Camera for Macro

[jcuknz]

I am suprised that John has not come upon the basic option that you use the zoom for tight framing rather than the crazy carry-on of going in close ... but becuase often [ certainly the older long lens ] the longer lens cannot focus that close we use a moderate 2 dioptre CU lens to overcome this problem. MY FZ50 only focuses to two metres at 430mm full zoom but add a 500mm CU lens and it focus's to between 20 and 13 inches [500 > 330mm? ]

Grahame brought it to our attention awhile back that it can be better to stay back a bit and crop rather than get in close ... I forget the reasoning he gave but it works

With OIS and the simple solution of using a two or ten second delay release there is no problem in using the longer lens ... or alternatively a short burst so while the first may have camera shake from pressing the trigger the subsequent frames are fine .. it costs virtually nothing to work this way.

[ajohnw]

Hi John,

But what are Nicola's requirements?

From the info given with respect to the 'subjects' they will be between 1 and 25cm (10 to 250mm) in size.

So if we take the smallest size of 1cm that raises two significant questions;

a) Do you need a rig that will produce an image similar as shown of the 1cm subject in post 10?

OR

b) Do you need a rig that can photograph the 1cm subject at a far greater magnification so that you can accurately record the fatigue crack in it for record purposes?

I would suggest there is no way that you can beat Nicola's requirements to death and come to any worthwhile conclusion without knowing information such as that in a) and b) above


Grahame

I have spent many hours scanning bridge cameras for one truly suitable for general macro work and always find the same problem they have to be far too close to the subject. As to A and B she has given sizes. I do mean many hours over several years as well this includes spending time looking at the picture quality which has improved on some of late but at long zoom settings ????. As I have mentioned before I switched from dslr's to mostly using compacts many years ago but eventually got fed up with the problems which I feel were slowly getting worse in a number of ways. I still favour that approach so keep looking. Macro has always been one of the considerations.

What I haven't done is bought one and hoped John's solution would work. They fall short in other way anyway. I've been tempted several times more so of late as image quality has improved on some but as I see it there are still problems. The catch on close up lenses is that their effect relates to the actual focal length of the lens they are on not it's FF equivalent. On the other hand they gain from having much smaller sensors - in this respect. The other aspect is that they tend to have a rather long min focal distances at longer zoom setting. I think we all know that ultra wide zoom range lenses have their problems anyway. Feel free to disagree.

Actually I have been known to buy 2. Both went onto ebay shortly after I bought them. I also still own 2. A swing lens Coolpix and a Dimage Both of these do have their problems but in some ways are better than modern offerings. ISO is one of those problems and also more extreme behaviour when the dynamic range is too great. I also have a Canon that is interesting. Pity about the optics even given it's now rather low pixel count. It's more recent than the other 2 but comes from a time when the optics in this type of camera deteriorated. I suspect this happened as people generally no longer used film and images were only viewed at rather small sizes anyway.

As to Nicola's requirements one of them looks to be higher quality to me but there is no mention of final image size. Afraid I feel she will only get that with a larger sensor and that is only easily and cheaply available on a camera with a removable lens as far as I am aware. There was a period where large sensors were beginning to appear in small easy to use cameras but then along came super zooms which effectively rule that out just has the larger sensor bridges now tend to top out at 300mm rather than say 1000mm.

Anyway this is all my opinion. People are welcome to have others but believe me I really have looked into this area for a long time. The trouble is from my point of view a camera that can go to 300mm is of interest so I keep getting tempted but certain aspects of the image quality tend to put me off.

John
-

[Stagecoach]

For the two John's .................................

I'm looking for a camera that will be used in an office and in a laboratory, to get mainly pictures of mechanical or electrical parts, of about 1 to 25 cm (biggest size)

So from this statement we can assume the following;

a) Getting in close to the 1cm parts is not going to scare them as they are not alive

It's also going to give the advantage of less blur caused by camera to subject movement.

b) Being a laboratory it is extremely likely ambient lighting is going to be pretty good, and there's a good possibility of portable basic lighting being available.

What I'm saying is why this obsession regarding working distance when the OP's subjects are lifeless
My screw did not rush off as I approached it and as can be seen with absolutely no effort at all it's not badly lit.

