Why do the macro shots look better on my Canon ixus 115 compared to my Nikon D3300

SsSsSsSsSnake

SsSsSsSsSnake

Messages
9,590
Edit My Images
Yes
is it that compacts focus closer unless you get a macro lens or is it something else.couldnt believe how good the canon shots looked
 
If you haven't got a macro lens for your D3300 then what are you using for your comparison?

Bob
 
Hi Bob,i took a few with the 85mm 1.8 but have to admit I was very casual in taking them ,maybe thats why.The canon was on macro mode
 
The lens on the Canon compact will be a very short length, such as 10mm.

Although the sensor is smaller and so Canon will claim it's equivalent to a 28mm lens, the lens will benefit with a great depth of field from the short lens .
 
so a camera with closest focussing distance say 0 cmm is optimal,then getting lighting stuff and tripods etc to take it further,so in that case buying a really close P and S for macro could work out quite a bit cheaper
than buying an expensive macro lens?
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
so a camera with closest focussing distance say 0 cmm is optimal,then getting lighting stuff and tripods etc to take it further,so in that case buying a really close P and S for macro could work out quite a bit cheaper
than buying an expensive macro lens?
Click to expand...
It will, but the ultimate quality isn't there. A DSLR with a decent macro lens will bear the P&S hands down.
 
Hi Chris. If you want a cheap macro lens for your camera then look at the Nikkor 40mm f2.8. Whilst not a massive focal length it's a nice lens for messing around with. Alternatively, invest in a set of extension tubes for the 85mm. Some allow you to retain AF too. The Raynox adapters are also good for macro work.

Another thing, don't work at f1.8. Stop it down to f8-11 as the dof when close focusing is wafer thin.
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
so a camera with closest focussing distance say 0 cmm is optimal
Click to expand...
You actually will want a true macro lens (1:1) with the longest focus distance you can get. The Canon 100 macro lens min focus is about 25cm, which is better because you won't scare insects away like you would at 0cm :)
 
Last edited:
thanks Phil David and SDK.
David,of the 2 options,getting ex tubes and the 40mm,which would give better results would you say?thanks for the DOF tip.Phil I'm glad you said that,it seems to make sense.SDK ,thanks for the advice.
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
so a camera with closest focussing distance say 0 cmm is optimal,then getting lighting stuff and tripods etc to take it further,so in that case buying a really close P and S for macro could work out quite a bit cheaper
than buying an expensive macro lens?
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree with Phil that a compact camera can't compete with a DSLR+macro lens for ultimate quality I think that a lot depends on how you want to view your pictures. For example if you want a large exhibition quality print or a relatively small print or full computer screen image. If all you want is a small print or screen image a quality compact might well be good enough for pseudo macro / close up shots.

If you do decide to go for a DSLR+macro lens one thing that you could consider to keep the cost down a bit is to go for a manual focus macro lens. Macro/close up shooting is often manual focus anyway so the lack of AF might not be a problem. I bought an old film era Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro (for something like £60) and to be honest I love it :D
 
The Nikon 40mm needs to be nearly touching the subject to achieve 1:1 reproduction so adding tubes to that won't make any difference. I'd buy a set of tubes and see how you get on. Kenko are probably the best third party tubes available. The raynox is a very useful accessory to have aswell.

Depends how much you want to spend i guess. The tubes and raynox will be the cheapest but the Sigma 105mm f2.8 os is a cracking lens for around £300-350.
 
Thanks David,the sigma might be a good option as i have kit 18-55,35 mm and the 85mm so that would be a nice addition
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top