Which prosumer DSLR is reigning king of macro?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Curly, Apr 14, 2004.

  1. Curly

    Curly Guest

    Which prosumer DSLR is the gold standard in macro photography at the moment?
     
    Curly, Apr 14, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Curly wrote:
    > Which prosumer DSLR is the gold standard in macro photography at the moment?


    pick one, and put the best macro lens on it, you can find :-S
     
    Yves Deweerdt, Apr 14, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <c5j6om$kbu$>,
    Yves Deweerdt <> wrote:

    > Curly wrote:
    > > Which prosumer DSLR is the gold standard in macro photography at the moment?

    >
    > pick one, and put the best macro lens on it, you can find :-S


    There are three [AFAIK] Macro lenses in the current Canon EF range: EF 50mm
    Macro; EF 100mm Macro and EF 180mm Macro. I have the 100mm.

    Not too sure you would actually use AF at Macro magnifcations, though.
     
    Simon Gardner, Apr 14, 2004
    #3
  4. "Curly" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Which prosumer DSLR is the gold standard in macro photography at the

    moment?

    The camera isn't the macro issue for a dSLR -- it's the lens. At the top of
    the heap would be any Nikon dSLR body with the 60mm, 105mm, or 200mm
    Micro-Nikkor lenses and an SB-29s ring flash.

    HMc
     
    Howard McCollister, Apr 14, 2004
    #4
  5. Curly

    Steve James Guest

    Curly <> wrote:

    > Which prosumer DSLR is the gold standard in macro photography at the moment?


    This is more of a lens question than a camera question. Both Canon and
    Nikon make very high quality macro lenses of different focal lengths as
    well as flashes designed for macro photography. The appropriate lens
    choice depends upon the size of what you are photographing and how close
    you can get to it (or want to get to it). You can search for macro
    lenses on B&H web site if you want to see what is available. There are
    many web sites on macro photography. Search them out and look at the
    photos and what equipment people are using.
    --
    To email me use: sjusenet AT comcast DOT net
     
    Steve James, Apr 14, 2004
    #5
  6. Curly

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: (Curly)

    >Which prosumer DSLR is the gold standard in macro photography at the moment?


    I'm using a Canon 1Ds (11 Mpixels, full frame) with both my 100 mm f/2.8 macro
    and (when I can borrow it from my wife) the 180 mm f/3.5 L macro. I think
    that's pretty much the gold standard :)

    Nikon has comparable lenses (the 200 mm macro is especially nice) but the only
    comparable body is the Kodak 14n and it has some problems in the field.

    If you are happy with 6 Mpixels then either the Canon or Nikon bodies will be
    fine, with either the 100 mm or 180/200 mm class macro lenses.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Apr 14, 2004
    #6
  7. Curly

    Tom Monego Guest

    In article <>,
    dy says...
    >
    >>From: (Curly)

    >
    >>Which prosumer DSLR is the gold standard in macro photography at the moment?

    >
    >I'm using a Canon 1Ds (11 Mpixels, full frame) with both my 100 mm f/2.8

    macro
    >and (when I can borrow it from my wife) the 180 mm f/3.5 L macro. I think
    >that's pretty much the gold standard :)
    >
    >Nikon has comparable lenses (the 200 mm macro is especially nice) but the

    only
    >comparable body is the Kodak 14n and it has some problems in the field.
    >
    >If you are happy with 6 Mpixels then either the Canon or Nikon bodies will be
    >fine, with either the 100 mm or 180/200 mm class macro lenses.
    >
    >Bill


    Sometimes the 180mm or 200mm are a little long, I have used them to photograph
    surgery, but in product photography they tend to pull you away from the
    subject so you can't adjust it while looking through the viewfinder. 100mm
    macros are great for that. If you are doing flat copy work on a camera stand
    then the 100 is too long and the 50/60mm are the best. Canon, Nikon or Pentax
    all make good macros, be critical if you are buying off brand, some are good,
    some aren't, we like the 90mm Tamron we use in the studio. I had a Sigma 50mm
    that was a total dog (though their EX model is rated high).

