How close do I need to be with 18-55 kit lens?

[EricY]

Just a thought to throw at you photo experts. I am currently researching replacement cams in light weight category. I need a long range digicam & that is pretty straight choise between the new fugi's X-s1 & hs30 & Pano fz150 + adapter + 55-58step up to take my 1758 Sony tc.

To replace my H50 whose range is macro <1/2" to 435 is more problematic. Considering a larger senser cam with aps-c sensor Nex5n, nexc3, SLT65, Nikon, etc all with 18-55 kit lens. I do not want to change lens & need to keep cost total below £700 hence my Q about how near do I need to be to get a usable pic with an 18-55 ? Eric

[Wurzel]

I don't know anything about the technical side of things as I'm still in the state of find the butterfly, get a few shots, enjoy it and then try for a few more if it's willing! I have a Nikon with 18-55 and pretty much all my shots are taken with it. The advantage I've found is that I can get really close if need be but I can still get shots from further away and the image ratains definition when cropped, also the lens is of a size where there isn't any noticable wobble/shake. I suppose that having used an 18-55 all of the time I want to sing it's praises!
Sorry I couldn't be more help but I'm sure that someone who knows alot more than me will be along shortly...

Have a goodun

Wurzel

[The Annoying Czech]

After all-season butterflying with (very cheap) 14-42 mm kit for Olympus took the view that

• it's truly a disaster for shooting Emperors (generally first butterflies to be frightened away from the ground; "teleobjective-friendly branch species; highly intolerable to close approach / your shadow / shaking ground - especially if/when sunny)

• obviously the smaller species the worst (mostly...)

• despite of a) & b) it's simply a great challenge that will certainly be useful to you in the future (you'll learn how to operate very close to imagos)

(All mentioned hopefully ends for me by 2012 - I'm changing for 105 mm macro)

Anyway, various things are possible with a certain level of patience & luck, see my Short-tailed Blue photo of the smalles species populating my village (Central Europe). Here is something more common. After this experience, I believe the favourable circumstances are the key (if you're not expecting unreal miracles).

I do like this one too, but beware, it's highly annoying Large Copper!

[ScottD]

To replace my H50 whose range is macro <1/2" to 435 is more problematic. Considering a larger senser cam with aps-c sensor Nex5n, nexc3, SLT65, Nikon, etc all with 18-55 kit lens. I do not want to change lens & need to keep cost total below £700 hence my Q about how near do I need to be to get a usable pic with an 18-55 ? Eric

Canon just announced a new large sensor compact that may be worth a look. http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/10 ... 1X_Preview
Standard kit lenses for DSLRs/CSCs aren't designed for macro usage.

[dilettante]

Considering a larger senser cam with aps-c sensor Nex5n, nexc3, SLT65, Nikon, etc all with 18-55 kit lens. I do not want to change lens & need to keep cost total below £700 hence my Q about how near do I need to be to get a usable pic with an 18-55 ? Eric

You may not want to change lens now, but I suspect that at some point in the future you will find a kit lens limiting and will want a true macro lens. For that reason, I'd be more inclined to go for an SLR/SLT than NEX or similar, unless the compact size of the latter is compelling for you. Yes you can change lenses on the NEX, but the range of available lenses is rather small, they're expensive and there are no third party providers so far, as far as I know. Whereas on the Sony SLTs or Nikon or Canon SLRs you have the option of something like the relatively affordable Tamron 90/2.8 macro.

[Paul Wetton]

Have you considered the second hand market as I agree with Dilettante you may want to expand in the future.

I managed to obtain a second hand Canon 40D for my brother for less than £300 and its a brilliant camera. I've also purchased two Sigma 150mm macro lenses second hand for £300 pounds and less. This in my opinion is way better than the Canon equivalent for the money. Not better but better value.

Going back to your original question with an 18-55mm kit lens get as close as the lens will allow. I'm not sure what the minimum focal distance is but with cropping you will get a good picture probably with more depth of field than using a dedicated macro lens.

Good luck.

[MikeOxon]

Minimum focus distance for the Nikon 18-55 lens is quoted as 0.28m (0.9 ft). Remember that this is measured from the sensor, so the front element of the lens will only be at about half this distance from the subject. The maximum reproduction ratio is quoted as 0.31x (1:3.2) so, for example, a Peacock butterfly with a wingspan of 65mm would measure about 20mm on the sensor. Since the DX sensor width is about 23.5mm, you could fill most of the frame - assuming that you could get close enough. Marek has shown what can be done with a standard zoom lens.

Mike

[EricY]

Many thanks for your replys, I am afraid I cannot contemplate lens changing at all so it has to be a "one size fits all for me".

ScottD - I did see the dpreview about G1X last night, & it did look a good posibility but comments on forum are not enthusiastic & it did say min macro focus was 7cm. That seems odd to me.

Wurzel your pics in forum have looked ok but no pics in profile to look at now.

Mike 28cm min focus for std 18-55 does not enthuse me. Marek's look good for a small lens.

My profile contains 3 pics taken with H50 at full zoom app 12ft away & a liitle pp on pc, so I need to better that. Made a big mistake in 09 with a HS10, very poor IQ in my hands but thought it would replace both my cams. They weigh in at 1.32kg & need replacements to be around that. Eric

[NickB]

Hi Eric
I used a Nikkor kit 18-55mm VR lens on holiday last year, along with my macros and was pleasantly surprised. It does act as a reasonable 55mm macro and a useful wide-angle lens, though don't expect to get as good as a dedicated macro - but for around £120 is a good performer for the money. To get a "better" lens of that type would cost £300-£400 for a noticeable improvement.

