Printable View
Hi all,
Pretty keen to get set up for macro photography. I want an entry level DSLR that I won’t grow out of quickly, and recommendations for appropriate lenses.
Happy to go second hand as my wallet isn’t very thick.
I guess other criteria would be a system that has affordable lenses, and lenses that can be used on other systems too.
Other than that I’m totally green.
Going M4/3 over DSLR will save you some $$$ and there are some great lenses available.
Almost any DSLR will do tbh, it's the lens/lens set up that matters. You can get into the pros and cons of a full frame sensor vs a crop sensor for depth of field on a macro photo but you're usually spending more for FF.
Have a look at a page like this that shows different ways of getting yourself set up to take macro shots
https://www.howtogeek.com/152060/how...-on-the-cheap/
If you end up with a Canon let me know, you can have my extension tubes and I have a reverse mount ring floating around somewhere too. I used them before buying a dedicated macro lens which changed things for me but it cost more than accessories for a lens I already had.
Once you get stuck in it can get really exciting and you will end up stacking images and lighting them in cool ways, it opens up a whole world of photography.
Do you have a budget in mind?
I will get my wife to contact you if you Pm me with (say) email details. She is a real guru, has multiple cameras for macro use, including microscope attachments. She has helped others and my volunteering of her skills simply means I’m on cooking duty for a tad longer. Check her website: index.html.
As others have said, pretty much any DSLR (or interchangeable lens mirrorless camera) will do the trick and its more about lenses and lighting. Nikon and Canon DSLRs have the biggest range of lenses available, especially if you want to get them cheap second hand.
A proper macro lens (or called 'micro' for Nikon lenses) is by far the easiest/most versatile option and you can often pick them up for $2-300 second hand. Cheaper than that a 35mm or 50mm lens (older one with mechanical aperture ring) on a reverse adaptor can give good results but is trickier to use (full manual control and you focus by moving the camera), or you can use a regular lens with extension tubes. You can also combine a macro lens or reversed lens with extension tubes for more magnification, or get in deep and do weird things like using adaptors to reverse mount a 50mm lens onto the front of a big telephoto lens.
For lighting, an external flash is best - you need to use a small aperture to get enough depth of field up close, which means you need lots of light. On-board flashes can be ok if you diffuse it with a plastic bag or something, but tend to give quite a harsh direct light up that close. I tried a cheap LED ring flash but it didn't put out enough light to really be useful.
I have an album of macro stuff here: https://flic.kr/s/aHsjPKoEpi each image should have camera and lens info below it once you click on it so you can see what gear and settings I used.
Getting good at it takes patience and practice so don't give up if you aren't getting good results at first, keep trying and experimenting with different settings.
Tons of options out there from Nikon, Canon right through to Sony and Pentax.
Currently, the best macro lens is the MP-E65 manual focus lens by Canon. Nothing to touch it and its not a lot of dollars for what it is.
I would suggest mirrorless, EOS RP with the MP-E65 or 100mm F2.8 L IS - an alternative is the 180mm offerings.
I would also recommend getting a macro rail as trying to achieve focus with a very narrow band depth of field can be very frustrating.
Lighting, as has been mentioned, is even more important. Have all the fancy kit but when you're quite close to the subject/object your camera blocks most of the light.
Ring flashes or the double head macro flashes work very well but can make the whole experience quite pricey.
If you're on a really tight budget, use extension rings with a good prime lens rather than a zoom.
Look here for an example of what the MP-E65 can do - mind blowing macro stuff of some really cool little guys
The first thing you need to know is that the biggest factor that dictate image quality is sensor size. Medium Frame > Full Frame > 1.5x APSC > Canon 1.6x APS-C > 2x Micro 4/3 > 2.7x 1-inch
I think 1-inch ILC systems are now dead. Only a few fixed lens cameras are still made such as Sony RX10 and RX 100 lines. MF are very expensive and more of a luxury thing than functionally required. That leaves the four sizes in the middle to choose from.
M43 bodies are cheap. especially second hands, but IQ is definitely a step down and more importantly M43 lenses are not cheap.
