Camera for Macro

[Nicola]

Hi all,
I'm starting to look for a camera for my office, mainly used for macro pictures of small parts when the use of microscope is not needed. So image\sensor ratio is the most important parameter, followed by low light performance. I do not consider a DSLR + macro lens option because sometimes I need to use the wide angle, maybe a compact or bridge camera + close up lens would be the best option..
Have you some gears to suggest me?
budget <400 eur
thank you very much
Nicola

[pabloisme]

Hi all,
I'm starting to look for a camera for my office, mainly used for macro pictures of small parts when the use of microscope is not needed. So image\sensor ratio is the most important parameter, followed by low light performance. I do not consider a DSLR + macro lens option because sometimes I need to use the wide angle, maybe a compact or bridge camera + close up lens would be the best option..
Have you some gears to suggest me?
budget <400 eur
thank you very much
Nicola

you may well struggle a DSLR and a macro is what you REALLY need!

I did some club lectures on "doing it on the cheap"! using OLD but good slr lenses.
I still use an F2 Helios for music "GIG" photography super in low light! & focus where you need it!

I used (at the time and still use it!) a sony A200 and a cheap 70-210 mm Macro Zoom (ebay search 70-210 mm Macro Zoom SLR DSLR Camera Lens Yashica Contax M42 fit) with a m42 to sony adaptor
the advantage with a sony is the metering and VR is done on the sensor and NOT the lens!

as you need to focus a bit and NOT rely on the auto focus all is well!

[DanK]

I agree. if you are serious about macro, a DSLR and dedicated macro lens is the best option. if you want 1:1 magnification, ignore all zoom lenses that have the misleading "macro" label on them, as none of them, to my knowledge, come close to the 1:1 magnification expected of true macro lenses. However, if you want less than 1:1, or are willing to add extension tubes, you may be able to make do with a zoom lens.

Given that most macro does not rely much on AF and usually involves either flash or additional continuous lighting, you don't need an expensive SLR. In fact, the less expensive crop sensor cameras are actually better for some kinds of macro work.

[ajohnw]

The person on here who has the most experience of shooting macro on a bridge camera is Brian. He posts shots regularly. I feel he suffers a little on the reproduction sizes he obtains. It's an area that has interested me. There are lots of bridge cameras about that have macro modes but they usually need rather short working distances. I have wondered about using them in telephoto mode with a good quality close up lens but without buying and trying it's difficult to guess what the results would be. They don't usually specify magnification ratios. The macro modes seem to use rather short focal lengths - I have a compact for instance, max macro is obtained with the lens about 1cm from the subject making lighting or even taking a shot rather difficult.

If you want some idea of what the various cameras can do this is the only site I am aware of that generally posts a macro shot - usually of a compact flash card which at least gives some idea

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/

They also post unretouched jpg's and raw files which can be used to give some idea of sensor and lens performance. These often show that in the ISO area in particular they lag well behind larger sensor cameras. Some more recent cameras use larger sensors around and above the 1/2 in size rather than the usual 1/2.7 etc. They look to be better but colouration etc can be a bit odd at higher iso's.

On close up lenses I have used them and found that the achromatic types can give pretty good results if the lens they are on is fairly decent in the first place. Not so the plain ones. These alone might stretch your budget. I've found the used Sigma one to be good. A more powerful Canon branded one useless.

If you shoot through a microscope I'd guess you are well aware of depth of field problems. This is one reason I wondered about a bridge camera for casual macro work as the tiny sensor helps a lot with that aspect. You haven't made any mention of the size of the things that you want to shoot or equipment so it's hard to comment on that aspect.

Brian's results can be found in his posts. A search will bring up more and I think started thread can be selected.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...ers/m33628.htm

Adding a note.
The old horse chestnut must manual focus macro and can't use AF always crops up. This isn't factual. If a camera has an electronic viewfinder AF use is often the only feasible method of taking macro shots and can work perfectly.

