Closeups with D3400 - having great difficulty !!

[MoreCowbell]

I hope this is the right forum to post this on.

For better or worse, I usually use this lens:
AF-P DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

I have never been able to take a closeup that is sharp and in focus !!

I found this link that is claims the "Closeup" mode is ideal:

Taking Close-up Photos

Close-up photography tips from Nikon. Learn how to take close-up photos of flowers and small objects.

www.nikonusa.com

Not so. Nor does A/F mode work.
And I haven't found any Manual setting that gives success.

Why should this be so difficult?
Is my lens completely wrong??

Any help is appreciated.

 

[Clovishound]

Macro photography has it's challenges, but it's not rocket science. The closeup mode they refer to only manages the exposure. That can be important, but focus is also critical. Personally, I would recommend either full manual, or aperture preferred. This will allow you to choose the aperture you want. Ideally, it should be a small aperture. I wouldn't go lower than F8, and prefer F11 or F16. This will give you more depth of field which will allow you to have more of the subject in focus. If you aren't using a flash, you will have to keep an eye on your shutter speed. Too low a shutter speed will give you motion blur, unless you use a tripod. Also, subject movement will give you blur, even with a tripod.

I would also recommend manual focus for extreme closeups. AF will often grab onto something other than what you want for focus point. If you do use AF, choose a single point focus mode and put the focus point on the eye, if it's an insect or animal.

The lens you mention does not focus close enough to give you "true" macro shots. It comes in at .38x. A true macro lens is considered on that will give at least 1.0x. If want to do closer on a budget, a set of extension tubes will get you in that range for well under $50. There are some trade offs, but they work well.

Don't be concerned if not all of your shots are in focus. Even experienced macro shooters have a significant proportion of their shots out of focus, particularly when shooting handheld.

Perhaps you could post a few pictures that didn't come out sharp along with the settings and conditions and we could figure out what went wrong. Keep in mind, closeups will naturally have a narrow depth of field, and usually have a narrow zone that is in focus. Using a small aperture helps a lot, but there are limits. There is a way to get around that with focus stacking, but that is a discussion for a different thread.

Hang in there. It can be done, and macro photography is a lot of fun.

 

[BF Hammer]

Clovis has this covered, I just will back up what he said.

In plain English, all lenses have a minimum focus distance, closer than that and only blurred images. To get closer you can...

1. Use a macro lens that has a much closer minimum focus distance. Most expensive option. Look at Nikon Micro 105mm or maybe Tamron 90mm as examples to buy.
2. Macro extension tubes. These are extenders that go between your lens and camera body. Normally come in sets of 3 sizes. The longer the extension, the closer the focal point shifts to the sensor plane. Combine this with a macro lens and you can sometimes get within a couple inches of the front of the lens. You cannot use this setup when not shooting macro as it will not allow distant focus.
3. Macro magnifier filters to screw on to the front of your lens. Worst option as it distorts the image with reduced contrast and coma artifacts.

I have used all of these solutions. I use a 105mm macro lens and I also have a set of macro extension tubes for extra-tight shots.

 

[MoreCowbell]

Thank you BF and Clovishound for your extensive response. More than I wanted to know ...
I may well try a couple things suggested by Clovis and perhaps upload a couple pics w/ associated settings.

By "closeup", what I mean is pointing the lens at an object about a foot away. Nothing is in focus !!

If I can't figure out how to find a workable setting, I may have to splurge for the 105mm "micro" lens you mention. On that note, and just for the hell of it, can you pleae tell me the difference between these 2 lenses ($100 difference in price but they look superficially the same):

Amazon.com

Amazon.com

 

[BF Hammer]

By "closeup", what I mean is pointing the lens at an object about a foot away. Nothing is in focus !!

And that is exactly the point. You cannot bring that lens that close to your subject. It cannot focus that closely. Unless you assist it with the macro extension tubes.

If I can't figure out how to find a workable setting, I may have to splurge for the 105mm "micro" lens you mention. On that note, and just for the hell of it, can you pleae tell me the difference between these 2 lenses ($100 difference in price but they look superficially the same):

Amazon.com

Amazon.com

With your D3400, the first lens (less expensive) cannot autofocus at all. It uses the screw-drive system that your camera body does not have. You are forced to manually focus. The more expensive option is the correct one to autofocus on your camera body.

