4 ms·

> But you'd probably have an easier time of it on a five year old aps-c camera with a macro lens, to say nothing of modern cameras. That's probably true but as

> But you'd probably have an easier time of it on a five year old aps-c camera with a macro lens, to say nothing of modern cameras. That's probably true but as a casual hobbyist, it's so much easier to justify spending $1k on a phone and a few hundred on apps than getting buying a legit macro camera setup, especially used camera equipment. I was frustrated by the macro limitations of the iPhone 13 pro and started perusing for macro camera setups and totally balked at the prices. It made more sense to hold out for another major camera spec bump in the next generation of phones (which is rumored).

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
I don't know what your budget is, but it is not that expensive to get into a "real" macro setup, at least compared to the cost of a new phone. Try this on for size: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1485795-REG/7artisans_photoelectric_a112_e_60mm_f_2_8_sony.html/overview?ap=y&ap=y&smp=y&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A6879&gclid=CjwKCAjw6dmSBhBkEiwA_W-EoM-ytlELC2I4lQRMxezReBjaYMQCMSNfnklScX2lfTYI-Q7q8U9YwBoCiXEQAvD_BwE https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1485795-REG/7artisans... https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=a6100&_sacat=0&rt=nc&LH_Sold=1&LH_Complete=1 https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=a6100&_sacat=... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1059024-REG/manfrotto_mkcompactlt_bk_compact_light_tripod_black.html/?ap=y&ap=y&smp=y&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A6879&gclid=CjwKCAjw6dmSBhBkEiwA_W-EoB6KJfIuwmKiGca3q0bFPyBBQtAn2JPAaSir_0jC0aV-GaxNkGuz_BoCpUkQAvD_BwE https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1059024-REG/manfrotto... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1459178-REG/viltrox_vl_200t_vl200t_professional_photography_led.html/?ap=y&ap=y&smp=y&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A514&gclid=CjwKCAjw6dmSBhBkEiwA_W-EoLw78oON0RvTKsxR-O66NJUegbvSRUCukXoZmS5Yqz18_VZl6rbCNxoC_RYQAvD_BwE https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1459178-REG/viltrox_v... These items come out to a total of about $1,000 and will vastly outperform any iPhone. Note that I am not recommending this particular setup as I am not a macro photographer, I just wanted to demonstrate what's possible. I'm also not saying you're wrong to wait for a better cell phone camera. Your preferences are your own and there is nothing wrong with them. Just trying to provide some information.
- dr_zoidberg 5y ago
  Compact cameras (under $500) usually have great macro lenses too, though you miss the flexibility of being able to change the lens. I've owned for quite a while a Micro Four Thirds camera from Olympus and that's a very good spot to be a hobbyist: not too expensive, but can do "pro things" like changing lenses, shoots raw, has a horseshoe socket, etc. Of course, the quality is not the same as a full frame camera, but then again, I'm not a pro :)
  - nl 5y ago
    The A6100 (linked above) isn't a full-frame camera either. It uses a APS-C sensor (dimensions of 23.5 x 15.6 mm). The Micro Four Thirds sensor is 17.3 mm × 13.0 mm Full Frame is 24 mm x 36 mm.
    - dr_zoidberg 5y ago
      Yes, and Sony has been really impressive with their cameras lately. It looks like finally Canon and Nikon woke up and start trying to match their (unfortunately for me, Olympus decided to sell their camera business? Did somebody buy them yet?). The thing about larger sensors, for those that aren't aware, is that they produce much better quality images because each pixel is larger, and can gather more light. More light equals a stronger signal, in a noisy ambient. I sometimes try astrophotography because it lets me combine my photography hobby with my programming passion, and I end up writing my own processing pipelines. With a compact camera, I could get the ghost of one of the brightest galaxies in the sky (Centaurus A in the southern hemisphere). With the MFT camera, using the included kit lens I got a little bit of detail, but it was just a few pixels wide. Switch on to a vintage lens I got for ~15 dollars, and I managed to get the galaxy and quite some detail. Not the same as a telescope image, but very impressive for a 1970's lens on a small camera! And the noise levels aren't even comparable. My old compact camera was Noisy with a capital N. Of course I didn't realize it when I bought it, but it was[0]. I see the same on phone cameras (the sensors are about the same size now). The MFT even on ISO 25600 (highest it goes to) isn't as noisy as the compact camera was at 3200. Most phones will cover that with a lot of computation, and that's fine for a small screen. But load your pictures on a large monitor and you'll start seeing the details and differences. However (and it has been said everywhere in the comments) phones are usually way more convenient because you always have it with you. [0] For reference, some 12 years ago I bought a Canon G12, then a G16, and then moved on to a Olympus OMD E10. On every change I got far better quality at about the same camera size, though the olympus is slightly more bulky, and you have to factor in the lens too.
LegitShady 5y ago
>few hundred on apps I don't even understand what you think you're going to buy that will make you a good macro photographer for hundreds of dollars. Hundreds on apps instead of dedicated macro hardware? I can't imagine that will do anything but waste hundreds of dollars.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  What I was personally referring to when I mentioned "software" is a photo editing application like Photoshop, Lightroom, DxO Photolab, etc. The subscriptions/purchase prices of these type of software is $200+. There are free software versions of these apps but most photographers do not use them.
  - LegitShady 5y ago
    You're going to need such software whether you use an iphone or a DSLR. There's no difference in cost except the hardware.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
      Sorry, to be extra clear, my point is that you will not get these results without such software, because photos almost universally require editing in order to look their best. But my belief is that Apple, with their "Shot on iPhone" marketing, is trying to convey that you will get these results straight out of the camera. This is unlikely to actually be the case. That's the sum of my point w.r.t. software.
      - LegitShady 5y ago
        You can get 98% of the same capability with much cheaper software - you don't need spend several hundred on software (affinity photos does focus stacking raws, for example). But you're right the best looking photos are usually processed somehow.
  - Tagbert 5y ago
sudosysgen 5y ago
You can buy a competent macro lens for around 200$ (the Canon EF 100mm macro), and camera to slap it on for around 400$.

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago

I don't know what your budget is, but it is not that expensive to get into a "real" macro setup, at least compared to the cost of a new phone. Try this on for size: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1485795-REG/7artisans_photoelectric_a112_e_60mm_f_2_8_sony.html/overview?ap=y&ap=y&smp=y&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A6879&gclid=CjwKCAjw6dmSBhBkEiwA_W-EoM-ytlELC2I4lQRMxezReBjaYMQCMSNfnklScX2lfTYI-Q7q8U9YwBoCiXEQAvD_BwE https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1485795-REG/7artisans... https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=a6100&_sacat=0&rt=nc&LH_Sold=1&LH_Complete=1 https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=a6100&_sacat=... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1059024-REG/manfrotto_mkcompactlt_bk_compact_light_tripod_black.html/?ap=y&ap=y&smp=y&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A6879&gclid=CjwKCAjw6dmSBhBkEiwA_W-EoB6KJfIuwmKiGca3q0bFPyBBQtAn2JPAaSir_0jC0aV-GaxNkGuz_BoCpUkQAvD_BwE https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1059024-REG/manfrotto... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1459178-REG/viltrox_vl_200t_vl200t_professional_photography_led.html/?ap=y&ap=y&smp=y&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A514&gclid=CjwKCAjw6dmSBhBkEiwA_W-EoLw78oON0RvTKsxR-O66NJUegbvSRUCukXoZmS5Yqz18_VZl6rbCNxoC_RYQAvD_BwE https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1459178-REG/viltrox_v... These items come out to a total of about $1,000 and will vastly outperform any iPhone. Note that I am not recommending this particular setup as I am not a macro photographer, I just wanted to demonstrate what's possible. I'm also not saying you're wrong to wait for a better cell phone camera. Your preferences are your own and there is nothing wrong with them. Just trying to provide some information.

dr_zoidberg 5y ago
Compact cameras (under $500) usually have great macro lenses too, though you miss the flexibility of being able to change the lens. I've owned for quite a while a Micro Four Thirds camera from Olympus and that's a very good spot to be a hobbyist: not too expensive, but can do "pro things" like changing lenses, shoots raw, has a horseshoe socket, etc. Of course, the quality is not the same as a full frame camera, but then again, I'm not a pro :)
- nl 5y ago
  The A6100 (linked above) isn't a full-frame camera either. It uses a APS-C sensor (dimensions of 23.5 x 15.6 mm). The Micro Four Thirds sensor is 17.3 mm × 13.0 mm Full Frame is 24 mm x 36 mm.
  - dr_zoidberg 5y ago
    Yes, and Sony has been really impressive with their cameras lately. It looks like finally Canon and Nikon woke up and start trying to match their (unfortunately for me, Olympus decided to sell their camera business? Did somebody buy them yet?). The thing about larger sensors, for those that aren't aware, is that they produce much better quality images because each pixel is larger, and can gather more light. More light equals a stronger signal, in a noisy ambient. I sometimes try astrophotography because it lets me combine my photography hobby with my programming passion, and I end up writing my own processing pipelines. With a compact camera, I could get the ghost of one of the brightest galaxies in the sky (Centaurus A in the southern hemisphere). With the MFT camera, using the included kit lens I got a little bit of detail, but it was just a few pixels wide. Switch on to a vintage lens I got for ~15 dollars, and I managed to get the galaxy and quite some detail. Not the same as a telescope image, but very impressive for a 1970's lens on a small camera! And the noise levels aren't even comparable. My old compact camera was Noisy with a capital N. Of course I didn't realize it when I bought it, but it was[0]. I see the same on phone cameras (the sensors are about the same size now). The MFT even on ISO 25600 (highest it goes to) isn't as noisy as the compact camera was at 3200. Most phones will cover that with a lot of computation, and that's fine for a small screen. But load your pictures on a large monitor and you'll start seeing the details and differences. However (and it has been said everywhere in the comments) phones are usually way more convenient because you always have it with you. [0] For reference, some 12 years ago I bought a Canon G12, then a G16, and then moved on to a Olympus OMD E10. On every change I got far better quality at about the same camera size, though the olympus is slightly more bulky, and you have to factor in the lens too.

LegitShady 5y ago

>few hundred on apps I don't even understand what you think you're going to buy that will make you a good macro photographer for hundreds of dollars. Hundreds on apps instead of dedicated macro hardware? I can't imagine that will do anything but waste hundreds of dollars.

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
What I was personally referring to when I mentioned "software" is a photo editing application like Photoshop, Lightroom, DxO Photolab, etc. The subscriptions/purchase prices of these type of software is $200+. There are free software versions of these apps but most photographers do not use them.
- LegitShady 5y ago
  You're going to need such software whether you use an iphone or a DSLR. There's no difference in cost except the hardware.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    Sorry, to be extra clear, my point is that you will not get these results without such software, because photos almost universally require editing in order to look their best. But my belief is that Apple, with their "Shot on iPhone" marketing, is trying to convey that you will get these results straight out of the camera. This is unlikely to actually be the case. That's the sum of my point w.r.t. software.
    - LegitShady 5y ago
      You can get 98% of the same capability with much cheaper software - you don't need spend several hundred on software (affinity photos does focus stacking raws, for example). But you're right the best looking photos are usually processed somehow.
- Tagbert 5y ago

sudosysgen 5y ago

You can buy a competent macro lens for around 200$ (the Canon EF 100mm macro), and camera to slap it on for around 400$.