Choosing a Camera for Macro Photography

[Uncle Fester]

Hi

This is my first post on the forum. I’m very new to photography and need some advice. I currently have a Panasonic GMC G3 camera with 14-42mm lens. I bought this second hand to practice and learn with.

At the moment; I’m shooting pretty much anything and everything I like the look of. However; the one aspect of photography; that I really enjoy is close up / macrophotography.

I would like to get a new camera and lens system; so bearing in mind that macro is something I would like to pursue further; I’d appreciate some advice as to what type of camera and perhaps which brand and model I should be looking at.

Is there any advantage to looking at a full frame camera or would a crop sensor camera (APS-C) be satisfactory?

I see that accessories such as reversing rings, extension tubes, are available for the macro photographer; as well as macro lenses from Raynox. Is any camera brand or specific camera better supported than any others? I’m more than happy to consider second hand equipment.

I seem to remember from the days of film; that you could also buy ‘bellows’ for micro work. Do these still exist and again; is any particular camera or brand better supported than others?

If it were not for my interest in macro; I’d probably be looking at something like a Fuji XT1 or XT10 with a few XF lenses; but other than one macro lens and a set of extension tubes; the Fuji’s don’t seem (as far as I can see) well supported for macro work.

It may well be; that I need one camera for macro and another for everything else; but I’d like to find out what I need for a good macro set up before making any decisions.

By the way; it may look as if I know what I’m talking about. That’s only because I have done a bit of reading about things. I know that a little knowledge can be dangerous; so please feel free to correct any errors I may have made – photography is very new to me and there is a lot that I don’t understand!

As far as budget is concerned; I have not even thought about it. While I don’t have lots of ££’s to spend; I’d rather find out the cost of the optimum set up first to see if that’s affordable. If it isn’t; then I’ll be asking for more advice as what compromises to make with my choice of equipment.

Thanks in advance for any help and advice you can offer.

 

[mikew]

You say macro but talk about bellows ect so it may be an idea for us to know what sort of macro you want,is it set up small inanimate objects or insects ect out in the wild.

 

[Canon Bob]

A quick explanation about bellows......

Way back when, film was larger and lenses, even macro lenses, typically only magnified to 0.25x or 0.5x. A small subject required far more magnification to become a meaningful size on the film/negative and using bellows was a good way to achieve this. Nowadays, most common macro lenses will project the image life size on to the sensor (1:1 ratio) and there isn't often the need to go larger. For most practical applications where greater than life size (1:1) is required then a set of solid extension tubes fills the void....typically giving about 2x magnification with a 100mm lens. 35mm format bellows still exist (I have a set) but it's unlikely that you need them at the start.

Bob

 

[HoppyUK]

There are advantages to APS-C format for macro, but the brand/model is less important - it's the lens, and how close you want to go. All macro lenses are very good quality and typically the only decision is between 100mm-ish, or 50mm-ish.

One exception to that is the unique Canon MP-E 65mm lens, for which you obviously need a Canon camera, but that's a very specialist lens for extreme macro - it starts where others leave off - and is hard to use, even for those with a lot of macro experience.

Apart from the lens, give some thought to lighting (ring-flash etc) as you'll probably need it. Long thread on that here https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/show-us-your-macro-rig.132158/

Edit: welcome to TP

 

[andythilo]

If it's any help, I've just started the exciting journey into macro. I echo what others say about the camera, any camera will do really but a more modern SLR or mirrorless will make it a little easier maybe. I use a Nikon D7200 which I bought with no intention of doing macro.

My lens choices were the Sigma 105, Tamron 90 or Tokina 100. All are around £300-£350 new. I then got a Meike ring flash from Amazon for £50 and a set of kenko tubes for £60.

My usual setup is to have the 35mm Kenko on the camera always as in good to reasonable light, the D7200 still AF's. I know it's not used much in macro, but for learning (for me), being able to use continuous AF is great benefit. The Meike flash really is great and exposes very well with the camera in x250 mode.

