Affordable close-up rig?

[Paul Howell]

I'm planning to be hand-holding for most of this (it's close-ups of body parts of strangers, so a tripod setup is out,

In you price range I would use a Mamyia C220 but get a body then a 105mm 3.5 if still within budget maybe a prism finder.

 

[hospadar]

If you think you are going to photograph a field of diagonal about 6" or 150mm: that is a magnification of about m = 1:4 on 35mm, and 1:2 on 6x6.

You will have a lens to subject distance of about d_object = f * (1 + 1/m), so for "normal" focal length lenses of 50mm and 80mm, that's about 250mm and 240mm respectively. IOW if you use normal length lenses on both formats, the lens to subject distance doesn't change much, which makes sense since they both have "normal" angles of view.

If you use longer-than-normal focal length lenses, you gain more working distance, but you need a lot of extension (focus travel or bellows).

I think this distance is about at the close limit of Rolleinars, and attainable with a Mamiya C with the 80mm lens, but not with the longer lenses like 135 or 180mm. Attached is a table from a Mamiya C manual that shows the minimum field size achievable with each lens.

For close ups of people (body art?) where you have a 3-d, not perfectly still, subject and are hand holding, I'd really be concerned about speed of operation and of parallax error in focusing, that is focusing on some spot that isn't quite where the taking lens is pointed.

I understand the desire not to buy more stuff than one needs, but there are good reasons why people use SLRs for close up work. I think either a parallax compensated close up like the Rolleinar, or an SLR with a normal lens + close up, or an actual macro lens, is indicated. If you did look at medium format SLRs, they unfortunately aren't cheap any more, but MF macro lenses are often surprisingly not overpriced (I suppose they are in less demand from the "must have fast lenses for blur" users).

Ahh thanks for the field of view charts (and @runswithsizzers for the rolleinar chart) that's exactly what I needed. I was looking into mamiya C's with longer lenses but looks like I need to go shorter.

I'm [generally, intellectually] curious about shooting sheet film, but I'm not set up at all to process or scan it and I think for this project it would be inappropriate (too slow, no tripod) - I was kinda thinking a horseman with the rotating back set up with a groundglass and a rollfilm holder might get it done (and wow I would love to have one), but that's for sure out of my budget on this project).

Probably whether I go mamiya C/rolleinar 3/or 35mm macro lens will just come down to what I can get the best deal on in the next week or two - I'll post back!

 

[Dan Fromm]

VERY helpful thoughts - some initial thoughts/responses:

I'm planning to be hand-holding for most of this (it's close-ups of body parts of strangers, so a tripod setup is out, I think that rules out any TLRs without at least some indication of parallax error as well as any rangefinders or press cameras). I'm not terribly concerned about the different-angle-of-view problem of a TLR as long as I'm not mangling the framing. It also seems like if I could get one of the longer lenses (the 180 seems relatively available) on a mamiya C33/C330 that might help to minimize the angle-of-view difference since I'd be further from the subject.

Flat field of a true macro lens is also not required.

Image-quality wise, 35mm would be just fine (I'm not planning on making huge prints), but I was hoping to be able to contact print 6x6 (or bigger) negs. If i change my mind and go 35mm, I'll just grab something with at least 1:4 for my SRT-Super, any ole boring zoom lens or MF macro prime would probably be fine for this (but why do that when I could be having FUN with medium format!!?!?!).
able to get a full kit for much under $400

TLR? Handheld? Stupid, possibly insane.

Give what you need to accomplish, the ideal rig would be a 35mm SLR with a macro lens that will focus to 1:2 on its own mount and flash illumination. Autofocus would be helpful but is not necessary; just dial the magnification wanted and focus by teetering in and out. TTL auto flash would be helpful, but I've done this for > 50 years with small fixed output flashes; I took calibration shots to find the right aperture given magnification and film speed, made a table. Depending on working distance desired, lens focal length >= 50 mm. Around 100 mm is usually preferable.

If you have no gear, buy used. I'm a Nikon person, haven't shopped older Nikon digital SLRs recently. One of my friends who used Canon equipment died recently. I've seen thousands of his macro shots taken with micro 4/3 (I think) digital Canon SLRs (EOS Rebel T5i, EOS 20D); the shots he kept are all publication quality. These cameras and macro lenses to fit them (friend used a 50/2.5 Canon AF macro) are quite inexpensive these days. No reason to get the latest most best most expensive, obsolete digital gear is better than good enough.

 

[pdccamerqs]

HI Hospadar,

You've gotten some really good advice so far. Let me see if I can add something.

First, let me know if I have your assumptions correct:

1) You already have a Rollei 2.8F.
2) You want to take photos of stranger's body parts handheld, no tripod.
3) Your anticipated field of view is about 6" - 8".
3) You would like to use a MF film camera (ie. not digital)

Here are a few more questions which could be helpful in coming up with a potential solution:

1) What is the size of the final image you want to make, and will it be printed in a darkroom using traditional processes, or will you be shooting film and then scanning to digital?
2) If you will be using traditional/darkroom processes, will you be printing the final images yourself?

What I am getting at here, is that depending on the final size of the image you want to make, if you have control over the cropping of the final image, why bother getting so close to the subject in the first place? I assume you are talking about photographing elbows, knees, hands, etc. as opposed to tiny body parts like moles or scars. My point is that the minimum focusing distance of the standard Rolleiflex 2.8F is 1 meter (3.3 feet). Shoot from a meter or more away, don't worry about cropping super precisely in the camera. Take the photo and then crop later in the darkroom or on the computer. If you are worried about parallax, simply back up a little more or raise the camera a bit - like 1-2 inches. Your 2.8F has a wonderfully sharp lens capable of very high resolution images, and the 6x6 negative has plenty of room for some pretty big enlargements - at least 20" x30" or maybe even 30"x40" with fine grained film should be possible.

This would be the lowest cost option ($0).

Best of luck,

Paul

 

[wiltw]

I just thought of one situation where using a SLR might have an advantage over a TLR, and that would be if you use polarizing filters to help control reflections. With some filters -- like a deep red, or neutral density -- TLRs are better than SLRs because the filter does not make your viewfinder go dark. But with a polarizing filter, it is far easier to use if you can see the effect of the filter in the viewfinder.

BIG advantage of SLR, there is no PARALLAX ERROR, difference between when the film lens sees vs. what the viewfinder lens sees...big issue at macro or even very close distance non-macro, affects the framing!

 

[Dan Fromm]

I just thought of one situation where using a SLR might have an advantage over a TLR, and that would be if you use polarizing filters to help control reflections. With some filters -- like a deep red, or neutral density -- TLRs are better than SLRs because the filter does not make your viewfinder go dark. But with a polarizing filter, it is far easier to use if you can see the effect of the filter in the viewfinder.

What? Working closeup requires depth of field, i.e., stopping down. Available darkness won't do. Working handheld requires enough light for shutter speed to control motion (operator + camera, possibly subject). The alternative is using a flash powerful enough to overpower ambient light. The OP's ideas about gear are, um, suboptimal.

When we respond to requests about how to do something we shouldn't validate a bad idea, we should present better ones.