best small, point and shoot camera for macro

I'm still using my Olympus TG5 for macro and very satisfied with it.

The new multi-talented Olympus OM TG-7 cost me under $500 from Amazon. The LED ring light (LG-1) and the flash diffuser ring (FD-1) are acquired separately, each about $50. I was impatient, so it's worthwhile to hunt for better deals. I'm new to digital photography (https://bugguide.net/node/view/2323054). My sole purpose is to get adequate focus stacked shots of pinned carabid specimens fast and easy so I can share them with my colleagues and BugGuide. Exceptional image resolution is not expected, nor is it needed. I hope to learn tips about insect macro-photography from users of the OM TG series cameras. Earlier models provide similar "focus stacking" settings with default 8 images; choice up to 10 with TG 7. At my novice stage I don't wish to try the complicated option of "focus bracketing" [Focus BKT] which provides many more stacked images. However, choosing option Focus BKT would require subsequent focus stacking software (e.g., free Picolay or free TuFuse). Does anyone use OM Workspace? It nicely edits images, but it won't stack images. I'm hoping I'll be satisfied with the camera's automatic internal focus stacking at max 10 image levels. I have additional questions below.

Question 1. In focus stacking mode for pinned beetles positioned horizontally, should I strive to get the auto-focus "square" (shutter slightly depressed) over the diagnostically-important pronotum? If so, I wonder if the stacked images are shot both above AND below the chosen auto-focus level? Perhaps the focus stacked batch only proceeds downward from the auto-focus level. The manual does not discuss this detail. Update: A youtube tutorial stated that the downwardly stacked image layers begin slightly above the autofocus plane.

Question 2. Besides resting the camera on a stable object during macro shooting, are these steps really necessary to minimize camera shake: select 1 or 2 second waiting time to shoot after the shutter is depressed; turn off the shutter sound?

Question 3. I believe the LED Ring Light accessory might be better than the Flash Diffuser Ring accessory for my kind of macro photography. Right? I have not yet received the flash diffuser.

Question 4. In selected focus stacking mode, I think there are only five steps followed in this order: turn on LED ring light (flash off) by depressing the INFO button for two seconds; zoom the view in or out with the zoom lever; adjust the exposure/lighting by either turning the control dial or pressing arrow pad left or right; auto-focus the "square" over the intended target by depressing shutter button slightly; press shutter all the way. Are there additional steps or adjustments to enhance the focus stacking result? Surprisingly, nowhere in the 266-page manual does it say to turn on a steady LED light by holding down the INFO button for a couple seconds. I learned about it from Youtube.

Question 5. I hope the TG 7 is smart enough to ignore the insect pin which extends well above the specimen. If the autofocus level is squared atop the pronotum, I trust that the automatic focus stacking does not strive to capture parts of this pin inserted into the right elytral shoulder?

Thank you for your opinions and sharing your experiences.

I've also been using the TG-7 lately for all my images and might be able to help with these questions. It's a great camera for macro work, especially considering the size!

Question 1:
As the tutorial you found says, when you autofocus (or manual focus, for that matter) on a particular point, the stack will start with a closer focusing distance and end behind your chosen focus point. I do highly recommend focus bracketing once you feel comfortable enough with the setup. You can do much deeper stacks (up to 30 frames), though as you say there is the extra step of post processing. You can stack in OM Workspace so long as you took the images with the camera's focus bracketing feature. If I remember, it's a compositing option or something... it does a reasonable job!

Question 2:
Unless you're using flash (which would freeze motion), I would recommend the shutter delay, yes. I don't think the shutter sound would cause appreciable vibration, but I disable it anyway as I find it annoying.

