Please tell me how to take close up shots.

[Christo]

Would someone please go through the steps on how to take a close up shot of an object on my E20. Everytime I attempt this, I just get a blurred image.

Please don't laugh:shock:but I am not an expert on this. I just want to take some close ups of objects, like a watch dial for instance, without any blurred images.

[steve]

The E20's Macro mode coverage is from0.2 to 0.6m so be sure you are within this range. I cannot stress enough how important it is to have the camera on a tripod, handheld macro shots are nearly impossible unless in very bright light withvery fast shutter speeds.

With camera on tripoduse "A"perture priority mode, stop the lens down as far as it will go (biggest aperture number). Manually set the ISO speed to 80, the lower the ISO, the lower the image noise. After getting the subject framed and making sure it is within the focus range - set and use the selftimer to trip the shutter - do not manually press the shutter release. Even the slightest movement will blur macro shots, the depth of field is shallow and the magnification is high so you want the camera rock solid when the shutter fires.

Happy shooting :|

[Technophile]

I'm surprised you say that macro shots are difficult to hand hold. Bearing in mind that the camera is very close to the subject a small movement of the camera doesn't translate into a large movement of the image, as would be the case if the subject were a long way away. So it should be easier. I always hand hold macro shots and I don't see any camera shake. I'd suspect that the E20 focusing mechanism is to blame here, or the camera's too close to the subject.

[Mikefellh]

You're disagreeing with Steve????

Technophile wrote:

I'm surprised you say that macro shots are difficult to hand hold. Bearing in mind that the camera is very close to the subject a small movement of the camera doesn't translate into a large movement of the image, as would be the case if the subject were a long way away. So it should be easier.

In macro mode the closer you can get to a subject the larger it will be in the final image, so a small movement of the camera in macro mode will translate to a large movement. Take a look at this photo for instance and you can see that if it wasn't held absolutely still the image would be blurred:
http://img4.photobucket.com/albums/0...up/uspenny.jpg

You can't compare macro mode with wide angle mode in terms of movement. In the picture above the small penny is magnified to fill the whole frame, so you can see how any movement would also be magnified.


Getting back to the original question of closeup photography with an E-20, if you want to get closer than what the camera can do you'll have to get the MCON macro converter, or at a cheaper price (and lesser quality) diopter lenses (filters)...both of these things make the camera near sighted, for instance a +1 diopter means the maximum the distance the camera can focus to at infinity is 1 metre, +2=1/2metre, +3=1/3metre so instead of being able to focus from .2m to infinity, the camera can focus from ~0 to 1m...you then use the zoom to pull the item closer once you get a focus lock. For instance, the penny was taken with a +7 diopter and the camera was 13cm/5" away, and the zoom 300mm (taken with a C-700).

[Technophile]

Not exactly disagreeing - more trying to prompt an explanation for something that doesn't seem logical. Of course any movement of the camera will result in blur if the shutter speed isn't fast enough to make it insignificant. But the fact remains that you need a much bigger movement of the camera to cause blur if the subject is close to the lens. It's simple physics. Just as when you shoot a gun at a close target you can get away with bad technique, but if it's a long way away the bullet will end up miles off target. The way shake affectsphotosis proportional to the length of the lens and the distance to the subject, so it typically affects telephoto shots of distant subjects - not short focal length shots of very close subjects.

[JimC]

Technophile wrote:

Not exactly disagreeing - more trying to prompt an explanation for something that doesn't seem logical. Of course any movement of the camera will result in blur if the shutter speed isn't fast enough to make it insignificant. But the fact remains that you need a much bigger movement of the camera to cause blur if the subject is close to the lens. It's simple physics. Just as when you shoot a gun at a close target you can get away with bad technique, but if it's a long way away the bullet will end up miles off target. The way shake affectsphotosis proportional to the length of the lens and the distance to the subject, so it typically affects telephoto shots of distant subjects - not short focal length shots of very close subjects.

No, no, no... Steve is absolutely correct.The more of the frame your subject occupies, the more it is subject to visible blur from camera movement -- the key word being "visible".

Think of it like this (since you mentioned telephoto shots). Why do you think it works that way (more magnification needs faster shutter speeds)?It's because your subject is occupying a greater percentage of the frame, so blur from movement is more visible. When using less zoom, your subject is only moving a small amount for the same amount of movement, and because your subject detail is less, you just don't see the impact.

The "rule of thumb" for shutter speeds needed for hand held exposures is 1/focal length. In other words, if shooting at 40mm equivalent focal length, you'll want to use a shutter speed that's 1/40 second or faster. Yet, when you magnify your subject using optical zoom -- let's say shooting at 200mm, you'll need to increase shutter speeds to 1/200 second to prevent visible blur from camera shake. That's because your subject will be occuping a much greater portion of the frame, so movement is more visible.

