Teleconverters in macro photography

I have always wondered if it was worth to have a teleconverter in my photography bag. After discussing it with other photographers and reading online one thing became clear over time, you had to sacrifice image quality to obviously get the extra reach. In macro photography this is different however because apart from the zooming as with tele lenses you get a higher magnification which some might find interesting.

After borrowing a 1.4x teleconverter, which is said to degrade the image quality less since its not zooming/magnifying as much as the 2x converter, I took some shots. The images I took where of a micro moth. After opening the files on my pc I compared them to another set of images that i had taken earlier.

What I found is that although you get a half more magnification, the subject is softer and you can see a bit of fringing in certain areas. Even after trying to introduce some sharpening, the image, though improved, still felt unnatural. Not to mention thin bluish/purple lines that surround parts of the image.

Concluding, in my opinion I think I will stick and shoot without any teleconverters. Its true that the subject gets more magnified but for me it doesn't make justice to the deterioration of image quality that happens when using the teleconverter.

P.S. Any opinions appreciated.

Choosing the best camera for macro photography

A question that I have been asking myself every now and then for the past months is "Which type of camera is the better choice when shooting macro photography?"

Here we are talking about two different types of sensors found in dSLRs.  The first one is the Full Frame sensor and the second is the APS-C sensor, the latter giving a 'cropped' image due to the smaller sensor compared to the first.

When speaking with professional photographers, there are some who tell you the bigger the sensor the better since it will result into better image quality, color depth and better ISO performance.

On the other hand however there are those who are happy to ditch the above advantages for other things like longer working distance from the subject, larger magnification (cos of the camera crop factor), greater Depth of Field and sometimes even higher FPS.

Anyone into this type of photography can share his thoughts about this subject?

Nature Photography - Post Processing

While working on my images, mostly macro photography, I often wonder if I should edit them to look as ‘artistic’ as possible or just stick to the most ‘natural’ way and just correct the saturation, take care of the shadows and highlights and possibly introduce some curves thus giving the images that ‘punchy’ look. With the latter way the image will look more or less as I saw it in the first place through my viewfinder.


Whilst acknowledging that introducing some vignetting and darkening uninteresting areas to get the viewers’ attention to the main subject does have its credit, on the other hand I tend to feel that the image has now lost its natural and real look, even though (in most cases) it looks better than the starting image.


Another thing that I have a dilemma about is cloning of unwanted background and foliage.  Here I am referring to minor details that do not distract or have to do with the main subject but just happened to be there and the image could be slightly improved without.


I would like to see what the readers think about this.

Any input will be appreciated.