i have an interest in still life and macro ...

P

paulfish4570

Veteran
Local time
4:49 PM
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
9,816
... so what dslr would you guys recommend? aps-c would be fine. i have a couple of manual focus pentax-m 50s, and manual focus nikkor 50/2 and E 35/2.5 (which is really like). i'd like to able to use the pentaxes or nikons. i'd also like to be able to meter easily. and when i write "macro," i mean pretty close, not "macroscopic ..." :)
thanks for y'all's help.
 
Canon meters poorly on converted glass stopped down TTL, in my experience. Works great in Live View though so that's what I use.

how interested are you? I mean I'd recommend a 5d mk II and a ZE 100 MP but you may not be THAT interested. You could save on the lens by going for a Nikkor or Zuiko or Takumar macro, but I'd still recommend a 5d mk II.
 
Well, since a tripod is required for macro and handy for still life... You could skip the dslr if you wanted to.
Get something mirror less and focus off the screen.
Otherwise I would suggest a canon. The 40D is quite a nice worker and easy to purchase (cheap).
Live view, sensor cleaning, eos mount which can adapt both of the mounts you mention and many more.
I used mine along side my 5D classic for years. A great little camera.
 
i had the new nikkor 40mm macro on the d200...great lens, all purpose.
some say it's too short for macro work but it worked for me and it was cheap.
 
a nex might be fine, too, with that focus peaking thingy.

oh yeah, i am not 5d interested. that's FF, right?

focus-ease is crucial. i ain't gettin' any younger.
 
Thing is Paul. If you have concerns about vision. Aps c dslr cameras have relatively small viewfinders for manual focus. You may just want to go to nex for LCD focus and composition. Cropped dslr cameras that I have used were primarily used with af lenses. I used the LCD for macro and it was great. If you feel you may not ever or seldom use the vf, why bother with the extra body size and weight. If you may ad an af lens or two or, extend your interest to tele focal lengths. A dslr with live view such as the 40/50/60D from canon would be the most flexible for all use. Nex cameras with longer lenses are super awkward IMO. Anyway there is my experience :)
 
I'm using a Minolta 50mm f/3.5 macro lens with 1:1 tube on the Panasonic and Olympus Micro 4/3 cameras and focusing via the screen. Once focused I then stop down to my working aperture..

I can use manual mode or aperture preferred mode...
 
I'd go with something with live view, slrs aren't great for critical focus, the focussing screen needs to be perfectly shimmed. A NEX with peaking is great for this.

Moray
 
this is about as close as i want to get, most of the time; x100:
U35015I1348424777.SEQ.0.jpg


this is as close as i'd ever get; x100; that shadowy little thing is a sleeping mosquito:
DSCF5295rff.jpg
 
Hi Paul

For macro ans still life, i would suggest a Pentax k10d (which ils cheap on second hand now) coupled with a 105 mm DG sigma ans a 50 mm DG sigma.

The sigma Lens are very good ans affordable. You clan have a look on somme of my macro shots on my deviantART account.

All the best
 
kit has to be small. we live is a very small cabin (680 square feet). i love the rendering of the nikon E 35/2.5 that i have. i think it might make a good still life lens with the crop factor. 35mm film would be easy to pull off. a set of extension tubes for my pentax me super; and a beater body for the E, and i'd be set. but digital would make things so much more simple: no film, no developing, no scanning.
 
The Tamron SP 60mm F-2 Marco is very nice compact lens plus since its double as a pretty nice portrait lens :)
 
I'm mostly repeating what other people have said, but:

1) Going digital is a good idea. Macro = many opportunities for mistakes, mishaps, etc. I generally take only one or two photos for a given human-scale scene - but getting a good macro shot may take anywhere from five to fifty.

2) Get a DSLR with live view. Compared to the mirrorless crowd, the SLR systems are well developed, have decent flash systems with normal hot shoes (looking at you, Sony) and above all, the cameras have mass and a wide enough footprint so they work well on tripods. Older 50mm macro lenses for SLR systems are cheap, good and plentiful. The camera doesn't have to be of the latest generation.