    Tom
     
    Tom Monego, Apr 14, 2004
    #7
  8. "Bill Hilton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >From: (Curly)

    >
    > >Which prosumer DSLR is the gold standard in macro photography at the

    moment?
    >
    > I'm using a Canon 1Ds (11 Mpixels, full frame) with both my 100 mm f/2.8

    macro
    > and (when I can borrow it from my wife) the 180 mm f/3.5 L macro. I think
    > that's pretty much the gold standard :)
    >
    > Nikon has comparable lenses (the 200 mm macro is especially nice) but the

    only
    > comparable body is the Kodak 14n and it has some problems in the field.
    >
    > If you are happy with 6 Mpixels then either the Canon or Nikon bodies will

    be
    > fine, with either the 100 mm or 180/200 mm class macro lenses.
    >


    While the 1Ds is a fantastic camera, easily the "gold standard" of the
    dSLRs, at $8000 for the body only I wouldn't quite put it in the "prosumer"
    category.

    HMc
     
    Howard McCollister, Apr 14, 2004
    #8
  9. "Simon Gardner" <[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
    news:BCA2E7F89668189131@192.168.0.3...
    > In article <c5j6om$kbu$>,
    > Yves Deweerdt <> wrote:
    > > Curly wrote:
    > > > Which prosumer DSLR is the gold standard in macro photography at the

    moment?
    > > pick one, and put the best macro lens on it, you can find :-S


    > There are three [AFAIK] Macro lenses in the current Canon EF range: EF 50mm
    > Macro; EF 100mm Macro and EF 180mm Macro. I have the 100mm.
    > Not too sure you would actually use AF at Macro magnifcations, though.


    Canon also has the rather expensive EF 65mm lens which covers the range 1:1 to
    5:1, if my memory is correct.
    My EOS3 is able to track flowers being blown in the breeze when fitted with the
    EF100 f2.8 macro lenses (both non-USM and USM versions) and set to AIServo. Not
    sure how my 10D would cope in these circumstances.
    --
    M Stewart
    Milton Keynes, UK
    www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm
    http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/ms1938/
     
    Malcolm Stewart, Apr 14, 2004
    #9
  10. In article <c5jk0d$lj4$>,
    "Malcolm Stewart" <> wrote:

    > "Simon Gardner" <[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
    > news:BCA2E7F89668189131@192.168.0.3...
    > > In article <c5j6om$kbu$>,
    > > Yves Deweerdt <> wrote:
    > > > Curly wrote:
    > > > > Which prosumer DSLR is the gold standard in macro photography at the

    > moment?
    > > > pick one, and put the best macro lens on it, you can find :-S

    >
    > > There are three [AFAIK] Macro lenses in the current Canon EF range: EF 50mm
    > > Macro; EF 100mm Macro and EF 180mm Macro. I have the 100mm.
    > > Not too sure you would actually use AF at Macro magnifcations, though.

    >
    > Canon also has the rather expensive EF 65mm lens which covers the range 1:1 to
    > 5:1, if my memory is correct.


    Aah. Sounds like the newer version of the old bellows-only lenses for the
    FD system. I was wondering about that. They were 20mm f3.5 and 35mm f2.8, I
    think. They went up to 20x magnification. They were both relatively cheap
    as I recall.

    > My EOS3 is able to track flowers being blown in the breeze when fitted with the
    > EF100 f2.8 macro lenses (both non-USM and USM versions) and set to AIServo. Not
    > sure how my 10D would cope in these circumstances.


    I'll try in about two weeks when the native Bluebells are out here. I'm
    also interested to see how the 10D copes with the blue as compared with
    film. Ditto with Blue Alkanet. Both plants presented real problems to
    traditional film.
     
    Simon Gardner, Apr 14, 2004
    #10
  11. Curly

    dslr Guest

    Simon Gardner wrote:
    >
    > In article <c5jk0d$lj4$>,
    > "Malcolm Stewart" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > > My EOS3 is able to track flowers being blown in the breeze when fitted with the
    > > EF100 f2.8 macro lenses (both non-USM and USM versions) and set to AIServo. Not
    > > sure how my 10D would cope in these circumstances.

    >
    > I'll try in about two weeks when the native Bluebells are out here. I'm
    > also interested to see how the 10D copes with the blue as compared with
    > film. Ditto with Blue Alkanet. Both plants presented real problems to
    > traditional film.


    Shoot a grey card and set a custom white balance and you should be OK.

