Like all the kids these days, I've been taking pics of my work -- PCBs, chassis wiring, etc. It's invaluable for documenting, but it would be even more so if it were consistently in focus. Can any of you recommend a reasonably priced macro lens and/or camera stand for a smartphone? Most of my photos are of small PCBs, 100mm or less, resting on my workbench. My phone's camera can just barely not focus on the smaller boards.
Get rid of the phone. Phones are not cameras. Cameras do a much better job as cameras, than phones do. Maybe that's why they make cameras?
I have a small camera I bought for outdoors use, as it has a zoom lens built in. But it's not what I wanted, really. Instead of zooming in on distant things, the normal mode is very wide and you zoom in to a more standard view. LOL
But it has a nice macro capability, much better than my phone. I use it for pictures of my designs, and sometimes bumblebees. Although, there have been some tough to take photos of chip markings (nearly invisible) that just would not show up with the camera, but came out nicely with the phone. Go figure!
I've also found I can partially cover the flash on the camera as it is a 2 cm long tube, rather than a single LED. That lets me modulate the lighting with a sticky note. Much easier than trying to twiddle digital controls that "go to 11".
Also, the camera has a 1/4 inch standard mounting thread for tripod or monopod use. That's invaluable when you need your hands to control the subject or the lighting.
When your subject has LEDs on board, you can get some really nice looking pictures, good for marketing (dark foreground, with the bling of the LEDs). All I need to do now, is put them on my website that I've largely ignored for two decades.
is your phone ancient?
There are little clip-on lenses for phones, both close-up and telephoto. Sometimes I just hold a magnifier lens onto my phone. I like phone cameras because they are tiny and have a huge depth of focus.
I get good pics shooting through my Mantis with my phone too.
Oh my, yes!
Tell me more about shooting through your Mantis, pls. I played around with my Mantis today, and couldn't see a thing. Are you simply holding your phone where your eyes would be?
Yes. You have to move the phone around to find the sweet spot. It takes a bit of practice but is easy once you get used to it. I have a fairly cheap Samsung Galaxy S10E phone but it has an excellent camera.
There's also a version of the Mantis with a built-in USB camera, but I don't have that one.
I've had pretty good success with my iPhone - first get the right angle to avoid reflections, then touch the screen at the point you want in focus and let the camera do the rest.
Generally satisfactory and the image blows up quite well.
John :-#)#
It depends a lot on the phone. There are plenty of phones with truly excellent cameras even for specialist stuff like macro mode. The only thing I dislike about them is having to remember how to do zoom and the inevitable camera shake that comes from touching the screen. That is really only a big problem if you are using a telescope.
If the OP said which phone he was using then it would be possible to determine whether his problems are user error or hardware limitations.
Having a live preview of the image on an LCD screen helps a lot with framing the view - classic viewfinder cameras go haywire in close up mode. Most these days have active preview display but not always bright enough to see in strong sunshine.
That is the convention on most digital cameras. They have come on a long way now that their optics no longer have to obey the rules for film cameras allowing much wider zoom ratios and sharper macro modes.
You can get curious effects along the line of purples which is used to bury any compromises made elsewhere to get flesh tones realistic. It normally only affects a few magenta or purple flowers but some pigments may also have a peak reflectance in that region.
You can take perfectly good pictures with a mobile phone and horrid ones with a camera. It is mostly about lighting technique when it comes to close up macro work to record something.
I recall one place I where worked briefly that used Polariod photos of the instrument wiring harness in lieu of having proper engineering diagrams. It made the kit virtually impossible to maintain but got it shipped out of the door quicker which was all the suits cared about.
What's a Mantis, please? I can only think of the insect.
We sometimes take pictures of a prototype instead of spending a lot of time making assembly drawings. We have rules for file storage and naming, so that the BOM calls out everything an assembler needs to know.
There is a basic problem with smartphone cameras: Most are optimized to find the human faces and focus on them, letting all else blur to some degree. Many cameras have a mode where one can tell the camera where to focus, often by touching the screen.
Macro mode usually disables face-seeking, but there may be better modes - depends on the phone (or camera).
