Does IBIS help for handheld macro shots?

[Photar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As the title suggests, I am looking for experience in using an SL camera with IBIS for handheld macro photography (say, at 1:2 magnification). Is IBIS helpful in this situation? I never had a camera with IBIS and I cannot get a clear answer from the internet. I would be using a flash to freeze the picture. The question is whether IBIS would help for accurately framing the picture.

Edited yesterday at 12:25 AM by Photar

[SrMi]

2 hours ago, Photar said:

As the title suggests, I am looking for experience in using an SL camera with IBIS for handheld macro photography (say, at 1:2 magnification). Is IBIS helpful in this situation? I never had a camera with IBIS and I cannot get a clear answer from the internet. I would be using a flash to freeze the picture. The question is whether IBIS would help for accurately framing the picture.

It works, but is less effective at very close distances.

[PhotoCruiser]

Yes, IBIS works but as above, not very effective.

Macro without tripod is generally subpar, but doable but with a higher risk of ruined photos.
I did many many underwater macro shots and what i did to reduce unsharp photos is:

• highest shutter speed what syncronize with the flash to block movement, mine or objects
• f/16 or more to get most DoF what helps a tiny bit with micro movement
• AFC to correct my or objects movement, do some tests if that works for you as it can be counterproductive
• Auto ISO to handle correct exposure, ISO will not raise excessive as you have a flash

On land i carry mostly a mono or tripod, even if only one of those small ones and it's use is also for low light photos.

Chris

Edited yesterday at 08:16 AM by PhotoCruiser

[Stuart Richardson]

8 hours ago, Photar said:

As the title suggests, I am looking for experience in using an SL camera with IBIS for handheld macro photography (say, at 1:2 magnification). Is IBIS helpful in this situation? I never had a camera with IBIS and I cannot get a clear answer from the internet. I would be using a flash to freeze the picture. The question is whether IBIS would help for accurately framing the picture.

Yes, a lot better than doing it handheld, but not as well as with a tripod.

[Stuart Richardson]

1 hour ago, PhotoCruiser said:

• f/16 or more to get most DoF what helps a tiny bit with micro movement

The only challenge with this, is that you quickly wind up being diffraction limited. The diffraction limit of the sensor on the SL2 is already around f/11 or lower. With macro shots, the effective aperture and diffraction limit increase with how close you are. So f/16 at 1:1 has both the light transmission AND diffraction effect as if you used f22 at infinity. You may gain a little DOF, but you also lose sharpness. The only ways to really fight this are by using shorter focal length lenses or camera movements. And of course composing to try to have the important parts of the subject within a plane (or as close to it as possible). 

As for handheld macro, the biggest challenge for me is less the framing than the subject constantly going in and out of focus. If you move even a little back or forward, you need to refocus. It is a bit of a pain. I agree with carrying a light tripod, if at all possible. 

Edited yesterday at 09:28 AM by Stuart Richardson

[PhotoCruiser]

Thanks for pointing that out, when i am back in Zürich i will check that to see if i find a sweet spot on my Sigma 105mm Macro.
I did not noticed this effect on my D800 and the Lumix LX100, but now as you wrote about i got curious about that argument.

Yes, holding the heavy SL2 while focusing on a macro object is not a simple task, in underwater photography i could make my cameras absolutely neutral buoyant so i did not lift/tilt them what was good for my wrists but me and camera where still floating around.

Some underwater photographer move the camera back and forth till focus is where they want it as autofocus is often a annoying hunting for focus even if my Sigma has a 3 step focus limiter what helps a lot.

However, a lot depends on what and where OP is shooting macro, shooting in the field and critters is much more difficult than non moving objects inside, even on a ad-hoc studio on the kitchen table.

What i found to help with focusing is using Leica Fotos (or other kind of tethering) on a tablet to have a bigger imagine to evaluate, but this needs a tripod as the tablet need to be held. Also very useful for objects near the bottom as it avoids greatly to knee or lay down.

@Photar If you tell us what you would like to photograph in macro you may get some other tips and tricks .

Chris

 

[Photar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Critters in the field is a good description 😀 Mantises, butterflies and insects that cross my way. I use mostly longer focal lengths (such as 100mm Focotar II, 130mm Photar, 135mm and 150mm EL-Nikkor). I am not a complete beginner, I was just curious about the potential benefits of IBIS. I currently use a Leica CL with SF 26 flash for this kind of photography.

[PhotoCruiser]

Then you are well equipped with what you have and for this kind of Macro long lenses do not scare the critters.

