Camera lens for taking really good MACRO shots?

[passedpawn]

All of this is understood. She's been doing pretty good with her phone. I'm more interested in the really close up stuff, but haven't had a chance to rig up a lighting solution, etc. I have extender tubes, but haven't had a chance to try them out.

One solution to the lighting I've seen years back was an LED ring that slips over the lens. It was designed for smaller point-and-shoot cameras, but would work on a DSLR just fine I imagine. My interest would be in designing one with good color.

I'm actually pretty excited for a newer camera. The MP is just too small on this one for the zoom and macro shots we want to take, and a good fast prime lens will be nice for lots of other things.

I tried repairing our tv last night. The PSU circuit board failed out again and I was unable to fix it with new Caps. I told the wife we might have to hold off on her new camera for a while and she made it quite clear we can move the TV from the bedroom to the living room before that happens! (I ended up moving my oldest's TV from the younger daughter's room instead. It wasn't getting much use in either room and I wanted to watch some football last night!)

If she's doing food photography, she probably needs a light box. Search amazon for portable light boxes. Relatively cheap (hint: Xmas/bday gift).

Regarding the tv thing, which is way OT, maybe start a new thread or PM me. I've fixed all sorts of tv's, from CRT to my current plasma. I've got lots to say there

 

[Photopilot]

All of this is understood. She's been doing pretty good with her phone. I'm more interested in the really close up stuff, but haven't had a chance to rig up a lighting solution, etc. I have extender tubes, but haven't had a chance to try them out.

One solution to the lighting I've seen years back was an LED ring that slips over the lens. It was designed for smaller point-and-shoot cameras, but would work on a DSLR just fine I imagine. My interest would be in designing one with good color.

I'm actually pretty excited for a newer camera. The MP is just too small on this one for the zoom and macro shots we want to take, and a good fast prime lens will be nice for lots of other things.

In the past your option was a very expensive ring mount or two flashes with brackets and wiring to light a macro subject. You can now get a lens mounted ring for cheap. If the color is not perfect you can correct it easily. Make sure you shoot in raw.

I highly recommend getting Adobe Lightroom. It is worth more than any new lens or toy you put into your camera bag.

 

[IslandLizard]

In the past your option was a very expensive ring mount or two flashes with brackets and wiring to light a macro subject. You can now get a lens mounted ring for cheap. If the color is not perfect you can correct it easily. Make sure you shoot in raw.

I highly recommend getting Adobe Lightroom. It is worth more than any new lens or toy you put into your camera bag.

Again, lens mounted lighting rings and systems don't give very complimentary results in photographs. They're more for utilitarian use, like your dentist does, to get an image quickly, not to win a photogenic competition.

Agreed, when a lot of image corrections are needed (light, noise), shoot RAW. Lightroom is great, among the best, although there are others...

Do they still sell Lightroom by itself or has all that stuff become sneaky subscription-ware now? If subscription only, that adds up to being a huge bill over the years. Possibly use or find an older version, CS5 or CS6 era with Photoshop that has Lightroom integrated. It should be updateable too. You may not get all the latest tweaks and tools from their cloud service appz, but for many users, they're not needed anyway. As long as it supports your camera's raw format, you're in good shape.

 

[Xernex]

Again, lens mounted lighting rings and systems don't give very complimentary results in photographs. They're more for utilitarian use, like your dentist does, to get an image quickly, not to win a photogenic competition.

I've got to disagree here - they aren't the easiest things in the world to work with, but you can get some fantastic shots with mounted ring lights, fashion photographers have used them for years - albeit often with multiple over lights as well. I've also seen some really incredible ring lit macros from time to time. They can work incredibly well, or quite badly.

I will preface as saying the only one I ever played with was an AlienBees ABR800 and that's 400 bucks...so I can't speak for the very cheapests solutions.

 

[Photopilot]

As far as i can tell all Adobe products are subscription based except Lightroom. A year or so ago I purchased LR 5 as a standalone for a $75 upgrade which was half price of the $150 normal purchase price. The other options is to subscribe to LR and Photoshop combo for $9.95/mos.

I have a full Adobe suite before it became subscription based only. I almost never need to use Photoshop because I do not want to make many corrections on the pixel level. The ability to make broad changes of images in LR is usually all I need. As much as i like the tweaks of LR I like it most for it's ability to organize and categorize my photo library.

Lightroom is available as a 30 day trial.

https://creative.adobe.com/products/download/lightroom?sdid=QTV3P81B&mv=other

 

[Homercidal]

I'm sure she'll be shooting RAW once she gets going, unless the situation limits it. It's hard to make file size an issue these days anyway. Only factor is speed and buffer. I didn't look too closely, because I doubt she will need to shoot many quickly in a row, but I have to believe the newer camera had a bigger, faster buffer.

