New Camera for Dental Macro Photography recommendations

Hello All

I need a bit of help to decide on this. I will be updating my still functional but quite old 450D to a new camera. It is still working but I get to buy a new one. My current setup is 100mm Macro lens and the Canon ring flash as I shoot everyday photos at my dental practice.

I am considering Canon M50 with an adaptor for my lens, Canon 77D or Canon 80D

The camera will be used almost 90% for dental photos again, but I would love to be able to take it with me on my trips

What would be your recommendation? Would the m50 + 100mm macro + Ring Flash balance well? How does it stand against 77D or 80D?

Thanks for your help and time!!!

SprK wrote:

Hello All

I need a bit of help to decide on this. I will be updating my still functional but quite old 450D to a new camera. It is still working but I get to buy a new one. My current setup is 100mm Macro lens and the Canon ring flash as I shoot everyday photos at my dental practice.

I am considering Canon M50 with an adaptor for my lens, Canon 77D or Canon 80D

The camera will be used almost 90% for dental photos again, but I would love to be able to take it with me on my trips

What would be your recommendation? Would the m50 + 100mm macro + Ring Flash balance well? How does it stand against 77D or 80D?

Thanks for your help and time!!!

I do a LOT of work with both of these lenses on both APS-C DSLR cameras and Mirrorless.  You have a number of complicating factors in play here that may make it difficult for you to make a final decision with any degree of simplicity. The EF-M 28mm macro lens is VERY good for personal use and it takes very SHARP images of landscapes and other items in relatively low light.  I find that both lenses benefit from additional stabilization and higher shutter speeds when shooting Macros, especially when not shooting WIDE open with the aperture.

.

EOSM mirrorless with Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro USM lens + Ring Flash. .

The EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro USM lens is an excellent lens but even with the minimum focusing distance (which is about as far as the lens hood is long) it's still hard to get into any tight areas.  It was perhaps an essential tool for any dentist prior to the mirrorless age.  Like you, I own the EF 100mm f/2,8L IS Macro USM lens and it's superb on the EOSM series because the APS-C crop gives you what is essentially 160mm.  The 100mm is quite front-heavy when the Ring Flash is mounted to it and the skewed angle of the battery pack is awkward although the hotshoe mount was redesigned with the later version and is easier to mount and remove.
.

The minimum focus distance on this lens is just past the length of the lens hood.  Remove it and you've got about a 1 foot from the lens before it will focus.
.
I find these two lenses to be excellent optically.  The larger EF lens is heavier and more expensive... and larger... but the value is there and the price has dropped over recent years.  The smaller 28mm EF-M lens requires no adapter, has its own ring-light and is relatively lighter and cheaper.  If I could urge you to consider both lenses it sounds lke you would use them.  But I feel that the sheer portability of the 28mm lens and the need to shoot VERY close with an associated light source makes it an easy choice.  The illumination is activated with a single button on the left hand side of the lens which is hard to detect with your fingers because Canon made it flush with the lens barrel.  It will be harder to detect with gloves on.  You will want to consider whether or not the patient's breath will fog up your lens too.  A lot of hard choices in play here.
.

EOSM mirrorless camera with EF-M 28mm f/3.5 IS Macro STM lens.
.
The new EF-M 28mm f/3.5 Macro STM lens with built-in ring-light (not a flash but an adjustable lens-fitted LED illumination device) is perhaps well suited to dentistry.  It also has a "Super Macro" mode.  Illumination is important inside the human mouth and the shape and design of this lens does lend itself towards this kind of work.  I used the Flip LCD on the M6 to capture several shots of my rear molar teeth and identified several flaws and cracks in one of my teeth that three other dentists appear to have missed.
.
The M50 would certainly be a good camera for this type of work, as would the M6 and possibly the M5 and M100... although the M100 has no hotshoe flash-mount, should you want to use the 100mmL lens with the adapter and Ring Flash.  Personally, I find the Ring Flash to be rather large, bulky and cumbersome to use (as you no doubt already know).  These lenses and cameras were not designed for dental use and many dentists today have a special flexible camera on the end of a flexible tube that they use for detailed captures of the patient's mouth.

.