[Nicola]

CiC members always surprise me!
Thank you very much Guys, I really appreciate your endeavor to help me! Your feedback is really useful for me.
My thought is that, since manufacturers don't sell compact camera or bridge designed to excel on macro, and even don't write magnification ratio on the specs, I must go to something of higher level.
Looking at 4\3 cameras I found some good compromises: for instance, the Olympus E-PL5 with 14-40 for 350 eur could work.
Sensor size, being 4\3, is much bigger than compact or bridge (usually 1\1.7 inch), and that will for sure increase the picture quality. Stabilization and AF system will also help, but mainly the moving screen will be appreciated by most of the users.
I liked also the possibility to buy also the close up lens MCON‑P01 for few dozens of euro, or if needed, later on, a real macro 1:1 lens (zuiko 35mm f\3.5 macro).
Finally the capability to carry an external flash is not annoying. Does it make sense?

thank you very much indeed
Nicola

[Geoff F]

I tried a few tests today.

Firstly using my Fuji X20 on the standard macro setting at the closest distance photographing an 8 mm drill; handheld with normal office type lighting plus a desk lamp, with daylight quality bulb, placed closer.



And the same camera using the Super Macro option at around 25 mm distance.



Then as a totally different alternative, a 7D with 180 mm macro lens on a tripod and with cable release.



The close focusing Fuji shots have a bit of lens shadow, even with a carefully placed additional light source, and the auto WB is a bit off. But the focus depth is reasonably good. I shot at around 45 degrees angle, as would be common for this sort of shot.

The lens test card on the left was just placed there to give an indication of general quality. The lines are spaced a little further apart as they go towards the top. The ruler is in mm.

All straight from the camera, shot Raw but with no editing. The Fuji was F8 Iso 400 while the 180 macro was F11.

[Stagecoach]

CiC members always surprise me!
Thank you very much Guys, I really appreciate your endeavor to help me! Your feedback is really useful for me.
My thought is that, since manufacturers don't sell compact camera or bridge designed to excel on macro, and even don't write magnification ratio on the specs, I must go to something of higher level.
Nicola

Nicola,

In my opinion it all comes down to what your expectations are with regard to the 'loose' term Macro. Without defining reasonable criteria it does not make sense to me to make comments such as 'manufacturers don't sell compact or bridge cameras designed to excel on macro'

Excel at what? They excel in DoF if that's a priority to the users requirements.

A camera system that you can add a true Macro 1:1 in the future could be a good option.

Grahame

[jcuknz]

With all these restrictions why not use a magnifying glass in front of any normal point and shoot camera set on macro mode?

LOL ... you may not need to set it to macro mode and generally a CU lens on a short focal length lens is a waste of effort. It can though be an interesting experiment ... the other source are the plastic 'hobby' glasses which are quite cheap usually. EDIT. These camera which focus close usually only do that at the wide angle seting of whatever zoom they have so you don't get the tight framing.

Lets work some figures for fun ....
Assume you have a lens which focuses down to 5cm ... that can be expressed in dioptres and is 1000/50=20d
Now lets add a four dioptre CU lens and the rig beccomes a 24 dioptre rig. 1000/24=41.666mm

Try it with the camera and see what you gain in magnification in moving it 9mm closer ... better to do it in editing and save the possible degradation caused by adding the CU lens I think .

However, and all bridge cameras owners with their superzooms know this, add the CU lens to a decent length zoom, say x12 upwards, and the CU lens overcomes the usual inability of the lens to focus close and we use the narrow angle of the long lens to achieve tight framing from somewhat back. ie ... with a two dioptre and my x12 zoom which normally only focuses to two metres I work at about 330mm and get a 38mm subject filling the screen. Modern superzooms I suspect can focus closer than my older FZ50 so one can fill the screen with a smaller object or perhaps use a less powerful CU lens ... I don't know because I only have a 280mm zoom on my MFT camera against the 430mm of the FZ50. .... and I'm not going back to a bridge camera

[jcuknz]

Nicola #24 You are quite wrong in saying that bridge cameras are not made to do what you want to do as I have explained a couple of times in this thread from a decade or so using bridge cameras ... even my Nikon 5700 which came out around 2002 or so is still capable today of meeting your needs. The only thing it lacks in comparison to today's camera is Image Stabilisation My little beetle was taken in 2003, insert shows the full frame



But I applaud your choice of MFT but when I added it to my stable immediately I noticed the lack of depth of field after using a bridge camera and its long focal length lens and with the kit lens you will not get the tight framing that a bridge would give you. However you can crop to achieve without the need for a macro lens and likely a short extension tube the 10mm would be all you need for big close-ups. The trouble is that taking a lens off to insert the tube means openning the camera and sensor to dust ... which is why I have the 14 -140 zoom which is beyond your budget. I have an interchangable lens camera but I try to avoid changing lenses on principle. It is there for the odd occasion when I NEED to change lens not as a frequent option.