3) For any serious macro work, you are going to need artificial light. Working at 1:4 and deeper it's very rare that you get natural light that sculpts the tiny features and textures the way that you like. Avoid the macro-oriented ring/twin flashes and use a normal flash unit on an off-camera cord. Reflectors, diffusers, snoots etc. can be made in a DIY fashion. The flash should have manual settings.

4) Nature-oriented websites will tell you that you should get at least a 100mm lens, better yet 180mm. IMO, for static subjects, this is BS. A 50mm macro on APS-C is very workable indeed. OK, controlling backgrounds is more of a chore with shorter lenses but that's all part of the fun. I strongly suggest getting a true macro lens instead of adding extension to a normal 50. Not only do you get vastly better quality at close range but a looong focus throw as well (necessary for accurate results).

It's been gathering dust for a couple of months, but my own close-up rig consists of the following: Canon 40D and EF 50/2.5 macro form the core. A simple and stupid 220EX flash provides illumination. I use various bits of translucent plastic and silver tin-foil to make light modifiers as I go along. For greater magnifications, I have an extension tube, a 1.4x teleconverter and the 250D close-up diopter. These accessories are sometimes also used with my 28/2.8 and 135/2.8. Last but not least, Manfrotto 055PRO legs with built-in side arm and a three-way head.

You could of course compile an equally capable or better kit by Nikon or Pentax.

some results:

botrychium1.jpg


this was done in the wild with 50/2.5 + 12mm extension and 1.4x teleconverter, improvised diffuser on the flash + improvised background

ohakas1.jpg


same optics, can't remember whether I used flash there

rub1.jpg


just the 50/2.5, flash with an improvised snoot made of tin foil.
 
paulfish4570 said:
beautiful, ott, beautiful. thank you.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your kind comment!

Looking at my long-winded post again, it occurred to me that all the bits and pieces and concerns I listed might make the macro thing look intimidating and expensive. But really, you don't need to have all that stuff at once to start. I think the priorities are a digital body so you could experiment without mounting expenses and frustration - and a way to control light. And to have fun, of course :).
 
ottluuk said:
I'm mostly repeating what other people have said, but:

2) Get a DSLR with live view. Compared to the mirrorless crowd, the SLR systems are well developed, have decent flash systems with normal hot shoes (looking at you, Sony) and above all, the cameras have mass and a wide enough footprint so they work well on tripods. Older 50mm macro lenses for SLR systems are cheap, good and plentiful. The camera doesn't have to be of the latest generation.

3) For any serious macro work, you are going to need artificial light. Working at 1:4 and deeper it's very rare that you get natural light that sculpts the tiny features and textures the way that you like. Avoid the macro-oriented ring/twin flashes and use a normal flash unit on an off-camera cord. Reflectors, diffusers, snoots etc. can be made in a DIY fashion. The flash should have manual settings.

4) Nature-oriented websites will tell you that you should get at least a 100mm lens, better yet 180mm. IMO, for static subjects, this is BS. A 50mm macro on APS-C is very workable indeed. OK, controlling backgrounds is more of a chore with shorter lenses but that's all part of the fun. I strongly suggest getting a true macro lens instead of adding extension to a normal 50. Not only do you get vastly better quality at close range but a looong focus throw as well (necessary for accurate results).
Click to expand...

Nice photos!

I'm going to agree with a number of your points, but offer a contrary opinion on others --- digital is good, tripod is often an asset, etc.

Starting with an older 50 is great. I have done almost all of my macro work on an e-p2 with 50 and 100mm takumars via an adapter.

I think that you can do wonderful macro work with any of the mirrorless systems. Micro four thirds in particular offers greater depth of field and the newer sensors are quite good.

I've never used artificial light, but it is definitely something to seriously consider when buying into a system. The dslr cameras (nikon in particular) have better flash systems than the mirrorless alternatives.

If using a tripod, consider also getting focusing rails so you can maintain your set magnification and adjust focus using the rails without having to shift the tripod itself.

Some mirrorless macro samples below...

7903702020_88be0807bb_b.jpg



4858471321_9f45cfe7b1_b.jpg


4858476473_23df84ddc7_b.jpg
 
primo stuff, tom. i like the kid and the ceiling, and the lawnmower photos, as well as the snake photos. i'll give you a shout sometime this week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom