beginner ILC for astrophotography and macro

thanks in advance and apologies if this isn't in the right place. My wife and I want to reconnect with some old hobbies (macro photography for her and astronomy for me). ive been looking at cameras like the Fuji x-a3, x-t10, and Sony a5100. my wife is a film camera veteran, but we would both be new to newer ILC. it would need to fit the bill for both of those types of photography. I would appreciate any insight on what I should be looking for in terms of specs. Camera suggestions are appreciated, but I think I'd be better help with some basic information about what specs matter and why. Thanks!

There is an Astro forum here on DPR so that's probably a good place to start for that side of things. I'd expect almost any modern camera would do the trick -- the issue is lenses or telescope adapters. As there are different types of astro photography it's not possible to say that any one camera is 'best'.

For macro it rather depends on what you want to shoot and how seriously you want to take it. There is a world of difference between shooting a coin collection and chasing tiny bugs.

Again, the significant thing is the choice of lenses available for each candidate camera, although it's surprising what you can do with adapted lenses and the like on mirrorless.

For choosing a camera one of the big things to consider is whether you want an eye-level viewfinder. You list cameras with and without. For your specialist subjects it probably doesn't make a lot of difference -- an articulated screen is likely more useful -- but people have strong feelings one way or the other for general shooting -- outings, family gatherings and the like.

What does 'macro' mean to you?





















--
Albert
(The one in France)
A 'pro' or 'professional' photographer is someone who earns money from photography. It is not a badge of rank, a guarantee of knowledge and wisdom or some sort of measure of quality.

Thank you! I asked my wife what macro meant to her and she said

"photographing small things."

To which I said, "yes, but which small things babe?"

And she replied, "objects around the house, around town, people who are willing to let me take pictures of their eyes, my grandmother's doll collection."

To which I said, "you still have that? (sigh)"

"Yes. I could never get rid of that."

So I think for her it's more about everyday objects more than bugs (at least for now). I'm sure that is going to include textures/etc. that we encounter when we go for bike rides (we have access to some amazing trails).

I really appreciate that anyone responded, and I'd still welcome more input about the importance of a viewfinder. It hadn't occurred to me since I am planning on using the camera for wide shots of the night sky, but I could see how my wife's macro work would need one.

QuikFrame said:

"objects around the house, around town, people who are willing to let me take pictures of their eyes, my grandmother's doll collection."

Click to expand...

Assuming that one human eye is about the smallest thing she'll want to shoot for now you can probably get away with a 'macro zoom' lens. For example, the 18-135mm zoom I used to photograph that hermit crab will give reasonable framing ( I just tried pointing it at my wife's eye!). That's a kit lens option with some Fuji cameras; I don't know what's available for other makes.

It may not be the greatest in macro quality but that crab will give you some idea. If you click on the picture you get the option of viewing it zoomed in. Later on she may well want a proper macro lens with 1:1 magnification and sharp enough to cut yourself on.

I see from another thread that you are interested in the Canon M5. It's too new to have been seriously tested but it looks like a good option because with an adapter you'll have access to all the lenses and things like telescope adapters built for the Canon DSLRs. Otherwise I'd suggest the Fuji X-T10, or X-T1 if your budget fits, or maybe the Sony A6000/A6300.

You could also consider Micro 4/3 but I'd guess that astro would benefit from a bigger sensor.

QuikFrame said:

Thank you! I asked my wife what macro meant to her and she said

"photographing small things."

To which I said, "yes, but which small things babe?"

And she replied, "objects around the house, around town, people who are willing to let me take pictures of their eyes, my grandmother's doll collection."

To which I said, "you still have that? (sigh)"

"Yes. I could never get rid of that."

So I think for her it's more about everyday objects more than bugs (at least for now). I'm sure that is going to include textures/etc. that we encounter when we go for bike rides (we have access to some amazing trails).

I really appreciate that anyone responded, and I'd still welcome more input about the importance of a viewfinder. It hadn't occurred to me since I am planning on using the camera for wide shots of the night sky, but I could see how my wife's macro work would need one.

Click to expand...

