Which camera is best for orchid / macro pictures?

[tropterrarium]

Lars,

can you tell us what you want to get out of those images? Specifically, are these for web/computer display only, do you want to print them (how large?), is color fidelity important to you?

I ask for the following reasons:
- sensor size will limit maximum blow up possibility before you get image degradation.
- Sensor format (half frame, APS, full frame) will give increasing signal to noise ratios, and help with color noise.
- File format that can be chosen (jpeg vs. RAW) give you different levels of control over how images are saved. E.g., all jpeg algorithms have a sharpening/USM step incoporated, whereas in RAW you can custom opt-out of all sharpening and do more with layer masks etc in photoshop.

In general, the megapixel-mania is misplaced. Resolution limit is due to lens errors, so that's why some people shell out the big bucks for lenses. All other things being equal, fix-focal=prime lenses are quite a bit superior to any zooms. I am on the lunatic fringe in that respect. My workhorse lens is a Zeiss 100 mm Makroplanar f/2.0 ZE, manual focus, for Canon full frame DSLR (5DmkII). The lens is close to $2K, the body with grip around $2.8K, a couple of tripods with ballheads at least a grand each.

Also be aware that your level of commitment and desired image quality may not be possible to be brought into agreement. There are limits to image quality with compact cameras, that's why most of the great shots you see are done with serious equipment. Yes, there are exceptions, but generally it holds.

Last but not least, read a few books on photography to get the most out of your equipment and understand the limits and possibilities of what you can achieve with what you have. I like Ray's Applied Photographic Optics, Hunter & Fuqua Light: Science and Magic, Freeman's Perfect Exposure, Constant's Close-up Photography. The whole digital processing side is a whole other story.

[Swamper]

Great thread. Mine is a Nikon D-60 but most of the info applies to anybody's camera.

[tropterrarium]

One thing I forgot to ask is, what is the smallest object you want to be able to photograph full frame? Macro is quite a squishy term. Pros consider macro only from 1:1 onwards, i.e., object same size as sensor/film area. Some already consider 1:2 = macro, while the general population may consider 1:10 "macro".

As there are some really tiny flowers among orchids, I think of Platystele ortiziana with 1 mm flowers on a 5 mm inflorescence, there is no compact camera that can deal with that. For the entire inflorescence, 5:1 on full frame is required, 2.5:1 on half fame. It can be done, either with some specialized lenses (Canon MPE 65 mm), bellows with reversed/retro position lenses, special macrohead lenses (e.g., Zeiss Luminar series) on bellows, or you go straight to stereomicroscope. 1 mm flower full frame is in the 20:1 range, a serious undertaking. I've done some in that range in the past with photographic equipment, but today I would go straight to the stereomicroscope. I think 5~6:1 is about the max I would do on straight photographic equipment, thereafter it's not worth it anymore, IMHO.

For anyone interested in going well beyond 1:1, read up on diffraction limited resolution. Bottom line, stopping down will degrade the image from a certain point onwards.

[Roy]

I just bought a Canon SX20 IS. It has 2 Macro settings, Normal & Super. The super takes close ups to 1 cm. It has shake/vibration etc. I've been blasting off lots of shots to test it & in my humble opinion, the best digital camera I've come across with in a reasonable price range.

[Lars Kurth]

@tropterrarium

The pictures are mainly for viewing on the web and my HD TV (I have a media server which I often use to look at pictures), but I do make the occasional print. I don't think I will go for objects < 5mm's

I have been playing with Photoshop CS lately and am contemplating buying it with the camera and the lens. However altogether I don't want to spend more than $1200 (although I may).

Here is what I am thinking (but have not fully decided):
* Canon EOS 550D
* An extension tube set
* A macro lense (probably the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro but I may have to opt for the EF 50mm f/2.5)

I want to end up with a set-up that lets me scale up over time. Taking pictures is just a hobby.

I used to a lot of macro shots pre-digital using extension tubes and a Balgengeraet (don't know the English term) and I remember how much pain it was compared to digital. Still have tripods, etc. The only thing I do miss though are the split-prism focus screens (but then I came across KatzEye).

Cheers
Lars

[DelawareJim]

I'm surprised no-one suggested a Nikon. Any reason why?

I got a D-80 when they were discontinued and I love it. Test drove a 105 mm Micro-Nikkor shooting some planted aquariums a couple of months back and was stunned with the image quality.

Cheers.
Jim

[tropterrarium]

Hi Lars,
sorry for not answering earlier. 5 mm on full frame camera is 5:1, just at the limit of the MPE 65 mm. on 2/3 frame camera (APS C) it is 3:1, with some border around maybe 2:1, still more than any regular macro lens can handle. So you end up in extension ring and or bellows (= Balgengeraet) territory.

