3 ms·

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 s

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.
    - nl 5y ago
      Yeah I got my son a a6400. Such a nice camera, and the low light performance is amazing.

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.
  - nl 5y ago
    Yeah I got my son a a6400. Such a nice camera, and the low light performance is amazing.