Actually it's probably more about the lenses than the camera. For astrophotography a FF camera that performs well at high ISO would be the best, but not absolutely necessary. A m4/3's or APS-C will work too, just not quite as good. What you need for night sky shooting is a fast wide lens (f3.5 or faster) that has good coma correction and relatively low CA. Something in the 12mm-20mm (equivalent) range. A 24mm equivalent will give you about 20 sec. of time before stars start to leave trails and a 15mm will give you about 30 seconds. To calculate the amount of time a lens will allow you to keep the shutter open, take 500 and divide it by the equivalent focal length. You must use equivalents for the calculations for m4/3's (x2)and APS-C (x1.5). Here's an example for m4/3's; 12mm x 2=24... 500/24=20.83sec. so the wider the better, it gives you more time.

There are a good number of lenses available for Canon and Nikon cameras in FF and APS-C and Panasonic and Olympus in m4/3's, native and 3rd party. Sony has some 3rd party options that may work and a few native lenses for their FF, but their really good lenses are large and very expensive and there maybe no UWA for their APS-C. It's something you would have to research.

As for macro, again it's the choice of lenses available. You need to research the lenses and read reviews on them. Here's a link to one site that also shows a coma test;


I find an EVF extremely important. I use it most of the time. On very bright it may be difficult to see your LCD due to the brightness and reflections. And it gets tiresome holding a camera out in front of you if you have a moderate to large lens attached, and trying to hold it steady is also a problem.

And you will need a sturdy tripod for both types of photography.

I hope this helps

Yeah, the "500 rule" was something I've only recently found out about and it's a simple and quite helpful tip.

Since I'm the novice, the thing I'm trying to learn is some of the maths behind the conversion from a full frame camera and an APS-C. I read the wiki entry on "crop factor," but it was a little over my head. I think I get the gist that it's a matter of representing the fraction of the sensor size relative to a full frame sensor (which, as I understand, is based on the size of 35mm film cameras).

My wife says she'd rather work with something smaller than a full-sized DSLR because she says the glass can get heavy. From my perspective, I didn't want to go to micro four thirds cameras because I understand that you need as big a sensor as possible for the light gathering of astrophotography.

The discussion about lenses and aperture are starting to get through. I just starting reading a book "Understanding Exposure" which a friend at work told me to pick up. I assume that my wife will teach me most of the basics, but she's also left it to me to do the "internet research" for a camera because, as she says, "you like it, and I don't."

So APS-C seems a good compromise between the heft of full frame DSLRs and the poorer light-gathering of micro four thirds cameras.

QuikFrame said:

So APS-C seems a good compromise between the heft of full frame DSLRs and the poorer light-gathering of micro four thirds cameras.

Click to expand...

Budget? Currency?

Oh, of course! Sorry. I think we're looking for a body and two lenses. A kit lens may suffice, if it fits her macro needs, but it seems clear that I will be looking for a wide-field lens. I'm not SET on two lenses, because I need to learn the basics of just "doing" photography, so that could come later.

For body + 1 lens I'd say our budget is probably $1200(USD). We're looking to buy in the next 3-4 months (certainly by Christmas).

Edit: "Try to keep it around a thousand dollars babe." -my wonderful wife.

My wife largely used film cameras through the 90s so her major frame of reference is "canon and nikon."

QuikFrame said:

Yeah, the "500 rule" was something I've only recently found out about and it's a simple and quite helpful tip.

Since I'm the novice, the thing I'm trying to learn is some of the maths behind the conversion from a full frame camera and an APS-C. I read the wiki entry on "crop factor," but it was a little over my head. I think I get the gist that it's a matter of representing the fraction of the sensor size relative to a full frame sensor (which, as I understand, is based on the size of 35mm film cameras).

My wife says she'd rather work with something smaller than a full-sized DSLR because she says the glass can get heavy. From my perspective, I didn't want to go to micro four thirds cameras because I understand that you need as big a sensor as possible for the light gathering of astrophotography.

The discussion about lenses and aperture are starting to get through. I just starting reading a book "Understanding Exposure" which a friend at work told me to pick up. I assume that my wife will teach me most of the basics, but she's also left it to me to do the "internet research" for a camera because, as she says, "you like it, and I don't."

So APS-C seems a good compromise between the heft of full frame DSLRs and the poorer light-gathering of micro four thirds cameras.