EOS M6 + EF-M 28mm f/3.5 IS Macro STM lens (ring light used)
This was taken in the "Normal" mode... not the Super Macro setting... so you can get closer.

An exampled of damage and (previously undetected decay) to an extracted molar.  Still using normal macro.

A little bone attached. (normal macro)

Using the Super Macro setting (though not particularly obvious)
.
When using the Super Macro setting, you need to rotate the lens (while holding the Lock switch) all the way around to the second of two settings.  There's a very limited plane of focus you can use in this setting and you won't be able to photograph anything more than a few inches away or it will be out of focus. You need to be virtually within touching distance of the subject with less than an inch of movement to play with if you want the subject in focus.  A narrower aperture will ensure more detail will be captured. The more recent models of EOSM cameras will have the new DPAF sensor and that means they'll be fast and accurate to focus on the subjects you choose.  I'd recommend any of the newer models.  The earliest models are going to be a little slower.  But the differences are enough that any new model is going to be the ideal choice.  My personal recommendation would be the M6, M5 or the new M50.
.
Most of the examples you'll find here and elsewhere won't likely be covering dental samples but you can probably work out how useful these lenses will be based on the nature and details of the images posted.  A minor consideration would be that because the 100mm lens requires more distance (minimum focus distance is 0.30m (11.81") compared to 0.09m (3.54") for the 28mm lens in 'normal mode' and then even closer to around 5mm with Super Macro engaged ), there's no distortion to the subject.  And the 28mm macro lens needs to be quite close since it's a wide lens... however, this means more optical distortion.  For dentistry, detail is more important that any distortion present but what this means is that the 28mm lens can fit inside the mouth with it's own illumination around the lens.  The 100mm lens requires either an external flash (not easy when shooting into someone's mouth) or the use of the Ring Flash... which is quite a tricky flash to worth with.  Both lenses are excellent - and SHARP for other uses such as travel and landscape work and the Image Stabilizers on both lenses are excellent.  The 100mm has a focus limiter switch (which is very handy).
.
Since you already have the EF 100mmL macro lens, I don't think it would hurt for you to consider moving to the EF-M 28mm Macro and a good EOSM camera to mount it to.  The size difference is quite surprising and the magnification is actually stronger on this lens at 1:2 although if you are shooting wildlife instead of teeth, you'll find that the added focal length of the 100mm lens will be beneficial. I often carry the 28mm lens on an EOSM when I'm traveling about because I love Macros of critters etc but I can also stitch images together from this lens to capture VERY sharp landscapes and architecture shots.
.

EOSM + EF 100mmL Macro lens

EOSM + EF 100mmL Macro lens

EOSM + EF-M 28mm Macro lens

EOSM + EF-M 28mm Macro lens
.
Below are two examples from the 28mm Macro lens showing how easy it is to take multiple shots and stitch them together.  There's less distortion from this lens compared to other 'wide' lenses because it equates to about 45mm with the APS-C crop.   As far as Macro lenses go this is a WIDE MACRO lens but as far as general photography, it's 28mm which technically classifies it as WIDE, even though its focal length is closer to 45mm.  Just remember than on your APS-C cameras your 100mm is closer to 160mm.
.

28mm macro (2x image vertical panorama)

28mm macro (2x image vertical panorama)

SprK wrote:

Thank you for the detailed reply

I feel that the 28mm, due to its focusing distance, which is going to be rather short in order to get down to 1:1

It shoots at both 1x (1:1) and also at 1.2x at ultra close distance (Super Macro) which is closer and tighter than the 100mmL lens can get. Canon likes to refer to this aspect of the 28mm Macro lens as "Going beyond Life Size".  The differences in the results from either of these lenses isn't easy to demonstrate here.

is going to be out of the question for dental use, as I 99% of the time shoot live patients and teeth before extraction...

Yes, I assumed that was what you wanted to do... The only reason I posted images of extracted teeth is because I had taken them last week.  But I can take pictures with the lens inside my mouth of my teeth that are more detailed than the images my dentist's specialized camera can produce. I've simply elected not to post images here from the inside of my mouth.  I can't do that with the 100mm lens. Not only does it not fit in my mouth but the MFD is about a foot away.

