The Blog of Photographer Jacob Vorpahl.
My friend Matt and I were talking recently and we thought it would be a pretty fun idea to break out some of our old game consoles from yesteryear and give ‘em a round of play time for nostalgia sake. I got off of work and drove out to my Dad’s house where I still have some stuff needlessly occupying space and I pulled out my old Nintendo 64 and Sega Dreamcast. Some of you might not know what these are, but they were the consoles to have in their heyday. Because of that, I have some fond memories playing these things with some old friends. Fast forward to today, however, and the things are covered in so much dust that I wondered if turning them on would constitute a fire hazard.
Beyond all that, however, I decided that this would be a good chance to pull out the ol’ photography gear and take some pictures of the dust covered Nintendo 64. It just looked interesting to me. I also figured it would give me a good chance to post an entry about macro photography on my blog, so here we are.
For those who aren’t quite familiar with macro photography or what it is, it’s when you take a big picture of something really small. Well, that’s actually a very simple way of putting it, but for the sake of this discussion that will suffice. Also important: why would you want to take big pictures of things that are really small? Because it brings out the detail and it allows you to look at things in a way you never would have otherwise. If you go on to Flickr and do a search for macro photography, you’ll find some amazing shots of insects, rain drops, and other usually insignificant items that provide for some breath taking photos.
Now, in order to take pictures of really small things and get that interesting level of detail you need the right equipment and that is where most people have a problem. Macro lenses cost money, and not a little bit of money either. Right now on Adorama.com, the cheapest good quality macro lens is a Nikon 60mm 2.8 for $399 (I use Nikon cameras). Hardly an easy purchase to jusify if you’re not a professional photographer, right?
I’m not a professional photographer and I couldn’t justify the cost. Thankfully, the good folks over at Canon have us covered. The Canon 500D 72mm Close Up Lens
Now, the Canon 500D won’t give you the same abilities as a dedicated macro lens, but for the price it will come close enough. However, the lenses you use it with will determine just what those abilities will be. For instance, that picture above was taken with a Nikon 70-300mm VR lens. Every lens has a minimum focusing distance and the 70-300mm’s is between 5-6 feet depending on how far in you zoom. But, when I attach the 500D, it lowers that minimum focusing distance, and thanks to it being a zoom lens, I can get in really close. The picture above was taken at a distance of around 4 feet (I could have gotten closer) and zoomed in to 230mm. Not bad considering that power button is around the size of nickel.
One thing using a zoom lens does though is that the more you zoom in, the less depth of field (DOF) you have. If you don’t know (and you should if you’re still reading), the f-stop you use determines your depth of the field. The higher the number (f12, f20, f36), the more depth of field you have. The lower the number (f1.8, f2.8), the lower the depth of field. Oh, depth of the field is what is in focus in your picture. Low depth of field, not a lot in focus (background, foreground, etc.). Got it? Good.
Back to the zoom lense and depth of field. When using the Close Up lens and zoom lens, the more your zoom, the less depth of field you have. I using an f-stop of f10 on that picture above and you can see how much of it is blurred out because of a small depth of field. Take off that Close Up lens and a whole lot more would be in focus, but it also wouldn’ be as detailed. See the trade off you’re making? As a small note, however, in macro photography, you usually don’t want to have a lot in focus, so that can be a good thing. Just not when you can’t get your whole subject in focus. That’s when it’s a problem.
I also used a fixed focal length lens to compare. The following shot was taken with a Nikon 50mm 1.8 lens:
Do you notice the differnces between the two different shots? First, since it is fixed focal length, there is no zoom, so my DOF is greater. To put it even more in perspective, I used an aperture of f4 on this one. Theoretically, I should have less DOF with the small aperture, but I have more because I’m not zooming in. So even with an aperture of f4 vs. f10, with the Canon 500D the f4 stil has more DOF because it’s not zooming. Another good thing about the 50mm 1.8 lens is that it has a closer minimum focusing distance than the 70-300mm VR. That can be helpful when you’re in tight spots and can’t back up 3 or 4 feet. This particular shot was taken at a distance of around 1 feet, give or take an inch or two. Unfortunately, since the lens can’t zoom and I couldn’t get in closer without it being in focus, this is as good as it gets. A zoom feature would be really welcome to get closer, but, such is not the case.
Attached to a good lens, the Canon 500D will give you macro ability without breaking the bank. For me, I only dabble in macro photography so this is ideal for me in a cost-benefit analysis. If you’re hardcore into macro photography, however, a dedicated macro lens would probably do you better.
On another, though, never underestimate the gear you already own. I took this shot with only my 70-300mm VR- no tripod or close up lenses necessary.
It’s not macro close, but it’s detail close. And that’s what we’re going for: interesting details. But if what you’ve got doesn’t cut it, maybe take a look at the 500D. It’ll open up another world of photography for you.
