Macro/Close up Photography on a Budget!

Testudo Man

Testudo Man

Messages
954
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
Before i start this thread, i have owned various Nikon bodies/lenses in the past (D7000, D7100, D700) coupled with the Nikon VR 105mm lens. These set ups did produce some nice images......but this thread is not about spending a lot of money on equipment...its about producing pleasing macro/close up images, with very little money involved!
So......Macro/Close up photography on a Budget...

1st up, an old camera which i really like to use. The Panasonic FZ50 Bridge camera! (c,mon now, no laughing at the back!). It is "old school"! Its 12 years old! It has a small 10.1 Megapixel sensor! Back in 2006, it cost over £350(GBP) brand new.
I bought this 2nd hand camera a couple of years ago, it cost me just £20. (GBP). I mainly use a Raynox 250 close up lens with it. I bought the Raynox 2nd hand for less than £30.(GBP). Using on-board camera flash, with a home made Pringles Diffuser, at a cost of approx. £5. (GBP) for various materials...So, total cost is less than £60. (GBP)...an we are good to go.

Note - Obviously Field craft/Skills do come in handy, and Ive had several years practice, shooting 1000's of UK wildlife images.
All my images are dated(when i shot them)...if ive written (uncropped) for one of my images, that means that no cropping has taken place for that image.

Some recent images then, all these images were taken, using my "Cheap as Chips" set up...as in, the Panny FZ50, Raynox 250, Pringles Diffuser.
Cheers Paul.

Solitary Bee, after the rain! (garden photo). 23rd-July-2017. by Testudo Man, on Flickr

Fly, on a Sunflower Leaf (garden photo). 8th-August-2017. by Testudo Man, on Flickr

Female Garden Spider with prey("White" Butterfly) uncropped. garden photo. 23rd-September-2017. by Testudo Man, on Flickr

Solitary Bee, garden photo. (uncropped) 20th-July-2017. by Testudo Man, on Flickr

Wasp, garden photo (uncropped). 7th-August-2017. by Testudo Man, on Flickr

Common Darter Dragonfly (uncropped) garden photo. 30th-July-2017. by Testudo Man, on Flickr

Hoverfly(Syritta pipiens) on Common Fleabane. (garden photo). 26th-July-2017. by Testudo Man, on Flickr
 
 
 
Stunning images and with such cheap kit!! Shows you that skill is the most important factor and you have lots of it!!
 
really really impressive images. So do you shoot all these with the flash and diffuse (as in a pringles crisp lid?) What does that do over not using the flash? I assume the diffuser prevents that bright spot or wash out of colour?
 
Gil Bev said:
Stunning images and with such cheap kit!! Shows you that skill is the most important factor and you have lots of it!!
Click to expand...

Thanks very much for the compliment mate ;)

AgentOrange76 said:
really really impressive images. So do you shoot all these with the flash and diffuse (as in a pringles crisp lid?) What does that do over not using the flash? I assume the diffuser prevents that bright spot or wash out of colour?
Click to expand...

Cheers for that.
Its not the Pringles lid, its the Pringles tube used to diffuse the flash. If you go here (last page) - https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/show-us-your-macro-rig.132158/page-16 you can see pics of my latest "Pringles Diffuser builds", at trying to create a larger diffused area, in order to decrease any unwanted "hot spots" that may occur in my images (especially on the eyes of Bees/Wasps etc.). Obviously, I also try different on-board camera flash settings, to find a nice balance between flash strength too.
Other factors come into play, such as focal length/zoom, so as usual, its all about experimenting/trial an error.
All the photos in this thread, Ive used a smaller Pringles Diffuser, so with my latest larger (and twin diffusers) Im hoping for better results, for this upcoming 2018 season.
I will upload some of my Common Lizard images later, where you can clearly see the size/shape of my smaller Pringles Diffuser, in the Lizards eye.
Hope this helps explain things to you, cheers Paul.
 
Last edited:
off to buy some Pringles like all said an impressive set of images.
 
alfbranch said:
Those of us who know would never be laughing. See nicks thread about his journey will similar kit and other kit too.

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/index.php?threads/531050/

Lovely work, skill and good lighting are obvious in these shots Paul.
Click to expand...