 

[Steve B]

You dont need to change camera, your G3 is perfectly capable of handling macro shooting.
You can use extension tubes, Raynox lenses, ring lights etc with it and Panasonic even do macro lenses.
Here you can see what it is capable of https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=close+up&cm=panasonic/dmc-g3

Of course if you are looking for an excuse to buy a new camera, that's a whole different conversation

 

[stevelmx5]

As above, I've shot macro with my old GF1 and got great results. You don't need an autofocus lens for macro, my best shots were taken with an older manual Olympus OM Zuiko 50/3.5 and extension tubes. The main priority is light so a handheld flashgun with remote trigger is a must.

 

[pingu666]

tilty flippy screen is really useful, the sony a77 has one of the best articulating screens.

working distance is the main thing with lenses, the longer ones give more distance, more bokeh, less dof and are harder to use, 90mm to 150mm equivilent is easier
the tamron 60mm f2 feels great to me on apsc and is great for portraits too

 

[Canon Bob]

.......the longer ones give more distance, more bokeh, less dof and are harder to use......

The DoF is essentially the same, irrespective of focal length, if you're using the same aperture and framing the same shot.

Bob

 

[HoppyUK]

The DoF is essentially the same, irrespective of focal length, if you're using the same aperture and framing the same shot.

Bob

Yes, quite a confusing post from P666 on a number of points, but we need to know more about what the OP wants to do. All options appear to be open at the moment but there's a world of difference between flowers and butterflies around the garden, and a portrait of a fly. Then there are numerous equipment options from maybe a Raynox clip-on macro adapter or a set of basic extension tubes for 40 quid, to a DSLR and macro lens costing four figures.

FWIW, to the OP or anyone else wanting to dip a toe into the world of macro, an easy and low-cost route are the two Raynox adapters - DCR-150 for subjects that would fit in the palm of your hand (not really macro in the true sense), or DCR-250 for things that would fit on the tip of your finger. They're easy to use relatively speaking, and are a low-risk way of discovering what it's really like working just a few inches from the subject where depth-of-field is miniscule and getting good light on the subject is tricky. They work well on a wide range of cameras/lenses and can be capable of very good results. Here's a few I prepared earlier

https://www.flickr.com/groups/2011238@N25/pool/
https://www.flickr.com/groups/raynoxdcr250/pool/

 

[Uncle Fester]

Thank you all very much for the replies – I wasn’t expecting so many, so soon!

You say macro but talk about bellows ect so it may be an idea for us to know what sort of macro you want,is it set up small inanimate objects or insects ect out in the wild.

Probably both; I’d like to photograph small objects at home; but also insects and flowers in the wild.

A quick explanation about bellows......

Way back when, film was larger and lenses, even macro lenses, typically only magnified to 0.25x or 0.5x. A small subject required far more magnification to become a meaningful size on the film/negative and using bellows was a good way to achieve this. Nowadays, most common macro lenses will project the image life size on to the sensor (1:1 ratio) and there isn't often the need to go larger. For most practical applications where greater than life size (1:1) is required then a set of solid extension tubes fills the void....typically giving about 2x magnification with a 100mm lens. 35mm format bellows still exist (I have a set) but it's unlikely that you need them at the start.

Bob

Thanks for that clear and informative reply. I just remember that bellows were used for macro work years ago; but I didn’t know if they are still relevant in the era of digital photography.

There are advantages to APS-C format for macro, but the brand/model is less important - it's the lens, and how close you want to go. All macro lenses are very good quality and typically the only decision is between 100mm-ish, or 50mm-ish.

One exception to that is the unique Canon MP-E 65mm lens, for which you obviously need a Canon camera, but that's a very specialist lens for extreme macro - it starts where others leave off - and is hard to use, even for those with a lot of macro experience.

