What DSLR for Macro?

Great thread. Mark, as you know, I just got my fz50 and was using a KM 5D for macros before. You should look at my posting history here as I started a few threads in the past few weeks about the various options (different lighting systems, bellows, etc.) for getting a good macro rig together at a reasonable price. I wound up considering the fz for a number of reasons, but ultimately the clincher for buying it was a too sweet to pass up ebay deal. Right now I'm using both cameras for different purposes.

I wanted to mention that a ring light is probably not what you're looking for. It produces really flat, shadowless light. The twin flash solution is definitely better but pricy. Before diving into that I'd recommend checking out this thread http://flickr.com/groups/macroviewers/discuss/72157594312315664/ and the results its author has produced using only one flash diffused well.

In terms of magnification, I think the various ratios (e.g. 1:1) kind of lose their meaning when you compare across different sensor sizes. Fundamentally, you can fill your frame more easily with a smaller subject at a greater distance than you can with an SLR. To get similar-sized objects to fill your frame on a DSLR would require much more weight and expense. Reversed lenses on DSLRs are one way to limit both these factors but you'd need a few different ones to get different magnifications and you need to get very close to use them. What you lose out on with the FZ is dynamic range, good noise control, and flexibility in terms of lighting and lens options. All this I can confirm with personal experience, and samples if so desired.

Cheers, R.

--
Eff-Zee 50,
Kay eMM five Dee, 50 1.7, beercan, 28-85 3.5-4.5 + raynox one-fifty, two-fifty

http://flickr.com/photos/roye

kalimistuk said:

thanks J, very much for the king words. i will stick with my Panny
for now and many years to come as i dont think i would like to lug
arroung all that heavy gear.

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying don't buy a DSLR and I would certainly recommend at least having a play with one to get a feel for how they respond and the IQ you would get. Just be careful about big outlay for one specialist purpose.

--
Regards
J

Question should state...

What is the best piece of glass for macro photography?

While talking about magnification, I want to give you an idea, Mark . Most DSLR macro lenses will give you 1:1 magnification, ... sounds great, but how much magnification is that in real world? This is a rice grain shot with my Sigma150mm/2.8 macro lens+5D. Frame not cropped.



same scene with Raynox CM-3500(4x magnification), again frame not cropped



Now, you can get a set of 3500(6x, 12x and 24x magnification) for just about 100 dollars. As you can see 5D shot is not much of a macro, at least not the kind of macro you do. Canon MP-E65 gives you up to 5x magnification, evrything else will be useless for your purpose.
aftab

All Photos
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aftab/
Selected Photos
http://aftab.zenfolio.com/

kalimistuk said:

Thanks Manu, but what better Macro lens is there than the Ray 250?
ManuH wrote:

Click to expand...

Look at this page if you have not seen it before:

http://www.geocities.com/seemolf/achromats/achromats.html

or the more recent one:

http://freenet-homepage.de/seemolf/achromats.html

Great useful information.

This is a great thread, I'm learning a lot of new things about these DSLR.

--
Manu

Interesting, I will be trying all kinds of diffusers now lol.

roye said:

I wanted to mention that a ring light is probably not what you're
looking for. It produces really flat, shadowless light. The twin
flash solution is definitely better but pricy. Before diving into
that I'd recommend checking out this thread
http://flickr.com/groups/macroviewers/discuss/72157594312315664/ and
the results its author has produced using only one flash diffused
well.

Click to expand...

roye said:

Cheers, R.

--
Eff-Zee 50,
Kay eMM five Dee, 50 1.7, beercan, 28-85 3.5-4.5 + raynox one-fifty,
two-fifty

http://flickr.com/photos/roye

Click to expand...

--
thx mark. (kalimistuk)



my pics at,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalimistuk/
my Highspeed pics at,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalimistuk/sets/72157594566402216/
my Macro pics at,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalimistuk/sets/72157594487257853/

I will keep that in mind.

tinternaut said:

kalimistuk said:

thanks J, very much for the king words. i will stick with my Panny
for now and many years to come as i dont think i would like to lug
arroung all that heavy gear.