So I think you are on the right track for the wrong reasons

edit ...You should find that the on-board flash will do all you and your inexperienced folk need so forget about an external flash, mine rarely get used ... but one tip I suggest you adjust the flash strength to minus one stop.

The other accessory for the Pen is a Slik Mini-tripod so that in low light situations people can use a long exposure with ambient light as I mostly do, and train them to use the 10 or is it 12 second delay with Olympus and to not touch the camera after pressing the trigger.

[jcuknz]

IMO the photo of the 10mm bolt in #10 is a joke ... was it taken from the Moon or on earth?
This is what you need to be able to do similar to #25



This is full frame as shot with the Nikon 5700 in 2005. Locknut on a monopod I made.

I cannot be feel that people without the gear really don't know what to produce.

[jcuknz]

Further to the E-PL5 ... not sure about the E350 figure but another commeent ... good as OLympus is reputed to be in producing good jpg files I have Panasonic and when I first got my G3 with its fully articulated screen as opposed to the OLy with only a tilting one along with its ability to place the point oif focus on the touch screen where I wanted I took this one of my eye, helped becuase I also had a cable release for Pany cameras.



So my comment about not getting tight framing with the kit lens was quite wrong and I doubt if you will need the extension tube either

edit ... my doctor also uses a Pany P&S to take big close-ups of my body when I visit, had an absess in my gum last time and I was most impressed at the print he quickly produced for me to take to my dentist. so I fear the old standing norms are going out the window with the advance of technology.

[William W]

. . . I'm looking for a camera that will be used in an office and in a laboratory, to get mainly pictures of mechanical or electrical parts, of about 1 to 25 cm (biggest size). . .

The camera will be used by many persons, even with no photographic skills, so I suppose that a DSLR will be less user friendly.

This is another reason why I would prefer to avoid DSLR.

About DoF, I have no special request. The wider it is, the better is.

About "low light condition" I mean interior lightening, since avoiding to use tripod or additional lights will make the use easier and faster.

Actually, probably not.

It will likely be MORE efficient to have a Camera and Flash rigged permanently ON a Tripod, with (for example the Camera in Program Mode and the Flash on Auto Mode) and maintained (permanently) at a Set Location on a Bench with a Tabletop Background and then for the various people to bring the items that they need to photograph to that bench.

That scenario I suspect will be MORE user-friendly to the less technical minded operatives and will be easier to learn by rote.

WW

[Stagecoach]

IMO the photo of the 10mm bolt in #10 is a joke ... was it taken from the Moon or on earth?

John, did you actually read that post and the writing under the images?

I would agree it's a joke if it was an entry of mine as an experienced macro photographer into a 'Macro' competition. (macro used loosely as per OP)

Would it be a joke if it was produced by someone with minimal photographic experience other than switching a P&S camera on and selecting 'macro' needing a picture of that 1cm item to refer to in a report or send to a supplier so they can recognise what you were trying to explain on the phone?

If the OP had come back and answered the question with something such as;
a) We want the 1cm item to be able to be printed filling a full A4 page at a good quality
or
b) We would want that size item to be full in focus

It was an attempt at finding the criteria the camera is required for with respect to the loose use of macro and reference to 1cm.

[William W]

^

Yes, Grahame: I read the thread twice through and I am unable to get even a loose grip on the FINAL USE of the images and the DETAIL and MAGNIFIATION that is required in each image.

I am GUESSING (always dangerous) that we are not really discussing 1:1 and also that we are not discussing Photo-Art Quality Prints - that's the predicate of my guess that permanent rig, camera lens tripod table-top background and flash - would be the best solution.

But we really need precision information from the OP to go any further, I think.

WW

[ajohnw]

Nicola #24 You are quite wrong in saying that bridge cameras are not made to do what you want to do as I have explained a couple of times in this thread from a decade or so using bridge cameras ... even my Nikon 5700 which came out around 2002 or so is still capable today of meeting your needs. The only thing it lacks in comparison to today's camera is Image Stabilisation My little beetle was taken in 2003, insert shows the full frame



But I applaud your choice of MFT but when I added it to my stable immediately I noticed the lack of depth of field after using a bridge camera and its long focal length lens and with the kit lens you will not get the tight framing that a bridge would give you. However you can crop to achieve without the need for a macro lens and likely a short extension tube the 10mm would be all you need for big close-ups. The trouble is that taking a lens off to insert the tube means openning the camera and sensor to dust ... which is why I have the 14 -140 zoom which is beyond your budget. I have an interchangable lens camera but I try to avoid changing lenses on principle. It is there for the odd occasion when I NEED to change lens not as a frequent option.