For TV display, you may get away with cropping the image to get a bit more magnification, but there are limits. With SLR you are quite modular and can expand as your hobby develops.

I would generally recommend a larger focal length macro, i.e., in the 90-105 mm range. It gives you more working distance, so will be able to control light much better. I've had a 50 many years ago on a OM4Ti based system. Since then I've only used longer ones, from OM90, Pentax 100 on LX in underwater housing, Nikon105 on F3HP, ZeissCY100 on RTSIII, ZeissZE100 on 5DmkII. I usually also have a 50 regular, but just for the angle of view, not for regular makro. I have used 100 mm macro with stacked reversed 50 regular to get beyond 1:1. I don't use zooms at all.

Re split prism, and matt screen (Mattscheibe nicht Klarscheibe), there are several after market manufacturers. I replaced the 5Dmk II with such a screen, can't think of the name right now. As autofocus is more of a hindrance in macro than any help, you have to do manual focussing. If you have live-view on your camera, that is of great help to judge depth of field.

Dig out the old tripod and use it. You will be amazed how much better the images will be.

Viel Erfolg!

Originally Posted by Lars Kurth

@tropterrarium

The pictures are mainly for viewing on the web and my HD TV (I have a media server which I often use to look at pictures), but I do make the occasional print. I don't think I will go for objects < 5mm's

I have been playing with Photoshop CS lately and am contemplating buying it with the camera and the lens. However altogether I don't want to spend more than $1200 (although I may).

Here is what I am thinking (but have not fully decided):
* Canon EOS 550D
* An extension tube set
* A macro lense (probably the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro but I may have to opt for the EF 50mm f/2.5)

I want to end up with a set-up that lets me scale up over time. Taking pictures is just a hobby.

I used to a lot of macro shots pre-digital using extension tubes and a Balgengeraet (don't know the English term) and I remember how much pain it was compared to digital. Still have tripods, etc. The only thing I do miss though are the split-prism focus screens (but then I came across KatzEye).

Cheers
Lars

[Connie Star]

Originally Posted by Lars Kurth

@tropterrarium

The pictures are mainly for viewing on the web and my HD TV (I have a media server which I often use to look at pictures), but I do make the occasional print. I don't think I will go for objects < 5mm's

I have been playing with Photoshop CS lately and am contemplating buying it with the camera and the lens. However altogether I don't want to spend more than $1200 (although I may).

Here is what I am thinking (but have not fully decided):
* Canon EOS 550D
* An extension tube set
* A macro lense (probably the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro but I may have to opt for the EF 50mm f/2.5)

I want to end up with a set-up that lets me scale up over time. Taking pictures is just a hobby.

I used to a lot of macro shots pre-digital using extension tubes and a Balgengeraet (don't know the English term) and I remember how much pain it was compared to digital. Still have tripods, etc. The only thing I do miss though are the split-prism focus screens (but then I came across KatzEye).

Cheers
Lars

Hi Lars, I've been doing macro for 40 years, ever since my hubby gave me a macro lens on a Nikon for a wedding present.
I am currently using the Canon T2i, which I think is the 550 in Europe. I have both a Canon 100mm and a 60mm macro lens, both fixed-focal length "prime" lenses. I find that for orchids I use the 60mm one more than the 100mm one. I use the longer lens more for animals like spiders and butterflies that don't want me to get too close.
I've done some true macro photography with extension tubes, and a minimal amount with a photo-microscope. It's pretty tricky and the equipment gets expensive fast.
IMHO the Rebel series Canons produce excellent photos and I concentrate my money on the lenses. Lenses and traveling to wonderful places to use my photo equipment.
I started raising orchids in part to have an outlet for my photography hobby and there are a lot of things besides orchids that I shoot. I have some long telephotos for shooting birds, and I use them for butterflies that are really skittish, too.

[Lars Kurth]

Connie,

thanks for the advice. Yes, the Canon T2iis the 550 in Europe. I had a play with the 100 mm lens in a shop and it is quite heavy and was thus harder to use than the 60 mm lens. At least without a tripod.

The 60mm's seems like a good compromise: thanks for confirming that you use it more in practice than the 100mm.

Lars

[Swamper]

Originally Posted by DelawareJim

I'm surprised no-one suggested a Nikon. Any reason why?

I got a D-80 when they were discontinued and I love it. Test drove a 105 mm Micro-Nikkor shooting some planted aquariums a couple of months back and was stunned with the image quality.

Cheers.
Jim

I use a Nikon also. Love mine. But in the end, it's not the camera.