# Pictures of small detailed parts.



## StrikerDown (Jan 19, 2010)

I thought that might get your attention!

What I need to know is what kind of camera do you guys use to get those detailed pics of your Materials/Mechanical and Machining. Up close macro type shots that Will, Barry, Don (McGizmo) and several of you others do so very well. 
I'm jealous and want to fix that! The iPhone just don't cut it!

Thanks in advance.


----------



## buickid (Jan 19, 2010)

Most point and shoot cameras have a button with a picture of a flower on it. This activates macro mode which allows close up focusing.


----------



## StrikerDown (Jan 19, 2010)

buickid said:


> Most point and shoot cameras have a button with a picture of a flower on it. This activates macro mode which allows close up focusing.



Thanks b,

The wife's camera has that and it is better than my iPhone but I need a camera I can get my hands on anytime so I'm looking for a best bang 4 buck point and shoot with the little flower option. Thought there might be some suggestions tomorrow when all are awake!


----------



## Tim Carleton (Jan 19, 2010)

if that's all you want, pretty much any point and shoot will do that. My advice on getting a simple p&s is to get one with AA batteries..... I got tired of running down oem style lithium ions and being caught without power. I have a canon 650 IS, probably discontinued now, but one thing I don't like about it is the high noise (grainy) content of the photos, it's a 12 megapixel..... a friend who has the same basic camera but in 8 megapixel gets smoother looking pics. Good luck.


----------



## precisionworks (Jan 20, 2010)

> what kind of camera do you guys use


Canon Rebel XSi with Canon 17-85 image stabilized lens. Not an inexpensive package, but much less than the pro level DSLR's.

Most photos that are shot for the forum go through IrfanView, which allows quick compression to 50k or less per photo - sometimes as small as 5k. Lots of people still have a relatively slow connection, like my 3MB download DSL (375 KB per second). A noncompressed photo will often be around 350k, which takes 7X longer to load.


----------



## Illum (Jan 20, 2010)

Canon Powershot SD630, its an old model but man its a nice camera. I bought it for around $500 many years ago.

Most point and shoot cameras with digital macro have this feature, but unless the picture is taken in a very well lit environment it will most likely appear fuzzy. flash is disabled and the auto light compensation is dependent on your ISO

Shot on regular macro




Digital Macro limit


----------



## Stillphoto (Jan 20, 2010)

From my Canon G9...keep in mind the vial on the right is 5mm long


----------



## KC2IXE (Jan 20, 2010)

Almost more important than the camera (once you get above a certain level) is something near and dear to this forum

Lighting!!

Getting GOOD lighting, without a bunch of dark shadows really makes a difference

The "classic" way is to use a "soft box" to create - well, "soft" light aka light that is not as directional (think flood vs spot) - and even better - at least 2 light sources - one comeing from one direction, the second coming from another to partly fill in the shadows the classic "Key + Fill" lighting method (and if you want to get fancy, a rim (aka back) light too)

see the drawing here (and follow the links) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fill_light

also goto the Strobist blog


----------



## precisionworks (Jan 20, 2010)

If the object is small, a white styrofoam soft drink cup makes a quick light box. Cut a round hole in the small end of the cup for the lens to stick through, place object on a table & put the large open end of the cup over the object. Bring a couple of bright lights in close so they hit the outside of the cup, which transmits some diffused light inside the cup. Perfect lighting every time :thumbsup:


----------



## wquiles (Jan 20, 2010)

Ahh, now we get to one of my many weaknesses ... hobby photography :devil:

I have been taking pictures, taking classes, done my own photo development, and have tried many cameras in the last 25 years, and as I said recently I don't work in my "shop" without my camera, so keep in mind that my opinion is heavily biased. So with that in mind ...

You need 4 things:
1) camera with macro or super macro mode
You can do this with a camera + lens, as Barry points above, or a "point and shoot - PnS" with a "good" lens. I tried it first with the camera + lens, but you end up paying significantly more, they are "substantially" heavier, and normally don't have the great macro range than a good PnS have, unless you spend some serious money on the lens, which gets back to my point about the money spent.

After having a $800 Canon Digital SLR with a $1000 "L" Canon lens for a couple of years, after evaluating many cameras, I selected the top of the line "bridge" camera: a very sophisticated PnD with lots of SLR features, including a manual zoom lens, two macro modes, and video mode (which I am using more and more every day):
Fujifilm FinePix S100FS

The weight is a "big" issue, as many times you need to hold the "item" and then take the picture with the other hand. This was one of the main reasons I sold my Canon+lens. Of course, a heavier camera is more stable on a tripod/holder, but 99% of the photos you see in my posts are hand-held, so to me a heavy camera meant leaving it inside the house more often. With the Fuji, I am never strained - it is like an extension of me now, which is one of the reasons I enjoy taking pictures as I go along - it is not "work" to take pics with the Fuji.


