Reading mode: Light Dark

Recommend a 2 year old camera for macro

Go to last post
G

gromero

Active member
Messages
89
Reaction score
1
As per the title really. I'm looking for a second hand camera for taking macro coral (aquarium) photographs. So I'm looking at anything released around 2 years ago.

I don't mind if I need to add a Raynox lens. I'm competent with manual functions, but my current 4yo Panasonic compact camera is fine for general use but terrible for macro. Lighting isn't the issue, focusing at close proximity or zoomed in close from 6 inches away is what I am trying to achieve.

I just don't know where to start!

TIA
Greg
 
I use achromats on the FZ50, a 5 or 6yo cam. The R250 will give you a working distance of around 4.5inches. I also use Oly 50/f2 ED on the Pany G1 250 on - lighting is critical for moving objects.

See second link in my sig below, may be of help.
gromero said:
As per the title really. I'm looking for a second hand camera for taking macro coral (aquarium) photographs. So I'm looking at anything released around 2 years ago.

I don't mind if I need to add a Raynox lens. I'm competent with manual functions, but my current 4yo Panasonic compact camera is fine for general use but terrible for macro. Lighting isn't the issue, focusing at close proximity or zoomed in close from 6 inches away is what I am trying to achieve.

I just don't know where to start!

TIA
Greg
Click to expand...
--
Mark - http://www.beingmark.com - http://beingmark.com/macro-illustrated/
 
Thanks for the recommendation, I do like Panasonic products and it is within my price range. Would it be capable of taking macro shots without an additional achromat lens?

The other camera I was looking at is the Sony H9, due to the good reviews of it's macro mode.
Is there much between the two?

Thanks for the link to your site, lots of useful info!
 
Would a Fujifilm FinePix S2000 HD be any good for macro shots? With or without adding an achromat lens?

It appeals because of it's HD video recording, which would be good, but I'm just concerned it wouldn't perform as well as a similar Canon/Panasonic.

Also, a big appeal, is i can get one for 50% less than a Pana FZ50 or FZ28.

I only really want it for macro and close up shots in an aquarium.
Macromeds said:
I use achromats on the FZ50, a 5 or 6yo cam. The R250 will give you a working distance of around 4.5inches. I also use Oly 50/f2 ED on the Pany G1 250 on - lighting is critical for moving objects.

See second link in my sig below, may be of help.
gromero said:
As per the title really. I'm looking for a second hand camera for taking macro coral (aquarium) photographs. So I'm looking at anything released around 2 years ago.

I don't mind if I need to add a Raynox lens. I'm competent with manual functions, but my current 4yo Panasonic compact camera is fine for general use but terrible for macro. Lighting isn't the issue, focusing at close proximity or zoomed in close from 6 inches away is what I am trying to achieve.

I just don't know where to start!

TIA
Greg
Click to expand...
--
Mark - http://www.beingmark.com - http://beingmark.com/macro-illustrated/
Click to expand...
 
and considered a DSLR with a dedicated macro lens? You could buy a Canon 400D, which is around five years old and this would still produce a better image then any P&S on the market. A second hand 60mm EFS macro lens (which IMO is the sharpest lens I have ever owned and used) would only set you back a few hundred dollars. By going this way you would have a system that can be readily expanded once your expertise (and wallet) expands. Also, as aquarium shots tend to be taken at high ISOs, the noise is much better controlled with a DSLR.

Kind regards
Stephen
gromero said:
As per the title really. I'm looking for a second hand camera for taking macro coral (aquarium) photographs. So I'm looking at anything released around 2 years ago.

I don't mind if I need to add a Raynox lens. I'm competent with manual functions, but my current 4yo Panasonic compact camera is fine for general use but terrible for macro. Lighting isn't the issue, focusing at close proximity or zoomed in close from 6 inches away is what I am trying to achieve.

I just don't know where to start!

TIA
Greg
Click to expand...
 
Long term might also be m4/3 in the Pany G1, an excellent cam by all accounts, or the Olympus m4/3, both of which have a large variety of macro lenses adaptable to them - that also take achromats for higher mags. Google Olypmus ED 50/f2 macro and you will find it is considered one of the sharpest macro lenses available. People will only recommend what they think or know. :)

It all depends on what you want out of it, besides shooting coral from 6 inches.

--
Mark - http://www.beingmark.com - http://beingmark.com/macro-illustrated/
 
Thanks both for your input and advice.

The camera will be specifically only for taking macro photo's of corals in my aquarium, but if I could also take 720p video then that would be a great bonus, but not essential.

That is why my budget is very limited, I have a pocket sized camera for general use.

I would prefer a DLSR with the ability to try different macro lenses, but really the only camera that is within reach is say a 350D, I'm not sure if this is capable as it's spec is a long way behind what is currently available.