Click to expand...

While there is a difference when compared to FF, it's even less with APS-C. And keep in mind it's more the lens that makes the difference for astrophotography. The sensor size is less of a factor. So I wouldn't rule out m4/3's because of the size and weight advantage it has to offer. While there is some relatively large lenses for m4/3's, their counterparts for APS-C and FF are much larger and heavier still. I switched from DSLR's because of it and I personally don't regret it. If the camera is to bulky and heavy, you won't feel like taking it with you. While there are smaller APS-C DSLR's available, mostly entry level, you most likely won't see any advantage over m4/3's. I've posted this image before, but here's an example at ISO10,000. It was processed from a raw file in DxO Optics Pro Elite 11 and Topaz DeNoise 6. Unless you are planning to make huge enlargements, bigger then 20x30, you won't likely see a difference.




EM5 Mll 12-40 Pro @ ISO10,000



Well hears my first attempt at the Milky Way. Now I was just trying to determine exposure, so when the weather gets colder and clearer I will have a good starting point. I'd rather do that now while it's still comfortable outside as opposed to standing in the freezing cold and trying to figure it out. So humidity was present but not too bad, and I live in an area that has ground lighting that affects the outcome. It's very strong and only about 5-6 miles away. This was done on a m4/3's Olympus EM5 Mll and fitted with the 12-40 f2.8 Pro lens. This is a 24mm equivalent and to me, not wide enough, not even close. But here it is anyway




EM5 Mll 12mm f2.8 15sec. ISO4000

I just skimmed through the posts to get an overview.

I use a micro 4/3 body with a Panasonic 30mm f/2.8 macro lens. That would be perfect for what your "wife" wants.

It's very similar to the typical old 55mm lens with a film camera and she can just move closer and closer to get the image size right down to the point where you fill the frame with a US dime. She wouldn't even realize that it is macro. It's so easy.

She described almost exactly what I use the combination for. I just use it for everything.

She would love it, but it's not what you would want for astrophotography. It would be ok for some night landscapes. That would probably take the Olympus 7-14 Pro lens and it's $1200.

You are interested in two extremely specialized types of photography at opposite ends of the spectrum.

I'd strongly recommend Pentax. They have both full frame and APS-C.

First, in general Pentax has a rep for more bang for the buck, esp for lower end cameras (at least compared to say entry APS-C by the other brands). Their FF is very competitive with most anything for these uses.

Second, they have good lenses. Their 100mm macro is very nice, and I think it's weather resistent, as is the camera. Great for outdoor stuff, with the dew you get with night exposures, etc. There are also bazillions of excellent old lenses, and since one uses manual focus a lot in both night and macros, they are great choices. The Pentax's use in body stabilization, making it even easier to use these oldies. There's a great lens for Milky Way type stuff, the Rokinon 24mm, which is very affordable.

Third, Astrotracer. It's amazing. It uses the built in stabilization and built in GPS to work as an in-camera astro mount, tracking sky movement. So you can get quite long exposures without having to use anything but a regular tripod. Here's an Andromeda example: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/...smc-pentax-fa-250-600mm-f5-6-ed-if-600mm.html

robgendreau said:

I'd strongly recommend Pentax. They have both full frame and APS-C.

First, in general Pentax has a rep for more bang for the buck, esp for lower end cameras (at least compared to say entry APS-C by the other brands). Their FF is very competitive with most anything for these uses.

Second, they have good lenses. Their 100mm macro is very nice, and I think it's weather resistent, as is the camera. Great for outdoor stuff, with the dew you get with night exposures, etc. There are also bazillions of excellent old lenses, and since one uses manual focus a lot in both night and macros, they are great choices. The Pentax's use in body stabilization, making it even easier to use these oldies. There's a great lens for Milky Way type stuff, the Rokinon 24mm, which is very affordable.

Third, Astrotracer. It's amazing. It uses the built in stabilization and built in GPS to work as an in-camera astro mount, tracking sky movement. So you can get quite long exposures without having to use anything but a regular tripod. Here's an Andromeda example: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/...smc-pentax-fa-250-600mm-f5-6-ed-if-600mm.html

--
“Art is not what you see, but what you make others see.”
— Edgar Degas

Click to expand...