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying don't buy a DSLR and I would
certainly recommend at least having a play with one to get a feel for
how they respond and the IQ you would get. Just be careful about big
outlay for one specialist purpose.

--
Regards
J

Click to expand...

--
thx mark. (kalimistuk)



my pics at,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalimistuk/
my Highspeed pics at,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalimistuk/sets/72157594566402216/
my Macro pics at,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalimistuk/sets/72157594487257853/

Thanks for the links, but looking at that the 250 seems best.

ManuH said:

kalimistuk said:

Thanks Manu, but what better Macro lens is there than the Ray 250?
ManuH wrote:

Click to expand...

Look at this page if you have not seen it before:

http://www.geocities.com/seemolf/achromats/achromats.html

or the more recent one:

http://freenet-homepage.de/seemolf/achromats.html

Great useful information.

This is a great thread, I'm learning a lot of new things about these
DSLR.

--
Manu

Click to expand...

--
thx mark. (kalimistuk)



my pics at,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalimistuk/
my Highspeed pics at,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalimistuk/sets/72157594566402216/
my Macro pics at,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalimistuk/sets/72157594487257853/

cos I have no idea, from all I have seen so far the Raynox 250 for the FZ's is the best I have seen. for sharpness and power of magnification.

Chromost said:

Question should state...

What is the best piece of glass for macro photography?

Click to expand...

--
thx mark. (kalimistuk)



my pics at,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalimistuk/
my Highspeed pics at,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalimistuk/sets/72157594566402216/
my Macro pics at,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalimistuk/sets/72157594487257853/

WoW! that is limited DOF, but great colors,

aftab said:

While talking about magnification, I want to give you an idea, Mark .
Most DSLR macro lenses will give you 1:1 magnification, ... sounds
great, but how much magnification is that in real world? This is a
rice grain shot with my Sigma150mm/2.8 macro lens+5D. Frame not
cropped.



same scene with Raynox CM-3500(4x magnification), again frame not
cropped



Now, you can get a set of 3500(6x, 12x and 24x magnification) for
just about 100 dollars. As you can see 5D shot is not much of a
macro, at least not the kind of macro you do. Canon MP-E65 gives you
up to 5x magnification, evrything else will be useless for your
purpose.
aftab

All Photos
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aftab/
Selected Photos
http://aftab.zenfolio.com/

Click to expand...

--
thx mark. (kalimistuk)



my pics at,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalimistuk/
my Highspeed pics at,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalimistuk/sets/72157594566402216/
my Macro pics at,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalimistuk/sets/72157594487257853/

tinternaut said:

I lurk in other forums here from time to time and as far as I can
tell, the Panasonic FZ50 with the right bits and bobs (not to mention
the occasional Mark) is the gold standard.

I like DSLRS. I find them fast, responsive, fun and appreciate the
IQ difference. From the long term perspective of becoming a more
complete photographer, I'm sure DSLR is the way to go. Approaching
the subject from the point of view of getting better this or that, I
think you have a bang per buck consideration given the quality of
macro you already create (i.e. will you be happy with the long term
improvement you get from the outlay).

--
Regards
J

Click to expand...

I have to second this..whilst I would never push someone into an SLR, it really is the way to go for some what must have complete control.

I spent too long peering into that awful OVF, putting up with weedy flash, shutter speed limitations wide open, no DOF control, ho hum AF.

I am sure the OP will be happy with his FZ..

My fz just gathers dust now..a good cam to start with..but not enough for my needs ;-)
--



Clint is on holiday! Soon to return! ;-)

Barry Fitzgerald said:

tinternaut said:

I lurk in other forums here from time to time and as far as I can
tell, the Panasonic FZ50 with the right bits and bobs (not to mention
the occasional Mark) is the gold standard.

I like DSLRS. I find them fast, responsive, fun and appreciate the
IQ difference. From the long term perspective of becoming a more
complete photographer, I'm sure DSLR is the way to go. Approaching
the subject from the point of view of getting better this or that, I
think you have a bang per buck consideration given the quality of
macro you already create (i.e. will you be happy with the long term
improvement you get from the outlay).

