[EllenJ]

(Note: post was edited after the first few replies)

Specifically for macro (or close-up) MF shots handheld and without flash. I'm sure everyone has a different answer. I'm trying to adjust my expectations and get a sense of the range of experiences. I know it's not easy to get a sharp photo and have been reading many posts and articles about how to go about it.

I mean the part of the subject you want in focus, not the whole thing. I usually get something in focus, but not what I want (for example, the bug's butt instead of its face).

My one question now is: On average, how many of your handheld shots don't have the subject in focus? How many for, let's say, a non-moving subject such as a flower? For a moving subject, like a bee? Or whatever example you have for shots out in the field without the benefit of studio conditions.

If I'm watering the garden and happen to see an awesome spider, I'm unlikely to get out all the equipment. It's just me and my macro lens. I tend to take around 10 shots (often more) of each composition with the hope that one will be in focus. I'm new to SLR and MF photography, and since macro/close-up is what I especially like, I want to develop a realistic set of expectations to go with the techniques I'm learning.

Thanks

---

Last edited by EllenJ; 06-24-2014 at 02:25 PM.

[normhead]

I don't even count on getting good handheld shots without a tripod. When that barrel gets extended way out, either with the internal focussing system, or a bellows or rings, it doesn't matter, the front lens element is a long way from the film plane and small movements make a difference. I like a tripod and a 2 second delay. If it were me, I'd get used to carrying the camera around on the tripod. I at times when I don't have time to set up, I find the tripod still adds enough weight to the camera to stop me from twitching.

That being said, the following were shot hand held without a missed focus, at ISO 640 and 1/1000 of a second ƒ7.1. I selected the poses I liked, not because of missed focus. Sigma 70 macro 2.8 and K-3.









If the light is good, and it's more a close up than a macro, you're good.

[bluestringer]

I get about 75-80% using catch in focus. Give it a try, just set the lens where you want and move your body/camera together toward the subject holding the shutter button down, keeping the focus point where you want it. When the point comes into focus you will see the red square and the camera will fire.

Or you can not move and slowly turn the focus ring while holding down the shutter button, camera will fire when the subject is in focus.

.

[kiwi_jono]

With macro I usually stop down quite a bit to get a decent depth of field. f11 - f16 is not unreasonable. Typically I do a rough manual focus (often near min focal distance) first. Then use liveview with some magnification and ease camera back and forwards to get the point I want in focus.
The issue with handheld is then having enough light to get a decent shutter speed with the lens stopped down to avoid camera shake blur. I find without flash (or tripod) the hit rate is pretty low but outdoors I can get enough hits to make it ok at least.

A big improvement for me was to make a "pringles" (chips tube) on camera flash extender (with integrated diffuser) - works really well for handheld use. Example (this was on a tripod but using pringles can):
Microprocessor 8748
by Kiwi Jono, on Flickr

[boriscleto]

Probably the best I ever got handheld with my Sigma 50mm. I've never quite captured an ant as well since. This one was three or four shots in...



These were easier as the subject wasn't moving...

[hangman43]

All my macro is shot handheld

[normhead]

All my macro is shot handheld

Very cool, it wouldn't work for me, I've always had noticeable hand shake, trying to steady it just makes it worse. But there are lot's of people who have steadier hands than me.... I'm going to start calling you" ole tripod grip."

Technique gets me good images, but never to the same level as someone who has a naturally steady hand.

---

Last edited by normhead; 06-25-2014 at 04:08 AM.

[EllenJ]

Thanks for all the comments and stunning photos.

When I posted elsewhere on the site to seek help with my focusing problem, I got the impression that it's relatively difficult to get a sharp close-up shot. Here, I'm getting a different message. I realize this isn't a trouble-shooting subforum, but I posted here because it's more of a problem with close-up work.

