[Closed] Another "what camera"? Thread

Digital I assume?

One set-up I lusted after years ao was a Nikon with the Medical-Nikkor 120mm lens, which had a built in ring flash unit.

[img] [/img]

Bit expensive mind. About £600+ s/h. Will only work with Nikon bodies which allow mechanical aperture control.

Alternative would be a decent macro lens and a close-up flash set-up, although this will still cost a small fortune, and not a great deal of s/h kit around.

[img] [/img]

If you're using 'studio' lighting, then I suppose any decent macro lens will work, but the 'fast moving' bit got me thinking more towards flash units.

Nikon once ruled for specialist equipment such as close-up photography, but most manufacturers now have decent kist for such applications.

Thanks Elf,

I was wondering if Nikon still had any dominance.
I was wondering the possibility of using something like a 100mm macro lens with a 50mm lens attached in reverse. I have seen good results with this but wondered how difficult it is to do.

Reversing lenses as you suggest or the other (even cheaper) approach is extension tubes or even bellows - assuming you go down the dslr route. Some of the new compact/bridge cameras have crazy minimum focus distances and huge depth of field.

It depends how much you're willing to spend.

The 100mm 2.8 L Canon lens is widely regarded as the best macro lens...although it's expensive.

I have the 100mm 2.8 Canon lens (without the L), I think it was around £500.

I don't know anything about Nikon gear, but you could take a look for a 3rd party lens (Sigma or Tamron).

Regarding the body...again that depends on what you're willing to spend. Anything from a couple of hundred 2nd hand, up to a few grand. But it's not as important as a decent lens.

My budget is under £800 and is dslr so I suspect canon macro specific is out of my budget.
I did see good results with someone using
canon EOS 10 DSLR
100mm macro
pentax 50mm lens
remote release

Being new to the whole dslr market. I have been using an old fuji s602 zoom bridge camera, which has been good, but would like to move on.

Micro 4/3 is worth a look. Bodies have liveview, 2x crop factor is good for extra DOF. Bodies are cheap. Leaves plenty of budget for a macro lens.

Olympus 35mm macro lens (70mm equivalent) for about £180

[img] &width=310&height=500[/img]

I paid £350 for my E-600 that goes with it but it'll fit any 4/3 camera if you can find one in the shops.

The lens is highly regarded for the money it seems. Min focusing distance of 9cm which is about 2cm from the front of the lens I think!

Worth noting that compact cameras usually have excellent macro functionality as a side effect of having a small sensor. You have to spend a lot of money to get the same capability in DSLR.

Whatever you get I'd recommend one with a flip out swivel screen. Very useful indeed for gettting different angles to get different shots. I use mine loads even without macro, and when I had a compact I did loads of macro work with it.

For £875 you could get a Canon 500D, and the Canon 100mm 2.8 lens.

[url= http://www.jacobsdigital.co.uk/p-38686-jacobs-digital-canon-eos-500d-body.aspx ]Canon 500D[/url] - £465

[url= http://www.jacobsdigital.co.uk/p-37615-jacobs-digital-canon-ef-100mm-f28-usm-macro.aspx ]Canon 100mm Macro Lens[/url] - £410

If you wanted to save a bit of money, and keep it under £800 you could get a 1000D body instead. That'll come out at £710.

[url= http://www.jacobsdigital.co.uk/p-36911-jacobs-digital-canon-eos-1000d-body.aspx ]Canon 1000D[/url] - £299

Don't bother with a body and kit lens, with entry level cameras the kit lenses aren't particularly good, although they'll do at a push.

Nikon will have equivalent camera and lenses, so it's your choice really - but it'll be a choice that'll stay with you forever!

Micro 4/3 is worth a look.

Inferior quality for professional type work really, and too limiting in terms of equipment.

Personally, I'd recommend Nikon, as the bodies are compatible with lenses going back decades. There's loads of s/h kit to fit Nikon, less so with other brands. Plenty of stuff to fit Pentax K mount to, but a lot less for Canon AF mount and more modern cams. For ultra close-up work, you'd be looking at using stuff like extension rings, bellows, that sort of stuff. Older manual lenses can be had fairly cheaply too. You won't be fussing with autofocus really; close-up photography's more about pre-focussing on a particular spot then waiting for the creature to land there.