I like its other uses though.

My concern with the M50+100mm Macro+Adaptor+Ring Light is whether this is going to be a bit difficult to balance properly - front weight issues etc.

As I said, it's front-heavy, especially on a light bodied EOSm when the Ring Flash is attached to the 100mmL lens. The added weight and bulk of the battery pack and the ring-flash is why I don't carry it around like this with the ring flash on it all the time. But it's a fairly light system compared to using the lens on a DSLR. The best results from the 100mmL lens are from a Full Frame DSLR. The results and focal length you are getting from your APS-C cameras will be the same as on an EOSM. One advantage I can envision is that you can tap the Magnify icon on the screen to zoom in to 5x or even 10x magnification to be certain you are getting the specific details you need. This applies to either lens.
.
One of the things I like about the 28mm Macro is that it's so small, light and short that I can simply rest the edge of the lens against something to add stabilization and that's much harder to do with the 100mm lens unless I have sufficient light or complete lockdown on a tripod.  There's other reasons why this lens is interesting and there's few wide-macros out there in the first place.  But the contrast and color are certainly notable.

.

28mm Macro Lens - A newborn baby skink from the smallest species of lizard here. Take a look at your own fingers to see just how tiny it was.  Click on the image to see it larger with more detail.

28mm Macro Lens - MFD on a silver dollar.

28mm Macro Lens - Poppy seeds... the kind you get on a muffin or a pie.

28mm Macro Lens - Edge of a diamond. To be fair, it wasn't a tiny one.

I rarely get to photograph Arachnids on Arachnids but this image still surprises me.

28mm Macro Lens - Air Bubbles in 45 million year old amber.

28mm Macro Lens - A juvenile Harlequin Bug. Slight crop - Insect Size was 9mm long.
--
Regards,
Marco Nero.

SprK wrote:

Thank you for the detailed reply

I feel that the 28mm, due to its focusing distance, which is going to be rather short in order to get down to 1:1 is going to be out of the question for dental use, as I 99% of the time shoot live patients and teeth before extraction...

Definitely skip the 28 Macro.  The working distance is waaay to short for what you want to do.

My concern with the M50+100mm Macro+Adaptor+Ring Light is whether this is going to be a bit difficult to balance properly - front weight issues etc.

Any of the threee cameras you are looking at will work fine of course.  The EF adapter has a tripod mount on the bottom of it for better balance with the smaller M-series cameras.  I like the Fotodiox Pro Adapter .  I also have the genuine Canon adapter and they both work identically.

Battery life might be a consideration though (the M5 does have a bigger battery).  If you're connected to 120 VAC directly then that won't matter.

Best of luck,

R2

SprK wrote:

Hello All

I need a bit of help to decide on this. I will be updating my still functional but quite old 450D to a new camera. It is still working but I get to buy a new one. My current setup is 100mm Macro lens and the Canon ring flash as I shoot everyday photos at my dental practice.

I am considering Canon M50 with an adaptor for my lens, Canon 77D or Canon 80D

The camera will be used almost 90% for dental photos again, but I would love to be able to take it with me on my trips

What would be your recommendation? Would the m50 + 100mm macro + Ring Flash balance well? How does it stand against 77D or 80D?

Thanks for your help and time!!!

That's easy - M6/M50/M5/M100 with a ef-M 30mm macro lens! That has lighting already on the lens. It's small, non threatening kit. Easy to use too. Just touch to focus. I prefer the m6 as I can still add a flash or other lighting or trigger if I need to.

SprK wrote:

My concern with the M50+100mm Macro+Adaptor+Ring Light is whether this is going to be a bit difficult to balance properly - front weight issues etc.

I don't know what you mean. That's a bogus issue.

You hold the lens in your left hand, the camera in your right. You hold the lens at the center of gravity. What's to "balance"?

The two cameras are very close to the same weight. The M50 Mark II (the Mark II has eye autofocus) is slightly lighter, but you need to add the EF to M adapter.

Even if you are one of those people who holds the camera in both hands with a heavy lens out front, the lens still weighs the same on either camera.  You should find that the cameras are almost identical in weight, and the center of gravity should be very close to the same place.