2) Good lighting - and I should really say, you need GREAT lighting. Whenever you feel that you have too much lighting, that is probably enough. To me you need at least 2 light sources, and for my pictures I typically have 3 or 4, counting the lights from above (ceiling) and background, to eliminate/minimize shadows, or make the shadows on purpose, or bring shine to a particular spot, etc.. I mostly use fluorescent lights, but only use the "daylight", "sun light", or "natural" version, never the soft white, cool white, or any of those junk ones.

Of course with lighting goes composition of the frame, where in the frame you are focusing, the lens aperture (do you want stuff in the background in focus or out of focus), etc., but you can't work on those items without great lighting.


3) Background control
A smooth, unclutered background is best, but hard to find on a machining shop, so you don't always get to have the perfect background. I find that a light/white background (my shop's workbenches are white, and that was on purpose) helps reflect light from underneat back to the object, which helps with controlling the shadows, but it also depends on the effect that you are trying to create. If you control the focus range with the apperture, you can also minimize the "messy" background to an acceptable level. 

If you are trying to do higher quality photos, you can use a dedicated setup to take pictures (those small "portable" sutio setups just for small object photography), where you can have lots/full control of the background, lighting, etc, but to me that is just too much work, and take time to setup and then store (space in my work benches is a premium commodity), so I chose to compromise a little so that taking photos is not a very time consuming part of my shop time. 


4) Irfranview, or equivalent.
Irfranview has many useful features, but the most awesome are:
- batch mode
- crop

The batch mode means that I can take my 20+ pictures (OK, sometimes I have 50-70 pictures on a long session) and in a few seconds have ALL of them converted from the full resolution (about 3 Megabytes per image) to the 800x600 max. resolution that this (and most forums) allow. I keep a folder (with some relevant name and date) and a sub-directory called "small" where I store the 800x600 images, which I then upload via ftp to my web server (I have yahoo account). It is silly easy to do this conversion with Irfranview!

The crop is just what it sounds - take the high resolution image, click where you want the crop to start, hold the mouse until you cover the area you want, and when you un-click (try to keep the crop to about 800x600 or slightly less), select crop, and how you have an awesome crop of the huge image, but now sized for the forums. Save it to the local drive and you are done.


OK, sorry about my long rant. I hope this helps.

Will


----------



## precisionworks (Jan 20, 2010)

Excellent information, Will. It was obvious to me that this was not your first time with a camera 



> The weight is a "big" issue, as many times you need to hold the "item" and then take the picture with the other hand.


The Image Stabilized lenses (available both OEM and aftermarket) allow hand holding at shutter speeds that once required a tripod. I've shot many flying bird photos on overcast days with the lens at a medium f/stop (slow shutter speed) and gotten razor sharp images. IS allows shooting 3 to 4 f/stops slower than normal while producing blur free images - even at telephoto magnification.

The FujiFilm FinePix is a very nice camera ... as it should be for (about) $500. A nice DSLR does cost more - figure about $500 for the body + what ever lens you want ($500 buys a pretty decent lens). For me, the extra cost & larger size are easy to justify, but that's an individual decision.



> 99% of the photos you see in my posts are hand-held


Funny, as 99% of my photos are shot from a Bogen-Manfrotto tripod 

Tripods, like cameras, are not one size fits all. Using a tripod has the advantage of making the user slow down a little, compose well, and really think about what the image should look like. Post processing (using IView, Picassa, PhotoShop, etc.) is done to many if not most digital images, but there must be a clear, sharp, well focused image to work with. A tripod is the easiest way (for most people) to obtain a good, clean image.



> converted from the full resolution (about 3 Megabytes per image) to the 800x600 max.


Iview also allows selection of maximum file size. An 800x600 image can be 350KB, or it can just as easily be 50KB. Most other forums where I post have a 100KB file size limit, and I try to stay at 50KB or below so that members with a slower internet connection (or an older computer) can download photos in less than an hour


----------



## StrikerDown (Jan 20, 2010)

Will,

That is the longest post I have ever seen you make without a pic in it!

So how do you really feel about photography?

Thanks all for the great info, it all helps. 

Will's Fugi looks like a great camera and fits his usage well. I think I really want something that does decent pics that I can fit in a pocket without it swallowing my wallet! 

The tips on lighting are very good and that is what makes for good photos, even with just a decent camera, then through in Will's Fugi and you have photos like... Will's!

The Canon Power Shots in the $150-$400 range look pretty decent. Great pics above!

Thanks All, Keep it coming if you have a great idea for a PNS.


