More discussion on a couple of topics that keep sticking their heads above the parapet…
Macro shots of flies and, most recently, options for setting up with a dSLR on a budget.
Several forum members have made it clear that their compact cameras struggle to give good results when they try to do macro shots of flies. While many folk have compacts that give good results with macro shots of flies, it seems that there are some that do not. These latter ones seem to be fine for carrying in the waistcoat pocket for use down the river, but for reasons we have discussed at length, they don’t tend to give good results with flies. OK, instead of buying a second compact when you already have one, how about considering an early model dSLR for doing the fly work? You still have your compact for down the river, and you have so much more control with an old SLR for doing the fly work. It’s not difficult to use – if you can master a compact, an SLR is much easier!
Budget? OK, if you go on eBay and set up a search for cameras like Canon 10D, Canon 300D and Nikon D70 you should find these 2nd generation dSLR cameras for around the £100 mark. A standard ‘kit’ lens will maybe add another £50 to that.
A couple of guys have asked me about the lenses they have on their dSLRs, and how they were not able to focus close to the fly with their lens at ‘macro’ setting. It turned out that the problem was as follows…
The lenses in both cases were ‘kit’ lenses: standard zoom lenses of 17-55mm or 18-50mm focal length or thereabouts. Lens manufacturers like to add the word ‘macro’ to their lenses as a selling point, when all they mean is that the closest distance at which you can achieve focus is… and then there will be a figure next to the word macro. The problem is that at this minimum focusing distance, the magnification that the lens gives may not be suitable for small flies (or even big flies).
A true macro lens should be capable of focusing close enough to the subject to give you useful magnification of, for example, x1. What this means is that if your sensor is the size of a frame of 35 mm film, and then you take a photograph of an actual frame of 35 mm film with it, as close as you can focus, the image of the film will exactly fill the frame of your shot. A typical kit lens might have a macro magnification of x0.34, which means it just won’t fill the frame with a trout fly. On an SLR with a C-size sensor (most of the cameras we will be using, but excluding cameras with full frame sensors such as a Canon 5D or a Nikon D700) the fly will fill more of the frame, but it will still be a bit far-off looking. You can crop the image, but all cropping reduces image quality, so better to avoid it if you can.
So, if you only have a kit lens, what can you do? There are 2 inexpensive solutions.
The first is to purchase a set of close-up filters. These are available at various prices depending on make and where they are coming from. They are rather like reading glasses for your lens, and they screw in to the filter thread in front of the front element.
See here:
Close-up filters
They usually come in sets of four, at x1, x2, x4 and x10 magnification, though the magnification is on a different scale to the one I mentioned above. Save to say, the x10 often has the word macro on it, just to confuse things, and is usually the best bet for fly shots on a kit lens.
The second option is a set of extension tubes. These come in 2 varieties. The cheap ones are basically just hollow tubes that sit between your lens and your camera and by holding the lens further away, force the minimum focusing distance much closer to the camera.
See here:
Extension tubes
The advantage is they do not mess with the incoming light rays (which close-up filters do). The down side is that you lose electrical contact with your lens, so you are stuck in manual focus. That is not really a bad thing – you are better to focus manually anyway. The more serious problem is that if you need electrical contact to stop down your aperture for a deep depth of field, you will not get it and will be stuck full open. The more expensive ones carry the electrical contacts through to the lens, so you can maintain autofocus should you want to, and stop down for a deep depth of field. Again, they tend to come in different lengths, which increase/decrease focusing distance, and so magnification.
Another advantage is that one set of extension tubes fits any lens, whereas any one set of close-up filters only really works well with lenses of a similar filter thread diameter.
The most expensive option is to buy a true x1 magnification macro lens. These are lenses where the word macro is right up front in the header, rather than a word printed on the lens barrel. But check anyway – there are lenses with the word macro in the title that are still well short of x1 magnification. A good example of a true macro lens that does not break the bank is Tamron’s 90 mm f2.8 macro. It is available in popular fits for the likes of Nikon and Canon and you should be able to find a 2nd-hand one at
ca £150. A 90mm or 100mm macro lens is a useful lens to have – they work like normal lenses too (being able to focus to infinity), they have a wide maximum aperture (usually f2.8), so you can get good depth of field effects with them, and their focal length makes them good for portrait work.
All very well talking the talk, time to walk the walk…
Here’s a wee test set to show you the differences in results.
The camera was a 2002 model Canon 10D, a 6 megapixel camera. I used a (non macro) 28-135mm zoom lens as it was the only one I could put my hands on that took the only close-up filters I had (67mm thread) (see what I said about the limitations of the close-up filters!). I set the lens to 55 mm focal length to approximate a kit lens at its longest setting.
I used the cheeky tail fly as it has a variety of tones and hues, including highlights and shadows (jungle cock is actually quite problematic at times due to its reflectivity). In all shots I squared up the fly as best I could and focused manually by moving the fly back and forth while watching in the viewfinder (the old 10D alas does not have live-view!) at the dark lines made by the splits in the jungle cock cheeks. On reflection this maybe wasn’t the best thing to focus on, as the hook is drifting out of focus in the wide aperture shots, but that’s my technique rather than equipment to blame!
The shots were all taken in aperture priority at 0 EV using evaluative metering against a grey background. They were shot in RAW, processed as similarly as possible in ACR6, sharpened with Power Retouche and then cropped square to 758 x 758 pixels and saved for web optimisation.
The first shot is taken with a 10x close-up filter added, lens full open (f4.5).
Second shot is with the close-up filter and the lens fully stopped down (f27)
The immediate thing to note is how much fall-off in light there is with the close-up filters compared to the shots below (
ie they have produced a very dark background). If I lift the background in processing, the fly becomes over-exposed. However, if you went with close-up filters it would just be a case of adjusting to this,
eg by use of lighter backgrounds or by throwing some light on the background.
Next shot is with a 25 mm extension tube at f4.5.
And then with the extension tube at f27...
To compare, finally, here are 2 shots with a true x1 macro lens (Canon EF 100 mm). First, full open, which is f2.8:
Note that by focusing on the JC cheeks, I totally missed getting the hook in focus. That is how little depth of field you have at f2.8! Also note how there is less light fall-off than with either of the add-ons above.
Last shot is with the macro lens stopped right down to f32 (which required an 8 second exposure).
See what you think of the above for image quality anyway. My lighting was a bit OTT, I think – blown highlights in the JC and a bit too much contrast – but blame me, not the gear. Also bear in mind that by only shooting at the extremes of fully open and fully stopped down (in the interests of brevity
) I have missed out on the middle apertures that would have given the best shots in terms of image sharpness.
Providing you already have some simple accessories like a desk lamp (or the great outdoors) and a mini-tripod, or a stool, or a pile of books or something to sit it steady on, you are good to go with any of the above combos. Second-hand dSLR, plus kit lens, plus extension tubes or close-up filters… should be do-able for £150-175 (including a 3rd-party remote shutter cord – not essential, but for a fiver you will find it the best fiver you ever spent... at least on camera gear!).
Worth a think?
Col
dSLR on a budget/dSLR macro on a budget
Linear Mode