Cheers for the comment.
Yes, ive posted in Nicks thread(in the early days of his epic journey). Like Nick, im on a bit of a journey myself, in regards to what Equipment/Kit is best used.
Its always testing/comparing...what combination of Kit, to be used for what type of subjects??? Sometimes, if there is very little difference in image quality, then it might just come down to, what camera/lens feels comfortable in the hand, ease of use, focus speed, etc etc.

My chosen Subjects are - Reptiles/Butterflies/Odonata/Insects etc...and Birds through the Winter months! All my Subjects are very much alive(an very active when heated up by the sun!) so its hand held(a tripod would be impractical). 99.9% of the time, its auto focus too! So i must rely on Field craft/Skills, in order to get close enough to my subjects, to make the kind of Macro/Close up shots, that i "chase".............Yes, i am that crazy guy, running through the long grasses, on a hot day, chasing those pesky Butterflies ;)

GardenersHelper said:
Paul, that is a super demonstration of what can be done with inexpensive kit; an impressive set of images.

(For some years the FZ50 was what Mark Berkery used to produce his top-notch images.)
Click to expand...

Thanks very much Nick.
I think we have talked in the past about Mark Berkery, and what he could do with the FZ50. I do believe he now uses MFT's, coupled to the Olympus 60mm macro lens?
Im also sure i read somewhere that you may have given an FZ50 a go yourself?? If so, how did you get on with it? What was the outcome/your conclusion??

Kingo46 said:
off to buy some Pringles like all said an impressive set of images.
Click to expand...

Cheers for that...dont eat all the Pringles yourself though mate ;)


As said before, some photos of wild Common Lizards(found out in the field). If you look at the reflection in the eye of the Lizards, you can clearly see the Pringles Diffuser at work.
I used a small Pringles Diffuser for these images, Im hoping for better results, when trying out my larger/Twin Diffusers.
In the 1st image, the sun reflection is on the left, the Diffuser reflection being on the right, as you view it.

Cheers Paul.

No cropping for these images....Note - An Adult Common Lizards head, would probably measure approx. 1cm

Adult Common Lizard (uncropped). 26th-September-2015. by Testudo Man, on Flickr

Adult Common Lizard (uncropped). 26th-September-2015. by Testudo Man, on Flickr

Adult Common Lizards (uncropped). 26th-September-2015. by Testudo Man, on Flickr
 
Testudo Man said:
Its always testing/comparing...what combination of Kit, to be used for what type of subjects??? Sometimes, if there is very little difference in image quality, then it might just come down to, what camera/lens feels comfortable in the hand, ease of use, focus speed, etc etc.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much the case for me too.

Testudo Man said:
I think we have talked in the past about Mark Berkery, and what he could do with the FZ50. I do believe he now uses MFT's, coupled to the Olympus 60mm macro lens?
Click to expand...

Yes, he uses a G5 and G6 now, with 60mm macro. Interestingly he now uses f/16 rather than (f/22) minimum aperture as he did with the FZ50 (minimum aperture f/11, providing a fraction more depth of field than f/22 on mft or f/8 on 1/2.3" like the FZ200 and now FZ330 I use). This is understandable as the sharpness of the 60mm macro drops off considerably from f/16 to f/22 (e.g. see graph in ephotozine review of 60mm macro).

Testudo Man said:
Im also sure i read somewhere that you may have given an FZ50 a go yourself?? If so, how did you get on with it? What was the outcome/your conclusion??
Click to expand...

I'm envious. Your memory is very good! Wish mine was.

Yes, you are right. (I had to look it up to see when it was and what I did with it. I had no recollection of either.:()

I bought an FZ50 18 months ago to see what it was like. I considered getting one early on but at that time I was using natural light most of the time with a tripod, and the bottom hinging of the LCD on the FZ50 wouldn't have worked with that. Otherwise I probably would have been using an FZ50. I liked the idea of that extra little depth of field from f/11.

Trying the FZ50 made me realise how much I liked the handling of my FZ330. It was very much your point about ease of use, focus speed etc. The FZ330 seemed much better to me in terms of usability.

