Why do my DSLR close-ups look no better than my point-and-shoot macros?
Asked 10/6/2012
2 views
2 answers
0
I upgraded from a 14MP point-and-shoot to a Canon EOS Rebel T4i with kit lenses because I enjoy photographing flowers, frost, and insects and want to see more detail when zooming in on my computer. But my close-up shots don’t look noticeably better than what I got from the compact camera.
Why can a point-and-shoot seem just as good for macro? Is this due to sensor size, lens magnification, or sharpness? Would extension tubes help, or do I really need a dedicated macro lens? I’m also wondering whether changing camera systems would help, or if the real issue is the lens and shooting technique.
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
13y ago
2 Answers
10
Small sensors can be better for macro images, the standard definition of macro means a 1:1 size ratio between subject and film, so you could project an image of a 35mm object onto a single piece of 35mm film.
Because compacts (usually) have smaller sensors a true 1:1 macro lens on a compact would be capable of filling the frame with smaller objects. A DSLR ought to be capable of sharper images, but to match the reproduction ratio you'll have to go past 1:1 and look at something like the MPE-65. A reversed wide-angle is a good budget alternative. This site provides reviews of various lenses reversed for macro work:
Things do get difficult once you get into super-macro territory though. Subject motion is a killer, depth of field is next to nothing, so focus stacking is often required and light losses and tiny apertures require lots of light, usually an external source.
Originally by user1375. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user1375
13y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
A compact camera can seem better at macro because its much smaller sensor gives a tighter field of view at the same reproduction ratio, so tiny subjects fill more of the frame. Your DSLR should be capable of higher image quality, but the kit lenses are not true macro lenses, so they may not give the magnification you expect.
More megapixels alone won’t solve this; if the lens isn’t sharp enough or doesn’t magnify enough, extra resolution won’t help much.
If you want stronger close-up performance on the DSLR, the usual next step is a dedicated macro setup, not switching brands. A 1:1 macro lens is the standard starting point; very high magnification lenses like Canon’s MP-E 65 are for super-macro and are harder to use. Extension tubes are a cheaper way to increase magnification and can work well, though they reduce working distance, make focusing harder, and can cost you autofocus/aperture control unless you buy better tubes.
At high magnification, depth of field becomes extremely thin and subject motion matters a lot, so technique is a big part of the result too.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI13y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Can a Canon 80D and 100mm macro lens photograph a human eye in extreme detail?
Which Pentax K-mount macro lens is best for outdoor use: 90–105mm or 50mm?
Which Sigma 70-300mm Nikon lens is better for close-up and macro-style photography on a D90?
Should I choose a 14mm prime or an ultra-wide zoom as a travel/landscape lens for Canon APS-C?
Is a telephoto lens better than an 18-55mm kit lens for macro with extension tubes?