Answers.Body: <p>You can't get that close, and it would be tricky to do it for video, but if your phone doesn't have a macro lens, a drop of water on the lens can serve as a makeshift macro lens:</p>
  <p><div class="youtube-embed"><div>
                  <iframe width="640px" height="395px" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lt0N9t-j34k?start=0"></iframe>
              </div></div></p>
  <p>(I wouldn't do this unless your phone is waterproof, and you'll need lots of light).</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-02-14T10:37:33.607Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2023-02-14T10:37:33.607Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: tomh
Answers.Body: <p>I would very much doubt you'll do this with a phone.</p>
  <p>Macro photography is not easy; macro videography is harder still; videography with a zoom lens is not only hard, but <em>expensive</em>.</p>
  <p>Let's run through what you need…</p>
  <ol>
  <li><p>A tripod. You cannot shoot macro hand-held unless you have an extremely steady hand. No-one has a steady-enough hand to shoot macro video. It <em>might</em> be possible with a good gimbal - not something I've ever tried.</p>
  </li>
  <li><p>A lot of light. It just comes with the territory, you're asking for the amount of light from a tiny object to be sufficient to get a decent exposure - you're going to have to add light to do this. More light still if you're shooting high frame-rate for slo-mo. [The picture of the bud further down took two kino-type flat panels for the subject &amp; 2 strobes for the background - that's all the more reason your example video didn't attempt to light a background too.]</p>
  </li>
  <li><p>A macro lens or a very long telephoto. True macro lenses can not only focus from very close, but they also have a high magnification factor; they can bring the object 1:1 on a full frame camera.<br />
  A long telephoto can do without the extreme closeup capability, but needs sufficient magnification to compensate. It's a trade-off.</p>
  </li>
  </ol>
  <p>Here's a very quick [&amp; a bit blurry because I shot it hand held so focus drifted a little] picture of a lightning connector, done on a cheap macro-capable 300mm lens on a crop-frame stills camera [still a <em>far</em> larger sensor than a phone].</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/zYLBmm.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/zYLBmm.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a><br />
  <sup>Click for larger size</sup></p>
  <p>As you can see, we're not close enough yet, even on a 300mm lens. This was minimum focus distance. Also note, if you view it larger, how noisy the image is - this is because I only had some weak sunlight diffused through voile curtains, so I had to ramp up the camera's ISO quite a long way to get exposure time down far enough to not have camera-shake. I also shot at f/11 which is this particular lens's optimum between depth of field &amp; diffraction blur.<br />
  To get closer, on an interchangeable lens camera you either buy a 'proper' macro lens, or you put extensions between the body &amp; lens. This shortens the close-focus point [&amp; simultaneously prevents it from focussing to infinity.]<br />
  That can get you close enough.<br />
  Here's one I did earlier…</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/esb9N.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/esb9Nm.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
  <p>Now we're close enough. This entire bud is 2mm long. But this is not a single exposure, this is focus-stacked… something you cannot do on video.<br />
  I did a brief explanation of using extension tubes for macro here - <a href="https://photo.stackexchange.com/a/128915/57929">https://photo.stackexchange.com/a/128915/57929</a></p>
  <ol start="4">
  <li>The toughest one of all - the zoom at the head of the video's macro shots. This is partly faked in post, so I can't tell how much was really done with a zoom lens… but regular stills lenses change focus if you change zoom. This is a cost-cutting exercise, but stills cameras don't really need to be able to keep focus whilst zooming; it's an expensive luxury. You can get a good stills zoom for $£€ 1,500 - 3,000 depending on length.<br />
  A good video zoom, however, with <em>parfocal</em> capability [focus does not change as you zoom] can be anywhere from maybe $£€20,000 - 50,000. Few people buy this stuff, they rent it.</li>
  </ol>
  <p>By the time you'd bought that, you'll realise how cheap your lighting was, by comparison;)<br />
  The lighting for the bud was under $£€ 1,000.</p>
  <p>Having said all that - you <em>can</em> get macro &amp; telephoto adapters [diopters] for phones. They are by comparison dirt cheap - couple of hundred bucks.<br />
  You could always give it a go &amp; let us know how you get on…</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-02-13T15:28:27.890Z
Answers.Text: [Diopters](https://tiffen.com/collections/diopter) are a more affordable alternative to a macro lens.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Michael Liebman
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-02-13T17:16:45.460Z
Answers.Text: @MichaelLiebman - that's pretty much your only option on a phone; something that modifies the existing lens. tbh it didn't occur to me to mention them by name, I've added to the answer. I can't say I'm a fan of them on a decent lens; aberration, reflections...
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tetsujin
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-02-13T11:34:35.573Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2023-02-14T12:12:26.657Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2023-02-14T12:12:26.657Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tetsujin
Body: <p>Equipment for making closeup object videos. I want to do a video like this: <div class="youtube-embed"><div>
                  <iframe width="640px" height="395px" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OhNEZfG4EHU?start=0"></iframe>
              </div></div>
  Would my Galaxy s22 Ultra take such a close-up video?
  Also what Bluetooth microphone would you recommend?</p>
  