In terms of image quality I couldn't convince myself the FZ330 was any better than the FZ50. This album at Flickr contains the first set of test shots I did with the FZ50. I shot raw+JPEG and the album contains the OOC JPEG and a raw processed in Lightroom. I then did a comparison set between the FZ50 and the FZ330. This album at Flickr contains the results. There are four versions of each scene, an OOC JPEG from each camera and a processed raw version for each camera. In some cases the FZ50 was better, in some cases the FZ330, and in other cases I didn't see any significant difference. I didn't try any macro/flash comparisons (these are terribly difficult to arrange close enough like for like to get meaningful results out in the field), but given the comparisons I did do I have no reason to think either camera would be significantly better in terms of image quality for macro.

So, for me, FZ50 versus FZ330 is a matter of usability.
 
Last edited:
This thread jogged my memory about a little set of photos I put together a while ago in preparation for an argument about image quality and sensor size that I saw coming on another site. I prepared nine close-up/macro images and removed the Exif data. There was one each from Canon SX10 and Panasonic FZ200 bridge cameras and G3, G5 and G80 mft cameras, and two each from an FZ330 and a Canon 70D. I was going to invite readers to identify the ones from the small sensor cameras (and maybe also identify those that used high quality optics). As it happened the conversation went another way and I never used the images. Out of interest I have just posted them in this album at Flickr. I'm quite tempted to remove one of them and post the other eight in a new thread here as a follow on to this thread of yours.
 
GardenersHelper said:
That's pretty much the case for me too.



Yes, he uses a G5 and G6 now, with 60mm macro. Interestingly he now uses f/16 rather than (f/22) minimum aperture as he did with the FZ50 (minimum aperture f/11, providing a fraction more depth of field than f/22 on mft or f/8 on 1/2.3" like the FZ200 and now FZ330 I use). This is understandable as the sharpness of the 60mm macro drops off considerably from f/16 to f/22 (e.g. see graph in ephotozine review of 60mm macro).



I'm envious. Your memory is very good! Wish mine was.

Yes, you are right. (I had to look it up to see when it was and what I did with it. I had no recollection of either.:()

I bought an FZ50 18 months ago to see what it was like. I considered getting one early on but at that time I was using natural light most of the time with a tripod, and the bottom hinging of the LCD on the FZ50 wouldn't have worked with that. Otherwise I probably would have been using an FZ50. I liked the idea of that extra little depth of field from f/11.

Trying the FZ50 made me realise how much I liked the handling of my FZ330. It was very much your point about ease of use, focus speed etc. The FZ330 seemed much better to me in terms of usability.

In terms of image quality I couldn't convince myself the FZ330 was any better than the FZ50. This album at Flickr contains the first set of test shots I did with the FZ50. I shot raw+JPEG and the album contains the OOC JPEG and a raw processed in Lightroom. I then did a comparison set between the FZ50 and the FZ330. This album at Flickr contains the results. There are four versions of each scene, an OOC JPEG from each camera and a processed raw version for each camera. In some cases the FZ50 was better, in some cases the FZ330, and in other cases I didn't see any significant difference. I didn't try any macro/flash comparisons (these are terribly difficult to arrange close enough like for like to get meaningful results out in the field), but given the comparisons I did do I have no reason to think either camera would be significantly better in terms of image quality for macro.

So, for me, FZ50 versus FZ330 is a matter of usability.
Click to expand...

Yes, Ive noticed he now shoots at f/16.
I have considered trying a MFT with the Macro 60mm...I think its a set up that i will try in the future.

The FZ50's f/11 is what 1st attracted me to this camera, it also has a different size sensor to most others, rather than the usual 1/2.3", it has an unusual 1/1.8".
Also the fact that the lens is fixed (internal focusing) so no lens movement. Its not all good though, it is slow to focus, you have to move the lens/focus by hand,
and that bloody tiny 2" screen is a swine to use. I have to wear glasses when using the camera!
For me, my purposes/subjects, i only really use this camera with on-board flash, its flash is good, its easy to adjust on the fly.
I dont use the FZ50 for Butterflies, i rarely use flash for Butterflies...thats where my other camera shines...the FZ150 is my go to camera for all things Butterfly! (but that camera is another story) ;)

My memory is not that good these days, but some things stick in my mind. I knew I read somewhere you tried the FZ50.
I will have to check out your comparison albums too, should be interesting viewing. As i said, i dont think the FZ50 is that good in natural light.
Lets not forget, it also shines with a Raynox macro lens hanging off the end of that lens...remove the Raynox, and things would be a lot different!