Traditionally, Canon bodies are slightly overpriced compared to competition but lenses are usually cheaper for the same quality. I am not sure if this is still the case as of 2019. Nikon bodies are usually slightly better featured and cheaper than Canon but lenses are slightly more expensive. all other competitors, Sony, Pentax, Fuji, tend to price their bodies competitively and make it up in lens, flash, and other accessories. Also Canon and Nikon tend to have more class leading lenses than other brands (for example, Canon 70-200 2.8 II, 70-300L, all big white lenses, tilt shift lenses, 100L, Nikon 14-24, 85 1.4, 105 1.4, etc).
Personally I would not recommend first time system camera buyers to buy anything that is not Canon and Nikon, due to the trap of higher lens costs.
If you are to buy an APS-C camera, I personally think Nikon is better than Canon, you get a larger sensor and better dynamic range across broad. There are no good APS-C lens worth buying anyway.
For FF, it really is just a wash between Canon and Nikon. Since 2012, Nikon has been taking the lead in dynamic range. Canon 6D1 was pretty good, but 6D2 has weak dynamic range. Nikon D600, D610, D750 D800, D810, D850, all consistently have class leading dynamic range. Dynamic range would not affect macro, however.
You can also consider third party macro lenses. Sigma makes a relatively cheap 70 2.8, also a high end 150 2.8 and 180 2.8. But they are not very common.
One thing you didn't mention was whether you currently owned any camera gear and if so, what?
Thanks for the input all, given me heaps to think about.
I think I’ll follow the advice in @square1’s post and get a good body and prime lens, and start macro by way of extension tubes and reversing lenses, as this is inexpensive. From there maybe look at macro lenses.
Terry, I don’t have any DSLR gear currently. A decade or so back (when I was dumber, and had more disposable income) I went into JB Hifi with the idea of buying a DSLR, but got smooth talked by a salesman into buying the most expensive point and shoot on the market instead. This time round I’m not interested in bridging cameras, mirror less etc, just focusing on the tried and true DSLR.
mirrorless is the new black my friend - unless you're shooting sport or birds in flight you don't need a DSLR anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by tanqueray
I have a 1DxMk2 and an EOS R and I find myself using the EOS R mirrorless way more than the 1Dx2.
Mirrorless is great, nobody is questioning that, but it’s certainly not the most budget friendly option compared to DLSRs that come with years of accessory and lens options, with a significantly broader second hand market. Who knows, maybe he will fall in love with it, sell his DSLR and move on to a mirrorless system. It doesn’t need to be the first system he buys into for experimentation though.Quote:
Originally Posted by terryf
As mentioned above, Nikon and Canon are good starting points for availability of used bits and bobs. I would say go to a camera shop and handle some of their models, new or used, to get a feel for ergonomics etc and go from there. Nikon never worked for me but hey, we’re all different.
DSLR has 3 distinct advantage over mirrorless that many people do not think/know about. Depending on your need, these 3 advantages may mean DSLR is the better tool.
First is that because composing and waiting for a good shot does not use power, battery end up lasting far longer. when you do serious photography rather than just point and shoot, you will spend a lot of time composing, thinking, and waiting for the right moment. The larger the sensor the more power the mirrorless uses while being left on.
Second is that DSLRs usually are larger, therefore have more space internally, therefore have batteries with larger capacity. Mirrorless on the other hand almost always compete on size (the smaller the better) so they end up often sacrificing space for battery and end up with a smaller battery for a comparative camera.
Third is that DSLRs usually have more durable body, Magnesium or carbon fibre frame with rubber and ABS plastic shell. you can drop DSLRs on concrete floor and they rarely will break. This is a product of being physically large and tradition. Many mirrorless cameras have shiny polished metal shell with nice anodised colours , they look great, but they are not as robust.
Point 2 and 3 probably no longer apply to the new Canon EOS R, this camera uses the same LP-E6N battery that is used in other DSLRs and made of similar body structure.
This picture was taken with an Olympus M4/3 camera and 60mm lens. I should have said in my earlier post that my only real interest in photography is underwater stuff. Unfortunately for me, underwater photography is at least 10x harder and more expensive than on land! The seahorse is about 8mm long.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/QZ...w1776-h1332-no