[img] [/img]

The small apertures required to give decent depth of field in macro photography will mean needing to use high ASA speeds, or flash, as I mentioned above. Really, you'll want to use as low an ASA as possible, for quality.

[url= http://www.dpchallenge.com/tutorial.php?TUTORIAL_ID=81 ]A cheap and easy way to get into macro photography is to use a reversing ring and a basic 50mm lens. Stunning quality images can be achieved this way. [/url]

[img] [/img]

Simple close-up filters which screw on to the front of a standard lens are a cheap option, but quality is sacrificed here. They're ok for basic illustrative shots, but a bit lacking for quality work.

This is a highly specialised field of photography, and not for the technically inept. Roper, I'm imagining you'll want to be able to produce high-quality results, so brace yerself for rising costs! £800 should sort you a decent body and lens though. As stated, don't even bother with kit zoom lenses; far too compromised for convenience over quality.

Brilliant.
Thanks for all the help everyone, very much appreciated.

I don't mind not having pro quality, I'm looking more for photos I can work with my drawings so the photo will just be one area of information for me to work from. The photos could also go with some science papers written about the bugs. Ideally something I could take out into the field too.

I do like the sound of the variability of Nikon and have seen some smashing results, on a tight budget too.

For your viewing pleaseure...I took this on my Canon 7D and 100mm 2.8 macro lens;

[img] [/img]

And this one, was taken on my old 400D with the same lens;

[img] [/img]

Lovely!

Something like the Canon 100mm or Nikkor 105mm macro lens will offer perhaps the best quality, although Tamron do a legendary 90mm lens I think it is, and Sigma etc do some quality stuff too. Not a whole lot of difference between brands these days.

A 100mm lens will allow you to position the cam a bit further back from the subject than a 50/60mm lens will. Which may help the subject feel more comfortable. Trade off is less depth of field at similar apertures though.

Inferior quality for professional type work really, and too limiting in terms of equipment.

Not really, as it's enough to buy a simple yet high-quality set-up which could be good enough to produce 'professional' looking results, whereas 4/3rds, whilst very good for certain applications (as proven by the likes of Grumm on here), will lack the range of equipment available, speshly if Roper really gets into macrotography.

with entry level cameras the kit lenses aren't particularly good, although they'll do at a push

Not with Olympus. The reason I suggested it was that the lenses are excellent value for money. But range of stuff is indeed less.

It does sound however like the OP is not getting 'into' photography, merely using a camera for some other project...

Can get the Canon G12 high end compact has a great Macro lens.
Go onto e bay shop for digi-good £ 330 Bargain

Dont like Olympus lenses as they only single coat them

I won't have you all dissing my Oly! Grr argh!

I treated myself to a 50mm Sigma EX-DG f2.8 macro lens last Xmas. Image quality is pretty good but focusing is critical so don't just rely on autofocus all the time. It'll focus at a distance of 1cm and give you 1:1 reproduction.

Cost about £250 so it won't break the bank and it's a pretty solid bit of kit.

Here's some examples:

[url= http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4032/4293385347_c3ac4b741b.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4032/4293385347_c3ac4b741b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartie_c/4293385347/ ]silver&gold[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/stuartie_c/ ]stuartie_c[/url], on Flickr

[url= http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4053/4238268046_379f67d962.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4053/4238268046_379f67d962.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartie_c/4238268046/ ]1/365[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/stuartie_c/ ]stuartie_c[/url], on Flickr

[url= http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4091/5072472472_8d9114209a.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4091/5072472472_8d9114209a.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartie_c/5072472472/ ]284/365[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/stuartie_c/ ]stuartie_c[/url], on Flickr

[url= http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4051/4571588881_a24d41056b.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4051/4571588881_a24d41056b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartie_c/4571588881/ ]122/365[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/stuartie_c/ ]stuartie_c[/url], on Flickr

Meh, I got pictures like that from my compact.

No you din't you bloody liar you.

I did. Not with bugs in them tho.