Cameras are more likely to be able to take good photos of circuit boards and the like.
Also, auto focus varies in its ability to focus on textures versus major details.
And of course while modern smart phones will take a picture in near darkness, the photo will be blurry, from wide-open lens (focus becomes critical) and motion blur (shutter open too long).
Everything works better with a big ring light.
Looking down into deep holes requires epi-illumination, where the light to sample is parallel to light retuning from sample.
Joe Gwinn
Photographing an electronic assembly, like a rackmount thing or a box, needs depth of focus. Phones have tiny cameras hence good depth in real life. Digital SLRs usually have big lenses and less depth of focus.
That fact has annoyed professional photographers who take great wedding pictures.
If you can set the F-Stop - and that is mechanical - you can get better depth of focus the closer you get to F-22. Need longer exposure time and/or brighter lighting to compensate.
Here is a pretty good explanation of F-Stops:
My dad was a commercial photographer here in Canada and I recall many a day at his studio (Panda Associates, Toronto ON) watching him work with models, catalogue ad photos, and going on the road with him taking photos of buildings...
If you are into commercial photos you may want to see some of his work:
John :-#)#
My "bird hunting" camera - a zoom camera, i.e. ligther.lower grade than a full frame DSLR - is perhaps the optimum for documenting work (a Fuji xs-1). I can get as detailed a shot as I might practically need from close range - depth of field being small:
And then I don't have such a huge thing like the one you use for work, too much desk area for a start with me (my desk is an incredible mess, and no, I won't post a photo of *that* :). I am fine with pairs of glasses and a watchmaker's monocle for the finest details.
====================================================== Dimiter Popoff, TGI
Of course it's a problem, if you want clear images.
This is an optical zoom, as I said. Digital zoom is not really zoom at all. It's just image manipulation. That's why I wanted the optical zoom. Anyone can "zoom" in on an image digitally.
Hmmm... I'm talking about the same lighting conditions. You would think both cameras would give the same image, but maybe there were differences in the camera position. Each have different limitations on how they are held. I should invest in a very short tripod for the camera. I'd also like a remote shutter release, but I've yet to find one. I think the camera might have a connector for that, but it is a brand specific connector. I guess I should check with the manufacturer about the remote shutter release.
Yeah, it's always hard to know just what detail you are going to need, that isn't shown well in the image.
Not sure how far the telescopic optical zoom on phones has gone (mine does not have any) but the shaking issue, while worse than with a real camera, is not too horrible. The touchscreen button on my phone responds to practically no touch, I manage that easily (unless I have to balance say on one knee under a table or something). But then I am hardened in that respect, some years ago I discovered the fact that to get the least shaking in a tele-shot (usually chasing birds, as I used to, at 620mm 35mm equivalent focal length) I had to lean somewhat back, in a way so my weight is supported by my bones, the muscles minimally involved to minimize the - hmmmm, regulation ripple I suppose.
Newer cameras I see are mirrorless, and have a viewfinder with some TFT inside it for you (as do all zoom cameras). The display at the back is basically meant for viewing photos you already took etc., at least this is how I use it.
Which one stops down for better photos, so long as there is enough light. Usually f/8 is the optimum. But with film, in practice, this required a big flash.
And then there is the extreme:
.
Digital cameras were supposed to wipe professional photographers out, but it didn't happen.
But what really annoyed photographers were customers who questioned the price by saying that their uncle can do the same fro ten dollars. The standard reply was to decline to haggle, saying go right ahead if you will be happy with the result.
War story: My kid sister asked me to take pictures of her bachelor party a few days before her wedding. This did not require a professional photographer, but I rented a pro-level atomic-bomb studio flash, which I pointed straight up, so it hit the ceiling in the large room where the party was. I wandered around with a 35mm Olympus OM-1 film camera with a 100mm telephoto and a pipsqueak flash also pointing up. Used Kodacolor 100 (print film), if memory serves.
I got really good pictures of her friends talking to one another. They all had lost track of me because the studio flash never moved, and gave no inkling about where I was as I wandered around.
Joe Gwinn
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.