To be honest, I'm very frustrated with my first DSLR experiences. My primary problem is that the part of the shot that ends up in sharp focus is not where I'm aiming. I spend all my time trying to get my exact subject in focus rather than getting an attractive photo. My kit AF lenses don't handle close-up well, so I've been trying MF with those and other lenses. (By the end of the week, I'll have a Pentax-FA 50mm macro lens to try.) I suspect it's something I'm consistently doing wrong with my technique, or something is wrong with the camera since the problem is similar with all my lenses. (The first camera they sent was actually defective, so I'm suspicious.) I've started doing some testing with printed text and tripod, but so far I haven't recreated the problem completely. The area in focus is usually to the left and below the subject, or the area closer to the camera (which is sometimes the same thing). I can post an example, but this probably isn't the right thread.

[BrianR]

For a non-moving object, handheld, and fast enough shutter to take care of motion blur- when I first picked up my macro lens (a dfa100mm), I'd hit the focus dead on probably much less than 20%, and probably get 'close enough' about half the time. I'd take multiple pictures of everything and resetting the focus each time would usually ensure I got what I wanted after 5 or 6 shots. After a few years I was still taking 5 or 6 shots each time but I realized I was hitting the focus closer to 90% of the time, so now I don't usually take more than 1 shot of a given composition to cover focusing errors anymore unless I think I futzed it up. Practice will make a difference.

Handheld, I focus by setting the focus ring where I want it to be and then moving my body forward and back. Try to get a feel for how things in the viewfinder look as they transition from being front focused to being in-focus to being back focused. It's this transition that I use as a guide to tell where the focus is, and after doing this enough you can get a feel for when your subject is coming into focus and when you should stop moving.

Of course with a tripod or artificial lights and/or reflectors/diffusers, you can rig things for a higher f-stop for more DoF which will make things more forgiving of focusing errors. If you are set of handheld in natural light, don't be shy about cranking the ISO to help maintain a decent shutter speed and DoF, a bit of noise is usually preferable to camera shake and too shallow DoF while you're still learning a technique that works for you.

[normhead]

Hey hangman43, could you post the basic exif info on those? I think your editor must strip it out.

Oh, and the smaller AF points on the K-3 makes it easier to nail a specific focus point than before, although I find trying to focus at the bottom of a small cylinder is still pretty much impossible. You always get a focus point half way up the side or at the lip.

[EllenJ]

...Handheld, I focus by setting the focus ring where I want it to be and then moving my body forward and back. Try to get a feel for how things in the viewfinder look as they transition from being front focused to being in-focus to being back focused. It's this transition that I use as a guide to tell where the focus is, and after doing this enough you can get a feel for when your subject is coming into focus and when you should stop moving...

Helpful, thanks.

My immediate problem is that my photos very rarely look like what I saw in the viewfinder. The spot that seemed clear in the viewfinder rarely turns out to be the best focused, whether several inches or several feet away. The part in focus is very often (but not always) the part closer to the camera, regardless of the lens used (I have 3 AF and 2 MF lenses). I rarely use the live view - if it would help, I could try.

[boriscleto]

Your profile says you have a K-50. Live View with Focus Peaking should make focusing much easier.

This video is for the K-01, but it works the same way on the K-50.

You Tube

You Tube

[magkelly]

(Note: post was edited after the first few replies)

Specifically for macro (or close-up) MF shots handheld and without flash. I'm sure everyone has a different answer. I'm trying to adjust my expectations and get a sense of the range of experiences. I know it's not easy to get a sharp photo and have been reading many posts and articles about how to go about it.

I mean the part of the subject you want in focus, not the whole thing. I usually get something in focus, but not what I want (for example, the bug's butt instead of its face).

My one question now is: On average, how many of your handheld shots don't have the subject in focus? How many for, let's say, a non-moving subject such as a flower? For a moving subject, like a bee? Or whatever example you have for shots out in the field without the benefit of studio conditions.