Astrotracer is a feature I totally forgot about. My first SLR was a Pentax. Pentax offers tons of features for an excellent price.

csiluk said:

While there is a difference when compared to FF, it's even less with APS-C. And keep in mind it's more the lens that makes the difference for astrophotography. The sensor size is less of a factor. So I wouldn't rule out m4/3's because of the size and weight advantage it has to offer. While there is some relatively large lenses for m4/3's, their counterparts for APS-C and FF are much larger and heavier still. I switched from DSLR's because of it and I personally don't regret it. If the camera is to bulky and heavy, you won't feel like taking it with you. While there are smaller APS-C DSLR's available, mostly entry level, you most likely won't see any advantage over m4/3's. I've posted this image before, but here's an example at ISO10,000. It was processed from a raw file in DxO Optics Pro Elite 11 and Topaz DeNoise 6. Unless you are planning to make huge enlargements, bigger then 20x30, you won't likely see a difference.


EM5 Mll 12-40 Pro @ ISO10,000

Well hears my first attempt at the Milky Way. Now I was just trying to determine exposure, so when the weather gets colder and clearer I will have a good starting point. I'd rather do that now while it's still comfortable outside as opposed to standing in the freezing cold and trying to figure it out. So humidity was present but not too bad, and I live in an area that has ground lighting that affects the outcome. It's very strong and only about 5-6 miles away. This was done on a m4/3's Olympus EM5 Mll and fitted with the 12-40 f2.8 Pro lens. This is a 24mm equivalent and to me, not wide enough, not even close. But here it is anyway


EM5 Mll 12mm f2.8 15sec. ISO4000

Click to expand...

Thank you for this!

You had me looking up m 4/3rds cameras. So, Olympus and Panasonic are the only companies offering that sensor size? I had to go read the wiki on micro four thirds (I really am a beginner here).

The thing I'm worried about with that is the smaller field of view. As I understand it, the crop factor means I'm getting less of a field of view, right? Or can that be "counteracted" by using a different lens?

It's a bit confusing to me because it's different from the maths of the reflector telescopes. There, the parts that were being changed were the eyepieces and the shorter focal lengths made for higher magnification and a narrower field of view. For a telescope, it's focal length of scope divided by focal length of eyepiece is the magnification power.

In cameras, it's like it's the opposite: The shorter the focal length the lower the magnification and the wider the field of view. I think that's the part that's disorienting me a little bit.

So: Can you get a micro four thirds lens with a short enough focal length to make up for the greater field of view that an APS-C sensor offers? Because if I'm looking at something like, say, a 12mm f2.0 (short focal length, wider field of view, bigger aperture--did I say that right?), is there an even shorter/wider lens in micro four thirds that won't cost me a kidney?

This is extremely helpful having simple conversations like this!

QuikFrame said:

It's a bit confusing to me because it's different from the maths of the reflector telescopes. There, the parts that were being changed were the eyepieces and the shorter focal lengths made for higher magnification and a narrower field of view. For a telescope, it's focal length of scope divided by focal length of eyepiece is the magnification power.

In cameras, it's like it's the opposite: The shorter the focal length the lower the magnification and the wider the field of view. I think that's the part that's disorienting me a little bit.

So: Can you get a micro four thirds lens with a short enough focal length to make up for the greater field of view that an APS-C sensor offers? Because if I'm looking at something like, say, a 12mm f2.0 (short focal length, wider field of view, bigger aperture--did I say that right?), is there an even shorter/wider lens in micro four thirds that won't cost me a kidney?

This is extremely helpful having simple conversations like this!

Click to expand...

I'm replying to myself now. LOL. It just hit me. The focal length of the lens is the equivalent of the focal length of the scope tube, not the eyepiece....so the greater the length the more you're increasing the magnification and lowering field of view. OK, so changing the lens is like changing the telescope, not the eyepiece! That was seriously a mental block for me for some reason.

YAY! lmao.