    --
    regards,
    dslr
     
    dslr, Apr 14, 2004
    #11
  12. "Tom Monego" <> wrote in message
    news:bgcfc.1126$2e6.384@lakeread01...
    >
    > Sometimes the 180mm or 200mm are a little long, I have used them to

    photograph
    > surgery, but in product photography they tend to pull you away from the
    > subject so you can't adjust it while looking through the viewfinder. 100mm
    > macros are great for that. If you are doing flat copy work on a camera

    stand
    > then the 100 is too long and the 50/60mm are the best. Canon, Nikon or

    Pentax
    > all make good macros, be critical if you are buying off brand, some are

    good,
    > some aren't, we like the 90mm Tamron we use in the studio. I had a Sigma

    50mm
    > that was a total dog (though their EX model is rated high).
    >
    > Tom


    With longer focal lengths, you can get farther away from the subject for a
    given reproduction ratio. This can be an advantage with some types of macro
    photography. The trade off is that the longer focal lengths result in
    shallower depth of field. This might be and advantage or disadvantage
    depending on what is being shot, but more often than not, I find myself
    having to stop way down to get an appropriate DoF, even with my 60mm Micro.
    For me, it would sometimes be nice to be able to get farther way, but more
    often (for my purposes) the depth of field is more important.

    HMc
     
    Howard McCollister, Apr 14, 2004
    #12
  13. In article <>,
    dslr <> wrote:

    > Simon Gardner wrote:
    > >
    > > In article <c5jk0d$lj4$>,
    > > "Malcolm Stewart" <> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > > > My EOS3 is able to track flowers being blown in the breeze when fitted with the
    > > > EF100 f2.8 macro lenses (both non-USM and USM versions) and set to AIServo. Not
    > > > sure how my 10D would cope in these circumstances.

    > >
    > > I'll try in about two weeks when the native Bluebells are out here. I'm
    > > also interested to see how the 10D copes with the blue as compared with
    > > film. Ditto with Blue Alkanet. Both plants presented real problems to
    > > traditional film.

    >
    > Shoot a grey card and set a custom white balance and you should be OK.


    Yah. If you know anything about this (admittedly highly specialist area) it
    may not be. Certainly most films have a real problem. Kodak used to
    maintain a data sheet years ago called [I paraphrase]: "Why do bluebells
    look pink in my photographs?" It was to do with the film's response outside
    the normal human eye frequency range to some of the colour and
    misinterpretation of same. Reasonably common problem with certain blue
    flowers and with fabric dyes derived from some plant materials.
     
    Simon Gardner, Apr 14, 2004
    #13
  14. Curly

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: (Tom Monego)

    >Sometimes the 180mm or 200mm are a little long


    I think they are ideal for nature work, where the narrower field of view is
    great for avoiding distracting backgrounds and the longer working distance is
    helpful with butterflies or anything that's wary. Plus you have more room to
    place the fill flash without the front of the lens getting in the way. And in
    the Canon line the 180 L is a much sharper lens than the 100 f/2.8, though
    about $1,000 more expensive.

    For the other things you mention, yeah, shorter is fine there :)
     
    Bill Hilton, Apr 14, 2004
    #14
  15. Curly

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: "Howard McCollister"

    >The trade off is that the longer focal lengths result in
    >shallower depth of field.


    Actually the depth of field is identical at the same magnification ratio. In
    other words, dof with the 180 at 1:1 is the same as the dof of the 100 at 1:1,
    since you're further back.
     
    Bill Hilton, Apr 14, 2004
    #15
  16. Curly

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >> I'm using a Canon 1Ds (11 Mpixels, full frame) with both my 100 mm
    >> f/2.8 macro and (when I can borrow it from my wife) the 180 mm f/3.5 L
    >> macro. I think that's pretty much the gold standard :)



    >From: "Howard McCollister"
    >
    >While the 1Ds is a fantastic camera, easily the "gold standard" of the
    >dSLRs, at $8000 for the body only I wouldn't quite put it in the "prosumer"
    >category.


    You're right Howard, I was thinking more "Gold Standard" than "prosumer" I
    guess :) BTW it's available for *only* $6,999 - 7,300 now pretty much
    everywhere ... such a deal!