As you say Nick, its all about usability, what works best for a given subject...but more importantly, what works best for each individual.
Cheers Paul.
 
Testudo Man said:
The FZ50's f/11 is what 1st attracted me to this camera, it also has a different size sensor to most others, rather than the usual 1/2.3", it has an unusual 1/1.8".
Click to expand...

Yes, that means its f/11 doesn't give as great a depth of field as f/11 would on 1/2.3", but it does give more than f/8 on 1/2.3".

Testudo Man said:
Also the fact that the lens is fixed (internal focusing) so no lens movement.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is good for use with close-up lenses, especially the more powerful ones. I find the 45-175 on mft good for higher magnification work (not that I do much of that), because the 45-175 doesn't extend as you zoom. You can find the subject at wide angle and then zoom in on it without moving the camera. That makes higher magnifications much easier to use than with lenses which extend when zooming.

Testudo Man said:
Its not all good though, it is slow to focus, you have to move the lens/focus by hand,
and that bloody tiny 2" screen is a swine to use. I have to wear glasses when using the camera!
Click to expand...

Yes, that was one of the big usability downsides for me.

Testudo Man said:
For me, my purposes/subjects, i only really use this camera with on-board flash, its flash is good, its easy to adjust on the fly.
I dont use the FZ50 for Butterflies, i rarely use flash for Butterflies...thats where my other camera shines...the FZ150 is my go to camera for all things Butterfly! (but that camera is another story) ;)
Click to expand...

No, I don't use flash for butterflies either (on the rare occasions I see one). I've not yet found an ideal camera/lens for butterflies. With everything I've tried to date I can either get enough magnification but too short a working distance, or a decent working distance but not enough magnification.

Testudo Man said:
My memory is not that good these days, but some things stick in my mind. I knew I read somewhere you tried the FZ50.
I will have to check out your comparison albums too, should be interesting viewing. As i said, i dont think the FZ50 is that good in natural light.
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough the comparisons with the FZ330 were all natural light, and I couldn't see any systematic difference between them.

Testudo Man said:
As you say Nick, its all about usability, what works best for a given subject...but more importantly, what works best for each individual.
Click to expand...

Absolutely so.
 
ChrisA said:
Wonderful series of shots. Nice light from the diffuser setup too.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that.

GardenersHelper said:
This thread jogged my memory about a little set of photos I put together a while ago in preparation for an argument about image quality and sensor size that I saw coming on another site. I prepared nine close-up/macro images and removed the Exif data. There was one each from Canon SX10 and Panasonic FZ200 bridge cameras and G3, G5 and G80 mft cameras, and two each from an FZ330 and a Canon 70D. I was going to invite readers to identify the ones from the small sensor cameras (and maybe also identify those that used high quality optics). As it happened the conversation went another way and I never used the images. Out of interest I have just posted them in this album at Flickr. I'm quite tempted to remove one of them and post the other eight in a new thread here as a follow on to this thread of yours.
Click to expand...

All of those images are great Nick, Im sure i may have seen one or two of them in the past? But i could not guess which image was taken by which camera/set up/kit???
I think that album is a good demonstration, in terms of - Type of equipment utilised, is not really whats important(at this level). Of course, by upping the level (as in pixel peeping) for - the best/highest possible quality image needed, for say, commercial/printing on a large scale etc. then yeah, use the more high end equipment...But how many of us mere enthusiasts/hobbyists, need to invest in top of the range macro/close up kit?!...I have personally, never printing any of my photos over the years...all i do is upload low res/small file size images...............Hell, i still shoot in Jpeg!!


GardenersHelper said:
Yes, that means its f/11 doesn't give as great a depth of field as f/11 would on 1/2.3", but it does give more than f/8 on 1/2.3".



Yes, that is good for use with close-up lenses, especially the more powerful ones. I find the 45-175 on mft good for higher magnification work (not that I do much of that), because the 45-175 doesn't extend as you zoom. You can find the subject at wide angle and then zoom in on it without moving the camera. That makes higher magnifications much easier to use than with lenses which extend when zooming.



Yes, that was one of the big usability downsides for me.