QuikFrame said:

csiluk said:

While there is a difference when compared to FF, it's even less with APS-C. And keep in mind it's more the lens that makes the difference for astrophotography. The sensor size is less of a factor. So I wouldn't rule out m4/3's because of the size and weight advantage it has to offer. While there is some relatively large lenses for m4/3's, their counterparts for APS-C and FF are much larger and heavier still. I switched from DSLR's because of it and I personally don't regret it. If the camera is to bulky and heavy, you won't feel like taking it with you. While there are smaller APS-C DSLR's available, mostly entry level, you most likely won't see any advantage over m4/3's. I've posted this image before, but here's an example at ISO10,000. It was processed from a raw file in DxO Optics Pro Elite 11 and Topaz DeNoise 6. Unless you are planning to make huge enlargements, bigger then 20x30, you won't likely see a difference.


EM5 Mll 12-40 Pro @ ISO10,000

Well hears my first attempt at the Milky Way. Now I was just trying to determine exposure, so when the weather gets colder and clearer I will have a good starting point. I'd rather do that now while it's still comfortable outside as opposed to standing in the freezing cold and trying to figure it out. So humidity was present but not too bad, and I live in an area that has ground lighting that affects the outcome. It's very strong and only about 5-6 miles away. This was done on a m4/3's Olympus EM5 Mll and fitted with the 12-40 f2.8 Pro lens. This is a 24mm equivalent and to me, not wide enough, not even close. But here it is anyway


EM5 Mll 12mm f2.8 15sec. ISO4000

Click to expand...

Thank you for this!

You had me looking up m 4/3rds cameras. So, Olympus and Panasonic are the only companies offering that sensor size? I had to go read the wiki on micro four thirds (I really am a beginner here).

Click to expand...

Yes, they are the 2 major players in m4/3s.

QuikFrame said:

The thing I'm worried about with that is the smaller field of view. As I understand it, the crop factor means I'm getting less of a field of view, right? Or can that be "counteracted" by using a different lens?

Click to expand...

Yes, you use a shorter focal length lens for a wider field of view. Currently, 7mm (14mm equivalent) is the widest rectilinear lens available. Both Oly an Pany offer a 7-14 zoom with Oly being one stop faster at f2.8. Oly also has a 8mm f1.8 diagonal fisheye. You would need a 6mm for 12mm equivalent (m4/3s). You would need an 8mm for APS-C. I recently purchased a Samyang 7.5mm f3.5 diagonal fisheye which covers the entire sensor area and has a FOV of 180 degrees from upper corner to lower corner. It can be defished in software. It's a fully manual lens. It is rapidly becoming one of my favorite lenses. It's very small and around $250. Here's the link to a review;

QuikFrame said:

It's a bit confusing to me because it's different from the maths of the reflector telescopes. There, the parts that were being changed were the eyepieces and the shorter focal lengths made for higher magnification and a narrower field of view. For a telescope, it's focal length of scope divided by focal length of eyepiece is the magnification power.

In cameras, it's like it's the opposite: The shorter the focal length the lower the magnification and the wider the field of view. I think that's the part that's disorienting me a little bit.

So: Can you get a micro four thirds lens with a short enough focal length to make up for the greater field of view that an APS-C sensor offers? Because if I'm looking at something like, say, a 12mm f2.0 (short focal length, wider field of view, bigger aperture--did I say that right?), is there an even shorter/wider lens in micro four thirds that won't cost me a kidney?

Click to expand...

You can come close if not equal to APS-C for FOV, with FF offering the widest, but at a price. There was a new lens announced at Photokina and we are all waiting to hear about its performance and when it will be available and its price. It's a Laowa 7.5mm f2. Just keep in mind you have circular and diagonal fisheye lenses and rectilinear UWA, so the same focal length of say 7mm will have a totally different FOV depending on the type of lens.

QuikFrame said:

This is extremely helpful having simple conversations like this!

Click to expand...

QuikFrame said:

For body + 1 lens I'd say our budget is probably $1200(USD). We're looking to buy in the next 3-4 months (certainly by Christmas).

Edit: "Try to keep it around a thousand dollars babe." -my wonderful wife.

pentax k-70

Click to expand...

pentax k-70

Pentax smc D-FA 100mm F2.8 Macro WR

Pentax smc DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL WR

and if you want another lens

pentax 16-45 is about 200 used.