm. Without the Raynox, this lets me zoom into a field width of 12mm. With the Raynox? Just over 7.5mm. And honestly? Anything beyond that is a crap shoot with handheld.

That’s made a huge difference out in the weeds/bark/stones. I’ve taken shots of many creatures that were previously just out of range of a legible observation with the extension ready in my pocket.

1 Like

You’ve convinced me! when it gets warmer I’ll get one and see how it goes.

1 Like