So I think you are on the right track for the wrong reasons

edit ...You should find that the on-board flash will do all you and your inexperienced folk need so forget about an external flash, mine rarely get used ... but one tip I suggest you adjust the flash strength to minus one stop.

The other accessory for the Pen is a Slik Mini-tripod so that in low light situations people can use a long exposure with ambient light as I mostly do, and train them to use the 10 or is it 12 second delay with Olympus and to not touch the camera after pressing the trigger.

2/3 in CCD camera John. Reminds me of work and that sounds similar to Nicola's problem and is one of the reason I suspect she may not find newer is better They were using a my camera is great - the guy that bought it- look at the zoom range and pixel count etc. I took in a swing lens Nikon coolpix. They bought one a week later and used it well past it's sell by date. In fact I am not sure it has ever been replaced. Cameras of this period have modest zoom range and relatively hight quality optics considering the sensor and pixel sizes. The pixel counts are adequate for modest image sizes that are usually shown on PC screens etc and there is even plenty of scope for cropping. Some are even ok at 100% resolution. Times change unfortunately mostly as common man buys things based on numbers and some of the numbers on compacts/bridges have been ridiculous for a long time now. Close up lenses - some lack a filter thread. Some have an adapter that provides a filter thread.

I posted a link that relates to close up lenses for Brian. It's an area that I feel should interest him rather than a new camera. He could compare the specs of the SX 50 focus distances with his own camera. Interests me too but I'm busy on other things at the moment.

The use is a bit extreme

http://www.photomacrography.net/foru...=bridge+camera

Then there is this one - might be user skill problems or ?????

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51363419


John
-

[xpatUSA]

Thank you all very much for the feedback, I'm sorry, I've not write enough about my needs.

Trying to clarify, I'm looking for a camera that will be used in an office and in a laboratory, to get mainly pictures of mechanical or electrical parts, of about 1 to 25 cm (biggest size). For smaller parts or details we have laboratory microscopes or endoscopes.
The camera will be used by many persons, even with no photographic skills, so I suppose that a DSLR will be less user friendly. This is an other reason why I would prefer to avoid DSLR.

I think that you should seriously consider a micro four-thirds camera with 1) a large swiveling LCD 2) optical stabilization 3) a good quality zoom lens, perhaps 14-45mm, and a set of extension rings (that connect the lens electrically to the camera) 4) a magnified view, e.g. x10, for manual focus adjustment.

I myself also have a 45mm Panasonic Leica macro-Elmarit lens which is pretty serious for such work:










The number 5 is approx 4mm in height!

Images by my Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1. If you don't need Video, the G1 model is more suitable to your needs and a whole lot cheaper! Later models than the GH1 introduced more complication and some un-needed market-oriented functions, IMHO.

[ajohnw]

Just for amusement Ted. This is an E-P3 with Olympus's 14-42mm on 2nd version which is current and has a maco ish min focal distance. Not the super compact one but still collapsable. Taken at F8 and the shot well illustrates the problem of larger sensors.

Full Frame reduced and it will go a bit closer.



65% quality crop to keep the kb low.



It's a very capable lens. Taken with a led desk light and built in flash hand held.

The DOF problem is why I suggested a Nikon 1 - 3 stops rather than 2 but still well short of the DOF of 1/2" and less sensored bridge cameras.

The E-P3 is or was fairly expensive but the same lens can be fitted to all of their m 4/3 range.

John
-

[jcuknz]

We could go on for ever all of us putting forward our ideas on how it should be done but what caught my eye in John's #35 ....
Image stabilisation in MFT comes two ways Panasonic mostly has it in the lens while Olympus has IBIS or In Body Image Stabilisation which means one can use possibly cheaper lenses which do not have stabilisation built into them.
I have both makes principly for the IS system ... adding a cheap OLympus to use with my legacy [ older film period ] lenses with Panasonic as my 'fist choice'.
I have never used "x10 viewing for focusing' as it is easier and quicker to place the little square in the finder on the spot on the subject using the "focus, hold half trigger, and re-frame" technique but both Pany and Oly have touch screens which I used for my eye shot ... one of the rare times I haved ... but the feature is there to be used.

I "liked" Bill's #31 becuase it makes sense to have everything organised for anybody to place and object on a 'table', zoom in on it, and press the trigger [The principle is akin to the 'passport photo booths' to be found all over the world].... also assuming that some of the subjects are metalic it permits the setting up of a simple 'light tent' for better rendition ... I normally work by ambient light because my "studio' has large windows on three walls and I like the soft light [ except when the morning sun is shining into the room ]

Yes Grahame I did skip over #10 so I'm sorry and I missed your point.