Macro pictures with common point & shoot cameras - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: atferrari
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 08:06:18 pm
content: Thinking of taking macro pictures with a common point & shoot digital camera, my questions:A) What are yourpersonal suggestionsto get the best pictures (more details / zoom).B) I recall reading a suggestion combining a magnifier with the camera. Anything I could try? My attempts on this regard have always failed.C) Using the best daylight instead of a poor illumination inside, always works better. Can anyone say why? Shutter speed related?D) Been suggested to use the maximum possible of megapixels the camera can do. My tests with 2 and 8 Mp gave what I believe are equivalent results.

author: marshallh
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 08:17:19 pm
content: If your camera doesn't have a macro mode, you're hosed. Luckily all decent cameras do.With a basic Canon powershot A590IS:

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 08:26:17 pm
content: If you're limited to a budget, get yourself a simple point-and-shoot camera. I used a little Canon Ixus IS90 (a bit old now but still does a good job). It has a built-in macro mode. You'll probably find most if not all the major brands will. I find I can get fairly close with the IS90 and the results are very good, even in low light.If you have a bit more to spend, invest in a Digital SLR and buy yourself a good quality macro lens.

author: Yago
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 08:26:44 pm
content: Use a tripod, cable or timed release, a light tent.

author: dexters_lab
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 08:32:26 pm
content: technique does depend on the camera somewhati find good practice can be to work on a tripod, full zoom with the flash oncheck for special modes like macro, take lots of test pics and learn what works besthese were taken with a cheap (was £50 5 years ago!) canon powershothttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/old-hp-logic-analyser-pods/msg343233/#msg343233

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 08:40:52 pm
content: C) Using the best daylight instead of a poor illumination inside, always works better. Can anyone say why? Shutter speed related?Yes, The smaller the aperture the greater the depth of field.

author: Yago
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 08:47:49 pm
content: Unless you are shooting a moving object, the amount light should be little consequence as you have control of the shutter.Better having a predictable, controllable and known source IMHO.

author: atferrari
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 09:00:06 pm
content: Sorry to allI asume that nowadays, point & shoot cameras all have macro mode.Mine has.

author: george graves
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 09:11:15 pm
content: These I took with a cannon point and shoot. (it was either that or a sony videocamera, can't remember)

author: AndyC_772
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 09:24:34 pm
content: Firstly, don't bother counting pixels. Because the number of MP is a marketing status symbol, most cameras have sensors with way too many pixels for the quality of their optics. All that those pixels really achieve is to waste storage capacity, and of course, make the camera look better on a spec sheet comparison with other models.Daylight works well because it's diffuse. With macro shots, getting enough light onto the subject is key, and well diffused light ensures that no parts of the photo will be in shadow. Bear in mind, all the light needed for your photo has to come from a very small area, so that area has to be brightly lit.Set your camera into macro mode, and zoom the lens to its widest. Most lenses will focus closer at the wide end of their zoom range than at the telephoto end, so even though it's tempting to use the tele end to 'zoom in' on a small subject, you'll actually get greater magnification by setting it to the wide end and bringing the camera closer.An on-camera flash really isn't useful, it's a very harsh light and it's located in completely the wrong place. You're much better off turning the flash off and using a desk lamp instead. If you have a mini tripod, use it. If not, hand-held is OK but use a high ISO setting to avoid camera shake.You don't need expensive hardware to take passable macro shots. I keep a Canon Ixus 800IS in my desk drawer, which I use to take quick snaps of boards to document assembly problems, modifications and so on. Take the time to light the subject properly and, above all, get it in focus. The depth of field when close-up can be very shallow (use a small aperture if you have enough light), so take the time to make sure the important part of the subject is as sharp as possible.If you want really good macro shots, there's no substitute for a DSLR with proper off-camera flash or ring light. When quality is really important, I shoot with a Canon 5DmkIII, a 550EX flash (triggered from an ST-E2 transmitter), and a 50mm f/1.4 lens mounted on a set of Kenko extension tubes. The simple 50mm lens is optically excellent, and the extension tubes allow it to focus as close as necessary.The image quality in terms of sharpness and detail from the DSLR is great, of course, but what really makes for better photos is better lighting. The 550EX isn't ideal, but I can place it exactly where it's needed, and a business card makes a good diffuse reflector to bounce light into areas that would otherwise have been in shadow.

