I enjoyed reading the excellent article in the recent issue of MR on model photography. Obviously, the article couldn’t cover everything, but the author is correct that it’s amazing what many point-and-shoot digital cameras can do with model photography that in the old days required special lenses and other equipment. And that combined with photo editing and specialized software (that can do focus stacking to increase depth of field, for example) make things even more fun and satisfying and within reach of most of us writers and modelers.
However, I would like to share a problem I encountered not that many years ago that was unsettling with a high-end digital point-and-shoot camera from a manufacturer known for very sharp lenses. I paid a hefty dollar amount for the camera and it was considered “semi-pro” in some reviews I read. The camera lived up to all my expectations until I attempted model photography. (Being a point-and-shoot, it did not have an interchangable lense system.)
It would shoot very sharp photographs in the macro (close-up) mode at even less than an inch from lense to subject but to my horror could not manually focus in the macro mode! I went back to the owners manual and looked at more reviews and finally came across one review that spelled it out. How did I miss that?! It was a serious limitation of the camera!
I had planned on using a focus stacking software to increase depth of field even more but was dead in the water as one needs to focus at different focal lengths for that application. Perhaps later models of this camera overcame this shortcoming. I still use the camera but the software in the camera has since also developed some glitches requiring work arounds and the manufacturer requires a $500 minimum to even look at the camera. (I was not given the option to download a software update to fix the glitch.) Digtial cameras are computers and they can develo
Haven’t read the new article yet, but am looking forward to it.
Makes me wonder if your (unnamed) camera is a Canon? I love my Canon SX100. Although surely a lesser camera than yours, its small and reliable. I’ve taken tens of thousands of pics with it. I’m a historian and when you visit the archives now, you can take thousands of pics of documents in a week’s time in some cases.
I like it because I can rely on its auto-focus. I need to get the document squared in the frame and a good unfuzzy shot, without relying on manual focusing. It does that well. But for a long time I wondered why the Manual Focus didn’t seem to work, until I read the manual and found the complicated set of options Canon gives you.
In Aperture Priority mode, you get Manual Focus as an option along with Normal and Macro, but not both Macro and Manual Focus at the same time. Turns out after enabling MF, you have to punch another button to actually do the focusing, which is where the manual helped me. Other modes offer similarly restrictive settings that don’t overlap with Macro. But I can finagle things to get nice closeups in modes other than Macro.
I suspect that for marketing or other reasons, Canon or whoever made your camera just prefers to call what you need something else, instead of just saying it’s Macro with Manual Focus? Thought I’d offer it as a possible suggestion. It may also be worth your time to call the CS people for your camera and ask them, “How do I do that?” if there is nothing labeled as Macro with MF. There’s got to be a way, I would think.
Thanks Mike. It’s not a Cannon, actually better known than that, and I rather not say as don’t want to discredit the manufacturer. I have user settings for aperature, shutter priority etc., and no that’s not the answer for manual focus. It just doesn’t manually focus in the macro mode. And there are various focusing screens but that doesn’t solve the problem either. Perhaps the newer versions had got beyond the issue but a well know camera magazine review proved what I had feared. The bottom line is, make sure your camera can manually focus in the macro mode if you are going to do close up photography. You don’t always need it but when you do, you can’t do without it.
Canon (with one “n” in the middle) is I believe the largest maker of digital cameras, so whatever firm might be more well known is a mystery to me.
I have quite a few digital cameras, point and shoot as well as DSLRs and heve never had the need to manually focus the point and shoots in macro mode. Usually focus can be aquired by moving the camera back and forth. This makes using them for focus stacking rather impractical. Used DSLRs can be picked up for several hundred dollars, and would be more suitable for use with focus stacking.
I actually find my Canon SX50 focuses pretty close, and using its maximum aperture of f/8 and at its widest (24mm equivalent) gives great depth of focus without any other manipulation.
Yes, I spelled Canon wrong. Sorry. But as far as my camera’s brand is concerned, it’s been around long before digital cameras and does sell DSLRS that use its superior conventional lenses. Hint: It has a big “N” in the name. Now mine is a point-and-shoot so it does not have manual barrel focus like a DLSR and there are some close-up applications where manual focus is very handy. Yes, my lens zooms back and forth electronically but that doesn’t help do any manual focusing. Sometimes the automatic focus gets confused at to what to focus on even with different focusing screens. But don’t under-rate focus stacking software that requires you to focus manually at various focal lengths for the same view on a tripod and then combine the images. I’ll bet it far exceeds any of the results with the smallest aperture for a point-and-shoot digital camera, including yours. I’ve seen samples and they are quite impressive, for example, an N scale train from very close focus to infinity. And many have been published.