Apart from the lens, give some thought to lighting (ring-flash etc) as you'll probably need it. Long thread on that here https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/show-us-your-macro-rig.132158/

Edit: welcome to TP

Thanks for the welcome!

OK; so an APS-C camera will be fine for macro. Presumably a full frame camera doesn’t have any advantages when it comes to macro?

When you say ”the only decision is between 100mm-ish, or 50mm-ish” what are the pro’s and cons of each in macro photography?

Thanks for the info about the Canon MP-E 65mm lens. I read a review of the lens and it seems like quite something! I think that may be a little too advanced for me as I’m just starting out; but it’s worth knowing about just in case I want to consider it in future.

Thanks also for the advice about giving thought to lighting and the thread link. Now that I’ve glanced through that and watched the ‘Educating Tina’ video in the macro section; I can see how important this is.

Are ring flashes available for any camera or are they dedicated to particular makes and models?

If it's any help, I've just started the exciting journey into macro. I echo what others say about the camera, any camera will do really but a more modern SLR or mirrorless will make it a little easier maybe. I use a Nikon D7200 which I bought with no intention of doing macro.

My lens choices were the Sigma 105, Tamron 90 or Tokina 100. All are around £300-£350 new. I then got a Meike ring flash from Amazon for £50 and a set of kenko tubes for £60.

My usual setup is to have the 35mm Kenko on the camera always as in good to reasonable light, the D7200 still AF's. I know it's not used much in macro, but for learning (for me), being able to use continuous AF is great benefit. The Meike flash really is great and exposes very well with the camera in x250 mode.

Andy; thanks for your helpful post.

I don’t think there are any Sigma, Tamron or Tokina lenses for either the Fuji XT1 or Fuji XT10 that I was considering; so perhaps I’m either looking at the wrong camera or perhaps Fuji make equivalent lenses?

Good to hear about the Kenko extension tubes. I can’t seem to find them available for the Fuji X-mount lenses; but I can see other ‘no name’ brands of extension tubes on Ebay that claim to be compatible with Fuji lenses. Whether these are any good I don’t know!

Thanks also for mentioning the Meike ring flash as I had not heard of that make before. I have just read elsewhere where someone complains about the difficulty of attaching a ring flash to his Fuji 60mm macro lens; so again I’m wondering if Fuji is the right make to be looking at.

You dont need to change camera, your G3 is perfectly capable of handling macro shooting.
You can use extension tubes, Raynox lenses, ring lights etc with it and Panasonic even do macro lenses.
Here you can see what it is capable of https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=close+up&cm=panasonic/dmc-g3

Of course if you are looking for an excuse to buy a new camera, that's a whole different conversation

Hi Steve

I’m sometimes frustrated finding my way around the G3 and often find myself fumbling through the menu when I should be taking pictures. The Fuji XT1 seems a bit more intuitive (though I’ve only had a very brief play with it) as it has the iso, shutter speed and exposure compensation controls via top buttons and the aperture control via a ring on the lens. However if Fuji camera’s are not well supported by what I need i.e. macro lenses, ring flash and extension tubes; then maybe I should think again.

Thanks for your links to the G3 photo’s – they are inspiring! The fact that I can seemingly get everything I need for my existing camera makes deciding whether to get a new camera that much harder!

As above, I've shot macro with my old GF1 and got great results. You don't need an autofocus lens for macro, my best shots were taken with an older manual Olympus OM Zuiko 50/3.5 and extension tubes. The main priority is light so a handheld flashgun with remote trigger is a must.

Thanks for your comments Steve – those photo’s are amazing. Hmmm; should I even be thinking of a new camera?

tilty flippy screen is really useful, the sony a77 has one of the best articulating screens.

working distance is the main thing with lenses, the longer ones give more distance, more bokeh, less dof and are harder to use, 90mm to 150mm equivilent is easier
the tamron 60mm f2 feels great to me on apsc and is great for portraits too

Thanks Paul. I really find the pull out screen on the G3 fantastically useful. That’s why I was thinking about the Fuji XT1 and XT10 and they both have pull out screens. I don’t think that any other Fuji cameras have them. I know the Fuji screens don’t fully articulate in the same way as my G3 does; but I don’t think that is a drawback – but please correct me if I’m wrong.