Question 3:
You can get better and more even lighting with the LG-1 ring light than the FD-1 diffuser, yes. I find the FD-1's light objectionably harsh, though it might be perfectly sufficient for your needs. The FD-1 is easier to use effectively because camera shake is not an issue with it. The problem with the LG-1 is that the LED isn't very bright. The camera will try to crank up the ISO unless you tell it not to and give you very noisy images. You can definitely override this behavior, though it's a minor hassle. If you did use the LG-1, I'd recommend setting up one of the custom modes with all of your settings. I don't use either of the accessories anymore and have gone for a DIY solution. See here if interested for an old (and clunky) version:



Question 4:
If you go to the flash mode in the quick menu (arrow pad right, or OK and scroll around), you can actually set it to use the LED. The LED will then come on when you half-press the shutter or take a picture. The rest of your process sounds great! If you want to fine-tune your focus without switching entirely to manual focus, you can also press OK while half-pressing the shutter and then tweak with the arrow pad.

Question 5:
The autofocus on these cameras gets misled pretty easily, so I would be ready to use manual focus or try the tweaking mentioned above when things go wrong. You'll probably see on the screen when the focus isn't where you expect it to be while half-pressing the shutter. Sometimes it'll work great, but can be inconsistent.

Hope this helps!

Kyron, thank you so much for answering my questions regarding macrophotography with the OM TG series of cameras. Your interesting DIY attachment for enhanced light diffusion apparently becomes important for improving your live outdoor closeups. I believe such an attachment won't be particularly necessary to shoot static closeups of mounted museum specimens. That is my sole purpose for the TG-7.

Here is one of my first studio closeups with the LED light turned on continuously through the LG-1 ring attachment; auto focus stacking set to max 10 images; shutter delay set to 1 sec; camera pressed downward with both hands onto a stable surface; AF rectangle targeted on the pronotum which is only ~ 1.5 cm beneath the lens: https://bugguide.net/node/view/2326687. I am satisfied with the overall photographic quality. However, I notice that a good portion of the mounting pin is also in focus. That's not what I wanted! It's likely that some of the 10 image levels were wasted on the pin. Therefore, next time I will shoot specimens with the pin temporarily removed. In this way I hope the TG focus stacking will concentrate only on the specimen, thus providing an even crisper shot of the entire habitus. Kyron, what do you think?

The TG-7 "Focus Bracketing" option delivers & stores separate images in chosen sets of 10, 20, or 30. I already get automatically generated composite images with just the "Focus Stacking" option set to max 10 images. I have no idea how much crisper 20 or 30 stacked levels would compare to 10 and if that justifies the extra work on OM Workspace to compose the focus bracketed images into one focus stacked image. What do you think Kyron?

I haven't yet downloaded OM Workspace in the hope that it isn't all important for my purpose. Kyron, what are the steps there to do focus stacking of focus bracketed images? I really appreciate your sharing of information.

Yes, I think you're right! For static images the LG-1 should do just fine, and you've gotten a great result from it already.

I was just playing around with the built-in stacking feature on my TG-7 to figure out the issue with the pin. I think the main problem is that in the stacking mode, the difference in focus distances between shots is large. The idea being to give as much in focus as possible. In this case, that ended up being more than you wanted. Removing the pin would certainly solve the problem!

Two other things you could try: first, you could focus beyond the pronotum, the idea being that the closest frame in the stack would not include part of the pin. Focus bracketing instead of stacking could also solve the issue, because you would be able to choose which frames to include in the stack, and discard any that included the pin.

As far as the differences between bracketing and stacking, here are two shots of a rather battleworn silverfish I found this morning that illustrate what can go wrong with stacking:

Stacked in-camera
Focus bracketed and stacked in OM Workspace

The in-camera stacked image has a lot of blurry areas around the limbs and seems to have ignored the paper surface almost entirely (not necessarily a bad thing). The in-camera stacking gets confused any time there is an area with low contrast, like the relatively light silverfish legs compared to the paper. It's not bad in the darker areas. I could see this being an issue with lighter colored specimens on a white background.

For the bracketed image, I set the camera to take 20 images with a "narrow" focus differential. Narrow will usually give you the sharpest results, though normal or wide will give you a greater depth of focus if you need it. Here I only used 14 of those 20 images as some were focused in front of the silverfish and didn't have any useful detail. OM Workspace has done a better job of capturing the details in the lower contrast areas.