--
Regards
J

Click to expand...

I have to second this..whilst I would never push someone into an SLR,
it really is the way to go for some what must have complete control.

I spent too long peering into that awful OVF, putting up with weedy
flash, shutter speed limitations wide open, no DOF control, ho hum AF.

I am sure the OP will be happy with his FZ..

My fz just gathers dust now..a good cam to start with..but not enough
for my needs ;-)
--



Clint is on holiday! Soon to return! ;-)

Click to expand...

Yes, but are you doing macros?

I still think for macros the limiting factors are firstly DOF, secondly lighting. The FZ should have a distinct advantage over the DSLR in DOF, however it only goes to f/11 so perhaps the small sensor isn't too much of an advantage. Lighting can be easily accomplished with either camera.

Since OP has the FZ he should IMO concentrate on lighting, but IMO again, he is really not lacking in the macro dept. and I have seen many poor shots by people with loads of fancy gear and lots of ability to control all the settings.

There are at least 3 people on this forum who post excellent macros that I have not seen bettered with a DSLR.
--
Oll an gwella,
Jim

http://www.flickr.com/photos/50073525@N00/

FX07
FZ30 * IS/L B-300 * IS/L B-Macro * Minolta No. 0 * Sunpak 383 * Benbo Trekker

Having agonised over whether to trade in my dslr for an FZ50 (partly because of the bug macros I envy) I eventually decided I'd be better off sticking with the dslr but incrementally adding to my equipment and splashed out on the Raynox 250. Here are my first attempts at sticking it on the end of my lovely Sigma 70-300 macro. First two show what the Sigma can do at 200 and 300mm, then Sigma at 70 plus Raynox, then finally Sigma at 300 plus Raynox. Handheld using onboard flash; my first experiment just to see how the lens behaved. The problem was the depth of field - manual focussing at 300mm with the Raynox was by moving forward seeminly fractions of a mm and very few shots came out remotely in focus, and then only a bit of the frame in focus. That's with the lens minimum aperture. SO it can be done, and hopefully with practice I'll get better. After all, I'm a relative newbie and these were my first shots with the Raynox. If anyone has hints for improvements I'm all ears! Dave

kalimistuk said:

yes now thats what im talking about. that looks great. what do I
want a panasonic 50inch plasma tv or that set up LOL. wow, but how
good are the pics from it?

Click to expand...

As good as the photographer, I imagine.

Looking at your setup, and how you have it rigged (and the inherent knowledge and understanding it takes to get to that point), I suspect that you know enough to greatly utilize any system.

It wouldn't be cheap, though, and I suspect that you would not get as much improvement out of it as you would money spent. You'd probably spend 5 or 6 times the cost you have in you FZ setup but and you would probably gain some IQ and flexibility/versatility but probably not 5 or 6 times as much. At least in my eyes. Flash setups are not cheap.

And this comes from a guy whom you would never get to give up his dSLR.

--
Stujoe - Camera User
http://www.DigitalPhotoPeople.com

.

kernow said:

I still think for macros the limiting factors are firstly DOF,
secondly lighting. The FZ should have a distinct advantage over the
DSLR in DOF,

Click to expand...

How much does sticking that Raynox on the end of the FZ affect the DOF advantage? I don't know as I have never used one.

And with lighting...the OP is already using an external flash, diffusers, ets and I am not sure how advanced you can get with the FZ in that regard. Multiple wireless flashes? Ring flashes? Macro flashes? The flexibility of a dSLR is hard to beat. A multitude of options in lenses, flashes, exposures, etc. But it all comes at a cost.

I imagine the biggest distinct advantage of the FZ for the work the OP want to do is in the money spent for the quality received.

--
Stujoe - Camera User
http://www.DigitalPhotoPeople.com

.

kalimistuk said:

I know what you mean but all of my macros are used with the EVF, I
think I have only ever used that swivel screen 2ice,
Thanks for the help.

Click to expand...

Wow, I didn't see that coming. In this case, the biggest hurdle to DSLR macro is out of the way. You should borrow a DSLR and see if you like it, actually I think you would. A Pentax K100d kit can be had for 300 pounds or less...