So a longer lens means I can be further from the subject, more out of focus background but are less user friendly?

Sorry; when you say “the tamron 60mm f2 feels great to me on apsc” I don’t know what apsc means.

The DoF is essentially the same, irrespective of focal length, if you're using the same aperture and framing the same shot.

Bob

Thanks for that info Bob.

Yes, quite a confusing post from P666 on a number of points, but we need to know more about what the OP wants to do. All options appear to be open at the moment but there's a world of difference between flowers and butterflies around the garden, and a portrait of a fly. Then there are numerous equipment options from maybe a Raynox clip-on macro adapter or a set of basic extension tubes for 40 quid, to a DSLR and macro lens costing four figures.

FWIW, to the OP or anyone else wanting to dip a toe into the world of macro, an easy and low-cost route are the two Raynox adapters - DCR-150 for subjects that would fit in the palm of your hand (not really macro in the true sense), or DCR-250 for things that would fit on the tip of your finger. They're easy to use relatively speaking, and are a low-risk way of discovering what it's really like working just a few inches from the subject where depth-of-field is miniscule and getting good light on the subject is tricky. They work well on a wide range of cameras/lenses and can be capable of very good results. Here's a few I prepared earlier

https://www.flickr.com/groups/2011238@N25/pool/
https://www.flickr.com/groups/raynoxdcr250/pool/

Thanks for another very informative post Richard. I’m thinking mainly of flowers and insects for my macro photography. I really like the very close up pictures of such subjects; I suppose by that I mean 1:1 or larger.

Thank you for the two Raynox links – those photo’s are truly breath taking. I like the idea of the Raynox. As I understand it; the Raynox adaptor will fit onto most lenses with a filter thread of between 52mm-67mm.

Maybe the way to start off would be try one with my current camera and (hopefully) it will fit the lenses of any replacement camera I may get in future.

I’m not sure how I would fit a Raynox and a ring flash to my camera lens though…

 

[mikew]

A ring flash can give flat lighting,here are some alternatives

http://orionmystery.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/more-macro-rigs.html

 

[heidfirst]

Probably both; I’d like to photograph small objects at home; but also insects and flowers in the wild.

for many insects that can be spooked by you getting close a longer focal length is useful as it gives you more working distance - I find that I use my 180mm more than my 100mm for these. This does have it's down sides as it is larger & heavier.
I also find that I rarely use AF so if using a mirrorless body you can happily fit & use many older & cheaper manual macro lenses as long as the appropriate mount adapter exists.

 

[petersmart]

TBH almost any camera will give good results, and a set of auto extension tubes and ( if you get a cheap Canon camera) the 50mm f1.8 lens will give you an excellent start.

Amazon produce these which seem to get good reviews:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Polaroid-F...1953&sr=1-1&keywords=polaroid+extension+tubes

and a new 50mm lens is about £100 new (less s/h on here) and a canon 350D or 450D owould be about £100-£150 (body only).

That setup would give you a great start in macro and enable you to learn without breaking the bank (I assume) - a good tripod and a tall flashgun would complete the ensemble.

Here are some of my own shots taken with such a setup:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/20926615@N05/albums/72157625975281497

The only thing to remember is you will get an awful lot of failures so perseverance is an absolute necessity.
.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Thanks for the replies!