She's counting her pennies now. It's getting real. And she's planning on photographing the clawfoot tub that used to be in the bathroom, and is now in the living room. We decided not to put it back in after the remodel, and it's been sitting in there because I believe she should be responsible for selling it, and she thinks it should be me. Since the extra $$ would be handy right now, I believe I won this round! (Except I think I have to put the feet back on for the picture, and I'll probably have to arrange to help someone load it if they buy it... )

It's all good, since I know have Birthday and Christmas present ideas for her. Lenses, filters, books, software, etc!

 

[Photopilot]

Lightroom is still available for download as a standalone.

https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/help/download-install-single-app-Lightroom-6.html

Even without owning LR you can still work with Raw using your software from Nikon. Just take a shot with a Raw image and a jpeg and then try to bring out the shadows and change the colors. You will be amazed. Half the work of a good photo happens after the shutter snaps.

 

[Xernex]

If I can remember - no promises - I'll check what books I have left at home, could possibly shove them in a flat rate box for ya.

 

[IslandLizard]

I've got to disagree here - they aren't the easiest things in the world to work with, but you can get some fantastic shots with mounted ring lights, fashion photographers have used them for years - albeit often with multiple over lights as well. I've also seen some really incredible ring lit macros from time to time. They can work incredibly well, or quite badly.

I will preface as saying the only one I ever played with was an AlienBees ABR800 and that's 400 bucks...so I can't speak for the very cheapests solutions.

In general, flat frontal lighting does nothing for the subject. The good thing is, it can be shadowless, not creating the hard cast shadow lines many point & shooters are so used to. In skilled hands a ring light or similar lens mount contraption can create pleasing and even stunning images, sure.

Fashion photographers use "ring-lights" for fill, not to light their subjects on the runway.

If you look closeup, you'll see ugly ring/donut-shaped specular highlights in the eyes and everywhere else reflections are.

Open any decent book or site on macro photography, and the on-camera or on-lens flash is basically taboo as a key light. There is some use for a ring/lens-mount flash for fill or where lights cannot be set up, in the latter case, again, a resort to obtain an acceptable image rather than nothing.

 

[Xernex]

Agreed on it being used as supplemental. I kinda dig the ring effect in eyes, makes them pop to me, but i know that's argued both ways and it's beating a dead horse.

Guess I should have been more specific - I always tried using it as supplemental - but got decent results (not award winning) w/ ring only, as opposed to no lighting.

 

[Homercidal]

With a good MP camera and the right lens, it might be possible to get close without having to get REAL close. Otherwise, I'm not sure how to light a macro subject without a light ring. Might be good reading to find out.

Still have to figure out how to make the extention tubes work with our camera and play with that a bit. maybe this weekend.

 

[Xernex]

With a good MP camera and the right lens, it might be possible to get close without having to get REAL close. Otherwise, I'm not sure how to light a macro subject without a light ring. Might be good reading to find out.

Still have to figure out how to make the extention tubes work with our camera and play with that a bit. maybe this weekend.

Most of the external speed lights from nikon can be fired remotely using the camera's onboard flash as a signal - IIRC the onboard does a low pulse and can fire the speed light, that way you can position it where you'd like it to cast light on the subject. Not fool proof; but it can work quite well, and picking up used SB-600's can be relatively cheap.

 

[Photopilot]

With a good MP camera and the right lens, it might be possible to get close without having to get REAL close. Otherwise, I'm not sure how to light a macro subject without a light ring. Might be good reading to find out.

The process is a deep hole. I never had a macro lens when I was really into photography but I do now. I just don't want to put in the effort to shoot to that level or at least the amount of effort it takes to get award winning macro shots.

From previous reading this is what it takes to get "That" shot.

A tripod with a macro adjuster, and shutter release for you camera. A lightstand with either a shade or screen to keep the direct sunlight from dictating the light. Even with normal flash photography the image will benefit from having the flash off camera, and benefit further from two sources of external light with the ability to adjust the ratio. If there is any wind you will need a second light stand to create a wind block so the image does not blur during the slow shutter speed, narrow depth of field shot.

Then when you get it all set up the cool bug jumps out of the viewfinder. I now own all this equipment but just don't have the patience for the process.

 

[passedpawn]

The process is a deep hole. I never had a macro lens when I was really into photography but I do now. I just don't want to put in the effort to shoot to that level or at least the amount of effort it takes to get award winning macro shots.

From previous reading this is what it takes to get "That" shot.

A tripod with a macro adjuster, and shutter release for you camera. A lightstand with either a shade or screen to keep the direct sunlight from dictating the light. Even with normal flash photography the image will benefit from having the flash off camera, and benefit further from two sources of external light with the ability to adjust the ratio. If there is any wind you will need a second light stand to create a wind block so the image does not blur during the slow shutter speed, narrow depth of field shot.

Then when you get it all set up the cool bug jumps out of the viewfinder. I now own all this equipment but just don't have the patience for the process.