John
-

[pabloisme]

the solution I enthuse about is as they say "cheap as chips"! the last lens cost £10 plus a fiver for an adaptor, and has to be a more workable solution than a in between "bridge" camera

John: try AF /macro on a moving item like a snail! ;-)

[ajohnw]

the solution I enthuse about is as they say "cheap as chips"! the last lens cost £10 plus a fiver for an adaptor, and has to be a more workable solution than a in between "bridge" camera

John: try AF /macro on a moving item like a snail! ;-)

LOL I will if one crops up. But using M 4/3 I don't have much of an option other than using AF. I use continuous AF mostly because at macro level it's me who is moving. It helps a lot.

All sorts of problems I am working on other than focus which has improved as I do more. Not sure if this link will work

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...earchid=879165

If not, advanced search, title only search for macro, user ajohnw.

John
-

[Stagecoach]

Hi Nicola,

I would suggest that the first thing to do is consider the following and be able to answer the questions where applicable for the points raised.

Hi all,
I'm starting to look for a camera for my office, mainly used for macro pictures of small parts when the use of microscope is not needed.

What size are these small parts?
What DoF (depth of field) do you require to obtain in the pictures of these 'small' parts?
What are the pictures going to be used for (web, records, sales, promotion)?
What image quality to you 'need' to obtain?

So image\sensor ratio is the most important parameter, followed by low light performance.

What do you consider low light performance?
Why do you need low light performance?
Do you have an option to provide additional light?
Is tripod use an option to assist in 'low light' situation?

I do not consider a DSLR + macro lens option because sometimes I need to use the wide angle,

There are DSLR options using a 'zoom' lens that have a 'Macro' (see note) option on it that will give an extremely high quality image.

Note : Whilst these lenses as already mentioned by Dan are not true 'Macro' at 1:1 ratio their lower magnification ratio 'may be' fully acceptable for your needs.

maybe a compact or bridge camera + close up lens would be the best option..

Possibly, but you very very rarely see any of what I would consider high quality images taken with them but it's your definition and requirement for image quality that counts.

Have you some gears to suggest me?
budget <400 eur

This will be a lot easier once you have defined and considered the above.

It really all comes down to what you need to produce and will accept w.r.t quality.

Grahame

[Nicola]

Thank you all very much for the feedback, I'm sorry, I've not write enough about my needs.

Trying to clarify, I'm looking for a camera that will be used in an office and in a laboratory, to get mainly pictures of mechanical or electrical parts, of about 1 to 25 cm (biggest size). For smaller parts or details we have laboratory microscopes or endoscopes.
The camera will be used by many persons, even with no photographic skills, so I suppose that a DSLR will be less user friendly. This is an other reason why I would prefer to avoid DSLR.
About DoF, I have no special request. The wider it is, the better is.
About "low light condition" I mean interior lightening, since avoiding to use tripod or additional lights will make the use easier and faster. I think more or less all the current cameras are good enough for what I've in mind.
Currently a Canon P&S camera and an old compact "enthusiast" camera are used: so it is easy to improve the standard!

Thank you very much, again
have a good day

nicola

[Geoff F]

This year I purchased a Fuji X20 to use as a 'pocket camera' and have found the super macro option to be surprisingly effective and easy to use, even when just handheld. However, you do need to be close; it goes down to around 30 mm focus distance but, as you would expect, there is some distortion of straight lines.

And it looks like a 'real camera' with a 1950's appearance.

[Stagecoach]

Thank you all very much for the feedback, I'm sorry, I've not write enough about my needs.

Trying to clarify, I'm looking for a camera that will be used in an office and in a laboratory, to get mainly pictures of mechanical or electrical parts, of about 1 to 25 cm (biggest size). For smaller parts or details we have laboratory microscopes or endoscopes.
The camera will be used by many persons, even with no photographic skills, so I suppose that a DSLR will be less user friendly. This is an other reason why I would prefer to avoid DSLR.
About DoF, I have no special request. The wider it is, the better is.
About "low light condition" I mean interior lightening, since avoiding to use tripod or additional lights will make the use easier and faster. I think more or less all the current cameras are good enough for what I've in mind.
Currently a Canon P&S camera and an old compact "enthusiast" camera are used: so it is easy to improve the standard!

Thank you very much, again
have a good day

nicola

Hi again Nicola,

Useful additional info you have given.