I suggest that you borrow/rent a SL for a weekend and go out to test, that will reveal rather quick if a SL covers your needs, or not.

Chris

[jaapv]

Ummm..Focus stacking?
In fact, having done medical/dental handheld macro for decades in my work, I find that it is just a matter of training. Practice, practice, practice - and it is easy.  (As with most things in photography).
Shorter focal lengths produce an unnatural perspective. 

 

4 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

The only ways to really fight this are by using shorter focal length lenses or camera movements

 

[EUSe]

vor 14 Stunden schrieb Photar:

As the title suggests, I am looking for experience in using an SL camera with IBIS for handheld macro photography (say, at 1:2 magnification). Is IBIS helpful in this situation? I never had a camera with IBIS and I cannot get a clear answer from the internet. I would be using a flash to freeze the picture. The question is whether IBIS would help for accurately framing the picture.

I have no experience with Leica SL macro, but have been photographing insects handheld with Canon RF cameras and the RF 100 f/2.8 macro for years, no flash. I can tell you that whenever I had inadvertently switched off OIS, I always got blurred images. The same should be true for IBIS. My advice is to set ISO to at least 1600 ISO if the light is not absolutely perfect, any noise can be managed by software. Canon combines lens and body stabilization, which is a clear advantage. Another advice is to take serial shots to fight minimal camera movement if your hands are not super steady, it will also help to nail the shot when your subject moves or if AF is slightly off.

 

[Jonathan Levin]

If you are shooting flash, camera movement blur may not be that bad because of a short flash duration. Especially if flash is close to subject. Unless you are doing some sort of rear curtain sync (slow camera shutter speed). Not sure what you are photo-ing so just a fwiw.

[Stuart Richardson]

19 hours ago, jaapv said:

Ummm..Focus stacking?
In fact, having done medical/dental handheld macro for decades in my work, I find that it is just a matter of training. Practice, practice, practice - and it is easy.  (As with most things in photography).
Shorter focal lengths produce an unnatural perspective. 

 

 

Great point, I shoot macro mostly on large format film, so focus stacking is not something I tend to do very often. Shorter focal lengths can be very useful for macro beyond 1 to 1, which is what I was thinking about. I have not found them to produce an unnatural perspective, but obviously that will be dependent on the photographer and the situation. 

[jaapv]

It was lesson #1 in my training in medical photography. The ideal focal length for rendering “ naturally” at the distances we use is between 100 and 200 mm. ( 100 for 1:1 Dental and 200 for the operating theatre) The Medical Nikkior ( with built-in ring flash )was a compromise 120 mm and could be used with extenders. 
OTOH, if one wants to do, for instance, model railway photography 28 mm gives a similar perspective as 50 mm on the real thing. 
We must never forget the relationship between distance and perspective and adjust our angle of view accordingly. 
Field of view is of course the angle of view  at a given distance and in Macro that is a thing that determines the focal length needed. 
Not much different from general photography really. Choose the perspective by subject distance and choose the framing by focal length. 
 

Sorry if this reads like a sucking eggs post. 

[PhotoCruiser]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Stuart Richardson:

Shorter focal lengths can be very useful for macro beyond 1 to 1, which is what I was thinking about.

Shorter focal length leads to less distance between lens and object what can be a problem, or not.
For everything alive what can move around as longer the distance between lens and animal is, less critter will be scared and try to escape or attack.
Same applies to underwater, but there visibility comes in and in general less water between lens and animal is better, but often it scares the animal. On air this is in most cases not a problem except it's a foggy or very dusty day.

Many many times the animal escaped and i lost the shot, but i also got attacked f.e. by a Mantis doing CFWA here in Sardinia and some times near attacks doing underwater photography but there mostly as animals see their reflection in the glass/acrylic dome.

Focus stacking is a great tool giving excellent photos for anything what does not move, but very difficult to impossible to realize out in the fields photographing animals as OP Photar is doing.

 

vor 19 Stunden schrieb Jonathan Levin:

If you are shooting flash, camera movement blur may not be that bad because of a short flash duration.

Yep!
Thats why i suggested to use the highest shutter speed the flash can syncronize with, a high output flash can work better for longer distances and at least two flashes do much better than one. Best solution is a ring flash and a second, wireless/cabled one from another angle to add depth to the photo, but they are no TTL, pricy and bulky. I agree that Ring flashes do really well but i dislike that they mostly lead to "flat" photos.

Chris

Edited 7 hours ago by PhotoCruiser