[Q] Is tripod must for macro photography?

N

nchary.uk

Messages
15
Edit My Images
No
hi,

I am playing with my new macro lens sigma 100mm 2.8 dg ... Taken couple of snaps but all are missing sharpness ... Is the because I am not using tripod ??
 
You'll need to use flash to get the best from any macro lens due to the small apertures you need to shoot f11 - f16 - Personally 95% of my macro is hand held
 
Tripods are good for product photography but for little bugs and such they're not much use.

At macro distances camera shake is greatly magnified so you need a fast shutter speed.

At macro distances depth of field is virtually nothing so you need a high f-number.

These two things mean that you need a lot of light so unless you're in bright sunlight you need to use flash and at the close distances you are getting to the on-board flash doesn't work (the lens makes a shadow).

Sooo, all in all there is a lot more to macro than buying a lens and pointing it at stuff. There is a 'show us your macro rig' thread somewhere, it might be worth your while reading it :)
 
nchary.uk said:
My setting is f/3.2 and shutter-speed 1/60 in Manual mode
Click to expand...

You'll need to use a lot smaller aperture (Bigger f number) if your shooting at 1:1, f3.2 will give you approx 0.03mm DOF where as f16 will give you approx 0.36mm.

Try manual focus , flash TTL , f11 - f16 , iso 200 , 1/200 and work from there
 
Last edited:
Dogfish_magnet said:
You'll need to use a lot smaller aperture (Bigger f number) if your shooting at 1:1, f3.2 will give you approx 0.03mm DOF where as f16 will give you approx 0.36mm.

Try manual focus , flash TTL , f11 - f16 , iso 200 , 1/200 and work from there
Click to expand...

Thank let me try...
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
You'll need to use flash to get the best from any macro lens due to the small apertures you need to shoot f11 - f16 - Personally 95% of my macro is hand held
Click to expand...

I disagree, flash makes a lot of things easier and is needed in some circumstances, but a lot of the best macros I've ever seen are taken with natural light on a tripod.

One of my favourite wildlife photographers shoot exclusively natural light and has one of the best galleries I've ever seen, just take a look at the macro galleries here:
Juzaphoto.com


And some of my own natural light shots:

Small skipper by Adamhawtin, on Flickr


Es-5955-2 by Adamhawtin, on Flickr


Tabanus sp. by Adamhawtin, on Flickr


(please click the top banner to see them larger, the downsizing makes them softer)
 
Last edited:
squishy said:
I disagree, flash makes a lot of things easier and is needed in some circumstances, but a lot of the best macros I've ever seen are taken with natural light on a tripod.

One of my favourite wildlife photographers shoot exclusively natural light and has one of the best galleries I've ever seen, just take a look at the macro galleries here:
Juzaphoto.com


And some of my own natural light shots:

Small skipper by Adamhawtin, on Flickr


Es-5955-2 by Adamhawtin, on Flickr


Tabanus sp. by Adamhawtin, on Flickr


(please click the top banner to see them larger, the downsizing makes them softer)
Click to expand...

There not macro shots ............. there close ups :) - and there's a big difference.
 
Last edited:
Dogfish_magnet said:
There not macro shots ............. there close ups :) - and there's a big difference.
Click to expand...

You nor the OP never said you were sticking to the strictly accurate definition of macro, just
Dogfish_magnet said:
You'll need to use flash to get the best from any macro lens
Click to expand...
.

But if you're talking strictly 1:1 then I partly agree with you, flash is much more useful than at lower magnification, but I still stand by my point that while useful and sometimes essential, natural light macros are possible and natural light will always look nicer when it is possible.

And duttytd is right, No. 3 was 1:1 or very close, not cropped.
 
Last edited:
squishy said:
You nor the OP never said you were sticking to the strictly accurate definition of macro, just .

But if you're talking strictly 1:1 then I partly agree with you, flash is much more useful than at lower magnification, but I still stand by my point that while useful and sometimes essential, natural light macros are possible and natural light will always look nicer when it is possible.

And duttytd is right, No. 3 was 1:1 or very close, not cropped.
Click to expand...

See post 9 - :)

As much as i like natural light shots its particularly difficult at 1:1 (or above) when trying to maximize DOF - shooting at f16 will give you an effective aperture of f32 :eek: and a measly 0.36mm DOF so you need loads of light to get a decent shutter speed.

And as the OP is new to macro it just makes things much more difficult
 
Last edited:
Flash really is a must.

If not, then crank up the ISO and go for something like 1/250 @ f11-f16.

Manual focus by moving the camera back and forth.

D in W
 
squishy said:
I disagree, flash makes a lot of things easier and is needed in some circumstances, but a lot of the best macros I've ever seen are taken with natural light on a tripod.

One of my favourite wildlife photographers shoot exclusively natural light and has one of the best galleries I've ever seen, just take a look at the macro galleries here:
Juzaphoto.com


And some of my own natural light shots:

Small skipper by Adamhawtin, on Flickr


Es-5955-2 by Adamhawtin, on Flickr


Tabanus sp. by Adamhawtin, on Flickr


(please click the top banner to see them larger, the downsizing makes them softer)
Click to expand...

Dogfish_magnet said:
There not macro shots ............. there close ups :) - and there's a big difference.
Click to expand...

Macro or not, they are pretty bland.
 
fixedimage said:
Macro or not, they are pretty bland.
Click to expand...

This is OT now, but what browser and monitor are you using?
I've seen myself that on some different computers/monitors my shots edited on this one look bland.
But see, on this monitor, the small skipper shot looks almost over-saturated, I've considered re-editing it with less contrast and saturation.
 
I do all my Macro shots handheld so I'm going to say no its not essential but its always going to be up to the user what they feel comfortable with its the same debate as the full flash, fill flash,or natural light.

And on the light subject I suspect a lot is down to your geographical location, what time of day you go out, the subjects you like to shoot and what magnification you tend to go for, and what kit you use.
 
Nez said:
I do all my Macro shots handheld so I'm going to say no its not essential but its always going to be up to the user what they feel comfortable with its the same debate as the full flash, fill flash,or natural light.

And on the light subject I suspect a lot is down to your geographical location, what time of day you go out, the subjects you like to shoot and what magnification you tend to go for, and what kit you use.
Click to expand...

This is how I should have put my point across. Much better expressed than how I tried to say it.
 
If I can guarantee the subject will stay perfectly still, then I use a tripod as I prefer the look of natual light, its warmer, you get more natural shadows and a nice blur of background

anything that moves though, requires hand held, at that point you need a fast shutter speed and it helps to be able to freeze the subject in time with a flash. .... but then you start to get un-natural light and black backgrounds, so you end up spending even more money on flash units and diffusers etc etc etc.

All in al, I would say a decent off shoe or ring flash is far far far more usefull than a tripod .. unless all your macro is in the studio
 
Thank you all for suggestions. Does in built flash sufficient or do I need use external one. With in built I am getting under exposed pictures. Increasing ISO has little use.
 
duttytd said:
No the built in flash is no good for macro
Click to expand...

I took this photo a few years back using the built in flash with a home made diffuser on my D50.


Garden Spiders mating by jomike, on Flickr

It was good enough to be on the BBC website and to be exhibited in the Horniman museum as part of a Darwin 200 years exhibition.


Darwin200 Competition by jomike, on Flickr

So, while the built in flash is not as good as an external flash, it certainly not "no good"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top