I regularly use an M6 Mark II with a lens that weighs 1.25 kg. I promise you, "balance" is a fake issue in general, but especially with the cameras you mentioned. Just get the camera. You'll love it.

Felix Sim wrote:

Hi Marco,

thanks for your detailed reply. I came across this thread when researching the canon m50 with the ef m 28mm lends like what you use.

I’m an maxillofacial surgeon and take photos of both intraoral and extra oral photos. I’m realising that this combo of camera and lens is not suited for an external ring flash.

Is the built in light on the lens sufficient for intra oral photos? I assume that the lens would have to be close to the object.

If using regular Macro, you can focus from infinity to VERY CLOSE. But with a slight additional twist of the lens, you can access "Super Macro" which requires the lens to be around an inch from the subject. In Super Macro mode the camera lens can be close enough to bump the subject but the additional magnification is there if needed. Most of the time, regular macro is just fine and offers a little more flexibility.
.
The lens body is a polymer construction which means it's unlikely to damage or chip teeth if it comes in contact with them.  I sometimes use a small flashlight like the one below if examining my teeth.  It has different levels of brightness and a removable USB-rechargeable battery, 
.

Manker E04 Mini 550 lumen LED flashlight

EF-M 28mm f/3.5 IS Macro STM lens - Extracted Tooth .

For extra oral photos such as photos of a fibula harvest, I worry that without a ring flash, natural light alone won’t be bright enough with f18-22 aperture setting.

I’d greatly appreciate your thoughts.

Thanks,

Felix

My dentist said he received an EOS M50 from his wife and was interested in the EF-M 28mm f/3.5 Macro IS STM lens I was using on my M6 when I happened to stop by for a checkup. I had the camera clipped to my belt and he saw it when I removed it. I was experiencing something unusual that nobody was able to explain at the time (nor since). I'd cut the inside of my gumline in my mouth (inside with jaw below a molar) with the sharp edge of a freshly sliced apple.... There was a small flap of skin that felt like it was triggering a nerve every time I touched it so I gently removed it with a surgical scalpel and assumed it would heal. But the wound refused to heal for a week when suddenly the area began to shed shards of bone. They just kept sticking out and when removed, they would reappear. This went on for at least a couple of months before it stopped. My dentist seemed convinced it couldn't be bone and must be a foreign object that had entered the wound... yet he pulled some fragments out himself and was amazed. He gave me a referral to see a maxillofacial specialist... however, the strange wound eventually just closed up and I've not had any issues since, But I did take the opportunity to take a few pictures with the EF-M 28mm Macro lens.
.

EOS M6 + EF-M 28mm Macro lens - a fragment of bone sticking out of the gumline. I think I may have used a tiny external LED flashlight for this image.

EOS M6 + EF-M 28mm Macro lens - One of the bone fragments (about 3mm long)

.
It was easy enough to fit some of the lens into my mouth although fogging the lens was something I needed to be wary of. The end of the lens is tapered as an intentional part of the design so it's not too wide at the end. You'd probably need to handle one with the lens unlocked and extended to see if this is small enough. I'm sure there's other devices available on the market but I haven't looked. My own dentist has a tiny camera with a light on it that's on a flexible cable but the images tend to be low resolution.  I recently tried to photograph a tooth in my mouth with the rather excellent iPhone 13 Pro macro lens but that didn't work out at all since I couldn't get the darned thing into my mouth - plus I couldn't see what I was doing or focusing on.
.

EOS M6 + EF-M 28mm f/3.5 IS Macro STM lens (with lens extended for use)

.
I found the Canon lens LED lights were fine for interior illumination since the light can reflect off the interior surface of the mouth. An extra light can be introduced into the mouth if needed (see above). Personally I found it a little tricky to do myself since I was holding a camera in my mouth with both a dental mirror and sometimes an additional source of illumination for some other images (not shown here). I then needed to position a mirror so I could see the LCD on the rear of the camera... and of course everything reflected is in reverse.  You could see any defects on the tooth surfaces, including surface putting and microfractures... and I used the camera/lens combo to identify a cracked filling plus a damaged tooth from a foreign object that was in my food that was cause for a repair later. The ring-light built into the EF-M 28mm lens is (as you know) not a 'flash' but an LED illuminator - which does help with focus but is designed to be able to illuminate the surfaces of a subject when up close. But it does not have the power of a traditional flash, such as the Ring-Flash below...
.