And this is a link for the macro extension tubes we have been taking about. Much lower cost option. Keep in mind if you seek out the cheaper under $20 versions they tend to not have the pass-through data connectors that allow the lens to talk to the D3400 and autofocus.

Amazon.com

One last note - Even though Nikon specs the minimum focus distance at 9.8 inches be aware this certainly is at the max zoom of 55mm.

 

[Marilynne]

Welcome back!

Please let us know what finally works for you in case someone else has the same issue. Thanks!

 

[Clovishound]

I would recommend trying the extension tubes first. The kit lens you have isn't the best candidate for use with extension tubes, but it will do the job. By going the tube route, you will have minimal money invested, to explore macro photography. With some experience under your belt, you will know better what equipment will be likely to be right for you. As a bonus, if you get a true macro lens in the future you can still use your extension tubes with it to increase magnification even more, when needed. FYI, buying used lenses from places like MPB and KEH is generally cheaper and have a better reputation. I saw a $100 difference between the Amazon link and MPB.

Keep in mind a lot of macro shooters shoot in manual focus. When you are focusing at higher magnifications, the smallest variance in distance will cause the AF to hunt. This is most pronounced when shooting handheld, and just minor swaying of your body will cause the focus point to wander around. AF systems have a very difficult time dealing with this. The system may also end up grabbing focus on portions of the scene you don't want as the point of focus. In manual focus you will have a lot of missed focus shots. Take lots of shots and weed them out later. Working on a tripod will eliminate camera movement, but not subject movement.

At some point you will likely want to try using an external flash with a diffuser. This is how I shoot the majority of my macro, and it has many advantages. A good diffusion system will give you very nice light quality. Many diffusers are very inexpensive, in fact, the diffuser I used for the pics in this post was homemade, from materials I had lying around the house.

Just for giggles, I threw my flash on my old D3400 with the 18-55mm kit lens and went out to my wildflower plot in the backyard. I shot a couple of quick images.

These are at around minimum focus. At this magnification, the AF worked OK. I am no longer used to an optical viewfinder, and so opted for the AF.

The short flash duration virtually eliminates camera and subject movement. These were shot at F16, 1/200 sec (sync speed) and ISO 100. BTW those are sweat bees, and are smaller than the normal honey bees. These have not been cropped, or run through Topaz. I did edit them in Lightroom since I shoot in RAW and they needed a little adjustment.

Compare that with a similar image taken with my Z 105 micro lens.

 

[MoreCowbell]

By "closeup", what I mean is pointing the lens at an object about a foot away. Nothing is in focus !!

And that is exactly the point. You cannot bring that lens that close to your subject. It cannot focus that closely. Unless you assist it with the macro extension tubes.

If I can't figure out how to find a workable setting, I may have to splurge for the 105mm "micro" lens you mention. On that note, and just for the hell of it, can you pleae tell me the difference between these 2 lenses ($100 difference in price but they look superficially the same):

Amazon.com

Amazon.com

With your D3400, the first lens (less expensive) cannot autofocus at all. It uses the screw-drive system that your camera body does not have. You are forced to manually focus. The more expensive option is the correct one to autofocus on your camera body.

And this is a link for the macro extension tubes we have been taking about. Much lower cost option. Keep in mind if you seek out the cheaper under $20 versions they tend to not have the pass-through data connectors that allow the lens to talk to the D3400 and autofocus.

Amazon.com

One last note - Even though Nikon specs the minimum focus distance at 9.8 inches be aware this certainly is at the max zoom of 55mm.

Thanks for your comments re: extension tubes !! For $48, I may be sold and willing to give that a try vs. a new lens (though I bet that 105,, lens is awespme). I do note that the Amazon link you kindly provided displays a tube that does not list D3400 as a compatible.

 

[MoreCowbell]

Great pictures Clovis, and the 105mm lens did an amazing job !!
In the pics you took with the 18/55 lens, I think you uses AF with these echoed settings:
F16, 1/200 sec (sync speed) and ISO 100

You took great pictures. About how far away were yuo for those pics?