A ring flash can give flat lighting,here are some alternatives

http://orionmystery.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/more-macro-rigs.html

Thanks for that Mike. That’s an interesting and helpful site – cheers.

for many insects that can be spooked by you getting close a longer focal length is useful as it gives you more working distance - I find that I use my 180mm more than my 100mm for these. This does have it's down sides as it is larger & heavier.
I also find that I rarely use AF so if using a mirrorless body you can happily fit & use many older & cheaper manual macro lenses as long as the appropriate mount adapter exists.

Thanks Scott; I’m learning all the time! I wondered why most macro lenses that I’ve read about are either 60mm or 90-105mm ish. I don’t think I’ve heard of a 180mm macro before, though now you mention it, I can see the advantage of greater working distance despite the downsides you mention.

TBH almost any camera will give good results, and a set of auto extension tubes and ( if you get a cheap Canon camera) the 50mm f1.8 lens will give you an excellent start.

Amazon produce these which seem to get good reviews:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Polaroid-F...1953&sr=1-1&keywords=polaroid+extension+tubes

and a new 50mm lens is about £100 new (less s/h on here) and a canon 350D or 450D owould be about £100-£150 (body only).

That setup would give you a great start in macro and enable you to learn without breaking the bank (I assume) - a good tripod and a tall flashgun would complete the ensemble.

Here are some of my own shots taken with such a setup:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/20926615@N05/albums/72157625975281497

The only thing to remember is you will get an awful lot of failures so perseverance is an absolute necessity.
.

Thanks that’s really useful info; much appreciated. I appreciate the suggestions for the two Canon camera’s. Having a quick look at the spec’s I think I would veer toward the 450D; simply because it uses SD cards rather CF cards. Thanks also for the helpful links and your great pictures!

It’s good to know; that even if I go down the Fuji route and find I need a separate camera set up for macro use; it won’t cost me a fortune.

I suppose summing up; my choices are:

1: Keep my Panasonic G3 and hopefully become more proficient with it; buy a few more lenses and it should cover all my needs for general and macro photography.

The Pro’s of this are that it will probably be the least costly option. The Con’s are that I might not find the G3 any easier to use than I do now. If that turns out to be the case; any lenses I will have purchased will have to go along with the camera.

Or

2: Buy a Fuji XT1 or XT10 hoping that I will find it easier to use than my Panny G3 and buy some Fuji lenses. The Pro’s of this are that I will have a camera that is (hopefully!) easier to use and have some great lenses. If I find that I can get all the macro gear I want for the Fuji camera/lenses; that will be a bonus.

The Con’s are that, if I don’t find the Fuji any easier to use, I will have wasted my money. Also; even if I get on well with the Fuji; it may not be ideal for macro work and I may still have to invest in separate camera and lenses for that.

Hmm; well I still don’t know what to do. But I’m certainly armed with more information to make my decision.

I feel a period of prolonged head scratching coming on!

 

[stevelmx5]

One camera is technically as easy as another. They all have 3 basic controls, ISO, aperture and shutter speed. Save your money and buy a manual macro lens with M4/3 adaptor and use it on your G3. If you find you still want to move to Fuji, get a Fuji-X adaptor for the manual lens and carry on using it.

Buying more kit doesn't automatically increase your photographic skill, practise does. The best manual macro lenses I've used are;

Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm 3.5 (OM Mount)
Kiron 105mm 2.8 (M42 mount)
Tamron 90mm 2.5 (adaptall mount)

Any one of those will be less than £100 with the relevant adaptor and you can pick up plain extension tubes for £10 if you want increased magnification.

Factor in £50 for a yongnuo flashgun with optical trigger built in (so you can trigger it with the on-camera flash) and you're good to go.

 

[pjm1]

There are plenty of low cost options out there for trying macro. My advice, from someone who's dabbled but is definitely not a "macro photographer" may not be as valid as advice from those who are, but still...

