The Cell Phones Are Coming for Us, Too!

My shiny new cell phone (Samsung A53) has a "macro" camera. It's not bad:

The macro camera at 4cm (allowable range is 3-5cm)

The normal camera as close as it would focus--actually, a tiny bit too close.

While I wouldn't count on the cell phone macro for something critical, and the distance range is restricting, the tiny handwriting is on the closely spaced wall.

The dark center is the best I could do with my ring light. 4cm is very close to the desk. The EXIF data should be OK for further details.

[spooky voice] BEWARE! The end is nigh! [hollow echo]

I am sorry Jack but macro-photography you camera, lens macro, bellows, tube, Microscope and other more tools. Check on youtube the video of Allan Walls

Just yesterday I saw a bit in TIME magazine about such a critter. Looking just now on Amazon, there are lots of them. The one in TIME was a stick-on, not a clip-on.

In any case, not likely going to be my next macro lens 

grsnovi wrote:

Just yesterday I saw a bit in TIME magazine about such a critter. Looking just now on Amazon, there are lots of them. The one in TIME was a stick-on, not a clip-on.

In any case, not likely going to be my next macro lens

This one is built in. The phone has 3 cameras, very wide, close (macro-ish) & less wide (common cell phone focal length.)

It's the best macro camera I have in my pocket at any given time.

richj20 wrote:

A few observations:

1. Not very sharp

It's the size of my pinkie nail. Physics can only allow so much.

2. Does it have wide angle macro only? Not very useful for me.

50mm 1:1 at 3" MW

Yes. The fixed lens allows a couple of inch field of view as shown at 4cm distance (3-5cm).

About 1.5" long

3. Does the camera have a flip up screen for when you want to photograph at ground level?

It's a cell phone. You can have any screen you like, including Miracast to a stadium overhead screen.

1" tall

[spooky voice] BEWARE! The end is nigh! [hollow echo]

I'm not sure about that!

Me either, but it's the best macro setup that fits in my pocket.

Jack Tingle wrote:

Me either, but it's the best macro setup that fits in my pocket.

Funny theme on the one hand but from time to time it would be good to remember that macro (magnification about 1:1 and higher) could be counted thanks to sensor size too. In that mobilephone case the result would be photo with 6mm part of the ruler and not the 2 inches.

Just this size of ruler mean magnification about 1:8. And this is magnification to far from the macro range.

So the truth is that it fits to your pocket but it is really not the macro setup.

.. on the other hand of fun, one photo with magnification 1:2 by reversed Mamiya-Sekor 105mm f3.5 lens on 8x10" planfilm:

This is my Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra at full mag. That's a shade over 1/2 inch (12mm, rounding crudely) for the image width (well, it would have been the width if the phone didn't insist this was a vertical when it wasn't).

That definitely meets W. H. Walmsley's original definition of macro from 110 years ago, which boils down to filling the page with something around one-inch (25mm).

Sorry about the rotation. The

Jack Tingle wrote:

My shiny new cell phone (Samsung A53) has a "macro" camera. It's not bad:

The macro camera at 4cm (allowable range is 3-5cm)

The normal camera as close as it would focus--actually, a tiny bit too close.

While I wouldn't count on the cell phone macro for something critical, and the distance range is restricting, the tiny handwriting is on the closely spaced wall.

The dark center is the best I could do with my ring light. 4cm is very close to the desk. The EXIF data should be OK for further details.

[spooky voice] BEWARE! The end is nigh! [hollow echo]

Well, right now "infinty objectives" are the darling of macro photography, and those will work with anything that can have its focus locked at infinity (my S21, my old S10, and an iPhone 12 I keep around as a def phone can all do that) and can zoom to 200mm equivalent (and again the S21 and iPhone 12 can do that).

I rigged an M42 adapter to center objectives over the tele camera on the S21. (M42 is my lingua franca, I have adapters from M42 to every objective size I use: RMS, M25, M26, M27). It does surprisingly well.

Luisifer wrote:

Jack Tingle wrote:

Me either, but it's the best macro setup that fits in my pocket.

Funny theme on the one hand but from time to time it would be good to remember that macro (magnification about 1:1 and higher) could be counted thanks to sensor size too.

Why would that be "good to remember" when it's not even remotely true?

Remember, the term "macro photography" (or more properly "photo macrography") was coined 123 years ago by the photographer W. H. Walmsley, who literally wrote the book on the subject "Photo Micrography For Everyone". He defined "macro" and "micro" entirely in terms of how big the subject was. If you could fill a print with an object you'd observe with a 10 diameter lens, you had a "macro". For a standard 8x10 print, that was roughly a 1 inch object.

It's only a weird coincidence that 35mm "Leica format" film takes 24mm images, so the 1 inch object that is the true definition of "macro" just happens to be 1:1. Lens makers used that as a selling point: a 55mm "macro lens" with a 27.5mm helicoid and a matching 27.5mm extension tube could hit 1:1 with a minimum of special equipment.

Did that 1:1 definition work on 6x7cm medium format? Nope. Did it work on 4x5 or 8x10 inch large format? Absolutely not (more on that in a sec). Did it work on 16mm "subminiature" format or "Minox" format? Not at all. It was totally specific to 35mm "miniature" or "Leica" format. Period. End of story.