No, I don't use flash for butterflies either (on the rare occasions I see one). I've not yet found an ideal camera/lens for butterflies. With everything I've tried to date I can either get enough magnification but too short a working distance, or a decent working distance but not enough magnification.



Interestingly enough the comparisons with the FZ330 were all natural light, and I couldn't see any systematic difference between them.



Absolutely so.
Click to expand...

Nick, i would think that for Butterflies, out in the field, your best camera choice could be your FZ330, coupled to a Canon 500D close up filter.
Find your subject, move in, zoom and shoot as required. I dont have any experience with the FZ330, but i do know that it is superior in many ways to my FZ150.

So yes, for Butterflies/Odonata, i do rely on my FZ150, with a Polaroid 500D close up filter combo. (polaroid 500d is similar to the canon 500d).
This kit is so easy to use, light weight, fast to focus, and the 500D close up filter allows you some distance from subjects, because of its low magnification.
Obviously i shoot in good light, ISO 100, f/4 'ish, because i want a nice blurred background. No flash used.

Some examples here then (all Butterflies are wild, an shot out in the field).......Note - although my Panny FZ150/500D combo, was not as cheap to buy, as my FZ50. I still bought this other camera and filter for less than £150. (GBP). So the kit still qualifies as - macro/close up photography on a budget!
Cheers Paul.

Marbled White Butterfly, female. (uncropped). 3rd-July-2016. by Testudo Man, on Flickr

Chalk hill Blue Butterfly (male). 16th-July-2016. by Testudo Man, on Flickr

Chalk hill Blue Butterfly, male (uncropped). 16th-July-2016. by Testudo Man, on Flickr

Large Skipper Butterfly (uncropped). 16th-June-2016. by Testudo Man, on Flickr

Heath Fritillary Butterfly (uncropped). 26th-June-2016. by Testudo Man, on Flickr

Common Blue Butterfly, Male.(uncropped). 2nd-September-2017. by Testudo Man, on Flickr

Female Heath Fritillary Butterfly. East Blean Woods. 26th-June-2016. by Testudo Man, on Flickr
 
Testudo Man said:
All of those images are great Nick, Im sure i may have seen one or two of them in the past?
Click to expand...

I expect so. :)

Testudo Man said:
But i could not guess which image was taken by which camera/set up/kit???
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Testudo Man said:
I think that album is a good demonstration, in terms of - Type of equipment utilised, is not really whats important(at this level). Of course, by upping the level (as in pixel peeping) for - the best/highest possible quality image needed, for say, commercial/printing on a large scale etc. then yeah, use the more high end equipment...But how many of us mere enthusiasts/hobbyists, need to invest in top of the range macro/close up kit?!...I have personally, never printing any of my photos over the years...all i do is upload low res/small file size images...............Hell, i still shoot in Jpeg!!
Click to expand...

It's almost all for on-screen viewing for me too.

I process for viewing the images at the size they are prepared (not the size they are seen here because of the size etiquette here). So they are not processed for pixel peeping. I've moved from processing to 1300 pixels high to 1400 pixels high (1400 just fits on to my screen, the detail is a bit better than at 1300, although the very narrow gap to the edge of the screen isn't quite as comfortable to my eye as the wider gap with 1300 high). Thus far (haven't been doing it long) 1400 high seems to work ok for all my kit given the post processing I'm doing.

Might be a different story filling a 4K screen, 2160 high; I think 1400 high may be around the limit especially for my small sensor images. And 8K? 4320 high. That will be tricky even without cropping - and I almost always crop a bit. Hmmm.... maybe use fractal upsizing or some such? Perhaps that would be needed even for 4K. Not yet an issue for me at least though.


Testudo Man said:
Nick, i would think that for Butterflies, out in the field, your best camera choice could be your FZ330, coupled to a Canon 500D close up filter.
Find your subject, move in, zoom and shoot as required. I dont have any experience with the FZ330, but i do know that it is superior in many ways to my FZ150.

So yes, for Butterflies/Odonata, i do rely on my FZ150, with a Polaroid 500D close up filter combo. (polaroid 500d is similar to the canon 500d).
This kit is so easy to use, light weight, fast to focus, and the 500D close up filter allows you some distance from subjects, because of its low magnification.
Obviously i shoot in good light, ISO 100, f/4 'ish, because i want a nice blurred background. No flash used.