1. Definitely don't go full frame. The glass is a lot more expensive generally and the whole kit is heavier. You simply don't need it and there are no particular advantages to having a larger sensor in itself for macro. The crop factor can also be helpful in giving you a touch more working distance, too...
2. The camera make isn't particular important, although it's worth noting the Canon does have a very special macro lens, although it's neither cheap nor particularly easy to use for a beginner...
3. Think about how else you might want to use your camera and the conditions you might be using it in. Inclement weather can bring out great photography opportunities especially for macro, so does a weather-sealed camera give you more flexibility?
4. Don't forget lighting - you'll need flash and some modifiers, although the latter can be home made very effectively. It's lighting as much as technique that makes great macro shots IMHO.
5. If you really get into photography you may well end up changing the system you're buying into anyway, so it's best to think of it as a potential stepping stone and factor in a future upgrade if you get into landscape etc. and do eventually want a second full-frame body, for example
6. I'd absolutely buy second-hand. It's a no-brainer and you're obviously comfortable doing so. This will not only bring down your cost (allowing you to get a wider selection of kit) but minimise any losses should you either not dig it, or want to upgrade again in a few years' time. It's what I did and don't regret it at all.

Definitely don't just stick to the big brands. I think I can say this without being accused of pimping my own classifieds ad running at the moment (because you don't have access to them!) but Pentax is a decent value into macro. The kit is cheap, quality is good, they are weatherproofed and have a stupid number of old compatible lenses you can get your hands on. The only downside to the system is their inferior autofocus, which isn't an issue for macro! I think @nass might be a Pentax macro user, but could be wrong. I still think my Sigma 70mm macro is one of the best lenses I own and does proper 1:1.

 

[Uncle Fester]

One camera is technically as easy as another. They all have 3 basic controls, ISO, aperture and shutter speed. Save your money and buy a manual macro lens with M4/3 adaptor and use it on your G3. If you find you still want to move to Fuji, get a Fuji-X adaptor for the manual lens and carry on using it.

Buying more kit doesn't automatically increase your photographic skill, practise does. The best manual macro lenses I've used are;

Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm 3.5 (OM Mount)
Kiron 105mm 2.8 (M42 mount)
Tamron 90mm 2.5 (adaptall mount)

Any one of those will be less than £100 with the relevant adaptor and you can pick up plain extension tubes for £10 if you want increased magnification.

Factor in £50 for a yongnuo flashgun with optical trigger built in (so you can trigger it with the on-camera flash) and you're good to go.

Hi Steve

At the moment; I’m struggling with the G3. If I want to change any of the three primary settings (iso/aperture/shutter speed); I’m either looking into the viewfinder, or pulling out the display screen, which requires a press of a button to switch between the two). Changing aperture and shutter speed whilst in manual; is quite easy as that just requires the press and turn of a wheel. But if I need to change Iso; I have to do it via a button press and then moving the directional controls and then pressing enter. I find that I’m also frequently pressing the wrong button due to the close spacing of the buttons. This requires me to ‘exit’ and restart. I don’t find it intuitive and it takes me so long to do; that I have frequently missed shots.

The Fuji XT1 has the primary controls as wheels on the top plate – this seems to me to be more intuitive. I know that changing the camera will not make me a great photographer (I think only a miracle will do that!) but I’m hoping it will make getting the shot I want a little easier.

I realise; that most (all?) of my problems are probably due to my inexperience, ignorance and clumsiness. Perhaps I should persevere with the G3; but I’m definitely finding it hard going at the moment.

Thank you for your manual lens suggestions; that’s very helpful.

Thanks also for the mention of the Yongnuo flash – that’s a brand I have never heard of before.

There are plenty of low cost options out there for trying macro. My advice, from someone who's dabbled but is definitely not a "macro photographer" may not be as valid as advice from those who are, but still...