Firstly the size of the 'parts' of which you say are about (I read between) 1 to 25 cm (10 to 250mm). I would suggest only the smaller objects are what would or could be classed as needing 'macro' but lets forget that.

You have not mentioned the 'use' of the pictures and that you think more or less all the current cameras are good enough for what you have in mind

I wonder if what you have in mind is similar to what others have in mind

So, here's two pictures of objects that are at the lower end of the sizes you mention;


No 1 - The screw is 1 cm (10mm) in length


No 2 - The plastic bit is 3 cm (30mm) in length



Would you be happy with those results for the purpose that you intend to use the images for ?

Note for info - Pictures taken hand held on the kitchen worktop with the room lights on. The jpeg images were not cropped but downsized to 1200 px wide and given minor output sharpening but no other PP. They were taken with a camera that you could possibly buy for £5 on Ebay if the seller considered the effort worth it rather than throwing it in the rubbish bin


Grahame

[mrinmoyvk]

With all these restrictions why not use a magnifying glass in front of any normal point and shoot camera set on macro mode?

[Stagecoach]

With all these restrictions why not use a magnifying glass in front of any normal point and shoot camera set on macro mode?

What 'restrictions' are you referring to out of curiosity Mrinmoy?

[mrinmoyvk]

What 'restrictions' are you referring to out of curiosity Mrinmoy?

1. Budget
2. User friendly as many people will use
3. Avoiding tripod for fast access
4. Some times wide angle view required

[Stagecoach]

1. Budget
2. User friendly as many people will use
3. Avoiding tripod for fast access
4. Some times wide angle view required

Mrinmoy, if the OP was to respond that the examples I posted that address the smallest size they have mentioned were acceptable with respect to magnification/DoF/size it could be said that the most basic P&S with a macro setting would do (as these were shot with). This would also cover all your points 1 to 4.

I suspect the 'user friendly as many people will use' aspect needs more consideration than the 'macro/IQ' capability.

Give someone a high value very capable camera with lots of buttons and options and although technically it 'could' take very high IQ images you are likely to get better images from a basic P&S from them if they don't know what they are doing.

Added - Perhaps what I'm saying is that the only difference between taking those two shots with a £50 P&S and a £500 DSLR Crop sensor and 1:1 Macro lens is that for the screw (min size quoted by op) the DSLR option could get the screw to fill almost half of the image width. Unless in the hands of someone that really had the knowledge and knew how to use it to get the best result possible with regard to lighting, WB, stability (and focus stacking if they wanted comparable DoF to the P&S).

[mrinmoyvk]

Grahame, I am not saying what you suggested is wrong. I just gave the cheapest option.
User friendly-ness and macro IQ are something that won't go hand in hand I guess.

[chauncey]

Taking into consideration the skill level of the various users and assuming the resulting images will
not be of a large size, I would consider a "stupid simple" set-up.

Using a type of mount like this http://www.amazon.com/EISCO-Premium-...=lab+equipment
with an inexpensive point&shoot camera mounted on it would seem to accomplish the goals.

[ajohnw]

I've beat your requirements to death several times Nicola and always come up with the same problem which ever camera I look at. In short every bridge/compact camera I have looked at has to be used rather closely to the subject which can cause the sort of problems that Geoff mentions unless everything is square on and there may be problems even then. The site I mentioned often shows a macro shot and gives the working distance. They use a compact flash card as a subject. As the macro is invariably at the wide angle end it shows all of it and more. Working distance are very short, a few cm.

My feeling as well is that the only real way of improving on even older bridge and compacts for this use involves using something with a larger sensor. This also improves ISO performance. There are now several bridge cameras about which have returned to around 1/2 in sensors but all I am aware of have the too close for macro work problem and image quality problems don't leave much scope for heavy cropping. I don't think you will get what you are after on anything other than a camera with interchangeable lenses. The only smaller sensor camera I am aware of that fits into this that may be in your price range is one of the Nikon 1 cameras. The comments on the kit 10-30mm lens here might interest you. I assume they are accurate