Here is a link to a picture (in a Facebook public album) I took in France last year with the 18-55mm - there are some other examples of this (& landscapes) and 90mm and 200mm macros.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid= ... =3&theater
This is also using the 18-55mm...

Hope that helps - Mike is right for distances, etc - you do have to get very close to get those frame-fillers....

Nick

[EricY]

You will have to excuse my tired old brain, I might have been able to absorb all the technical info 40yrs ago but this is likely to be my last camera purchase! Do I understand correctly that larger sensor cams cannot do very close macro? ie Mike's long range & new Canon G1X is 7cm minimum as I understand it. Where as most digi cams can do 0.30cm, I do like to stick my cam up close to insects that will stay still for a bit.
thanks Nick for the image, it does look to me as though the image is not "miles" better than I get with my Sony H50. Although the dslr is more versitile & probably I would get a higher percentage of keepers. Just for comparison I attach one I like from last year, cropped & a bit of pp in an old edition of psp5 (Icannot get my head round photoshop) Eric

purple hairstreak head on

[NickB]

Hi Eric,
To be honest, the style of shooting you say you prefer is best suited to the bridge set-up you have or to compacts which can be placed within a cm or so. Smaller sensors give them greater d-o-f than a DSLR. To do that with a DSLR would neither be easy, nor cheap, to try to replicate! So a quick and light camera like the Sony is perfect for that style of photography. I moved from a bridge to DSLR and it is a long learning-curve, which I am still on, several years later...and poorer!

With regards to IQ - images on here at a maximum of 800x800 pixels are not necessarily a good comparative guide between a good bridge camera macro shot and one taken with a good DSLR and a macro lens. If you look closely at blown-up edges of original images, the bleeding of those edges and colours, or noise, is more apparent on a compact or bridge than a DSLR, as you zoom-in and magnify. It is not a huge difference; the question is always, how much am I prepared to spend to get better images?
I would stick to what you have or up-grade to a better model that allows you to do the same, rather than spend money on a DSLR...
Good luck
Nick

[EricY]

many thanks Nick for your reply, you have put my mind at rest. I do not think the dslr route is for me but had to investigate it as so many are full of praises for dslr's. I am short term abandoning my search for a new camera untill at least we have the reviews of Fuji X-S1 & HS30, as I have a new PC coming next week & it will take me all my time to get my head round Win7, lol. If I had to buy a camera tomorrow it would I think have to be the FZ150 then whatever I get in spring I could add my 1758 sony TC to it permanently as I do at present with my old Sony H5 (some on forums still say it has better IQ than current HX100v). I will add a few photos I like to the "species favorite photos" threads. Good luck with your dslr. Eric

[NickB]

Thanks, Eric,
I now have a 200mm macro, a 90mm macro and a 24-70mm macro,as well as the 18-55mm lens (and the rest ....) to play with...
It was the Panasonic FZ50 that started me on all this....FZ150 is from the same stable and probably one of the best bridge cameras out there, IMHO...
N

[ScottD]

ScottD - I did see the dpreview about G1X last night, & it did look a good posibility but comments on forum are not enthusiastic & it did say min macro focus was 7cm. That seems odd to me

I haven't been looking at the forums for the G1X because it doesn't really interest me (as a happy DSLR user) but from what little I've read it should be good. The important thing for you is not whether it suits the needs of somebody else on a forum but whether it suits yours.
In macro increased working distance is usually considered a good thing as you are less likely to spook skittish critters. (btw in compacts "macro" is often used when they really mean close focus as opposed to the ability to shoot at 1:1).

[MikeOxon]

I will add a few photos I like to the "species favorite photos" threads.

Your head-on photo of a Chalkhill Blue, which happens to be next to my similar one on the thread, shows a key difference between DSLR (large sensor) and small-sensor cameras:- the background in yours is still fairly sharp, because of the great depth of field conferred by the small lens/small sensor combination.

Mine was taken using a focal length of 250mm and, even though the aperture was closed down to f/11, the background is well out of focus. If you like a 'clean' background, it is very hard to achieve with a compact but, on the other hand, it can be hard to get everything you need in focus with a DSLR. A compact is great for 'Padfield'-type shots, which show the butterfly in context.

I looked at all your recent photos and you are clearly getting excellent results with your present set-up. There's a lot to be said for "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"

Mike

[EricY]

Just thought I would let you know that thanks to the info here I did decide to stick with bridge cams. So did get the fz150 because it has some good reviews. I am finding the extensive menue system a bit more difficult than my old Sony's, but working through it. A big advantage of fz150 was that with a adaptor tube it would take my Sony 1758tc. Panny's ext tube is 55mm to take their own tc & internet reccomendations were that with a 55-58 step up ring it still worked with the Sony. However i did a google search for "58mm metal adaptor tube for fz100/150" & a Polaroid branded one (made in China) no PL-ATPFZ100 came up on amazon at half the price of LA5+step up. Attaching a pic of the combination sitting on std A4 paper sheet & a pic of a Dunnock from about 20 ft away. Combination works well for birding etc, I guess Butterflies will be more problematical! Eric