 

[Clovishound]

I didn't measure, but perhaps a little under 1 ft. Nikon says .9 ft min focus distance. Of course that is from the focal plane, so distance from the front of the lens is less. If you want to maximize your magnification, put it on 55mm. If you are using AF, half press the shutter and wait for the focus confirmation beep. Move in until it will no longer confirm, then back out until you get the beep. Keep in mind that with extension tubes you will loose some light. This may cause your AF to struggle more to capture focus. I don't know how much you would lose, perhaps 1 stop? If you are using the 55mm setting on your zoom it's already at F5.6, so that would end up F8, and you are likely getting into borderline territory for the AF. Of course, you could zoom out to a shorter focal length which would give you more light wide open. It looks like you gain that stop back at somewhere around 28mm. Ironically, this will also give you more magnification than at 55mm, but you will have to move in closer to the subject. That's one reason that macro lenses in the 100 mm range are popular. They give more working room between the lens and subject. Using shorter tube(s) will also give more light, at the expense of less magnification.

The Z 105 micro is a very sharp lens, IMO. The FX 105 micro is also a very good lens and should give similar results, although the Z lenses are regarded to be somewhat sharper due to the larger mount. Also, the picture shown was shot on my new Z7ii, which has a 45 MP sensor. That makes a difference when cropping compared to a 24 MP sensor. The 24 MP sensor will definitely do the job, you just may not be able to crop as deeply, or make as big an enlargement.

Last year, I took a number of pictures using extension tubes and my Z 24-70 F4 lens. You would be hard pressed to tell which were taken with that, and which were taken with the 105. I notice a difference when cropping, or blowing up sections to check for sharpness, but looking at normal enlargements they compare well. If you are doing a heavy crop, it can make a difference. The biggest issue I had with the extension tubes was the lens being too close to the subject for my tastes. At $360 -$385 for an "excellent" condition used FX 105, you can't go wrong, IF you can afford it, and IF you have enough interest in macro photography. The extension tubes are a great way to discover if you have the interest.

Do you have an external flash?

 

[Woodyg3]

If you go the tube or macro lens route, just remember that the depth of field will be VERY small. Macro photography is a challenge, and even the best at the craft will get out of focus shots, so take lots of shots and pick the best!

 

[MoreCowbell]

Thanks for great comments Clovis, and your thoughts Woodyg3.

No, I donlt have an external flash.
Is there a way to view a picture in the camera and have the specs (shuter speed, etc.) echoed to the screen? I thought there was. There shoud be !!

Can ppt files be uploded to this forum?

 

[Needa]

Is there a way to view a picture in the camera and have the specs (shuter speed, etc.) echoed to the screen? I thought there was. There shoud be !!

Check your image playback options. Overview may be what your are looking for.

 

[Clovishound]

You will also have to hit the down button on the "joystick" pad that surrounds the "OK" button, when you are in playback mode to get the info to come up.

I don't see PPT under supported file types in the file upload popup.

 

[MoreCowbell]

Okay ... see if this tells us anything. 2 pics of Russian sage blooms:

DSC_001 is AF mode
DSC_002 is Macro mode ("flower" icon)

Surprisingy (to me), both pics are:
1/250s
Aperture F8
ISO 100
Focal length 20mm

For the 2nd pic, which I annotated separately, you will see an out-of-focus bee on a blossom. Terrible that this is the best I can do w/ what I have.
This should give you a sense of my dilemma ...

 

[Clovishound]

First off, and this is not a criticism, neither of these two images are what I would call closeups.

Both pictures have a lot of elements that are in focus. Even with the distance from the subject, and using a wide angle focal length, you are unable to get everything front to back in focus with the distance between the nearest elements and the farthest. Using a smaller aperture will increase the depth of field, but only to a point. You can achieve everything in focus with a technique called "focus stacking". If you aren't familiar with it, multiple images with different focus points are combined into a single image, with the software picking the portions that are in focus. You will need something like Photoshop, or another program capable of focus stacking, sometimes called focus bracketing. You can use any digital camera with adjustable focus to take the images, then process them as a stack. That is a technique for another day, though, just something to keep in mind for later. I occasionally use it, but not often.

The bee is out of focus because the camera was focused somewhere in the middle of the bush, and the bee was on a branch much closer to the camera and outside the depth of field zone.

Again, limited depth of field is a fact of life with closeup photography. It is sometimes a detrimental issue that you try to mitigate. It sometimes is a positive element of the image, drawing the eye to a particular point of interest.

I would suggest starting off with single flowers. They are frequently large enough to be able to fill the frame with the lens you have as it is. The other advantage is they don't move unless there is wind. You can also try different angles, lighting, apertures, using a tripod etc and see how they do. You aren't necessarily looking to make great images, but to learn and develop techniques.

