Digital camera for Macro

[cliveh]

What is the best digital camera for Macro and ultra close imaging?

 

[Dismayed]

Ultra-close imaging will require a good set of extension tubes.

As for camera - how large do you intend to print? Or will you display only on monitors? Will you use the camera for other purposes, or just macro photography? Are you looking for a lens recommendation, too? What is your budget?

 

[runswithsizzers]

I would start from the lens+accessories and work backwards. First, what magnifcation is wanted? Will the subject be flat or 3-D? How important is working distance? Those answers may point towards a lens and or a bellows (or extension tubes). And finally what camera works with the rest?

The Coin Imaging website <https://coinimaging.com> has done a lot of lens testing which shows the "best" lens at one magnification may not be the best at some other magnification, especially if corner sharpness is needed. On <this webpage> you first select your expected magnification, then you can view his list of 22 macro lenses rated from best to worst.

One camera-related feature I think would be very helpful for closeup work is focus stacking. I have never tried it, but examples I have seen show focus stacking is very effective at getting more depth-of-field than is possible using ordinary techniques.

 

[MattKing]

This is one application where a smaller sensor may actually be better than a larger one.
Just as it is often easier to obtain high quality results with macro and 35mm film than it is with medium format or large format film.
A few years ago I might have suggested avoiding electronic viewfinders. Now I might suggest preferring them.
A camera that is easily tethered to a tablet or laptop computer is a great option for setups that are likely to be re-used. That is just one example of a factor that may actually turn out to be as important as the number of pixels in a sensor or how available lenses behave.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Clive, I have no idea exactly what your

Macro and ultra close imaging?

mean, but early this year I had to solve a similar problem.

I have a project for which I have to shoot live fish in aquaria @ 1:2 to 1:1. I used to do this with a Nikon Fm2n, flashes and slow Kodachrome. I still have a set (55/2.8, 105/2.8, 200/4) of AIS MicroNikkors, all manual focus, of course, and didn't want to replace them with spiffy but expensive new macro lenses. So I bought a used Nikon D810 ($ ouch!) and run it on manual with the ISO turned down as far as it will go. When I achieve good focus the results are better than good enough but in dim lighting focusing on moving subjects is difficult.

When I was thinking about what to get Emmanuel Bigler suggested that I get a mirrorless that would work (stop down) with my manual focus MicroNikkors.

I didn't do that because of prices (several ouches), strongly suggest that you try out a mirrorless before committing to a camera body. A self-illuminated electronic viewfinder just has to be more useful than a ground glass when ambient is dim.

 

[MattKing]

If your resolution requirements aren't huge, my wife's Olympus OM-D works really well with my Olympus OM 50mm f/3.5 macro lens. And I can view the image on my tablet computer's screen and trigger the shutter release by touching the screen.

 

[bdial]

I’ve been using a Z6 with a Nikon PB4 bellows, the combination works pretty well. For optics, I’m using either a 55mm macro, or an 80mm enlarging lens with a m39 to Nikon F mount adapter.

I don’t know if it qualifies as “best” but it works well. The camera has a tilting monitor so you don’t have to squint through the viewfinder,or tethered use is possible.

 

[cliveh]

I believe I could produce the focus stacking effect in Photoshop using layers and gradient masks, but as manual focus variations are required for this in camera, could I do this using a Canon IXUS 185? I'm not sure it has a manual focus override. Any thoughts about getting round this if it doesn't?

 

[Dan Fromm]

I believe I could produce the focus stacking effect in Photoshop using layers and gradient masks, but as manual focus variations are required for this in camera, could I do this using a Canon IXUS 185? I'm not sure it has a manual focus override. Any thoughts about getting round this if it doesn't?

Hmm. I'm allowed to use our local natural history museum's facilities. The fish department uses Nikon AF SLRs, AF macro lenses, Nikon Camera Control Pro 2 and Helicon. I don't think we have one, but Helicon makes a device adjusts focus and fires the camera, makes stackable images automatically. Entomology uses a low magnification Leica digital microscope that does stacking automatically to order. There are many ways.

 

[wiltw]

I believe the quality of the OPTICS is one of the first decisions to great photography,,,if the lens does not deliver, no film or sensor will ever make it better.
Extension tubes do NOTHING except increase magification of the macro subject. So if the lens does not perform, the tubes do nothing to further hurt or improve what the lens fundamentally cannot do.

A conventional (non-Macro) lens is not optimized for great performance at macro distance...it is optimized for distances greater than about 9*FL. So all of its inadequacies at closer distances are simply magnified when using that lens with extension tubes.
Conventional lenses might not have well controlled flatness of field, and its inadequacies might again be magnified when using that lens with extension tubes to photograph flat objects like postage stamps.

This is one application where a smaller sensor may actually be better than a larger one.

I will express a different opinion on this point.
From the perspective of 'classic macro' in which the point of the photo is to take a Scaled copy of something at a specific magnification (e.g. 0.5X, or 1:2) a larger image area allows more of the subject to be captured at that scale!

1. 14.5mm x 22mm APS-C sensor captures a 29mm x 44mm around subject at 0.5X
2. 24mm x 36mm FF sensor captures a 48mm x 72mm around subject at 0.5X
3. 42 x 56mm MF sensor captures an 84mm x 112mm around subject at 0.5X

If the subject is 30mm x 30mm, the first sensor in the lens does not capture the entire subject at 1:1, the second sensor captures the subject fully in one of two directions at 1:1, and the third sensor captures the entire subject at 1:1 along with an area surrounding the subject (important to do, for some shots).