Some examples here then (all Butterflies are wild, an shot out in the field).......Note - although my Panny FZ150/500D combo, was not as cheap to buy, as my FZ50. I still bought this other camera and filter for less than £150. (GBP). So the kit still qualifies as - macro/close up photography on a budget!
Cheers Paul.
Click to expand...

Nice set of examples Paul. I do generally use the 500D, on my FZ300/200, G3/5/80 with 45-175 and 70D with 55-250. But I'd far rather work at a metre or more rather than half a metre or less, which is on the "jumpiness border" sometimes and also can make it more difficult to angle shots how I want without casting a shadow on the subject and them flying off.

What I do sometimes is to use full telephoto without the 500D to start with, so as to up the probability of getting shots (for probably cropping) without frightening off the subject, and if that works and the subject is still there put on the 500D and try moving in closer. I tend to do the same with dragonflies and damselflies when I (not very often) come across them.
 
Not sure if this is the right place for this. Paul may want us to take it elsewhere. But given that Paul said this thread is about producing pleasing macro/close up images, with very little money involved, then perhaps it is ok. I don't know.

AgentOrange76 said:
Initially I wasnt that fussed about macro but since seeing some of these stunningly brilliant images its something i can see myself getting into when i cant get out to interesting locations

There is an element of running before I walk so please bare with me, its peeing down outside so have time to ask daft questions and apologies if its a little off post. I think i may answer my own question as I ramble

Im using a 18-55mm kit lens on d3400. Reading a thread earlier it suggested a good starting point for settings was 1/200th f11 ISO200 (manual mode)

I set my camera to this and with the on board flash up the light meter is off the scale to the left. Im sat on the sofa shooting my thumb from 10cm away using the focus points to consistantly align it. Once shot the photo looks ok, thumb is crisp and well lit. This has confused me as I imagined that it would be badly exposed.
Click to expand...

I get the same effect (with a Panasonic camera) of the light meter showing a lot of underexposure when the on board flash is raised, but the photo coming out ok. The camera is metering the scene and shows what the under-exposure would be without using flash. But when taking the shot it adjusts the flash power to an appropriate level. It seems a bit odd, but it isn't unique to your kit.

AgentOrange76 said:
Taking shots of the room its slightly dark. I assume that this is because the flash is not powerful enough to chuck the light to the far side?
Click to expand...

Probably. If you used a larger aperture or a higher ISO it would probably not look dark. (But changing the shutter speed probably wouldn't make any difference, see below.)

AgentOrange76 said:
Ive then taken a shot with no flash and its black. SO can I conclude that the above settings without flash are vastly underexposing but by introducing the flash this makes enough light to correct exposure.
Click to expand...

Yes.

AgentOrange76 said:
Its slightly darker than I would like so have tried slower shutter speed 1/125th and 1/30th but there is not the expected brightness change why is that?
Click to expand...

If the flash is providing most or all of the illumination then shutter speed does not make much difference. The flash burst is very quick and once it is over it is over. After that, having the shutter open for longer if there isn't much ambient light won't add much light to the exposure. (Shutter speed does matter if the conditions are brighter, because a slower shutter speed can add quite a bit of light to the exposure.)

When the flash is providing the illumination you change the brightness of the image by altering the flash exposure compensation. It works similarly to how exposure compensation works when you are using natural light. If the image is too dark, turn up the flash exposure compensation, and the camera will pump out more light from the flash (if it can). If the image is too bright, turn down the flash exposure compensation.

AgentOrange76 said:
Changing the ISO brightens slightly with 12800 being on the too bright side and 25600 washing out. is there something im missing with settings with in the camera?
Click to expand...

If you turn the ISO up very high the flash may not be able to put out a small enough amount of light to prevent over-exposure.
 
Last edited:
Excellent, thanks for the reply and info, i was about to google flash and hadnt realised that the camera will adapt the flash to suit the settings
- just googled TTL flash - so as i adjusted the ISO the camera adjusted the flash power hence the lack of noticable change

Just to bring this back to topic a little closer

DSC_0503 by James Hathaway, on Flickr

1/200th f11 ISO200 with 55mm lens with sheet of A4 paper bent round flash to reduce reflection. Figurine is 50mm tall shot on the coffee table with the black front of a speaker as back drop.
 