 

[BF Hammer]

So yes, what you really appear to be complaining about is Depth Of Field (commonly just DOF). Some of the stuff in the photos are in focus, but it is impossible to get it all in focus from that distance at that focal range.

This can be pretty easy to get most of the things in focus with a cellphone camera or even an older point-n-shoot digital camera. They use tiny image sensors. As a rule, the larger your image sensor at a given focal range, the smaller your DOF becomes. I shoot with a full-frame size sensor which will give even less DOF than your D3400 crop-sensor does.

So this image I took last year kind of replicates your situation. I am using an ultra-wide 15mm lens here and on your camera you would have to use a 10mm lens to replicate this. I have enough depth at this wide angle to step in close and isolate the flowers.

Even at that, I have the rear part of the planter out of focus a bit. Use a cellphone, the flowers in the upper-right behind the main subject would likely be in focus as well and competing for attention.

Now with macro, the depth gets even more shallow. When I take it to the extreme, we get this kind of effect.

DOF is reduced to less than 1/8 inch.

So for your flower photos to get more DOF (maybe not what I would choose for the composition) you need to find a way to use a higher f-stop. Set the camera mode to "A" (Aperture-Priority) and use the front dial under the shutter release to select a higher f-stop. F/16 or even f/22 if possible. It may not be possible if the lighting is not bright enough. Then a flash may be needed to fill-in with light.

 

[MoreCowbell]

To Clovis, I cosider this a "closeup" in the sense that I cant get any sloser of the image would be completely out of fucus. So it's as "close" as I can get to the subject (in this case, the R. sage blooms). I agree that the DOF seems to be rather shallow. The bee was out of focus because I wasn't really trying to capture it. And since it was only a couple cm behind other parts that were somewhat in focus, it was not b/c shallow DOF. This is my take. But even the parts of the picture that are in focus - I frown at the resulotion !! It's not impressive. Why not??

I will try other shots of a single blossom, as you suggest, and also try to use the "half trigger" depresson to help the camera to find the best focus, as you also suggested. (I often forget to do that.)

And I'd much rather not have to do post-processing of images (e.g., focus stacking) to get a better picture, though I appreciate what that can produce. M

To BF - Great pictures and comments. Great resolutions in the watch pic. Seems that the lens may have been only 5"-6" away.
I will experiment w/ A-priority to see if I get any success.



This might be instructive. My photo partner (we go out and ID/photograph native desert plants here in NM) uses this lens on his Nikon D5600:
Nikon DX VR
AF-S NIKKOR 18-300mm 1:3.5-6.3G EDar

With this lens, he kneels down and takes fabulous pics from ~1' away. Perfect detail & resolution. Not as great as Clovis' bee on the sunflower pic but quite nice. So my question:

What's the main difference betrween this lens and my AF-P DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR ?

 

[BF Hammer]

I only have limited experience with a much older version of your 18-55mm lens, and none with the 18-300mm.

But here's a Ken Rockwell review of the 18-300mm. He does not use any scientific method or anything, just shoots with the gear and tells it as he sees it. Here is an excerpt regarding the lens compared to 18-55mm...

Versus the 18-55 and 55-300 Combo​

This Nikon 18-300mm VR replaces the combination of 18-55mm VR II and 55-300mm VR lenses in one lens.​

This one-lens 18-300mm VR solution weighs less than both other lenses combined, and eliminates the need to change lenses — but it costs more than both those lenses combined. Heck, this 18-300 weighs less than the 55-300mm alone!​

This 18-300 has faster autofocus and instant manual-focus override,both missing in the 55-300mm VR, so this 18-300mm is also much better for sports than the dedicated 55-300mm.​

If you prefer shooting test charts, the 18-55 and 55-300 can be a little sharper than this 18-300mm, but I'm not going to worry about it. I prefer the one-lens 18-300mm VR over having to lug two lenses with me and swap them all the time.​

 

[MoreCowbell]

Thanks for sharing this BF. Along with everything else I said I would try going forward, when my buddy and I meet next Friday for a plant outing, I plan to swap his Nikon DX VR AF-S NIKKOR 18-300mm lens onto my D3400 and see how it behaves with "closeups" - a term I guess I use loosely to mean "with the lens about 1 foot away from the subject". That should be quite telling ...

And btw, if I remember right, the AF-P DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR lens I have is the one that came with my camera when purchased - not one I picked out as optimum for any of my purposes.