EOS M + EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro USM lens + Ring-Flash

.
The larger EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM lens requires a much longer shooting distance between the lens and subject. It's a much larger system and it requires the use of the ring-flash for proper illumination. I believe that this is a much harder system to be used handheld although some dentists do use this combo. The EF 100mm Macro lens accepts a 67mm filter thread yet the EF-M 28mm Macro lens takes a 43mm filter thread, demonstrating the difference in optics width.
.
Frankly, I think that Canon never considered the EF-M 28mm Macro lens as a dentistry accessory but it may have a use as one. You can rest the camera lens against the other teeth for added stability if needed and there's no risk of damage due to the high-impact polymer used.  Not sure about hygiene though you could apply a latex dental-dam to the barrel before use for additional cushioning and to avoid contamination.

MadaPrata wrote:

Hi!

I came across your detailed review of the Canon EF-M 28mm f/3.5 IS STM Macro lens when I was trying to understand if it's suitable for dental photography and thought maybe you could give me some advice on this. I am an Orthodontics Post Graduate student so I know that, in my field, photography usually does not require the same level of detail as other areas of dentistry since most pictures are oclusal (full arch), lateral and frontal views and extraoral.

Even after reading your thorough review (thank you!) I'm still not sure if this lens would be adequate for my needs along with my EOS M50 Mark II. I'm afraid of any sort of distortion since dental records are such a vital part of my work but I'm also unsure if the 100mm + adapter + ring light is too heavy as well (as someone previously mentioned on this thread).

The EF 100mm with Ringlight (aka Macrolite) is a large setup that is likely to produce flat looking images but you won't get behind the teeth so frontal photography is likely to be the best way to use this lens.  The Ringlight that fits on the end of the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro lens is a little tricky to use in that it has two illuminator bulbs that are not related to the flash tube itself and they only come on briefly before the flash tube detonates.  You also need to buy an MA-67 Ringlight adapter ring which screws onto the front of the 100mm lens and allows the Ringlight to mount to it.  Because the minimum focus distance is fairly long, it's not possible for me to use this myself on my own teeth.  But dentists do use this lens and setup.  Both the Macrolite Ring Flash and the EF-M 28mm Macro Ringlight have half-moon crescent shaped twin illuminators.  The MacroLite uses a krypton flash tube and the EF-M lens uses a low-powered LED illumination.
.

The original EOS M camera with the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro lens and Ringlight.

EOS R6 + EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro lens + Canon remote trigger.

The Ring Flash when on the EF 100mm Macro lens + EOS M camera.

The tiny EF-M 28mm Macro lens on the EOS M camera - note the reflection which depicts the two half-moon LED illuminators.

.
The distortion from the much wider EF-M 28mm lens is not that bad because it's still about a 45mm (equiv) field of view on an APS-C sensor which all the EOS M cameras use.  There is always going to be some type of distortion when looking at any subject up close so I don't have any objections in relation to the EF-M 28mm lens.   I don't have a side by side comparison for size but the difference in scale and weight between these two Macro lenses is considerable.

In sum my biggest questions are:

1. Is the Canon EF-M 28mm f/3.5 IS STM Macro lens an adequate choice for someone in orthodontics ?

I'm not aware of any camera made specifically for this purpose.  I'm sure there are specialist cameras like the digital ones my own dentist uses on a mechanical arm which uploads directly to the computer to allow immediate viewing on a display screen... but not all dentists and dental surgeries will have access to these.  Previously the EF 100mm f/2,8L Macro lens was the one most Dentists were using but they have a minimum focus distance that is rather long/wide.  The EF-M 28mm Macro lens is a wide-angle Macro lens so you need to get closer to the subject than the 100mm lens allows. My own dentist told me his wife bought him the EF-M 28mm Macro lens for his M50 camera to use.  But this was his personal camera so I have no idea if he used it with patients.  I think this lens is uniquely useful for dental photography and closeups of teeth.   I can't think of a better lens for this purpose and it's not particularly expensive either.  I can fit the lens into my mouth if I need to.  Both Macro and Super Macro settings can be used.  Super Macro requires that you be very close to the tooth surface.