author: Yago
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 10:14:59 pm
content: DSLR are not cost effective for macro (certainly not a budget path without guidance)The large sensor and concurrent register mean that very specialist lenses are required to get near macro ratios.TBH 50mm is not really macro, extension tubes or not.If you are DSLR, get a reversing ring and try that on your 50 mm for some cheapo macro fun.Point and shoots can get really close to the subject, mega pixels do not matter (within reason, meh 4Mp?))as you normally have no problem filling the frame with subject, so no cropping.Light tent>daylight.Couple of cheap halogen desk lamps and some cloth to form an open faced cube.Subject in cube, lights outside illuminating the panels to suit.Colour temp can be set, light can be counted on any time day or night.Pop up flash are pretty useless, at least stick a couple of Rizla over the front if you must use one.

author: atferrari
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 11:33:04 pm
content: Quote from: Yago on November 12, 2014, 08:47:49 pmNot in a point & shoot as far as I know.

author: Yago
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 12:02:03 am
content: Quote from: atferrari on November 12, 2014, 11:33:04 pmThought pretty much all cams have a manual mode if you dig through the menus?The point being if the camera wants to sit there for 15 seconds with the shutter open, it doesn't matter, cam is on tripod and subject is still.

author: krivx
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 01:48:26 am
content: If you have a Canon - even a cheap old Powershot - CHDK is a replacement firmware that allows much better manual controlhttp://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK

author: Yago
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 05:18:56 am
content: Get a reversing ring 3Room, it will be cheaper and MUCH more effective.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 08:00:54 am
content: Here is a sample photo I took just now using my Canon Ixus 90 IS. It was taken freehand in a darkened room and illumination was nothing more than a 60 watt (240VAC) bedside table lamp.Camera settings were:Macro ModeISO 8001/50 shutterF2.8 apertureAuto White BalancingThe image size has been reduced by 50% and has further compression applied (due to the upload size limit). The original file was a touch over 5MB.You can get some quite nice results even with basic cameras. Keeping in mind, I bought this camera about 5-6 years ago now. The newer stuff will have even better optics and image processing.The depth of field is fairly shallow in this image but with some tweaking and more light, you'll get some nice looking images (I had it set to full-auto just for a snappy demo).

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 08:43:14 am
content: Quote from: 3roomlab on November 12, 2014, 09:08:58 pmIt dose not matter if day light or artificial, the problem with taking macros is the depth of field, the smaller the aperture the greater the depth of field but the smaller the aperture the brighter the light needs to be this is even noticeable with your own eyes go outside into bright light and your pupils constrict (miosis) and you depth of vision increases compared to indoors.Light,exposure and depth of field is something I have had endless lectures about all my life from my father who has been a professional photographer all his life. My father has a photograph that he took while in the RAF at the Ely hospital using an aerial photography camera, it is of an operation and the depth of field is so small that the edge of the scalpel blade is in sharp focus and everything else is blurred. It dose not matter what the light capture device is if the lens and its F stop number are not right you will not get what you want.

author: Yago
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 10:56:10 am
content: Try adjusting the focus and zoom setting for distance to lens, but yes you won't get a great deal.The image ratio is high though!Should really shoot macro on manual focus too (loss of af is no worry).As said the DOF is so tiny that AF is like cracking a nut with a sledge hammer.Don't use a dslr for stop motion, they have an electromechanical shutter and will wear out (mine has life of about 50K actuations).Better get a cam with entirely electronic shutter, I think lots of points and shoots are like this (possibly evil cameras too!).

author: krivx
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 04:30:05 pm
content: Quote from: Halon on November 13, 2014, 08:00:54 amDunno if I would trust this. It's difficult to do good optics for a low cost, I would say old vs new could be a crapshoot.

author: Kostas
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 05:08:20 pm
content: Quote from: krivx on November 13, 2014, 04:30:05 pmBetter sensor? Better high ISO performance? Better image processor? Probably.Better optics? Probably not.There are many exceptional old lenses out there, made well before the dawn of digital photography.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 05:28:01 pm
content: Get a droplet of water on your cellphone camera lense and you will take macro pictures everybit as good.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 05:32:33 pm
content: Here is an unretouched photo using macro mode on my Canon SX150 IS done freehand with poor illumination and without adjusting the focus making it a worst case situation. I cannot get any closer because the edge of the lens bezel is pressed against the printed circuit board.As pointed out earlier in the discussion thread, illumination is key and using a narrow zoom for magnification is counterproductive because it limits the minimum focus distance.