Remember, vibration is in the same units as subject size, and depth of field is proportional to magnification relative to the final print or image file, not the sensor size, so everything you have to do, all the techniques you have to use, are proportional to the subject size, not the sensor size. Taking a picture of a 1 inch subject with a 35mm camera at 1:1, a medium format at 2:1, or a 4x5 at 5x is not that dissimilar an experience.

In that mobilephone case the result would be photo with 6mm part of the ruler and not the 2 inches.

And in the case of the antique 10x14 Kodak portrait camera we had in the lobby of Midwest Photographic Workshops, 1:1 would be a headshot. A portrait of a woman that includes a hat and a pearl necklace is not a "macro" photograph by any definition known to man.

I built a 4x5 view camera that could use the 50mm Leitz Photar at magnifications of 5-20x (you have to extend a 50mm lens 1m to hit 20x. It had long rails). 5x mag on the 4x5 looks a lot like 1:1 on a 35mm camera. (My first "focus stack" was done by manually masking 4 shots from a 4x5 before we started doing that sort of thing on those "computer" contraptions).

Just this size of ruler mean magnification about 1:8. And this is magnification to far from the macro range.

And yet, at 16x9 it is roughly a 1x2 inch frame, exactly Walmsley's definition, and exactly the same picture you get with a "macro" lens on a 35mm FF camera.

So the truth is that it fits to your pocket but it is really not the macro setup.

The truth is that it's exactly a macro setup.

But if you must insist on a definition that isn't actually true: the picture I shot with my Samsung Galaxy S21 ultra elsewhere in this thread is about 12mm, on the short telephoto camera (the S21 has a 72mm equivalent straight telephoto and a 210mm equivalent periscope lens telephoto) camera) with a 1/3.24" sensor with its 12mm diagonal is basically a 1:1.

(Technically, that camera can focus down to 1.5x, I just didn't have the light for that where I shot. I gave it what I could without putting the subject in the shadow of the camera).

.. on the other hand of fun, one photo with magnification 1:2 by reversed Mamiya-Sekor 105mm f3.5 lens on 8x10" planfilm:

Interesting, but can I ask why?

The 105mm f/3.5 Mamiya-Sekor is a Tessar variation. A relatively cheap 105mm enlarger lens would simply shred it. Or is the blur the point, and you're just after tonality?

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

can I ask why?

For example because when you done the exact same exposure with macro you have other rules of counting of exposure than when you are not in macro range (thanks to using smaller format). So when the macro is "foolish" to connect with 1:1 magnification, you should forget to count with the magnification in case of macro range. Otherwise, who care of correct exposure lie to themself that 1:1 tag is not important.

And why Sekor? Yes, because it is cheap. And because i have it near to my hands and i can use it just for fun ( https://12in.cz/klic/fotografie/44_0_Mamiya-Sekor-105mm-f35 ) and sometimes it produce interesting result even with that cheap price tag.

And that "fun" tag is close to same as to use mobile phone as "macro camera" even when it cannot shoot macro.

Saabster wrote:

My S21 Ultra has a macro mode for the ultrawide lens. I find it works pretty good for handheld unit. Does it have the magnification or focus bracketing/stacking capabilities of my other cameras. No, but I have it with me all the time and it serves it's purposes.

Samsung S21 Ultra Macro

I know that it will be not accepted to BFU's but one note just for other point of view.

Do you have only S21u or PC too? Try to look on that water drop on larger screen than on part of small mobile phone screen. For example on 20" screen or larger. Or just join the phone to the TV and look on that photo there.

The correct state should be disappointment from the horrible quality.

And this is another point. Or try to print it. Water drops are common decoration theme. So it should end on A3+ or larger paper.

But those "macro" shots drop the state close to the start of digital photography ages in real.

But anyway who care's...

ken_in_nh wrote:

Interesting to see the comments of the purists. Glad they can lug around many pounds of camera, tripod and lens in their macro shooting. Me? I'm glad to have a lightweight tool that takes pictures that are "good enough" to remind me of my adventures.

Here you hit the point. If the reason of taking photo is walking around at the first place.
But there is another kind of going outside. Not with walk reason but for getting photo (in the best case the good photo).

I would say that in the first case it is really useful to have mobile phone (but there is not reason to say that it has anything with macro). And in the second case it should be more conscious activity with technique.

For example from my experiences, i am walking around with mobile phone still in my pocked. Sometimes something or some place is intereseting so much that it push me come back with better equipment with many and many kilograms of weight. And for example returning is connected with looking to better light conditions too.

Maybe eventually. But the EVF of a camera prevents glare and makes precise framing more likely, and many cameras now have Focus Stacking/Bracketing. Mine creates a fifteen image IN Camera Focus Stacked jpeg with good resolution. When Focus Stacking, I typically use a tripod, and may use a Raynox, and in this case also Extension Tubes. The problem with macro is that DOF is typically very small, and any minute movement while shooting will blow the image, stacked or not.

I was just working this image today in learning mosses. I have identified it, a difficult task in this genus, which requires very precise leaf detail. The leaves here are about 1.5mm, which makes the teeth on the leaves nearly infinitesimal.

I thought my phones macro was just a gimmick, until I got this from it

Without the phone I’d have no recording of that sighting, so now it’s useful gimmick