If I'm watering the garden and happen to see an awesome spider, I'm unlikely to get out all the equipment. It's just me and my macro lens. I tend to take around 10 shots (often more) of each composition with the hope that one will be in focus. I'm new to SLR and MF photography, and since macro/close-up is what I especially like, I want to develop a realistic set of expectations to go with the techniques I'm learning.

Thanks

Handheld, no tripod but with a good macro lens, maybe a couple dozen depending upon the subject, available light etc. I'm not incredibly great at macro of bugs. Spiders are harder if they are tiny, like little crab spiders, but not so much if they are bigger ones like orb weavers. With a tripod probably a bit less. Honestly I prefer this little P&S camera I have for this than a DSLR because it has a really great macro mode and I tend to get far better macro shots in less time than it can take me with the DSLR kit. I can take out the DSLR, mess with macro lenses, tubes etc and take half an hour to get the perfect shot or I can whip out this camera and get it in 5 mins or less. No kidding. There are things I honestly think a P&S is better for and this is one of them. My Oly M43 camera has a pretty good macro mode too I'm finding. When it comes to stationary macro objects sometimes I do like to go all out with the DSLR but not usually with tiny bugs. For that I just grab my P&S or my Oly with an AF lens. That usually does the job and far better than I can futzing around with the DSLR. Macro shots of jewelry or whatever, DSLR, no problem. Macros of tiny moving bugs, I need my P&S or my Oly....

[hangman43]

Hey hangman43, could you post the basic exif info on those? I think your editor must strip it out.

Oh, and the smaller AF points on the K-3 makes it easier to nail a specific focus point than before, although I find trying to focus at the bottom of a small cylinder is still pretty much impossible. You always get a focus point half way up the side or at the lip.

If you click on the photo the EXIF is all intact on Flickr almost all my shots are between F/14 and F/18 with a shutter speed of 180 with my flash at 1/8 power. It has taken about 3 years and over 50000 macro shots for me to start getting a high percentage of keepers

[severalsnakes]

For a non-moving object, handheld, and fast enough shutter to take care of motion blur- when I first picked up my macro lens (a dfa100mm), I'd hit the focus dead on probably much less than 20%, and probably get 'close enough' about half the time. I'd take multiple pictures of everything and resetting the focus each time would usually ensure I got what I wanted after 5 or 6 shots. After a few years I was still taking 5 or 6 shots each time but I realized I was hitting the focus closer to 90% of the time, so now I don't usually take more than 1 shot of a given composition to cover focusing errors anymore unless I think I futzed it up. Practice will make a difference.

Handheld, I focus by setting the focus ring where I want it to be and then moving my body forward and back. Try to get a feel for how things in the viewfinder look as they transition from being front focused to being in-focus to being back focused. It's this transition that I use as a guide to tell where the focus is, and after doing this enough you can get a feel for when your subject is coming into focus and when you should stop moving.

Of course with a tripod or artificial lights and/or reflectors/diffusers, you can rig things for a higher f-stop for more DoF which will make things more forgiving of focusing errors. If you are set of handheld in natural light, don't be shy about cranking the ISO to help maintain a decent shutter speed and DoF, a bit of noise is usually preferable to camera shake and too shallow DoF while you're still learning a technique that works for you.

I agree with everything BrianR says, save what experience I have not had.

Make the settings in camera, tune in your focus ring, then move the camera/your body to achieve ideal focus.

And there are varying degrees of success. Just because you want to get a cool macro shot of a bug every once in a while, doesn't mean you have to invest hundreds or thousands of dollars in a set up with strobes and reflectors and tubes and bellows etc etc. Close focus and a crop, or a $10 reversal ring on a 50mm lens can be quite successful for your "needs". (Rhetorical question: What do you really "need"?)

I use my looked-down-upon reversal ring with a manual lens and I get results that are satisfactory for my "needs". I probably take four or five shots, handheld, to get an exposure that I'm happy with. Live view is great, especially when you need to brace your arm on a nearer feature to the subject (like the ground). :-P