author: Yago
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 06:05:18 pm
content: Quote from: Kostas on November 13, 2014, 05:08:20 pmIndeed the lead free drive screwed over the photographers too, all glass is compliant now and widely considered inferior AFAIK.Then there's the old radioactive glass, "just leave it in the sun for a few days and it will become clear again"?!Evil (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens)cameras are probably worth a close look for macro work (arf)They have no optical viewfinder and view through the LCD panel on rear.This means that they tend to come with focus aids such a live mag and focus peaking.They also are incredibly flexible in connecting to other manufacturers lenses from through the ages.Nothing wrong with modern lenses, just you will pay for performance.Again not forgetting things like auto focus and aperture are nigh on useless in macro IMHO.Edit: Just to say I am not a macro photographer, just messed about with it.Was more into wildlife, and have just sold my 400mm L for testgear.Will have a nosey through some harddrives and see if there are any interesting shots to post (macro). Might have a punt at shooting some PCB to see what the results are with the kit and zoom lens. Something of interest could crop up. (ouch! apologies for that pun!)

author: victor
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2014, 11:35:48 am
content: I have those attachable lens for the iPhone 5S it does a reasonable well job, on really close shots. There's a bit more optic aberration than I would like but for the price the cost benefit is huge. You can get those lenses for a few bucks on eBay

author: hans12
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: November 17, 2014, 01:40:29 pm
content: An old fashioned photo loupe works great too. You need to put your camera in landscape mode, camera should focus to infinity.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loupe

author: TheBay
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 17, 2014, 01:53:58 pm
content: Quote from: 3roomlab on November 12, 2014, 08:57:01 pmIs that your breakfast

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 19, 2014, 06:45:02 pm
content: Have a look at the amount of preservatives in factory bread, they have a shelf life of around a month after baking with only minimal storage requirements. Home made bread will die in a matter of days.Good reason not to buy factory bread.My cheap Canon SX130 camera will do a macro mode of under 2cm, but you need a shed load of light to get the exposure down to use it free hand with no blurring. It works well, and I have a giant external lens to get better close up images that I just hold in front of it to get extra resolution, at the expense of having to crop the image to get the edge distortion out.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 19, 2014, 07:04:53 pm
content: Quote from: 3roomlab on November 19, 2014, 06:34:21 pmCan I ask... why? Were you conducting experiments? Or did you just forget to clean up your lab?

author: Excavatoree
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 19, 2014, 07:13:36 pm
content: Quote from: Halon on November 19, 2014, 07:04:53 pmThat's his breadboard.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 19, 2014, 07:14:34 pm
content: Quote from: Excavatoree on November 19, 2014, 07:13:36 pmDammit! How did I miss that! It's way too early here. Haven't had coffee yet.

author: Yago
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 19, 2014, 07:34:07 pm
content: Quote from: Excavatoree on November 19, 2014, 07:13:36 pmWith high energy fibre added!Classic 3Room, made me smile, cheers buddy

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 19, 2014, 09:56:05 pm
content: Quote from: 3roomlab on November 19, 2014, 06:34:21 pmHow close and modern do you want? I could have gotten closer on the photo I attached in this message but wanted to show worst case:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/macro-pictures-with-common-point-shoot-cameras/msg549509/#msg549509

author: westfw
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 19, 2014, 11:57:30 pm
content: There is a bunch of advice on this subject in some earlier "Instructables" (Athttp://www.instructables.com/howto/closeup/) (largely because when the site was new, there were a lot of "attempts" with really crappy photos.Two pieces of advice that stand out are:1) For a modern high-megapixel camera, you are usually MUCH better off moving the camera further away so that it can focus sharply, and then crop the picture after it's been uploaded onto your computer. No one wants to load your 12MP images from the net, anyway. (works whether or not your camera has a "macro" setting. Just don't try to be closer than the minimum distance of your closest shooting mode.)2) "Reading glasses" are a source of cheap "close up" lenses (for putting in front of your normal lens.)

