Camera for Macro Photography.

[Cyrano]

I find I take a lot of pictures in the macro range. I'm thinking about a dedicated macro camera. What I'm looking for:
1. Camera body accepts a macro lens capable of focusing down to the 1:1 range; image size to size of the actual object.
2. Primarily set up for manually setting ISO, aperture and speed. I have a Sekonic incident light meter to measure exposure.
3. I can do without auto focus. Auto focus might be difficult at the 1:1 range.
4. Compatible with the Sony picture motion browser program already installed in my computer. I know that the Sony program also accepts pictures from Leica and Nikon cameras so this may not be a problem.

Does anyone have recommendations for a camera that might fill the bill?

 

[5-Shot]

Except for the requirement of Sony compatibility, you've described my setup. I have a Pentax K-M, already obsolete since two newer versions have been released, but it still works perfectly. Pentax digital SLR cameras are designed to work with every Pentax lens ever made ever built. So just stack on the old lens of your choice, an inexpensive extension tube, chose your exposure, do your own focusing and you can get really close.

Hope this helps a little.

Ed

 

[geoff40]

The extension tube suggestion is a good one. Any lens there is will be capable of focusing closer using extension tubes, even lenses like manual focus Tamron zooms are capable of taking some very nice close ups of little buggers and things. Macro lenses are nice to have, but not necessary. Also, the screw-on close up "filter" type of accessory lenses are good, as long as you buy 2 element types and not the cheap, single element kind. Those will be blurry around the edges.
If you are going to be shooting things outdoors, a really good tripod is going to be as important a piece of equipment as anything else in your arsenal. You have to be choosy and careful, making sure to buy one that is able to do what you want. Not all tripods are created equal.
What are your primary macro subjects going to be?

 

[Smith357]

I made my own macro lens that slips over my regular camera lens. It allowed me to take shots very close in and magnified.

Google homemade macro lens, they are extremely simple to make.


This picture is about as close as my camera can get in its stock macro mode.

When I slip on my home made lens I can get up close and personal.

 

[deadin]

Another suggestion.... If you end up with a SLR (which you probably will if for no other reason than ease of focusing) make sure it has the capability of locking the mirror up. Any kind of vibration in the macro ranges can be bad for sharpness.

 

[M29since14]

Another suggestion... Consider focal length if you go the DSLR route. Most manufacturers make dedicated macro lenses in a couple different lengths. Depending on the type of perspective you want your pictures to have, you will have to select accordingly, but one thing that buyers sometimes forget when selecting a macro lens, particularly if they do not have a background in studio photography, is that the longer focal length lenses can be very handy if you need room to stay away from props and lights.

 

[H Richard]

Agree with above. I did a lot ov macro work years ago with a Nikon and bellows ext. Using a 135 too 150 mm lens gives you the room to have proper lighting on the subject. Be sure to use a good tripod.

 

[Jim Kuykendall]

I have a Minolta srt 102 with mirror lockup set up to do Macro exclusively. Film cameras of this quality are cheap in this day and time. Everyone has moved to digital. I use a 50mm Macro lens with livesize adapter and have great results for less than $100. Drawbacks are limited depth of field, requires a tripod and lights or ring flash. Many of the drugs store chains and Target process the film, I get a CD and negs so I can prints my results off of my home printer and have a record of the results as well.

 

[Texas Star]

I had no problems with the factory Zuiko 50mm 3:5 Macro lens that I had on an Olympus OM-1n camera that I had to sell
some years ago. I replaced the camera, but don't currently have a macro, and i want one. The screw-on close up lenses are a nuisance to use. That macro was also a fine "standard" lens.

I don't do digital, so can't speak for that.

 

[dougb1946]

You may want to consider a good tripod, if you haven't already. A steady hand doesn't come close to a good tripod for eliminating shake.

 

[cmort666]

• Extension tubes work, just not as well as a dedicated macro lens. I have two sets, a cheap Chinese set with no electronics, and a better Promaster set with electronics which allow proper aperture control. Auto-focus doesn't work well with extension tubes, but that's hardly a hardship in macro photography.
• I'm carefully shopping for a macro lens, probably something in the 100mm range. The Canon "L" (I have a EOS Digital Rebel Xt) is punishingly expensive, but other brands, like Tamron are more reasonably priced.
• Use a tripod, but use a GOOD tripod. Stay away from the cheap cookie cutter tripods they sell at Best Buy, Target and Walmart. They usually connect the sleeve that the center post rides in to the legs. This usually prevents the center post from being reversed to shoot straight downward. I actually modified my cheap tripod with a long threaded rod and a coupler so that the center post could be inverted. It works, but it's a pain to disassemble the tripod to use it. Last year I bought a moderately priced Promaster tripod with a properly reversible center post. It makes shooting macro MUCH easier.
• Lighting is often tough. I made myself a setup on a card table with a couple of jointed arm lamps with compact fluorescent bulbs. I also recently bought an off camera E-TTL-II flash cord so that I could hold the flash at more advantageous angles. Eventually, I plan to buy a ring flash.

 

[cowart]

This might sound a bit off the wall, but if you run a search on Ebay for "DENTAL INTRAORAL CAMERA" you will find some inexpensive digital USB cameras that work in that size range.

 

[Cyrano]

Great info guys!! Keep it coming. I have a good tripod, a Tiltall. I also have a good macro setup using a film camera: a Canon A1, with macro lens, bellows, ring light, Seconic incident light meter,etc. But film is a lot harder to process than digital. I'm really looking for a manually operated digital, I guess. Is there such an animal?

 

[Smith357]

Since you already have a Canon film setup with lenses it makes sense to go with a Canon digital. You should be able to just swap out camera bodies and start shooting in digital.

The Canon EOS 600D has full manual controls like aperture priority, shutter priority
manual exposure modes, and it uses Canon lenses, which you already have.

 

[deadin]

You can get an adapter that will let you use your FD lenses on a EF EOS body. They will meter but other functions will be manual. Check around for a used or refurbished digital Rebel, 10D, D20, etc. You should be able to find something decent for under $200.
The adapters run $20-30......

 

[Jim Kuykendall]

Read my post above. Take your exposed film to Target, Wallgreens, CVS and just ask for a CD. They process your film, burn you a CD and all for less than $6.00. The old Canon FD macro is excellent for what youwant to do. Just couple it to your A1. That should leave you enough money for a a great ring flash to complete your setup. Digital is'nt worth the expense for the macro work you want to do.

 

[Texas Star]

Read my post above. Take your exposed film to Target, Wallgreens, CVS and just ask for a CD. They process your film, burn you a CD and all for less than $6.00. The old Canon FD macro is excellent for what youwant to do. Just couple it to your A1. That should leave you enough money for a a great ring flash to complete your setup. Digital is'nt worth the expense for the macro work you want to do.

If you're satisfied with the work these stores do, I'll try CVS and Target. I've used a camera store, which charges more.

I do like getting the disk, and using it to put selected images in My Pictures and printing them there. It saves a lot of money. And I can still e-send photos to editors with magazine articles.

 

[deadin]

Film to CD is one answer but the greatest advantage of digital is instant evaluation of if what you just shot is exactly what you wanted. If not, just make adjustments and reshoot. Plus you can shoot at a higher resolution than most retail (Walmart, etc.) are willing to scan at.

You might try WalMart, etc. and see if you are satisfied with the results. I understand their output leaves alot to be desired. Google "Film to CD" and read some of the comments.... Seems that they're "OK" for snapshots, but not so good if you're looking for fine detail.