----------



## wquiles (Jan 20, 2010)

precisionworks said:


> The Image Stabilized lenses (available both OEM and aftermarket) allow hand holding at shutter speeds that once required a tripod. I've shot many flying bird photos on overcast days with the lens at a medium f/stop (slow shutter speed) and gotten razor sharp images. IS allows shooting 3 to 4 f/stops slower than normal while producing blur free images - even at telephoto magnification.
> ...


+1 
Both my old Canon D-SLR and my current Fuji have the IS - and it does work. Probably the main reason my hand held pictures come out OK, although I do try to brace myself and/or the camera as much as the setup allows 





precisionworks said:


> Tripods, like cameras, are not one size fits all. Using a tripod has the advantage of making the user slow down a little, compose well, and really think about what the image should look like. Post processing (using IView, Picassa, PhotoShop, etc.) is done to many if not most digital images, but there must be a clear, sharp, well focused image to work with. A tripod is the easiest way (for most people) to obtain a good, clean image.


Agreed, you must have quality input image (garbage IN, garbage OUT) for the resulting posted image to have any hope. I guess the other reason I don't use a tripod is that for me I am not trying to get a great photo - I am always trying to get OK photos and to do it as quickly as possible, with the simplest setup as possible, which is why I compromise on the hand held vs. tripod, and on not using a formal setup/background. If I tried to take more formal photos, I would never have the time to document as much during each step of project, and I do like the visual step by step more than the high-level shots. Just personal preference 




precisionworks said:


> Iview also allows selection of maximum file size. An 800x600 image can be 350KB, or it can just as easily be 50KB. Most other forums where I post have a 100KB file size limit, and I try to stay at 50KB or below so that members with a slower internet connection (or an older computer) can download photos in less than an hour


Yup, I have my JPG quality setting pretty high on Irfranview, so my 800x600 images are normally 250K each :shakehead


At least in this forum I can do a single post with 100 pictures if I wanted to. Some forums I belong to force you to split your post if it has more than 15 pictures - was up with that! 





StrikerDown said:


> I think I really want something that does decent pics that I can fit in a pocket without it swallowing my wallet!
> 
> The tips on lighting are very good and that is what makes for good photos, even with just a decent camera...


Of the several sites that have really good information for all digital cameras, I highly recommend http://dpreview.com/. You should be able to find out enough information to make a good decision given your budget. But again, the camera is just one of the 4 points - you don't have to spend a great deal of money on the camera to get excellent pictures :thumbsup:


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 20, 2010)

wquiles said:


> At least in this forum I can do a single post with 100 pictures if I wanted to. Some forums I belong to force you to split your post if it has more than 15 pictures - was up with that!



That's for speed of loading. If you have 3 posts with 100 pictures each, my poor little inadequate DSL has to download all 300 to get the 15th message that just says "+1"

If you spread those pictures across 18 posts, then when I read 10 posts at a time I only see the first 1/2 of them. When I get to the second page I see the second half of them.

Of course, I have my CPF settings at 50 or so posts per page, so it does not matter to me.

Daniel


----------



## wquiles (Jan 20, 2010)

Ahh, so there is some reasoning behind it - I did not know. Thanks for clarifying that out


----------



## smack2000 (Jan 20, 2010)

I don't post much here because I am a humble flashaholic newbie, but I do know photography, so I thought I would jump in here and contribute...

I don't take many pics of flashlights, but I am a professional portrait photographer, and when I do an occasional wedding I reach for my *Canon 50mm F2.5 Macro* for detail shots. This lens is one of the best bang-for-the-buck aftermarket lenses you can buy. It's a prime, gear-driven, non-IS lens -- everything you need and nothing you don't for about $250 (compared to Canon L series lenses which start at over 1K).

My reccomendation is to use natural light if at all possible for good color -- anything indoors will result in some unnatural color shift that you will either need to correct or live with. Have a look back through all those flashlight pics you like... how many of them were taken outdoors? Outdoors on an overcast but bright day is the best -- this will give you super soft-edged shadows if any at all and full-spectrum color. An overcast day is often referred to as "the great soft-box in the sky" by photogs. All of the mini-soft box recommendation above, however, are solid and they all work great if you've got the time and space to get them setup.

You need a wide aperture macro lens for shallow depth of field and a short focal length. The combo can create amazing results. The wider your aperture (the smaller the F-number), the shallower your depth of field (how much in front of, and behind your focal point is in focus). The shorter your focal length (how far away from the lens is your focus), also shortens your depth of field (DOF is relative to focal length). So when you use this lens to take a pick of something, say, 2 inches away, you end up with a DOF of about 1/8". Keep in mind all point and shoots have variable aperture, meaning the more you zoom in, the smaller your aperture, and therefore less depth of field. You cannot get results like these with a point and shoot -- they almost never have apertures this wide, usually the widest is F3.5 and variable.