Testudo Man said:
Nick, i would think that for Butterflies, out in the field, your best camera choice could be your FZ330, coupled to a Canon 500D close up filter.
Find your subject, move in, zoom and shoot as required. I dont have any experience with the FZ330, but i do know that it is superior in many ways to my FZ150.

So yes, for Butterflies/Odonata, i do rely on my FZ150, with a Polaroid 500D close up filter combo. (polaroid 500d is similar to the canon 500d).
This kit is so easy to use, light weight, fast to focus, and the 500D close up filter allows you some distance from subjects, because of its low magnification.
Obviously i shoot in good light, ISO 100, f/4 'ish, because i want a nice blurred background. No flash used.
Click to expand...

I've been thinking some more about this, looking at the numbers here, and also G80 with my recently acquired 14-140, and playing again with various combinations. I think you are right, the FZ330 with 500D would be the best bet.

There is a slight problem though. When I'm out with the FZ330 it is rigged up with the flash and usually a Raynox 150. When I come across a butterfly/dragonfly/damselfly I really want to pick up a camera and shoot - I don't want to wait while changing the close-up lens. The flash could stay on but it makes the camera more cumbersome than it needs to be for natural light shooting (and maybe chasing subjects as they flit from flower to flower), and the diffusers possibly increase the risk of frightening off the subject. But taking off the flash and putting it down somewhere adds more delay. It strikes me that I could take my currently unused FZ200 with a 500D attached; that way I could simply put the FZ330 down, pick up the FZ200 and quickly be ready to shoot. Image quality would be the same as with the FZ330. I'm used to working with two cameras so that isn't an issue.
 
GardenersHelper said:
I expect so. :)



Exactly.



It's almost all for on-screen viewing for me too.

I process for viewing the images at the size they are prepared (not the size they are seen here because of the size etiquette here). So they are not processed for pixel peeping. I've moved from processing to 1300 pixels high to 1400 pixels high (1400 just fits on to my screen, the detail is a bit better than at 1300, although the very narrow gap to the edge of the screen isn't quite as comfortable to my eye as the wider gap with 1300 high). Thus far (haven't been doing it long) 1400 high seems to work ok for all my kit given the post processing I'm doing.

Might be a different story filling a 4K screen, 2160 high; I think 1400 high may be around the limit especially for my small sensor images. And 8K? 4320 high. That will be tricky even without cropping - and I almost always crop a bit. Hmmm.... maybe use fractal upsizing or some such? Perhaps that would be needed even for 4K. Not yet an issue for me at least though.




Nice set of examples Paul. I do generally use the 500D, on my FZ300/200, G3/5/80 with 45-175 and 70D with 55-250. But I'd far rather work at a metre or more rather than half a metre or less, which is on the "jumpiness border" sometimes and also can make it more difficult to angle shots how I want without casting a shadow on the subject and them flying off.

What I do sometimes is to use full telephoto without the 500D to start with, so as to up the probability of getting shots (for probably cropping) without frightening off the subject, and if that works and the subject is still there put on the 500D and try moving in closer. I tend to do the same with dragonflies and damselflies when I (not very often) come across them.
Click to expand...

Well Nick, i know how "in-depth" you are when it comes to processing your workflow mate;) ...Im very basic in my workflow, i work in a very old version of photoshop (i think it is photoshop 6!!!!!). I also use an old desktop, with just a 17inch screen!! I really am a Dinosaur;).
These days, i duplicate the photo im going to process, then adjust the levels to how i like the way it looks, save the image file to something like either 600 x 450(landscape) or if i shot the image portrait style, then save to 600 x 800. Those sizes are for my Panasonics...if Im working on one of my Nikon V1/J1 images, then the reduced file size is slightly larger, say - 700 x 468 (landscape). These saved file sizes are generally used for images that are uncropped.
I guess we all use different workflow methods, just as we all use different equipment/kit.

Thanks for your comment on my Butterfly images.
I use the same method as you Nick, once a subject is sighted, i take an image approx a metre away(without the 500D) then as i move in closer, i attach the 500D and shoot away! changing zoom and distance from subject as required. I have my Panny 150 set up on silent(no focus or shutter noises) this speeds everything up. I also use burst mode, firing off plenty of shots in a short space of time. Flying Insects dont hang around for long, so its all about getting in fast(for most of the time).