Agreed, though I wouldn’t know which photos were taken with a DSLR versus a point-and-shoot. My point is not to belabor the point, argue with or criticize Bob’s photography but to acknowledge that point-and-shoot digitals are amazing but in conjunction with focus stacking software the depth-of-field can be considerably enhanced. That being said, Bob is probably a better photographer than I’ll ever be, but he is doing us a disservice if he argues that point-and-shoot digitals can meet or exceed depth-of-field without focus stacking software.
Remember, point-and-shoot digitals are targeted at the general consumer market and there are other limits with sensors and diffraction (loss of sharpness at higher F numbers) even if the lens could be stopped down more than that. But also note that the F stop is relative, as it depends on the focal length of the lens and depth-of-field will be only be maximized at a certain focal length of the lens and often that is in a wide angle setting with point-and-shoot digitals. But with focus stacking software most of these problems can be eliminated but still require the skill of the photographer in compostion, lighting and technical expertise. In many instances you can do a great job with a point-and-shoot digital with auto focusing for how-to articles and even general layout photography but if you only have a point-and-shoot digital and want maximum depth-of-field, you need manual focusing and focus stacking software. All you have to do is read up on it online and see what the experts and reviewers say.
In theory, you can use auto-focus to get two different focus points, if you want to use one of those programs where you can stitch multiple photos together. Two may be better than just the one? This assumes you have a camera where you can press the shutter half way to get it to focus, then later take the picture.
Let’s say you want to photograph an engine fairly close up, with some buildings or a scenic backdrop behind it a ways. You could set up the camera on a tripod and set the scene you want. Then, raise the camera’s view to the background and press the shutter half way, so the auto-focus is set on the background. Then re-set the camera’s view centered onto the engine, and take the picture. It should stay focused on the background, not the engine. Then take the picture again without moving anything. This time, the camera should auto-focus on the engine.
Similarly, you could set the camera on a tripod centered on the engine, and then lock the tripod. Then move the engine out of the scene, and press the shutter halfway to autofocus on the buildings or scenery in the distance. Take the picture, then, move the engine back into place and take another picture centered on the engine.
Seems you’re putting words into my mouth. I never said a point and shoot digital can exceed depth of field.
Here’s what I said: "I actually find my Canon SX50 focuses pretty close, and using its maximum aperture of f/8 and at its widest (24mm equivalent) gives great depth of focus without any other manipulation.
Note I said “great” and not better.
And using a point and shoot and complaining that it won’t manually focus is trying to use it in a manner that it was never intended.
Yes, in theory you could do that but my thinking is with multiple exposures (many) with multiple focusing distances. And then your theory becomes problematic. That’s where the focus stacking with multiple exposures is at its best.
I used the word “if” but perhaps I should have capitalized it. But it seems that you wish to completely ignore the benifit of focus stacking software and how it will enhance the capabilities of point-and-shoot cameras. Also, one MUST manually focus at various depths in the scene to get multiple images to blend together for the software. If you can’t do that with a point-and-shoot camera, like I had, it’s pointless to use the software.
Since you have other more sophisticated cameras at your disposal, it may be a non issue to you, but I’m just trying to optimize the experiece for someone that goes out and buys a point-and-shoot to get some better photography for their buck.
I would think that anyone sufficiently advanced in their photography hobby to be using focus stacking software would also be sufficiently advanced to be using a camera more capable than a point and shoot.
however there are times when I just can not physically fit my DSLR and lens of choice into the scenery so a compact camera can perform very capably in this situation.
I would like to get my hands on a periscope type setup similar to what they used to film the Thomas television series. It’s easy to shoot a helicopter view but to get down to the eye level of my HO people I need a small camera.
DSLR’s are not the only cameras that are more capable than a point and shoot. Some of the “compact system” cameras, especially with a pancake lens, are very (as the name implies) compact.
I thought I had that licked with my camera as the lense was built very low, but alas, it would not manually focus in the macro mode. Incidentally folks, there are some point-and-shoots now that have built in focus stacking as an added feature. Off the top of my head, Olympus has one in $300 dollar range, IIRC. That’s about what you have to spend for a good point-and-shoot. But Focus stacking software is not that expensive. Helicon is one that is well known. Also, if you already have Photoshop, you can do it there. (I may be able to do it in Photoshop Elements but haven’t looked into it.) The investment in a point-and-shoot and focus stacking software would be less than you have to invest in a good, new DSLR body only.