Another advantage to a wide aperture lens is that you can shoot with less light -- the wider the aperture, the more light that comes into the camera, and therefore increasing your shutter speed (photogs call wide aperture lenses (F2.8 and wider) "Fast" lenses because of this). This is good for blur control -- if you follow my formula and you are shooting with natural light, this is a good thing because you may need it. The contrary to this is if you shoot with a lighted setup, you may have an opposite problem -- you may need to "stop down" the camera so much (close the aperture / increase F-Number) that you lose your pretty depth of field and your pic looks like a point-and-shoot again.

Not enough DOF (is there not enough of your object in focus)? This is a good problem, because it is easily solved and with a lot of control. You can either move the object so it is in the plane of focus (orient it left-to-right instead of front-to-back), or start stopping the camera down (increas F-Number) one click at a time until you have exactly the DOF you want.

The whole point of shallow DOF, usually, is to throw your background out of focus. Now you can get creative -- setup your shot with your flashlight on a rock or something, and put something with a lot of color and pattern on it like a blanket or printed shirt about 2 feet behind it. Get as close as you can to the flashlight with your camera, and move your background material as far back as you can while still filling the frame and shoot (with camera settings described above). The result should be a completely obscured background. Photogs call the quality of this effect "bokeh". It makes flashlight "pop" because it has sharp, in-focus edges and your background is a mottled obscurity -- that's what you want. 

I'm too lazy to pull over an example, but you can check out the slideshow on my photog site, which contains a nice photo of some wedding rings using the process described above. I used a pillowcase and chair out on the hotel room deck using a Canon 30D and 50mm F2.5 macro in natural overcast light. The goal was to only have the diamond in focus. Most of my regular portrait pics, by the way, were shot with a 50mm F1.2L prime -- pretty much the widest aperture you can get in a lense without digging up an old Leica 50mm F1.0 for about 7 grand.

I'm a DOF junkie simply because if you learn to shoot with shallow DOF well, your pics never look like point-and-shoots again, regardless of the camera.

I also realize I've probably strayed from the OP's request (sorry), so I'll just add that if you want to do all of this with a point and shoot, I think the closest you can come is a Canon G11. An awesome point and shoot with the best physical controls of any P&S.

Thanks,
Scott


----------



## KC2IXE (Jan 20, 2010)

I think I've seen you over on FredMiranda. True?


----------



## smack2000 (Jan 20, 2010)

Not me... I've been to the site but am not active in the forums there. I spend most of my online photography time on smugmug (d-grin forums), strobist, or theonlinephotographer and occasionally join in the discussion threads on those sites.

I spend way more time here these days and have yet to figure out why I am so addicted ;-)


----------



## wquiles (Jan 20, 2010)

smack2000 said:


> I don't post much here because I am a humble flashaholic newbie, but I do know photography, so I thought I would jump in here and contribute...


Thanks much for joining the forum and this thread - it is great to have a real professional to help us out :twothumbs

By the way, I am eagerly waiting on further development on the micro 4/3 cameras and their respective lenses since you get a lot of the features of the PnS, with the advantages of removable lenses, much larger sensors, but still on a very compact package. They are right now still rather pricey, but how do you feel about them for our typical use as described in this thread?

Will


----------



## 3000k (Jan 20, 2010)

Tim Carleton said:


> if that's all you want, pretty much any point and shoot will do that. My advice on getting a simple p&s is to get one with AA batteries..... I got tired of running down oem style lithium ions and being caught without power. I have a canon 650 IS, probably discontinued now, but one thing I don't like about it is the high noise (grainy) content of the photos, it's a 12 megapixel..... a friend who has the same basic camera but in 8 megapixel gets smoother looking pics. Good luck.



I have to second this post. I have a Cannon 720 IS that uses two AA batteries. It is a bit chunky but it is 8.0 mega pixels and not much lens distortion. Do not buy the camera based on megapixels because most of the high MP cameras are grainy and have this grey cast over the picture. Often lower MP cameras have much better color rendition and take better low level light pictures. I also have a Nikon D40 wich is a great entry lever DSLR. Say away from any ultra compact cameras.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/came...t-a720-is/canon-powershot-a720-is-review.html


----------



## PEU (Jan 21, 2010)

smack2000 said:


> were shot with a 50mm F1.2L prime -- pretty much the widest aperture you can get in a lense without digging up an old Leica 50mm F1.0 for about 7 grand.
> 
> I'm a DOF junkie simply because if you learn to shoot with shallow DOF well, your pics never look like point-and-shoots again, regardless of the camera.