1. Definitely don't go full frame. The glass is a lot more expensive generally and the whole kit is heavier. You simply don't need it and there are no particular advantages to having a larger sensor in itself for macro. The crop factor can also be helpful in giving you a touch more working distance, too...
2. The camera make isn't particular important, although it's worth noting the Canon does have a very special macro lens, although it's neither cheap nor particularly easy to use for a beginner...
3. Think about how else you might want to use your camera and the conditions you might be using it in. Inclement weather can bring out great photography opportunities especially for macro, so does a weather-sealed camera give you more flexibility?
4. Don't forget lighting - you'll need flash and some modifiers, although the latter can be home made very effectively. It's lighting as much as technique that makes great macro shots IMHO.
5. If you really get into photography you may well end up changing the system you're buying into anyway, so it's best to think of it as a potential stepping stone and factor in a future upgrade if you get into landscape etc. and do eventually want a second full-frame body, for example
6. I'd absolutely buy second-hand. It's a no-brainer and you're obviously comfortable doing so. This will not only bring down your cost (allowing you to get a wider selection of kit) but minimise any losses should you either not dig it, or want to upgrade again in a few years' time. It's what I did and don't regret it at all.

Definitely don't just stick to the big brands. I think I can say this without being accused of pimping my own classifieds ad running at the moment (because you don't have access to them!) but Pentax is a decent value into macro. The kit is cheap, quality is good, they are weatherproofed and have a stupid number of old compatible lenses you can get your hands on. The only downside to the system is their inferior autofocus, which isn't an issue for macro! I think @nass might be a Pentax macro user, but could be wrong. I still think my Sigma 70mm macro is one of the best lenses I own and does proper 1:1.

Hi Paul

Thanks for your very helpful post and suggestions. I appreciate you taking the time to reply.

I’m particularly obliged for your comments regarding full frame and macro. I wasn’t sure when I first posted whether there was some advantage that I wasn’t aware of with FF. I’m glad you cleared that up for me – and saved me some money in the process!

Thanks for your thoughts on Pentax. Should I decide that I will move away from my G3 and MFT’s, I’ll add that to list of possible alternatives.

 

[stevelmx5]

Hi. No problem at all for the tips. Whilst changing camera doesn't always mean better results technically, if you're not getting on with the G3 handling, you may never improve. The handling of a camera is something that's personal to all of us and also something you can't change so maybe you would be better off switching to the XT1 if you like the layout more.

I'd still suggest that you start with one of the manual macro lenses and a flashgun because there's little reason why you won't get excellent results with some practice.

Generally, I'd set my ISO as low as possible, set my shutter speed to the maximum flash sync (generally up to 1/160th max) and my aperture around F11-16. If you set the aperture any higher than that you will start to lose quality through diffraction as well as show every tiny spec of dust that's bound to be on your sensor :0). You then adjust the flash power to a level where you are getting good exposure with your camera settings. If you find that the flash needs to be at full power, slow your shutter speed a bit to reduce the flash power which decreases the recycle time and also stops you nuking the bugs!

 

[Uncle Fester]

Hi. No problem at all for the tips. Whilst changing camera doesn't always mean better results technically, if you're not getting on with the G3 handling, you may never improve. The handling of a camera is something that's personal to all of us and also something you can't change so maybe you would be better off switching to the XT1 if you like the layout more.

I'd still suggest that you start with one of the manual macro lenses and a flashgun because there's little reason why you won't get excellent results with some practice.

Generally, I'd set my ISO as low as possible, set my shutter speed to the maximum flash sync (generally up to 1/160th max) and my aperture around F11-16. If you set the aperture any higher than that you will start to lose quality through diffraction as well as show every tiny spec of dust that's bound to be on your sensor :0). You then adjust the flash power to a level where you are getting good exposure with your camera settings. If you find that the flash needs to be at full power, slow your shutter speed a bit to reduce the flash power which decreases the recycle time and also stops you nuking the bugs!

Thanks again Steve for your advice re the manual lens and flash gun.

Thanks also; for your excellent advice re macro photography. I shall copy and print this advice and keep it hand when I’m taking macro photo’s - it's very much appreciated.

Cheers.