author: tinytim
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 20, 2014, 12:45:43 am
content: love the breadboard -had a cheap arse usb microscope when they came out on ebay a few years back - it worked quite well considering how crap the optics really were, you can unscrew the focusing optics and adjust for depth of filed to suit but it leaves very little room below the cam to work anything under. Have attached a few photos below. Also use a fujifilm finepix bridge cam with macro mode, it works very well but always room for improvement

author: tinytim
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 20, 2014, 01:00:52 am
content: Fujifilm Finepix S2980 bridge cameraBudget camera with macro mode

author: Flump
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 20, 2014, 03:17:21 am
content: Olympus SH-50http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/olympus_sh_50_review/taken at 3am only light source is a old school 100w light bulb directly over head.lens about 1/2 an inch away from the forceps.

author: westfw
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2014, 06:25:19 am
content: I'll add that many cheaper cameras have limited focusing "zones", so that you don't so much get "autofocus macro mode" as "sharp at a particular distance that is shorter than normal." Which means that you can improve your image a great deal by moving just a little bit closer or further away.Using a slower shutter speed permits a smaller lens-opening (f-stop), which increases depth of field. Not all cameras have multiple f-stops, though, relying on the "shutter speed" in the sensor to do all of the "automatic exposure.Here are some pics take with a very cheap, very old (3.1MP) "Concord 3040" camera that I bought for one of the young kids, perhaps a decade ago. It has a "macro" setting, and claims to have autofocus. The two pictures are full frames, and the improvement happens by moving the camera from about 30cm to maybe 40cm from the scene (in the worse picture, you can see the background getting sharper as it moves into "ideal" range for the camera/setting.) (I guess these don't really qualify as "macro"; just closeups?)

author: EvilGeniusSkis
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2014, 12:42:36 am
content: I rubber-band a small diameter magnifying glass to the front of my point and shoot. works reasonably well for a bodge.

author: atferrari
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2014, 01:03:20 pm
content: Quote from: EvilGeniusSkis on November 23, 2014, 12:42:36 amCould you explain more?That was one of my points of interest.Gracias.

author: Yago
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2014, 01:14:51 pm
content: Quote from: wilfred on November 26, 2014, 02:11:11 amBarrel distortion, probably from the short focal length and the performance of the lens system.Try putting the camera on full zoom and move the camera as close as can but still in focus.Would be perhaps a metre from the board.Then crop the image after, and you should end up at the same shot(ish) but without that level of distortion.I have a faulty audio interface, will try and take some pics of it later and post.

author: TheEnd
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2014, 12:55:27 am
content: This was done with a Galaxy S3, no other fancy bits.http://www.amazon.co.uk/BisLinks%C2%AE-Camera-Replacement-Samsung-S3/dp/B00CBVQGG8I sometimes use it just to check soldering, I was thinking of something like a USB microscope but I'm not sure if the cheapies would be much better.

author: macboy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2014, 05:21:26 pm
content: I have an older (5+years) Sony model DSC-T30 I think. It is one of those with the sliding lens cover over a tiny little lens. It can focus within millimeters of the subject. Of course, at that distance, lighting is nearly impossible. The newest version of this camera, DSC-TX30 has a built in LED light "ring", specificially for macro shooting. You can see it in the linked picture. I'd be interested in trying that out. That would be the only reason I would consider that kind of camera again. The optics are just too small for general shooting.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2018, 12:50:51 pm
content: A bit of a necro post, but folks may be interested in the Olympus TG-5 which seems to be a favourite among macro photographers.Having compared it with other point and shoot cameras, I can see why.Pros:12Mpx 1/2.3" sensor1080/60p4k/30pMicroscope mode, focus down to 1cm4x zoomHDMI out available in both playback and recordHDMI low latencyOptional LED ring light pipeOptional flash diffuserFocus stacking & focus bracketing in cameraRAW, JPG and RAW+JPGCons:UI is shitNo touchscreenNo viewfinderNot fully manual operation, but it does have aperture priorityHDMI won't work with USB plugged inLED ring light won't remain on in microscope manual video mode (but does through app)Very close working distanceNo Bulb mode, longest shutter is 4s, but you need to be in aperture priorityManual is shithttps://youtu.be/xTGZ__DqvEc

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2018, 09:06:19 pm
content: Quote from: Yago on November 13, 2014, 06:05:18 pmDid I miss something? Leaded glass is still allowed until 2021, I think, and the exemption may be extended further:http://optics.org/news/8/7/16

author: westfw
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2018, 09:56:02 pm
content: My daughter had two consecutive Olympus TG cameras. She liked them a lot, but they both died inexplicably (just stopped working, as far as we can tell) after about 2.5 years. :-(