Had to test this, since I never tried using some random colorfull image as background.
Using my pentax k100d and an old school 50mm f1.4 I took these pictures of my watch, the background? local cable TV guide 















Yeah I know, the watch is dirty [edit] and the date is wrong! I can't see it anyway without glasses, so I don't care :nana:


Pablo


----------



## KC2IXE (Jan 21, 2010)

smack2000 said:


> Not me... I've been to the site but am not active in the forums there. I spend most of my online photography time on smugmug (d-grin forums), strobist, or theonlinephotographer and occasionally join in the discussion threads on those sites.
> 
> I spend way more time here these days and have yet to figure out why I am so addicted ;-)



re Strobist - and lighting

As they say, the ultimate compliment for good lighting is "Gee, you must have an expensive camera"


RE Lighting - I really need some sort of softbox/umbrella setup as a suppliment. For a fixed (NOT strobe) softbox - what do you think of a scoop (say a 24") with the 'appropriate' bulb and a layer of silk - aka use the scoop as the reflector?


----------



## spc (Jan 21, 2010)

KC2IXE said:


> As they say, the ultimate compliment for good lighting is "Gee, you must have an expensive camera"



Hey guys, wanted to share my "homebrew" lightbox or softbox. I used window screen frame and fitted it with cheap white fabric (200 TC). (ripstop nylon works the best but I couldn't find it anywhere) I used 3x 100w daylight cfl bulbs in cheep walmart/lowes housings. I think they are brood lamps, or something like that. 

I use a sony point and shoot (pocket size cybershot) and I can get some great macro shots. 









heres a shot taken with "auto". I can get the white better by changing some settings in manual mode... No too bad for a compact point-n-shoot with over 10,000 photos taken on it so far


----------



## yellow (Jan 21, 2010)

and for the hobbyist:

any camera that has macro mode,
everything kept on "auto", flash activated,
1-2 sheets of white paper over flash window,
SOME shots taken to get a _feeling_ for that


----------



## KC2IXE (Jan 21, 2010)

spc said:


> ...snip... I used 3x 100w daylight cfl bulbs in cheep walmart/lowes housings. I think they are brood lamps, or something like that.
> 
> ...snip...



Generically called "scoop" lights, which is what I was talking about above, for making a lightbox


----------



## smack2000 (Jan 21, 2010)

wquiles said:


> I am eagerly waiting on further development on the micro 4/3 cameras and their respective lenses since you get a lot of the features of the PnS, with the advantages of removable lenses, much larger sensors, but still on a very compact package. They are right now still rather pricey, but how do you feel about them for our typical use as described in this thread?


 
I guess by typical use you are talking about how well micro 4/3 sensors will shoot macro (because lighting is independent of the camera as long as you can go 'manual')...

First off, your results will be just fine using this system as long as you are using a wide aperture normal macro lens, but there are some subtleties to consider with regards to how a crop sensor gets along with perspective distortion / angle of view. I could write a tome on these topics, but wikipedia covers them well and with example pics so I would start there first.

If you are not currently considering focal length when composing your pictures, now would be a good time to start because you will get a better grasp on the creative limitations (and some opportunities) you get with a crop sensor before you invest in a system.

In other words do you let your composition determine focal length (zoom in / zoom out until its right?), or do you let your focal length determine your composition ("I want this focal length so I'll foot-zoom until I get the composition I desire")? People who shoot with one super zoom lens over time will forget this subtlety whereas prime lens shooters are completely tuned in to it all the time.

Why does this matter? Because wide angle focal lengths (~10-40) create expanded perspective distortion (you know, fisheye), and telephoto focal lengths (~60 and up) cause compression distortion (hard to describe, but everthing looks 'flat' -- the opposite of wide angle distortion). Usually these are undesireable unless you're are trying to be particularly creative.

If you desire to avoid this distortion in your pic, then you must shoot at a normal focal length of around 50mm.

Now if you have a 2x crop sensor, then you can only get half as much in the frame given your desired focal length vs. a full-frame sensor. If you wanted to achieve the same frame on a crop sensor, you have to "zoom out" and by doing so you introduce the perspective distortion. On the full frame camera, you capture twice the canvas size and if you need to crop you can do it in post... and by choice.

So for the most part a crop sensor limits your creative freedom at the wide to normal end of focal lengths, but it also has an advantage of giving you extra reach (zoom) out of a smaller and presumably cheaper lens at the telephoto end -- something a wildlife photographer would celebrate.

An interesting way to look at this is to consider a medium format camera who's sensor is 2x to 6x larger than a 35mm ("full frame") sensor. This camera has an opposite set of limitations and advantages: For wide to normal, its amazing because you can take really wide perspective-correct photographs at normal focal lengths; but for telephoto it is working against you -- you would need a physically huge lens to achieve telephoto focal lengths on a medium format camera. Medium format is primarily so great because of its ability to do perspective correction and not because of sensor size.