Tags: <mobile>
Title: Equipment for making closeup object videos
UserDisplayName: Self Smarted
ThreadText: # Equipment for making closeup object videos
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2023-02-10)
  
  Equipment for making closeup object videos. I want to do a video like this:
  
  Would my Galaxy s22 Ultra take such a close-up video?
  Also what Bluetooth microphone would you recommend?
  
  **Tags:** mobile
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2023-02-13. Score: 3 | Accepted answer
  
  I would very much doubt you'll do this with a phone.
  
  Macro photography is not easy; macro videography is harder still; videography with a zoom lens is not only hard, but *expensive*.
  
  Let's run through what you need…
  
  1. A tripod. You cannot shoot macro hand-held unless you have an extremely steady hand. No-one has a steady-enough hand to shoot macro video. It *might* be possible with a good gimbal - not something I've ever tried.
  2. A lot of light. It just comes with the territory, you're asking for the amount of light from a tiny object to be sufficient to get a decent exposure - you're going to have to add light to do this. More light still if you're shooting high frame-rate for slo-mo. [The picture of the bud further down took two kino-type flat panels for the subject & 2 strobes for the background - that's all the more reason your example video didn't attempt to light a background too.]
  3. A macro lens or a very long telephoto. True macro lenses can not only focus from very close, but they also have a high magnification factor; they can bring the object 1:1 on a full frame camera.  
     A long telephoto can do without the extreme closeup capability, but needs sufficient magnification to compensate. It's a trade-off.
  
  Here's a very quick [& a bit blurry because I shot it hand held so focus drifted a little] picture of a lightning connector, done on a cheap macro-capable 300mm lens on a crop-frame stills camera [still a *far* larger sensor than a phone].
  
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/zYLBmm.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/zYLBmm.jpg)  
  Click for larger size
  
  As you can see, we're not close enough yet, even on a 300mm lens. This was minimum focus distance. Also note, if you view it larger, how noisy the image is - this is because I only had some weak sunlight diffused through voile curtains, so I had to ramp up the camera's ISO quite a long way to get exposure time down far enough to not have camera-shake. I also shot at f/11 which is this particular lens's optimum between depth of field & diffraction blur.  
  To get closer, on an interchangeable lens camera you either buy a 'proper' macro lens, or you put extensions between the body & lens. This shortens the close-focus point [& simultaneously prevents it from focussing to infinity.]  
  That can get you close enough.  
  Here's one I did earlier…
  
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/esb9Nm.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/esb9N.jpg)
  
  Now we're close enough. This entire bud is 2mm long. But this is not a single exposure, this is focus-stacked… something you cannot do on video.  
  I did a brief explanation of using extension tubes for macro here - <https://photo.stackexchange.com/a/128915/57929>
  
  4. The toughest one of all - the zoom at the head of the video's macro shots. This is partly faked in post, so I can't tell how much was really done with a zoom lens… but regular stills lenses change focus if you change zoom. This is a cost-cutting exercise, but stills cameras don't really need to be able to keep focus whilst zooming; it's an expensive luxury. You can get a good stills zoom for $£€ 1,500 - 3,000 depending on length.  
     A good video zoom, however, with *parfocal* capability [focus does not change as you zoom] can be anywhere from maybe $£€20,000 - 50,000. Few people buy this stuff, they rent it.
  
  By the time you'd bought that, you'll realise how cheap your lighting was, by comparison;)  
  The lighting for the bud was under $£€ 1,000.
  
  Having said all that - you *can* get macro & telephoto adapters [diopters] for phones. They are by comparison dirt cheap - couple of hundred bucks.  
  You could always give it a go & let us know how you get on…
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_3**: [Diopters](https://tiffen.com/collections/diopter) are a more affordable alternative to a macro lens.  
  > **username_2**: @username_3 - that's pretty much your only option on a phone; something that modifies the existing lens. tbh it didn't occur to me to mention them by name, I've added to the answer. I can't say I'm a fan of them on a decent lens; aberration, reflections...  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2023-02-14. Score: 3
  
  You can't get that close, and it would be tricky to do it for video, but if your phone doesn't have a macro lens, a drop of water on the lens can serve as a makeshift macro lens:
  
  (I wouldn't do this unless your phone is waterproof, and you'll need lots of light).
  
  
  ---
  
  