I have just got a macro lens for my DSLR after using non DSLR's for
close-up work for a good while. It requires a certain amount of
re-learning the way that you go about macro photography. I struggled
to get decent images from the DSLR combo until a couple of days ago
when it clicked where I was going wrong.
A DSLR setup needs to use a small aperture because the dof is so
small at normal apertures with the larger sensor. Shooting hand held
as I do, this is very, very difficult with available light, so the
key is to get enough light onto the subject and this is usually done
with flash. So you can add the cost of a flash setup to the cost of
the macro lens, though I have been using the built in flash with
decent results.
I can't afford the £300 plus that is normally asked for a macro lens,
so I bought a 'plastic fantastic' for £60 from ebay. You may laugh at
the nickname, but the lens is a Cosina 100mm f3.5 macro lens. It is
cheaply built but durable and delivers amazing results, check out the
group on Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/cosina/pool/
As to which DSLR is best, I would say that for macro there is little
to choose with one exception. For hand held work, in body image
stabilisation is a definite help. I use a Konica Minolta 5D, but any
with this feature would be suitable, look at the Sony A100, Pentax
K100D, K10D (and Samsung copy), Olympus E510.
Ultimately, I think that a DSLR can produce better macro photos, but
as I said above you will have to buy equipment and a top end setup
can be very expensive, re-learn some technique and practice. In terms
of results for the money, the FZ50 setup that you use produces
excellent images at a fraction of the cost and is probably easier to
use.
If you can afford it, buy the kit and experiment as the DSLR is so
versatile for things other than macro work. If it is a stretch to
afford it, stick with the current setup that you get such good
results with.
--
Malcy
----------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/malcy/sets
http://picasaweb.google.com/lumachrome