Hence why I was looking at the Bridge camera's. Something like a Pana FZ28 or FZ50 is appealing if I can find one second hand.
 
Well I just purchased a Canon SX10 IS, because it was a good price.

Now I just need to learn about achromats, but I'll have a try without to begin with.

I'll probably be back on here next week with questions :o)
 
The company shipped the wrong camera to me, I got the sx120 IS, which is not very good for what I want to use. I'm sure it's fine for taking out as a general camera, holiday/party shots etc., but I want better IQ. So it's going straight back.

But it got me thinking, do I really need to look at the superzooms for taking macro shots?

Is it possible to use achromats with true compact camera's, like the Canon s95 or the Pana LX5?

The more I look at the superzooms of a few years ago, I wonder if they are compromising on IQ to achieve high zoom capabilities?
I only want the best IQ for close up/macro shots.
 
Yes budget is always a concern, but the more I read the more my budget rises.

I've ruled out any dslr's for now due to the higher costs. My plan was to just use a compact and add an achromat, just like you do :o)

My only doubt was am I compromising on image quality by buying a superzoom camera because of their small sensor size? Although my aquarium is very brightly lit, I'm not sure how high an ISO setting I will need to use, and I keep reading all the superzooms struggle in low light. Perhaps I need to just buy something and try.

edit: The models I'm looking at which are reasonably priced are:
Canon sx10 IS, sx1 IS, Pana FZ38
 
So this is the best I have been able to achieve with the sx120 IS, this is why it is going back.





...and this is the sort of thing I am trying to achieve, see below a friends photo's, these were taken with a Nikon D200 and macro lens. Will I ever get close this quality with a SX1 or SX10 IS, or a Pana FZ35/38? Don't forget this is taken through glass, under bright lighting, with tiny particles often floating passed at a distance varying from 2 inches to 12 inches max.























 
If you want to get close to the image quality and magnification of a DSLR and macro lens, then that's what you'll need. You can pick up a 4/5 year old Canon or Nikon DSLR with 6/8MP sensor for much less than a new superzoom compact.

You should look at getting an older 100mm macro lens - even the very cheap Vivitar/Cosina/Phoenix 100mm f3.5 macro lens performs pretty well. Here's a test report on the Cosina variant in Pentax mount : http://www.photozone.de/pentax/368-cosina-af-100mm-f35-macro

Other (less convienient) low cost options include fully manual macro lenses made for older film SLRs - these can also be used on the new breed of micro 4/3rds bodies.

--
Check out my galleries (lots of macros) at :
http://www.pbase.com/cjed
 
OK thanks for your advice. Perhaps I should ditch the idea of a superzoom and find an entry level dlsr.

I could comfortably afford something like the Sony A200 with the kit lens.

Or if I would notice a big difference in quality I could stretch to a Canon 1000D

It would be disappointing to not have video, but stills are my priority.

Just wish I could have a week with a few different models before buying and then realising it's not up to the standard I want.
 
gromero said:
... Just wish I could have a week with a few different models before buying and then realising it's not up to the standard I want.
Click to expand...
Yes it is a problem when you're trying something a little out of the ordinary. I don't know where you're based, but if you have a local photography club (common in most reasonable sized towns here in the UK) then joining it might bring you into contact with other photographers with similar interests.

I'm quite lucky in that I have a number of work colleagues who are into photography and swapping equiptment to try out isn't uncommon.

--
Check out my galleries (lots of macros) at :
http://www.pbase.com/cjed
 
...people recommend what they know, so I recommend an Oly E-330.

It gets the DSLR versatility (slightly smaller sensor than Canon or Nikon works well for macro depth of field). It has an excellent dual sensor live view that works very well for macro imo. It's cheap as dirt. It doesn't get you video though.

That said, I think Micro4/3rds is worth a look. I just purchased a GH1 for my school for about $500 (with 3 batteries, large flash card, Nikkor lens adapter, C-mount adapter). It's only 4 months old and has the firmware hack that makes it one of the best interchangeable lens cameras for video. One reason why this may be golden for you is that these mirrorless cameras have a short sensor/lens mount distance which means you can slap on an adapter for almost any lens imaginable and there are lots of good legacy macro lenses out there. Of course, flash versatility is better if you have a flash shoe as well.

GH1 with adapter and legacy macro could really get you started + deliver great video in a package slightly smaller than DSLRs. G1 is cheaper yet, but lacks video. Olympus E-PL2 is a great deal right now imo. The Panasonic G or GH series and the Olympus E-330 DSLR have the advantage of a tilt swivel LCD which I prefer for macro.

Cheers,
Seth

--
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?

--
wallygoots.smugmug.com
wallygoots.blogspot.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top