If you are simply 'filling the frame' with the same 10mm x 12mm subject using all three formats, and all three had 50MPixel sensors, it comes down to which lens delivers the highest detail resolution per subject area.If all three sensors used the same FL lens with the same detail resolution per subject area, the working distance is identical for the same subject magnification, and the redered detail would be identical. And the only difference would be how ungainly it is to work with MF vs. APS sized body.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have a set of extension tubes in Minolta/Sony A mount that I use with a 50mm 2.8 macro Sigma or a 100 2.8 Minolta macro on a Sony A77II you can shoot staked shots in Auto mode. My other option is a bellows with 100mm bellows lens, it's M42 mount with adaptors I use in on Pentax K2000, Sigma SD14 or Sony A77M. All in all find that the extension tubes work really well.

 

[cliveh]

Guys, I think I have solved my original OP question. Thanks for all your support.

 

[MattKing]

I will express a different opinion on this point.

If you are looking for absolute highest quality and greatest potential for really large output - expense and ease of use be damned - wiltw is probably correct.
But if ease of use and flexibility and reasonableness of cost and normal end output are factors, I stand by my opinion.
clive's "best" is a bit vague.

 

[cliveh]

You are correct Matt, my best is vague, but I think I now know what I want to do and will post an image on a digital gallery for critique when completed.

 

[wiltw]

If you are looking for absolute highest quality and greatest potential for really large output - expense and ease of use be damned - wiltw is probably correct.
But if ease of use and flexibility and reasonableness of cost and normal end output are factors, I stand by my opinion.
clive's "best" is a bit vague.

Since I own APS-C and FF digital, and MF film, (Canon 7DII, Canon 5D, Bronica ETRSi) and can shoot the same macro shot with each of them, I do not see an inherent disadvantage to pulling out the medium format setup to shoot the macro shot!
We will continue to differ in our opinions.

 

[MattKing]

Since I own APS-C and FF digital, and MF film, (Canon 7DII, Canon 5D, Bronica ETRSi) and can shoot the same macro shot with each of them, I do not see an inherent disadvantage to pulling out the medium format setup to shoot the macro shot!
We will continue to differ in our opinions.

So, since you already own everything, reasonableness of cost isn't a factor .
By the way, I don't see medium format digital on the list

 

[wiltw]

So, since you already own everything, reasonableness of cost isn't a factor .
By the way, I don't see medium format digital on the list

I was never sufficiently well off enough to squander my not-infinite money on a desired item which did not increase my desire for better digital mage Quality. Not the same driving forces as had happened in film to drive so many toward medium format for film shooting. Furthermore, it has taken digital until very recently to even offer a digital back equal to the size of 645 format!

 

[Dismayed]

. . . Extension tubes do NOTHING except increase magification of the macro subject. . .

Of course the quality of the lens matters, but additional magnification is a REQUIREMENT for ultra close imaging. So to downplay the importance of additional extension is absurd.

 

[wiltw]

Of course the quality of the lens matters, but additional magnification is a REQUIREMENT for ultra close imaging. So to downplay the importance of additional extension is absurd.

I was not downplaying its role, I was pointing out its only effect on IQ was to magnify the lens defects; ergo, to get 'the best' extension tube has virtually no effect on IQ (compared to a cheap aftermarket unit).

 

[Dan Fromm]

I was not downplaying its role, I was pointing out its only effect on IQ was to magnify the lens defects; ergo, to get 'the best' extension tube has virtually no effect on IQ (compared to a cheap aftermarket unit).

Interesting thought. In my experience, extension tubes with reflective interiors generate much more flare than tubes with properly flocked or grooved interiors. Re grooved interiors, Skgrimes has made a number of adapters for hanging LF lenses in barrel in front of leaf shutters. Threading the adapters' interiors -- low threads, as in screw-in filter mounts -- makes a big difference.

 

[wiltw]

Interesting thought. In my experience, extension tubes with reflective interiors generate much more flare than tubes with properly flocked or grooved interiors. Re grooved interiors, Skgrimes has made a number of adapters for hanging LF lenses in barrel in front of leaf shutters. Threading the adapters' interiors -- low threads, as in screw-in filter mounts -- makes a big difference.

Thx for reminding us that the interior treatment CAN affect IQ in a negative way!

 

[grat]

Having an EOS 90D DSLR and a 100mm f/2.8 macro lens, with a stack of extension tubes, I can say you can do some really, really nice focus stacking with this camera.

The camera itself won't do the stack for you, but it's easy enough to pass the series of photos off to something like Affinity, and produce a high quality stacked macro shot.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Ultra-close imaging will require a good set of extension tubes.

As for camera - how large do you intend to print? Or will you display only on monitors? Will you use the camera for other purposes, or just macro photography? Are you looking for a lens recommendation, too? What is your budget?

it really requires a good macro lens for best quality but, they are available ued for little $$$

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

I've been using my P340 for bug and flower shots when out on walks lately. 2cm minimum focus distance @ 5.1mm, akin to the original 950. Flash sync at all speeds (to 1/2000) and built in VR.

(and -1.7 flash compensation)

 

[Dismayed]

I was not downplaying its role, I was pointing out its only effect on IQ was to magnify the lens defects; ergo, to get 'the best' extension tube has virtually no effect on IQ (compared to a cheap aftermarket unit).

So when you said, " . . Extension tubes do NOTHING except increase magification of the macro subject. . ", you weren't downplaying the necessary role of extension? And NOTHING in all caps because?