For insects, you've reached the bottom of the hole if you're doing automated focus stacking. Macros have such a short depth of field, but if you take a whole bunch of pics at increasing focal length, then stitch them together so the entire insect is all in focus (and macro!), the effect is remarkable. There was a site I use to hang out on to see all the ingenious equipment guys were building to do this, and the software to do the stitching. Pretty neat!

 

[passedpawn]

A little more on the subject of focus stacking. I find it very interesting. First video is a montage of some good shots. Second video is a pretty neat tutorial of a guy executing it, from the adjustable slider for moving the camera, to using photoshop to stitch shots. Loads more videos on both camera and software parts of doing this.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QVbrnYRmac[/ame]
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWUmHZ6gqsA[/ame]

 

[Photopilot]

For insects, you've reached the bottom of the hole if you're doing automated focus stacking. Macros have such a short depth of field, but if you take a whole bunch of pics at increasing focal length, then stitch them together so the entire insect is all in focus (and macro!), the effect is remarkable. There was a site I use to hang out on to see all the ingenious equipment guys were building to do this, and the software to do the stitching. Pretty neat!

Wow amazing stuff. I am just going to guess: average 5+ hours per image. No wonder most of my images are now taken with a point and shoot.

 

[Photopilot]

A little more on the subject of focus stacking. I find it very interesting. First video is a montage of some good shots. Second video is a pretty neat tutorial of a guy executing it, from the adjustable slider for moving the camera, to using photoshop to stitch shots. Loads more videos on both camera and software parts of doing this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QVbrnYRmac
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWUmHZ6gqsA

Watch these videos and you will see at the end a $500 dual flash system to get "started" in flash macro photography.

 

[Gavin C]

some nerd videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QVbrnYRmac

PP

You always have the best nerd videos on speed dial.

Thanks.

I enjoyed watching this in spite of my photography idiocy.

 

[Homercidal]

Her new D5500 is working quite well. It really does take better pictures than the D50, and not just resolution, but even the light levels and blur reduction is much better.

I mounted our 300mm Sigma zoom on it at a football game a couple of weeks ago and discovered the AF doesn't work. I don't have the lens model number handy to look it up, but I'm assuming the AF mode the camera takes is different from the mode the lens requires to operate. It's kind of a bummer, but I did manage to play around with it in manual mode and the pictures were still sharper and brighter and clearer than they would have been on the D50.

I'll have to look again for a model number (I didn't see it last night when I took a look at it) and see what it's AF type is and see if there is any way to mount it, or if we should start shopping for a replacement lens. I know the wife wants a Prime lens, and I am looking at a f1.8, but honestly I use the zoom quite a lot and really don't want to have to focus manually all the time.

 

[bruce_the_loon]

The D50 has an internal AF drive, the little dohickey at the 7pm position on the lens mounting plate. The D5500 doesn't, it relies on the lens having its own motor. I guess your Sigma doesn't have its own motor. Newer lenses will have.

 

[satph]

The D5500 does not have an in-camera autofocus drive motor (the D50 does). The D5500 does not offer auto focus with older AF and AF-D lenses. Newer AF-S lenses have a motor built into the lens so both cameras can AF with them. Sigma's in lens AF motor is called HSM, if your lens isn't an HSM lens, the D5500 isn't going to AF with it.

Another thing to consider when working with macro is that the meter on the D5500 isn't going to work unless it's connected to a chipped lens (the automatic extension tubes will allow this info to pass). If you want the meter to work in all cases you need at least a D7100
from the current offerings.

See this site for a chart of AF and metering compatibility.

 

[Homercidal]

The D50 has an internal AF drive, the little dohickey at the 7pm position on the lens mounting plate. The D5500 doesn't, it relies on the lens having its own motor. I guess your Sigma doesn't have its own motor. Newer lenses will have.

The D5500 does not have an in-camera autofocus drive motor (the D50 does). The D5500 does not offer auto focus with older AF and AF-D lenses. Newer AF-S lenses have a motor built into the lens so both cameras can AF with them. Sigma's in lens AF motor is called HSM, if your lens isn't an HSM lens, the D5500 isn't going to AF with it.

Another thing to consider when working with macro is that the meter on the D5500 isn't going to work unless it's connected to a chipped lens (the automatic extension tubes will allow this info to pass). If you want the meter to work in all cases you need at least a D7100
from the current offerings.

See this site for a chart of AF and metering compatibility.

This is what I think I've come to find out. The lens didn't seem to have a model number on it. It's a 70-300mm Zoom lens. Very common. But I think it's only an AF model. I guess I can simply sell it with the old camera kit and get a little $$ out of it. I think it would improve the value of both the lens and the camera if I sold them all together.

A 70-300mm lens that's compatible isn't terrible in price, and probably well worth the money since that's the lens I use most often, especially outdoors.

satph, that is a VERY handy reference you supplied! I forwarded the link to a guy at work who's wife is also into amateur photography. He's a techie kind of guy and thought it was a nice bit of information to have on hand.