2. Is the LED light sufficient or can/should I add a ring light?

The Ring Light is usually sufficient, especially if there's another light source and you're in a lit room... although I have used the Ringlight without any other light and it can be used by itself - although it's supposed for be there for AF assistance and to offer highlights to a subject.  A lot of gemdealers use this lens for photographing mineral and gemstone specimens.  I will sometimes add a small LED flashlight that is slim or has an L-shape (see the Manker E04 Mini 550 lumen LED flashlight in previous images) if I feel I need to illuminate the area inside my mouth further.

I'm sorry if I didn't grasp everything on the thread above but I'm a novice when it comes to photography and would greatly appreciate your advice on this since you seem to have experience both in dentisty and photography as well.

My experience with dentistry is merely in taking care of my own teeth and using camera lenses to see what's going on with any teeth of concern.  I collect fossil teeth from prehistoric animals as well so there's that.  I also like using this lens for photographing coins but that's just some of the applications this lens was designed for.  Below are images taken with the EF-M 28mm Macro lens of teeth in my collection as well as a recent Dental Experience which unfortunately required extraction.
.

A fossilized tooth from a prehistoric Woolly Rhinoceros.

The tooth of a Velociraptor (Dinosaur).

This is the foreign object embedded into a piece of "100% Breast Chicken" that cracked one of my teeth, leading to extraction recently (see below).It was likely a fragment of chicken bone that had the consistency of actual stone.

Here's how well it was hidden in the chicken.  It is best identified as "petrified bone with the consistency of stone".  Not sure how that got in there.  The food company, which is a famous one, voluntarily paid for the dental repair - but I recently lost the tooth.

Another object that showed up in an UBER delivered meal recently.  A stainless steel screw that was in my fries the other day.  You can see there's a defect in the head which probably caused it to come loose when the fires basket was slammed on the counter repeatedly.

If I had bitten into this I'd be dealing with more dental problems than before.   It's food inclusions like this one that have been the sole cause of damage to any of my teeth.  On this occasion there was no harm done.  The yellow matter is Chicken Salt.

A scan of my teeth in which I identified a problem.  The red arrows point to an area where a repair was located that ran below the gumline.  There was not pain when this image was captured.  This tooth was later removed about 4 months or so afterwards... the defect in the image showed where decay was setting in below the composite material that was used for repair.

After the tooth was removed, the area was so traumatized from the extraction that ulceration had set in and this ended up exposing the actual bone from my upper jawbone (ie skull). It took a month and a half to heal over.  This was on the inside of my mouth, not the outside.

The extracted tooth.  The composite filling is on the right side.  A large cavity had formed below the filling,  I'm really lucky this was right up the back of my mouth.

I'm not sure anyone here would know just how much pain was involved with this tooth before it was extracted.

Removing the composite filling, there's now a clear view down into the root structure and related decay of the affected tooth. The previous repair on this tooth cracked when I bit into that piece of bone (see pics above) and then decay set in, way below the gumline, between teeth... making it impossible to detect.  I'm surprised the tooth didn't break during extraction.

.
The downside of placing a lens inside the mouth is that it can fog up with the warm breath coming in contact with it.  Using a dental mirror (which you can see was applied when examining the gum damage and exposed bone above) was likewise tricky because it will fog up as well.  But these images should give you some idea of what sort of images are possible with this lens.
.
For me personally, I can upload images to my iPhone or iPad and show my dentist so he can see exactly what is concerning me.  I've taken very good care of my teeth since childhood so it seems terribly sad when I crack a tooth on a foreign object. I have twice damaged teeth (rear molars) on pieces of stone (possibly granite) that was on the outside of macadamia nuts.  My guess is that it was caused by a grinding wheel used to remove the shells or that it was used to crush the salt and ended up mixed with the salt on the nuts.
.
If I were running a business in Dentistry or Orthodontics there's quite a few different options available, from the lenses to industry purposed cameras that are part of the clinic equipment (like the ones on a mechanical arm that my own dentist uses).