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD.../NIKONJ1A4.HTM

I have also seen a shot taken with the 30-110mm lens of a wasp type insect using an old Leica achromatic close up lens on here some where. It was very high quality. Going on the mag ratio's that Nikon give not stating focal length it's difficult to know with any certainty what would be needed to meet your requirements. I find even achromatic close up lenses are only of real use up to about 2 dioptres which at this focal length do not do all that much. Raynox offer some interesting close up lens options that may be of use. This one for instance is 4.8 and uses a 3 element construction which should be better than the usual achromatic 2. Never bought or used so have to pass on that.

http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/dcr/...exdcr150eg.htm

Camera wise the Nikon 1 range at least at the cheaper end are in no way enthusiast cameras so should suite in that respect. I would advise reading the manuals carefully.

As I have a selection of laboratory microscope I can't help wondering what make / type you use and the camera gear. Some stereo scopes for instance have suplimentary lenses that take them down to 0.3x. If wide field - 30mm at 1x that corrisponds to a 90mm field on the camera. Too much really but depending on make a number of values are available. The limit on compounds as far as I am aware is Ix and 16 or 30mm fields. The old none infinity Leitz 1x objective also has an iris. Several microscope manufacturers made similar objectives but most wont cover wide field - I'd guess a modern infinity type might go lower but would seriously rip your budget apart.

There are also RMS fit macro lenses about but only used as far as I am aware. The magnification they give is roughly optical tube length / their focal length. Not usable on infinite tube scopes. Never used one so have no idea what results are like. They are all probably designed for a 16mm field size. Some have an iris. It seems that they were sometimes also used on bellows on a camera. This is not an area I know much about so pass really but costs are relatively low if you can find one.

John
-

[Stagecoach]

I've beat your requirements to death several times Nicola

John
-

Hi John,

But what are Nicola's requirements?

From the info given with respect to the 'subjects' they will be between 1 and 25cm (10 to 250mm) in size.

So if we take the smallest size of 1cm that raises two significant questions;

a) Do you need a rig that will produce an image similar as shown of the 1cm subject in post 10?

OR

b) Do you need a rig that can photograph the 1cm subject at a far greater magnification so that you can accurately record the fatigue crack in it for record purposes?

I would suggest there is no way that you can beat Nicola's requirements to death and come to any worthwhile conclusion without knowing information such as that in a) and b) above


Grahame

[jcuknz]

As a long time bridge user I know that with my rather olf Panasonic FZ50 and its x12 zoom I can get a 38mm object filling the sensor when I add a two dioptre close-up lens .

To compare it with current bridge offerings the critical factor is the reach or length of the zoom becuase I am not going in close for such shots but rather using the long lens to achieve tight framing.

My FZ50 has a 430mm reach while the current lot are twice that por three times.... so that means that half of 38mm ie. 19mm across will fill the screen with an 860 reach lens and most start with a 25mm at the wide end of the zoom.

The big difference between using a DSLR with lenses and means to focus close, not easy really for the inexperienced, and using the bridge camera and a moderate CU lens is that we are working from a 'reasonable' distance which helps to let light in on the subject instead of camera and operator shadowing the subject.

So I am working from about 13 inches to achieve that 38mm framing and if I wanted I could add a second 2 dioptre lens and get a 19mm object filling the sensor. I'd then be working from around six inches.

that was taken years ago when I had my 5Mp FZ20 and I couldn't get all the coin in without zooming back

With the bridge I always worked AE and AF as an inexperienced person might ...

So I'd suggest looking at the Panasonic range where you will find an FZ within your budget remembering you need perhaps $25 for a CU lens and a storage card.
My wife still uses her FZ3 which I bought for her nearly a decade ago [ come Xmas ] which would do all that you want with the dioptre to let the zoom focus closer than normal. She doesn't really want to learn about taking photos just how to press the trigger

[jcuknz]

A sad tale to add .... I am now using a Panasonic GH2 and though I can fit my 2 dioptre CU lens to the 140mm lens [ 280mm AoV ] it doesn't give me as tight a framing as mentioned in the previous posting so I got myself a 4 dioptre [ a B&W ] but sadly it simply doesn't compare with the two dioptre for IQ so my solution, thanks to interchangeable lens is an extension tube ... but that is no solution for the inexperienced.