Camera and photography advice needed

Isabo · 01-06-2007, 01:34 AM

I'm planning a project with a friend and we need to take close-up photos of small items. Some would be straight down so we would need a small stand, I think. Some would be outdoors but always close up.
What would be a good choice of kit. This is likely to be a one-off so I don't want specialist equipment rather something that can go into service afterwards for regular use.

Steve Carlton · 01-06-2007, 07:07 AM

I'd suggest a DSLR. The main players are Nikon and Canon. The Nikon D40 is the newest and probably the least expensive, with some nice features. And it's fairly small. It sounds like a light box would help a lot, too.

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=2&productNr=25420

LeRoux Strydom · 01-06-2007, 07:18 AM

For really close-up work you will need a lens with macro-focusing ability. Point-and-shoot cameras rarely offer good quality macro photos. Depending on the purpose of the photos (brochure, flyer?) and your budget for the equipment, I would also suggest a dSLR with a good all-purpose zoom lens with macro focus ability. I use a Nikon D80 with a 18-135 lens as well as a Sigma 70-300 macro zoom. The latter focuses down to 95cm at 300m focal length, offering excellent macro photos. A good camera dealer will advise you on the appropriate lens depending on the size/nature of the objects you will photograph. It sound like a good tripod and light tent will be a necessity as well, possibly a good flash with bounce-flash ability too, if the built-in flash of the camera is not sufficient.

It all comes down to the quality of the photos you ultimately want. Why not rent a good photographer for a day?

alf · 01-06-2007, 07:23 AM

DSLR with a Macro or a Nikon S4 ($200) will take great macros. I use an old school Nikon 995 P&S for most of the close ups on my site www.japaneseSword.com, my D50 with Macro lens is just too cumbersome for what i need for the site.

BUT most important tool for Macro is a tripod. If you already have a P&S with Macro, try it with a tripod to see if it will do what you need.

Steve Carlton · 01-06-2007, 08:42 AM

The macro lens and tripod may not be necessary, depending on how close the lens needs to be.

Moneyguy1 · 01-06-2007, 10:26 AM

Believe it or not, there are two ways to do close ups that might be cheaper than investing in a specific expensive lens.

The first are extension tubes, if the camera you wish to use is a SLR type.

The second, to me, is a lot of fun. An Achromatic lens, fastened to the front of the camera lens shortens the field and depending on the strength of the lens, can et down to fractions of an inch. Of course, at this level, gettting proper lighting becomes the challenge. I recommend a lens with a focal length of about 12".

Have fun!! Be creative!!

Isabo · 01-06-2007, 12:36 PM

Thanks guys
The Nikon S4 looks like the deal. Is 3X optical enough? The photos would be of small costume jewellery for a catalogue.

Boxer_Airhead · 01-06-2007, 04:09 PM

Consider a tripod that can convert into a lateral arm, this allows you to mount the column ninety degrees relative to the legs, making for completely unobstructed straight-down shooting. I have the Manfrotto 3021PRO and it has worked great for the type of pics you are referring to.

fintstone · fintstone's Garage

Personally I would use a high quality digital...you can manipulate the photos electronically afterward. Also you can take millions of photos and pick the best....without developing charges.

Steve Carlton · 01-06-2007, 05:13 PM

Looks like it's 10x optical zoom. Jewelry is difficult to photograph, with the shiny surfaces. You'll definitely want to use a light box, and you'd be a lot happier with the image quality from a DSLR.

pwd72s · 01-06-2007, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Isabo
Thanks guys
The Nikon S4 looks like the deal. Is 3X optical enough? The photos would be of small costume jewellery for a catalogue.

Darn! I was hoping Isabo was going to show us her daughter's tats...