While I use the EVF on 95% of my hand held shots, I use the LCD 100% of the time the cam is fixed on a tripod. Could you enlighten me, why do you prefer to use the EVF on a tripod?

Well, you have to understand when you look at any open album like Flickr that there is no QC except for that of the poster and the skill level of the posters vary greatly. In fact I noticed that some members have been making bulk posts to the group and most of the images at the front of the album come from only one or two posters. So it's a matter of being able to look at images and differentiate between the effect on IQ of the lens and that of the photographers skill rather than make a blanket judgement.

--
Malcy
----------------



http://www.flickr.com/photos/malcy/sets
http://picasaweb.google.com/lumachrome

IKB said:

Well, you have to understand when you look at any open album like
Flickr that there is no QC except for that of the poster and the
skill level of the posters vary greatly. In fact I noticed that some
members have been making bulk posts to the group and most of the
images at the front of the album come from only one or two posters.
So it's a matter of being able to look at images and differentiate
between the effect on IQ of the lens and that of the photographers
skill rather than make a blanket judgement.

--
Malcy
----------------



http://www.flickr.com/photos/malcy/sets
http://picasaweb.google.com/lumachrome

Click to expand...

True, but I did not see any that were better in absolute terms than what I have seen achieved with the FZ30 or FZ50. So it wasn't as much a blanket statement as it perhaps seems.
--
Oll an gwella,
Jim

http://www.flickr.com/photos/50073525@N00/

Stujoe said:

kernow said:

I still think for macros the limiting factors are firstly DOF,
secondly lighting. The FZ should have a distinct advantage over the
DSLR in DOF,

Click to expand...

How much does sticking that Raynox on the end of the FZ affect the
DOF advantage? I don't know as I have never used one.

And with lighting...the OP is already using an external flash,
diffusers, ets and I am not sure how advanced you can get with the FZ
in that regard. Multiple wireless flashes? Ring flashes? Macro
flashes? The flexibility of a dSLR is hard to beat. A multitude of
options in lenses, flashes, exposures, etc. But it all comes at a
cost.

I imagine the biggest distinct advantage of the FZ for the work the
OP want to do is in the money spent for the quality received.

--
Stujoe - Camera User
http://www.DigitalPhotoPeople.com

.

Click to expand...

It is all relative to the sensor size, that didn't change. Of course DOF is lacking at macro levels, but from the DSLR shots I have seen, unless comprised of a stacked image almost without fail show less DOF.

The strawberries shown for example have very little DOF.
--
Oll an gwella,
Jim

http://www.flickr.com/photos/50073525@N00/

FX07
FZ30 * IS/L B-300 * IS/L B-Macro * Minolta No. 0 * Sunpak 383 * Benbo Trekker

kernow said:

Yes, but are you doing macros?

Click to expand...

I do some macro work, though I admit I am not "mega into" macro.

kernow said:

I still think for macros the limiting factors are firstly DOF,
secondly lighting. The FZ should have a distinct advantage over the
DSLR in DOF, however it only goes to f/11 so perhaps the small sensor
isn't too much of an advantage. Lighting can be easily accomplished
with either camera.

Click to expand...

Indeed...it would appear the op is just really into macros, that being the case he may as well stick with his current setup. I need to do other things..thus the case for an SLR is stronger.

kernow said:

Since OP has the FZ he should IMO concentrate on lighting, but IMO
again, he is really not lacking in the macro dept. and I have seen
many poor shots by people with loads of fancy gear and lots of
ability to control all the settings.

Click to expand...

Indeed..as ever the eye counts for a lot more than the gear.

kernow said:

There are at least 3 people on this forum who post excellent macros
that I have not seen bettered with a DSLR.
--

Click to expand...

Well a good macro shooter can do tasty stuff whatever they have. Its true half the fun is using a lesser beast..and delivering the goods.

On the other hand there are pros and cons to both..

I always felt the non slr's were good at macro and tele end..but on everything else..weaker..high ISO, flash, latitude etc etc. If this matters..maybe not.

--



Clint is on holiday! Soon to return! ;-)