You do get more detail and control with bracketing, but how significant that would be for your purposes is something you'd have to decide. Bracketing takes more work in post processing, so that's something to weigh against the benefits too.

I fired up OM Workspace to test the stacking, and it's actually quite simple. You import your focus bracketed images and select the ones you want to stack. With them all selected, you can make any adjustments you want to (contrast, sharpness, etc.) and then you choose "Focus Stacking" from the Composite menu. Then you can simply stack and export the result. You can have OM Workspace automatically adjust for changes in position between frames, although with static subjects you probably don't need to worry about this. There's another option to choose the frame that has the part of the specimen you want to be in focus, although I suspect you wouldn't need this either.

Someone outside this thread informed me privately today about this editing feature. That person kindly sent me a much sharper, edited image of the same with the pin disappeared -- all done in Photoshop. The problem is that I don't have this software which is expensive and it has a steep learning curve.

Kyron, at my early stage it would be simpler to just try your good suggestions. Physically removing the pin temporarily might help compress the auto focus stacking range that the TG-7 is searching for. Users of Photoshop will think I'm doing unnecessary work that runs the risk of damaging the specimen. We shall see.

At least the OM Workspace will provide useful editing features like increased sharpness. Now I wonder if it will make pins vanish like Photoshop? Thanks.

I also don't have Photoshop! OM Workspace by itself has no tools to remove or clone out objects, but carefully choosing the point of focus for stacking or bracketing should allow you to minimize how much of the pin is in focus. You could also position the camera directly above the pin, so nothing but the small head would be disruptive in the image.

when I open any image within Windows 10 "Photos". I choose the circle size of Spot Fix to match the circular size of the small hole where the mounting pin was previously removed. Drag the spot fix virtual circle directly over the hole, click, and voila! - the pin hole is replaced with the same surface features of the surrounding integument. I understand this very fast & easy repair trick uses AI. I believe users of Windows 11 need to do a free download to get back the Spot Fix option. There's more information on the internet about this. Spot Fix certainly addresses artistry, but it does nothing to enhance species recognition which is my main goal.

Very interesting! I didn't know about this feature. Will have to try it out at some point. On occasion, for images I don't intend to upload to BG I do clone out distracting objects to make for a nicer image. Thanks!

Is that what you're referring to? It's a feature of Photoshop and OM Workspace. Regarding the latter software, so far I found Clone Stamp Tool to be less successful that Spot Fix. I don't intend to pay for Photoshop.

Yes, that type of tool, although I typically use Darktable or GIMP for photo editing (both are free). No AI features, just manual retouching.

Comments boiled down to this if I understood correctly: The current version of Adobe Photoshop Elements ($100 on Amazon) likely will vanish the pin, but it won't be as straightforward as with the expensive full version of Photoshop. An old version of the Elements was successfully tested for this. That software was able to copy the good elytron, flip it around, and replace the pinned elytron along with doing minor corrections to color, etc. The steps for doing this and the final tweaking would not be obvious to a complete beginner like me. The person concluded that physically removing the pin would be my easiest solution for now. Also, the free image editing software IrfanView (64-bit for Win 7 through Win 11) will provide excellent image sharpening that was absent from my first couple of ground beetle examples posted on BugGuide.

My correspondence with studio macro-photographers here and outside this thread has taught me that they really strive for esthetics (artistry) with appendages arranged symmetrically and with surfaces absolutely clean. I admire their patience, skill, and their exquisite results. As a minimalist (=lazy?) taxonomist, I am currently satisfied just to achieve decent photos that adequately show the diagnostic anatomic features to my colleagues. Making the pin vanish virtually is an act of esthetics/artistry. Thank you Kyron for your latest helpful comments.

It has good detail. The camera looks to be similar dimensions to the Canon S5 and SX30 (which are not pocket-sized), which can do similar macros. I checked and it appears you can attach the Raynox DCR-250 to yours as well, if you want to get even closer.