    After using mine for a couple of weeks I think it's superior to 35 mm film in
    pretty much every way and I'll be selling three EOS-3 bodies soon, I guess.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Apr 14, 2004
    #16
  17. Curly

    dslr Guest

    Simon Gardner wrote:
    >
    > In article <>,
    > dslr <> wrote:
    >
    > > Simon Gardner wrote:
    > > >
    > > > In article <c5jk0d$lj4$>,
    > > > "Malcolm Stewart" <> wrote:
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > > My EOS3 is able to track flowers being blown in the breeze when fitted with the
    > > > > EF100 f2.8 macro lenses (both non-USM and USM versions) and set to AIServo. Not
    > > > > sure how my 10D would cope in these circumstances.
    > > >
    > > > I'll try in about two weeks when the native Bluebells are out here. I'm
    > > > also interested to see how the 10D copes with the blue as compared with
    > > > film. Ditto with Blue Alkanet. Both plants presented real problems to
    > > > traditional film.

    > >
    > > Shoot a grey card and set a custom white balance and you should be OK.

    >
    > Yah. If you know anything about this (admittedly highly specialist area) it
    > may not be. Certainly most films have a real problem. Kodak used to
    > maintain a data sheet years ago called [I paraphrase]: "Why do bluebells
    > look pink in my photographs?" It was to do with the film's response outside
    > the normal human eye frequency range to some of the colour and
    > misinterpretation of same. Reasonably common problem with certain blue
    > flowers and with fabric dyes derived from some plant materials.


    I certainly had problems with my D30 with African Violets - and with
    film, when I scanned it - the purples always came out blue.
    However, when I shot bluebells with the D30 last year they came out just
    fine. Don't think I even bothered with a Custom WB setting, come to
    think of it.

    --
    regards,
    dslr
     
    dslr, Apr 14, 2004
    #17
  18. Curly

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Curly <> wrote:
    >Which prosumer DSLR is the gold standard in macro photography at the moment?


    The camera bodies don't do macro. The lens does. Find the
    macro lens you like and by the body to match.

    ---- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Apr 14, 2004
    #18
  19. Curly

    Randy Rhine Guest

    How true. I went with Canon 300D simply because of the MPE-65 and the
    MT24 macro flash. No regrets.

    rr



    Paul J Gans wrote:

    > Curly <> wrote:
    >
    >>Which prosumer DSLR is the gold standard in macro photography at the moment?

    >
    >
    > The camera bodies don't do macro. The lens does. Find the
    > macro lens you like and by the body to match.
    >
    > ---- Paul J. Gans
     
    Randy Rhine, Apr 14, 2004
    #19
  20. In article <>,
    dslr <> wrote:

    > > > > I'll try in about two weeks when the native Bluebells are out here. I'm
    > > > > also interested to see how the 10D copes with the blue as compared with
    > > > > film. Ditto with Blue Alkanet. Both plants presented real problems to
    > > > > traditional film.
    > > >
    > > > Shoot a grey card and set a custom white balance and you should be OK.

    > >
    > > Yah. If you know anything about this (admittedly highly specialist area) it
    > > may not be. Certainly most films have a real problem. Kodak used to
    > > maintain a data sheet years ago called [I paraphrase]: "Why do bluebells
    > > look pink in my photographs?" It was to do with the film's response outside
    > > the normal human eye frequency range to some of the colour and
    > > misinterpretation of same. Reasonably common problem with certain blue
    > > flowers and with fabric dyes derived from some plant materials.

    >
    > I certainly had problems with my D30 with African Violets - and with
    > film, when I scanned it - the purples always came out blue.
    > However, when I shot bluebells with the D30 last year they came out just
    > fine. Don't think I even bothered with a Custom WB setting, come to
    > think of it.


    I certainly wouldn't expect a digital camera to have the same problems as
    film with these plants.
     
    Simon Gardner, Apr 14, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. zxcvar
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    663
    Charlie D
    Sep 2, 2003
  2. Prosumer Long Zooms vs dSLR

    , Oct 3, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,121
  3. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    651
    jayembee
    Nov 23, 2005
  4. Terence

    sensor sizes in prosumer vs inexpensive dslr cameras

    Terence, Dec 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    368
    fortknight
    Dec 3, 2004
  5. George Preddy

    Re: Rebel XT DSLR versus Olympus C8080 prosumer

    George Preddy, May 21, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    304
    RichA
    May 21, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page