GardenersHelper said:
Not sure if this is the right place for this. Paul may want us to take it elsewhere. But given that Paul said this thread is about producing pleasing macro/close up images, with very little money involved, then perhaps it is ok. I don't know.



I get the same effect (with a Panasonic camera) of the light meter showing a lot of underexposure when the on board flash is raised, but the photo coming out ok. The camera is metering the scene and shows what the under-exposure would be without using flash. But when taking the shot it adjusts the flash power to an appropriate level. It seems a bit odd, but it isn't unique to your kit.



Probably. If you used a larger aperture or a higher ISO it would probably not look dark. (But changing the shutter speed probably wouldn't make any difference, see below.)



Yes.



If the flash is providing most or all of the illumination then shutter speed does not make much difference. The flash burst is very quick and once it is over it is over. After that, having the shutter open for longer if there isn't much ambient light won't add much light to the exposure. (Shutter speed does matter if the conditions are brighter, because a slower shutter speed can add quite a bit of light to the exposure.)

When the flash is providing the illumination you change the brightness of the image by altering the flash exposure compensation. It works similarly to how exposure compensation works when you are using natural light. If the image is too dark, turn up the flash exposure compensation, and the camera will pump out more light from the flash (if it can). If the image is too bright, turn down the flash exposure compensation.



If you turn the ISO up very high the flash may not be able to put out a small enough amount of light to prevent over-exposure.
Click to expand...

No problems Nick, i dont mind if others want to share their experiences/images on this thread. As long as their complete kit(when taking their images) falls into the category of - Macro/Close up photography on a Budget....Hmmmmmmmmm...what shall we call a Budget then??????.....I would think the complete kit for under £500. (GBP)...Seems about right I guess.

GardenersHelper said:
I've been thinking some more about this, looking at the numbers here, and also G80 with my recently acquired 14-140, and playing again with various combinations. I think you are right, the FZ330 with 500D would be the best bet.

There is a slight problem though. When I'm out with the FZ330 it is rigged up with the flash and usually a Raynox 150. When I come across a butterfly/dragonfly/damselfly I really want to pick up a camera and shoot - I don't want to wait while changing the close-up lens. The flash could stay on but it makes the camera more cumbersome than it needs to be for natural light shooting (and maybe chasing subjects as they flit from flower to flower), and the diffusers possibly increase the risk of frightening off the subject. But taking off the flash and putting it down somewhere adds more delay. It strikes me that I could take my currently unused FZ200 with a 500D attached; that way I could simply put the FZ330 down, pick up the FZ200 and quickly be ready to shoot. Image quality would be the same as with the FZ330. I'm used to working with two cameras so that isn't an issue.
Click to expand...

If you have the FZ300/330 set up for other subjects, and you have a spare FZ200 sitting around doing nothing, then yes Nick, your spare FZ200 coupled with the 500D would be ideal for Butterflies/Odonata. Youve field tested the FZ200 for years, you know its capabilities for sure. Its light in the hand, fast auto focus, works very well with achromats, so yeah, sounds like a good choice to go with.
Cheers Paul.

PS. I will try to find some Dragonfly images that i shot with the Panny FZ150.
 
A couple of Dragonfly images here, both uncropped. Panasonic FZ150 with 500D used.
1st image was taken out in the field - I also had 2 other camera/set ups on the go! I was shooting the same subject with all 3 cameras/kit for comparison.
The other 2 cameras were Nikon V1/FT1 adapter/Sigma macro 150mm lens. The other being - Nikon J1/30-110mm CX lens/Raynox 150.
(Whilst both of the Nikon kits fall into the Macro/close up photography on a budget) i will address those kits at a later date!

2nd image was shot in my back garden. I set up these perches around my garden, and sometimes i get lucky, the local Insects land on them for me!! ;)
I was trying for something a little different with the 2nd image...I got down low in front of the Dragonfly, shooting up at it.

Cheers Paul.
PS. Im not big on Exif data info. but if somebody wants to know, i will go look!!

Common Darter Dragonfly (uncropped). 2nd-September-2017. by Testudo Man, on Flickr

Common Darter Dragonfly (uncropped) garden photo. 12th-August-2017. by Testudo Man, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top