Its all about the Lenses, and they are expensive; which is why, IMO, investing in a DSLR system is a better choice, at least right now. If you had a budget of $1,500, I'd tell you to buy a used XXd Canon and a $1,200 24-70 F2.8L. Want small and cheap? Get a Rebel and a 50mm F2.5 -- the lenses are interchangeable. You can get a crop sensor body at any price point, and when you're ready to jump into full frame (once you do you'll never go back!) your lens investment is in tact for many many years. I've had a 20d, 30d, 40d, and 5d and I've used the same set of lenses on all of them.



KC2IXE said:


> RE Lighting - I really need some sort of softbox/umbrella setup as a suppliment. For a fixed (NOT strobe) softbox - what do you think of a scoop (say a 24") with the 'appropriate' bulb and a layer of silk - aka use the scoop as the reflector?


 
Should work fine. For even lighting and soft shadows, the bigger your light source the better so there is a physical limitation to using a scoop covered in silk vs using a scoop to light a lightbox, for example. Strobist is the ultimate online resource for cheap makeshift lighting ideas. The coolest thing I think I ever saw on there was a ring light made out of an upside-down cake pan filled with strings of christmas tree lights -- freakin awesome.

@SPC: your lightbox setup is a perfect example of a cheap-to-make but really effective setup. Well done!

A side recommendation for anyone considering taking their camera off "AUTO"... pick up "Understanding Exposure" by Brian Peterson. Seriously this book taught me more about photography than anything or anyone else. I've bought it for many friends and have read it myself at least a few times. If you have a camera that can shoot in manual or a priority mode, this book will unlock that potential for you in a easy to understand package. And if you want to really get into lighting, there's no better book than "Light: Science and Magic". In fact, flashaholics may find the latter book fascinating regardless of their interest in photography.

- Scott


----------



## wquiles (Jan 21, 2010)

Gotcha - thanks much Scott for the detailed answer :twothumbs

My PnS has two macro modes, and I am almost always shooting in macro mode. For zooming I am doing a little bit of both: sometimes I leave the lens in full wide angle (to force the larger apperture) and zoom with my feet to do the composition that I want and blur the background, but that works only on the work bench where I have lots of space to move. If I am taking photos of stuff while on the late, I can't get the camera close enough (clearance, safety, etc.), so in that case I get the camera as close as phisically possible and then use the zoom in the lens to get the right angle/composition/framing. 

I am almost always shooting with the lens wide open (2.8 on my camera), since I tipically shoot for a narrow focus range and blury background, but the images are in fact distorted (bent away from the center)s, I have to try more often to set the lens at 50mm to practice that you shared above, but I am an amateur photographer at best so I don't always achieve what I want, so I settle for OK pictures most of the time. 

I am definitely not ready to go back to a Digital SLR just yet. I do know that with my "bridge" PnS I did compromise on the lens, but so far I am content with the pictures I get from this rather small/light camera, and lets say that I am happy that I am getting payed for the machining that I do, not the photos I take  

Thanks also for the tips/suggestions on the reading material. I will look into them :thumbsup:

Will


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 21, 2010)

One of the little noticed advantages of the modern age is that you can learn about things like DOF and soft lighting without spending a fortune and spending weeks on the process.

40 years ago, an decent mid level camera was about the same relative cost as a current mid level camera. The film was also fairly cheap... 12 exposures for less than a buck. But the developing made it quite expensive. I remember paying $5 for 12 pictures and I had to wait a week to get them.

In order to experiment about DOF and various lighting conditions, I had to keep a log of exactly how I did each picture so I could analize the results later.

Today it is easy to take 10 shots, load the pictures in the computer and examine them in all the gory details blown up to 12x18 inches, all within 5 minutes.

Tis a GOOD thing. 

Daniel


----------



## ElectronGuru (Jan 21, 2010)

Couple of points I'd like to add to this excellent thread.

1) Large apertures (aka fast lenses) and image stabilization largely accomplish the same thing. With some exceptions, the electronics allow slow lenses to work in lighting that would otherwise require a fast lens. But IS lenses cannot _also_ do shallow depth of field.