Ashley - My Canon PowerShot A2000is finally wore out. It took amazing macro pictures. I am wondering if you are still using the Canon PowerShot S5 IS in confunction with the Raynox DCR-250 lens. Since I am going to replace my camera, and I drool over your photos, I thought I'd ask what you are currently using. Any help is appreciated. Thanks.

Here are the lens specs on the camera. Does this help in any way? I can get good macro shots with the camera, but I want to increase closeups if possible without going into a larger camera like a Canon Rebel, with special lenses, and stuff like that. I'm in the field a lot and often find myself in opportunistic situations that require quick shooting. I like the A590is small camera (that I can tuck in my pocket), but can I improve on it with those qualities without going to a bigger camera or spending a ton of money? Thanks for your comments.


Focal Length 5.8-23.2mm f/2.6-5.5 (35mm film equivalent: 35-140mm)
Digital Zoom 4x
Focusing Range Normal: 1.5 ft./45cm-infinity
Macro: 2.0 in.-1.5 ft./5-45cm (W), 12 in.-1.5 ft./30-45cm (T)

The specs indicate the norm for this type of camera. In this case, as I pointed out earlier, modification of the camera and handling techniques would be required to get anything more out of it. Raynox close-up lens systems are one alternative, but I have no personal experience with them. From what you are telling me, a compact mirrorless, interchangeable lens camera may be in your future. There are an increasing number of these cameras in the marketplace, but many are still priced over $400 w/kit lens. One alternative that I ended up going with is the Olympus E-PL-1 which goes for about $250 with kit lens. A $30 legacy lens adaptor allows use of a broad range of older (and some newer) lenses made for film camera systems. My favorite lens for macro is an ancient Vivitar 55 mm f/2.8 macro lens in Konica mount. Frankly, I use the body much as I used 35 mm SLR's. However, the camera body is much smaller and lighter than any SLR I have used. The Olympus and many others have one very useful feature built-in, a hot shoe for a separate flash unit. Also, these cameras have superior image sensors and image processors that allow faster, and in most cases, better imaging. It may behoove you to at least look into these cameras....you might find just what you are looking for....

I use the Canon PowerShot SD1100IS Digital ELPH, which is a little smaller than yours. It cost about $200 new. From the manual: dimensions, 3.42 x 2.16 x 0.87 in.

It also has 8 million pixels. I'm thinking of getting another camera because I want more detail in macro shots and greater depth of field if possible. However, this one does well for its handy size.

Again from the manual. Focusing Range: normal, 30 cm (12 in.)-infinity; macro, 3-50 cm (W), 30-50 cm (T). Digital Zoom: approx. 4.0x (but I find that digital zoom is worthless for bug shots).

Ms.?? Berg, you also sound like a candidate for an ILC (interchangeable lens compact) camera. My personal experience using point'n shoots is colored by decades of collecting cameras and their attendant bits and pieces and modifying and/or rebuilding them to suit my needs. Not everyone can or is inclined to do this, so much of what I write about is really not overly useful. You can get much more out of what you have, but it involves serious modification of equipment and technique that you may or may not be inclined to deal with. One area that there is virtually little to no help for is the depth-of-field problem. This is inherent in optics used at a close range and affects *all* lens systems and image formats and is dependent on image magnification to a great extent. I agree that digital zoom is virtually worthless in macro work except in those cases where you will miss the shot altogether without its use.

I also have endured decades of heavy SLR type cameras both medium format and 35 mm, but have to say that it is hard to beat the little point and shoot cameras that have macro mode for close shots. Most all p&S cameras today have very sharp glass.

The key is to practice and learn how to use what you have. A study of lighting techniques will benefit any photographer. As the old photographers saying goes "it is not so much the camera but how you use it" With the huge mp cameras of today even heavy cropping will produce good results.

Currently using a older basic Canon sx-100 in macro mode set at f/8 (max) with the on camera flash. A simple white reflector card to balance the light and diffuser over the flash work nice.
Canon sx100 P&S