Isabo · 01-07-2007, 02:54 AM

It has to be digital for the ease of manipulation afterwards.
The Manfrotto 3021PRO tripod sounds perfect. (I've just found one for sale on Italian ebay almost on my doorstep, I'm going to see it this pm)
Any suggestions for a light box?
I looked at some cameras on the internet. The Nikon coolpix S4 appeals because of price and simplicity plus it can then go into duty as a compact snap & go for my handbag. Would a DSLR give a much sharper image? Enough to justify the extra cost?
pwd72s - I don't post personal photos on the internet.

Steve Carlton · 06:35 AM

Isa- I sold my two point & shoots after I saw what a DSLR can do. The D40 is probably the least expensive new DSLR out there, and probably the smallest and lightest. You could save money by getting one used as well. If you can, go to a large photo store and handle some examples and take some test images. If you can, bring your own memory card(s) to put them on. Otherwise a laptop to upload them to, so you can look at them later. I'll see what I can find out for you on another forum.

Here's a start:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/485437/0#4190333
http://www.fredmiranda.com/A18/

Perhaps search this forum as well:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/44

alf · 01-07-2007, 07:31 AM

Isa
If you go the DSLR route, I would pick up a D50 instead of a D40, great price ($550 with Nikon 18-55) now that it just got discontinued. You should also get a Macro lens for it if you want to take good Macros. I have one on ebay right now.

Link to auction

Or just get the S4 (or new S10) which will fill the bulk of your needs for under $300. A simple light box like this with an inexpensive tripod does wonders

LINK

Steve Carlton · 01-07-2007, 08:17 AM

Take a look at a D40 and a D50 at a store. Overall, I think the pluses far outweigh the minuses for Isa's intended use.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40.htm

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

I'll be contrarian. Macro is my "thing", and some of my best shots were done with a digital elph. Macro capability varies considerably with camera though. A lot cheaper than a DSLR setup, for which you really should have a real macro lense, not the cheap zoom that comes with the kit. The kit lense is not very good for macro.

It all comes down to budget and how much time you want to spend. The other advantage to more expensive cameras is that you can shoot raw format, which makes post processing really easy and powerful. jpg is harder to tweak after you shoot.

maxnine11 · maxnine11's Garage

If it is a short term project, consider renting a good macro lense for a DSLR (if a DSLR is the route you choose)

I used to rent great lenses in LA for about $20 a day, it helped me decide what lenses i actually wanted/needed to purchase.

As nostatic stated, if you go with a point and shoot camera, there is a broad range of macro capabilities from camera to camera. You may have to try several to find one that will do what you want.

good luck,

max

Isabo · 01-07-2007, 09:08 AM

My budget is to stay below $1000.
I've found a tripod and perhaps a light box. I've got about $750 left. (I'm in italy but prices should be close)
How much would a good macro lens cost to buy?
I've done some simple manipulation in jpg format, is working in raw format the same?

campbellcj · 01-07-2007, 09:34 AM

I think you could get a Nikon D40 (body only) or a used D70, and a 60mm "Micro" lens within that budget. Nostatic is correct, though, that a lot of the $250-500 P&S cameras do quite well at macro right out of the box. For web site use, their image quality should be plenty adequate.

Steve Carlton · 01-07-2007, 10:20 AM

I'm not really familiar with how good point & shoots can do for this application, especially if you're talking about for a catalog. If they'd do a good job, great. You'd save money and have the size camera you'd want for later. Looking ahead to later, I'm spoiled by what a DSLR can do, so I sold my two point & shoots so I can get a 35mm rangefinder.

I'd suggest signing up at fredmiranda.com and posing your questions on this forum after looking around at the last few pages of threads. I find the members there very knowledgeable.

Processing RAW is easy, but you'll probably need either a plug-in for Photoshop or some stand-alone software. With RAW you can go back and change parameters that are too late for JPEGs, like white balance, and do a better job recovering lost detail.

You can get a good feel for used gear pricing at www.keh.com and they have a ton of stuff in stock and are very reputable. Search under digital and 35mm for lenses...