2) Indoor photography without a flash doesn't require post-shot white balance correction if you calibrate to the dominant light source before taking the photo. This shot was taken at night in a medium size room with two shaded 40 watt lamps, 5 and 10 feet away. Having calibrated the camera with an Expo Disc before shooting, this is perfectly balanced right out of the camera:





3) The main reason folks shy away from dedicated macro lenses is that they are thought of as specialty lenses. "I'm going to get a wide zoom and a tele zoom, and this third lens when I'm shooting small stuff". The 'extra' lens costs more and does less, so the value is so low you don't buy it. The away around this is to use it as two specialty lenses, a macro lens and a portrait lens. A portrait lens is generally 55-85mm, providing enough compression to enhance facial features. Combining 2 & 3, here's another example, taken with a 60mm Macro EF-S Canon. Its a crowded hotel room with a moving subject (note the tassel blur) and again, under ambient light:




​


----------



## KC2IXE (Jan 22, 2010)

ElectronGuru said:


> Couple of points I'd like to add to this excellent thread.
> 
> 1) Large apertures (aka fast lenses) and image stabilization largely accomplish the same thing. With some exceptions, the electronics allow slow lenses to work in lighting that would otherwise require a fast lens. But IS lenses cannot _also_ do shallow depth of field.
> 
> ...snip..​




Partly - you miss 2 things
1)The fast lens allows you to use a faster shutter spped for stopping motion - if you assume one stop difference between the 2 lenses is 1 stop, you can 1/2 the shutter speed. IS basically just gets rid of "the shakes"

2)The faster lens allows for lower depth of field - throw an F4-5.6 zoom with IS up against something that is F2.8, and for portrait work, the ability to blur your backgrounds will be a lot greater on the 2.8​


----------



## Egsise (Jan 22, 2010)

I have a Canon SX1, takes nice macro pics, I use 2x ZL H50 for lighting.:twothumbs

The great thing is the video shooting options, you have seen lots of those videos where auto exposure changes so that 10 lumens looks the same as 200 lumens.....
With SX1/SX10 you can use manual exposure on videos. :naughty:


----------



## precisionworks (Jan 23, 2010)

(Photo above compressed to 20K ... with pretty decent quality  )

Those are the Nikon close up (diopter) lenses, which are a two element achromat of the very best quality. I've had mine since before digital media, but some sizes & diopter strengths are still available, as well as a few on eBay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/NIKON-NO-6T-CLO...ewItemQQptZCamera_Filters?hash=item19b962f986

Seems like I paid $50 for mine before Nikon discontinued this one :mecry:

A short article that describes these:

http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/closeup-diopters.html


----------



## precisionworks (Jan 23, 2010)

Here are some images with the Nikon +5 and +6 (screwed together) on a Canon 100-300/5.6L, set at 300mm. Aperature at f/16, speed at 0.5 second on Bogen tripod. All photos here are 50k and under.

One thin dime (actually, just a part of it)







Knob on the Spy007 (note the very shallow depth of field, which is able to show only a portion of the curved knob in focus)







SunDrop emitter on PCB. Again, because of the limited DOF, the board is in sharp focus but the emitter is blurred.






Pretty decent results (IMO) for an old lens that sells for just a few hundred dollars today, on a not too expensive Rebel XSi body, supported by a $100 tripod. Any one with basic equipment can produce photos like these ... except yours will most likely be better :devil:


----------



## wquiles (Jan 23, 2010)

precisionworks said:


> Here are some images with the Nikon +5 and +6 (screwed together) on a Canon 100-300/5.6L, set at 300mm. Aperature at f/16, speed at 0.5 second on Bogen tripod. All photos here are 50k and under.
> 
> One thin dime (actually, just a part of it)
> 
> ...



Very nice job there Barry :thumbsup:

My close up work is not nearly as nice as any of these. I do more quantity over quality, but it serves my purpose to document a project. Here is my latest custom project, showing the typical pictures that I take with my PnS Fuji:
Barbolight Custom Light ...

Will


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 23, 2010)

Some good information. The closeup of the dime inspired me.

Just for grins, I decided to show what's happened with digital cameras in the last 12 years. Part of the reason is to show that :
1) not all macros are created equal
2) You don't need 10 MP to take close ups.
3) Old point and shoots are sometimes a surprise.
4) New cameras are sometimes a surprise.

All pictures are taken of the same dime ( I think ). Some were direct light, some indirect. All were re-sized with the same software and settings ( 640x480, 89% quality). All were taken at the highest possible quality. All show the picture uncropped. Please note that a 9mp picture with a resolution of 3456 x 2592 holds a lot more information than a 1.3 mp at 1280x960, so it can be cropped with out loss of data instead of being resized.

All pictures were hand held. Fenix P2D R100 was the light source. 

The first picture was taken with a 1.3 mp Ricoh RDC-4200 from around 1998. It has a fantastic close up, allowing me to get within an inch of the subject. The camera has a swiveling head that houses a 3x optical zoom. The swivel allows you to take pictures of yourself or above the heads of those around you. It will allow up to 32MB memory cards. 50 pictures to a set of batteries.