The same applies to closeups. Your subject is greatly magnified, taking up a much larger percentage of the frame. As a result, you're seeing much more detail in your subject, and any movement becomes greatly exaggerated (from a visual appearance perspective).


Here's another way to look at it... Take one of your photos that you can see some motion blur in when viewing at full size on screen. Then, view the samephoto at a smaller size. The smaller image may look perfectly sharp, yet when you enlarge it, any blur is greatlyexaggerated.Your eyes see the blur at larger sizes, because your subject is visually larger to you - making it easier to see subject detail (and blur).

The same thing applies to usinglonger focal lengths, or shooting closeups. Both do the same thing -- allow your image to appear larger, taking up a greater percentage of the frame. The larger your subject appears, the more you'll see any blur from movement -- justbecause the subject detail is so muchmore visible to our eyes.

[JimC]

Technophile wrote:

I always hand hold macro shots and I don't see any camera shake.

You're better than most (unless your taking the photos in very good light, or using a flash).

One more comment... Notice that Steve suggested stopping down the aperture for the shots. This increases Depth of Field (highly desirable for many types of macros). This will also meanslower shutter speeds (because you're using a smaller aperture).

As a result, use of a tripod with a self timer is even more critical to getting sharp photos.

Keep in mind that Steve has taken a LOT of product photos over the years -- closeups of cameras, camera dials and controls, etc... He probably knows better than any of us, how to get the best out of a camera for this purpose.

[Technophile]

The percentage of the frame that the subject takes up may be another factor and that may affect how "visible" a certain amount of blur will subjectively appear to be - i.e. a bit of blur on macro shot will be much more noticeable than the same blur on along distanceshot. But the fact remains that a small movement on a long distance shot causes MUCH more movement of the image than the same movement on a macro shot. So there is less need for a tripod.

If he's saying that long exposures for macro shots (because of small aperture)require a tripod, I would agree, butlong exposures require a tripod anyway - regardless of macro or not.I use an A2 and Iturn off the anti-shake when doing macro shots because it's not needed. When shooting telephoto it's indispensable and will enable 300mm shots at 1/50 sec, whichwould be impossible otherwise.


Ever read the children's story about the emperor's clothes? I'm that stupid little boy.

[JimC]

Technophile wrote:

The percentage of the frame that the subject takes up may be another factor and that may affect how "visible" a certain amount of blur will subjectively appear to be - i.e. a bit of blur on macro shot will be much more noticeable than the same blur on along distanceshot. But the fact remains that a small movement on a long distance shot causes MUCH more movement of the image than the same movement on a macro shot. So there is less need for a tripod.

The percentage of the frame that the subject takes up is not just "another factor", it's the most important factor with visible blur from movement.

The ONLY reason a small movement on a shot using a longer focal length causes muchmore movement ofof your subject within the image, is becauseyour subject isoccupying a larger percentage of the frame, making movement more visibleto the human eye.

When you take a photo of an object ata closer distance, movement from camera shake will be magnified just as much, as if it were further away and you used optical zoom to bring it incloser.

For example: take your hand, looking at it at close range through your cameras LCD Display, moving it from side to side (or moving the camera). Then move your hand further away, and use optical zoom to bring it in so that it occupies the same percentage of the frame. If you experiment, you'll see that the amount of movement in the subject (or the camera), corresponds to the same amount of movement within the frame -- regardless of which way you do it.

You'll also see that if you move your hand further away from the lens, it will move a smaller amount within the framewith any hand or camera movement. The same appliesif you use less optical zoom.

It's all about the amount of the frame thesubjectoccupies, and makes no difference whether you use optical zoom to make it occupy a larger portion of the frame, or use a closer subject distance to make it occupy a larger portion of the frame. Any perceivable motion blur from camera movement will be identical.

Rules you see about depth of field, needing to use higher shutter speeds at longer focal lengths, etc., were all derived based on the human eyes perception of sharpness, based on typical subjects, at typical print sizes.

[Technophile]

JimC wrote:

It's all about the amount of the frame thesubjectoccupies, and makes no difference whether you use optical zoom to make it occupy a larger portion of the frame, or use a closer subject distance to make it occupy a larger portion of the frame. Any perceivable motion blur from camera movement will be identical.

Sorry Jim, butthat's absolute nonsense. If you've got a long lens and a distant object a slight movement of the camera will cause much more blur than the case of a short lens and a close subject. In fact with a long lens and a distant object a slight movement can cause complete loss of the subject and great difficulty finding it again. With a close object the same movement may have little effect. I guess you didn't study optical physics at school.

I suspect that the problem the E20 user had is related to the suspect E20 focusing system, or he's just too close for the lens to focus.

Interesting that Steve hasn't seen fit to make further comment. I guess he was just trying to sell a few tripods before image stabilisation becomesstandard. :lol: