www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

On my Canon S3, Super Macro mode is very wide angle and of course it is necessary to get very close to subject, only possible in ideal weather
such as today when it was cloudy but bright and the butterflies were less frenetic. Wide angle produces a very different type of view.

This one is quite interesting as it shows the habitat at Salden, including old railway bridge, rather craftily - almost what one imagines is the "butterfly eye's view".

Jack

Hi Jack,
Fabtabulous shot!
Neil

What wonderful detail... great capture!
Wish I could actually get down on my knees to get such a shot

Polly

Ah, but I also find it difficult to get down low. That is why I find my angled viewfinder invaluable.

Jack

I don't have that problem...it's getting back up I find hard

Jack, you may find a lens adapter and a Canon 500D close up lens to be useful. You will then be able to shoot close ups from the tele end of the zoom, somewhere between 12" and 20" away. You can then use the zoom to frame the subject. I got great results with that when I had my S3.
Nice shot BTW.

I have been using single element supplementary lenses (+1 to +4) for years but of course the optics aren't optimised as is the case with a dedicated macro lens.

I am sure that the Canon 500D would be better as it is a multi element lens but frankly is too expensive to try out (£70+) for an unknown improvement.

Jack

You are correct in saying that the average close up lens isn't 'optimised'. In fact it's fair to say that they are usually rubbish, exhibiting heavy chromatic aberration away from the centre and not doing particularly well for resolution in the centre either. The 500D on the other hand is a recommended accessory by Canon for the S3 and an excellent optic. Mine has transferred very well to APS-C format too with nearly all of my recent butterfly photos being taken with it.

Thanks eccles for the discussion on this. I am now fairly sure that my problems stem from chromatic aberration as a result of using cheap single element close-up lenses. Things are beginning to make sense now.

I use a variety of lenses from +1 to +4. Occasionally, I seem to get a shot that is "adequately" sharp but haven't been sufficiently rigorous in my testing to determine which add-on lens performs best although it is probably the +1 ( more diopters must mean more serious aberration). So I really need something like the Canon 500D that you recommend (that's 2 diopters by the way) which is a two-element achromatic lens. The Canon lens is expensive and it might be worth a gamble to get another maker's achromatic (eg Minolta - much cheaper). Lots of thinking going on at present and decisions likely delayed until the end of the year when I will in all probability I will replace my Canon S3 in any case. I have to add that the S3 is a really tough cookie. I dropped it on concrete last week. It stopped working. But only because the battery cover had sprung open.

Incidentally, the S3 is fine for distant , eg landscape, photography, so that more or less confirms that my irritation with the results with butterflies is because of the supplementary lenses I use. So I WOULD recommend the Canon S3 but not for butterfly or other close-up photography. But it's a good compact for someone who wants more than just a point-and-shoot camera.

Jack

Eccles advised:

Jack, you may find a lens adapter and a Canon 500D close up lens to be useful

I was deterred by the cost, £70+ and
replied:

Thanks eccles for the discussion on this. I am now fairly sure that my problems stem from chromatic aberration as a result of using cheap single element close-up lenses. Things are beginning to make sense now.

A search on e-bay turned up a Sigma achromatic, same power as that Canon500D (ie, 2 diopters = 50cm focal length) for a total price of £2.98 including postage. First tests this morning and results are markedly better (in terms of resolution) than with the old single element supplementary and surprisingly, the auto focus locks on much quicker (I guess it's not having to work out what wavelength to use).

Now to try the RAW hack that eccles mentioned but it does look a bit daunting. Fortunately my computer-literate son is currently at home from uni and has agreed to give it a try.

So many thanks eccles for pointing me in the right direction and getting me to think about chromatic aberration. I'm annoyed for not thinking of that myself. A hobby earlier in my life was astronomy and I certainly new all about achromatic lenses.

Attached is re-sized to 50% of original.

The only thing is I do feel that £3 is a bit steep for a quality Sigma lens

Jack

Nice shot Jack, although a bit oversharpened maybe. I've seen the Sigma achromats appear on ebay before but I thought, incorrectly, evidently, that they were a bit less than +2 dioptre. In any case, I'm sure it'll do you a treat, and what a bargain! I've sold my S3 on to a neighbour but kept the 500D. I'm sure the neighbour would do well with a Sigma like yours so I'll keep an eye out on ebay for another.
Good luck with the raw hack. Initially I was a bit disappointed with it as it doesn't actually give you a lot more detail. But after playing with it for a while I was getting cleaner, more lifelike looking prints.

A very slightly sharpened image (2000 + pixels wide) is kept in my personal library not intending for any other use. I re-sized that for the web and the result is that it is indeed over-sharpened. Silly mistake. I should of course have re-sized before sharpening (if necessary - I normally find it is after re-sizing).

Jack

Hi eccles.

My son has installed the RAW hack on my Canon S3 and provisional results are encouraging with seemingly less noise. One major advantage is a battery state indicator.

I'll be conducting more tests in the field over the weekend when I'll probably go to Fermyn Woods for White Admiral (and just maybe Purple emperors). No sure which day as that depends on the weather, both days at the moment rather uncertain as to whether or not the sun shines. It should at least be warm and dry.

Jack

The advantage I found shooting raw wasn't that there was less noise but less smearing of fine detail. In-camera noise reduction was usually bettered by in-computer programs such as Neat Image. My favourite shot of an adonis blue is on my wall now, taken with S3 + Canon 500D and processed from a raw image. There are some shots that you can only take with a DSLR, which is why I went that route, but this is not to take away the fact that, with care, you can still take some cracking shots with that S3.
Good luck at Fermyn Woods.