Then we have my big upgrade to a Minolta Dimage7 produced in 2001. 5 MP and 7X optical zoom (28-200). Up to 512MB flash memory card. The manual zoom and focus feel like an SLR. So does the size and weight. It allows full control of shutter speed, aperature, etc. The macro can get within inches of the subject. Eats a set of 4 alkaline batteries in 60 pictures.







My wife's 3MP Nikon Coolpix 3100 from 2003 took the next picture. Small (very) and truly a point and shoot, though it sports a 3x optical zoom. The 3mp is enough for those vacation snapshots. The nearest it can get is about 8 inches. 







Then we have my 2005 Casio Exlim ex-s500 pocket camera. Super thin, yet still has a 3x zoom and anti shake technology. Lots of settings are available, as well as a dozen or two scenes. It's small lens keeps it from focusing too close.






My 2009 Casio Exilm EX FH20 is a step up. Not quite DSLR, but about the same size and weight. At 9MP, not a super camera, but the 26-520mm equiv lens is very handy. This is a specialty camera, capable of HD movies and capturing ultra fast action at 1000 frames per second. It's macro allows you to get close enough that the lens blocks the light.







And last but not quite the least, the humble iphone 3gs from 2009. Only 3mp and not very sophisticated, but with good lighting, it does fairly well.







Hope this is entertaining to someone. 

Daniel


----------



## precisionworks (Jan 23, 2010)

> All show the picture uncropped.


If anything, that's the way to show actual magnification of the subject. My image of the (half) dime is the result of a 300mm focal length lens (9.6X magnification) plus the two diopter lenses. Small objects will more than fill the frame of a DSLR with a sensor size of 22.2 mm x 14.8 mm. Setting the lens to 200mm or 100mm would have given less magnification but a much greater DOF, and setting the f/stop to a higher number would have also produced greater DOF.



> a 9mp picture with a resolution of 3456 x 2592 holds a lot more information


That it does. The Rebel XSi, at 12mp, allows easy compression (for web viewing) to 50k - which is a 240:1 compression ratio. Many photos compress to around 10k and still look good on a computer monitor. For photo printing, an original, non compressed image is needed, as photos require many times more information to look "right".


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 23, 2010)

precisionworks said:


> That it does. The Rebel XSi, at 12mp, allows easy compression (for web viewing) to 50k - which is a 240:1 compression ratio. Many photos compress to around 10k and still look good on a computer monitor. For photo printing, an original, non compressed image is needed, as photos require many times more information to look "right".



I agree 100% .

With a high MP camera, you can do 'close-up' simply by cropping before resizing. 

Here's an example using two of the images above. The first is a 640x480 crop of the Ricoh 1.3 mp picture. The second is a 640x480 crop of the 9mp Casio. The cropped picture is, in essence, 'fully magnified without loss. You can see the extra detail in the Casio picture.

1.3 mp source





9mp source






Daniel


----------



## 65535 (Jan 24, 2010)

My Canon G10 has done me pretty well, until I dropped it. :'( Sammy's Camera still has it out for repair. (Thank god for warranties that cover idiot's handling the camera.) How about the lockup of a 2" pocket knife?






Or a damaged T5 (might be T6) screw head.


----------



## fyrstormer (Jan 24, 2010)

I use a Casio Exilim; for a cheap PnS camera, it works very well. I can set it to Macro mode, set the "film speed" to ISO 50, and shut off the flash, which lets me take very clear close-up shots. Then I crop the pictures a bit before posting them on CPF, which doesn't degrade the resolution any because each photo is 7 megapixels to start with.

Here are some examples:































Also, here are some pics I took in the dark of pinhole-projections of a couple of my flashlights' beam patterns, to show its low-light capability:


----------



## Egsise (Jan 24, 2010)

Canon SX1, handheld quickie from the bezel of Fenix LD10:


----------



## precisionworks (Jan 24, 2010)

> With a high MP camera, you can do 'close-up' simply by cropping before resizing.


+1

The image below is cropped to 2.45MP, then resized in IView to 648 and compressed 13k.







Slightly different resizing, similar compression.


----------



## ElectronGuru (Jan 24, 2010)

Here's the same technique applied to knurling...


Full Frame:






8MP Crop:


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 24, 2010)

It's interesting that the second picture of the knurl looks like the flats are depressed and the lines are raised, but the first looks the opposite. 

Daniel


----------



## G1K (Jan 24, 2010)

Just wanted to contribute to the thread. Not a close up, but a cool shot of a chip hangin' out above the workpiece. Cannon Digital Elph SD400 on Macro mode and all else auto.






R


----------



## legtu (Feb 1, 2010)

A couple of crops from a 5MP cam:










Full-sized, unedited image from a K750i cam phone. 




_*you can click on the thumbnails to see the full-size images_


----------

