Jin

My boss has asked me to get a set up for a macro photography, specifically for jewelry and i have no idea where to look. done some google research but they're all so confusing because they give me various different methods. zoom lens, macro lens, close-up lens, professional cameras, starter cameras, tubes, filters, etc.

I have a $1000 budget, but lower the better. I know there are a lot of dslr users here and i'd like to know what's the new and best starter camera?

It seems Rebel XSi is a good choice, with a EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM.
I honestly have no idea what kind of lens i need to get and i was hoping some of you guys can help me out making this decision. does it require different lens to capture an image of something that is 5mm big then 50mm big?

here's a sample image of what i'm trying to achieve. images i'll be taking will be 3x3 inches at the most, most being within 1 inch, half inches for pendants and such.



i'd really appreciate any type of help i can get. thank you very much in advance.

wombatsauce

iTrader: (7)

I would also like to learn about this, but based on my limited knowledge - with a $1000 budget you are not going to get far. For a DSLR setup, that will not even get you the camera body unless you are going to buy used. Then you need lenses, macro flash, proper flash, light boxes, etc.

I have not yet been able to take good macro pics with either of my DSLR bodies yet, because of my lack of skill with that platform. I use my Canon G10 for all of my macro shots, and I am really happy with what I have gotten out of it so far. So far everything I have done is for reference or for my own use - not art. If I were to use a tripod and the manual focus funtionality of this camera, it would be even better. Here's a shot I took a bit ago, at my desk at work, hand-held and in not the best light - you can see the fluorescent light above it in the pic. If I would have had it on a tripod and adjusted my focus where I wanted it to be, it would have been even nicer but keep in mind this fitting is about the size of a hazelnut.

04Impreza

iTrader: (17)

Is this for a one time shoot or continuous shooting? To do really proper Macro shooting, it requires a lot to get it right. You can make it without going all out but you'd have to be really creative to get the right shot. If this is a one time or a couple time shoot, I'd suggest renting gear. If this is the case, check out borrowlenses.com. They have a huge selection and carry everything from memory cards and chargers to lenses and camera bodies. If this type of shooting is going to be done a lot, I'd start looking into used bodies and a really good Macro lens.

Jin

my boss wants to keep records of all the work we do so it'll be done regularly.
we've been using a fixed lens dslr but the quality is no good. i end up using photoshop to crop out the 80% of the image since it can't focus on a small point.

lighting, whitebox, stuff like that are already set up but now we're looking for a decent set up.

i've been doing some research and i'd like some opinion on dslr cameras. i'm thinking of sticking with canon since its something i'm more familiar with. Canon Rebel XTi vs XSi with ef-s 60mm f/2.8 macro lens. it looks i'd need to spend ~500-600 on body and ~400 for macro lens. i was wondering if that'll be the most cost efficient way to go. and are there other methods in achieving this much macro detail with point and shoot cameras?

and it seems xsi is the better camera for just ~100 more.

BlingBlingBlue

Definitely spend the money on good glass. As to the differences between the XTi and XSi, I will defer to those with more knowledge.

camshaft06

iTrader: (3)

Don't laugh, but the best macro shots I have ever got were with a Nikon coolpix 4500. If you are going to only use it for macro it will be a great camera. It's only 4 megapixel but you get great shots, that you don't really need to blow up. And it will not break the bank! There is also a special macro attachment you can get for them, that is like a halo of light that goes on the lens. I'll try and dig up some of my old macro shots with one of these and post them, but in the mean time check it out here.
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Coolpix-.../dp/B000069096

wombatsauce

iTrader: (7)

If you are going to go that route, buy the best lens you can and get a body that you can afford with the rest of the money. For example, I would MUCH rather use an old used 20D with a really nice lens than an XTi/XSi and an EF-S lens. IMHO you will have a harder time and a steeper learning curve with the DSLR and you will ABSOLUTELY need a tripod which is another very large expense.

You really could get away with a $200 point and shoot Canon, a steady hand and good lighting (seriously).

Jin

that actually makes a lot of sense. do you have experience with EF-S macro lens? it seems to be topping the charts here and there and a good overall macro lens, should i look into something else?

i've looked into point and shoot, Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS7 particularly but the problem is i gotta do more research on whats new and whats old, i'm not sure how old that panasonic is...

what i need is the ability capture the differences of different qualities of the diamonds (my boss just told me), so it'll have to have very good image quality production. so, when it comes to being able to capture the slightest difference in color, does the body matter more or the lens? or combination of both. and i'm not even sure what he wants is achievable with just $1000 :/

04Impreza

iTrader: (17)

Like wombat and camshaft suggested, look into some P&S's. Ive seen/heard about some P&S's doing some amazing Macro work and fooling a lot of people. Other thing is that it doesnt sound like youll be printing very big if at all. So you wont need a high MB sensor camera.

04Impreza

iTrader: (17)

High quality glass is definitely a very big player in high quality images. Ive seen people use Nikon's lowest end DSLRs with pro glass and get excellent photos. Investing in a high quality lens will definitely pay off.

wombatsauce

iTrader: (7)

Crap - I am sorry to be misleading - no I have not used that specific EF-S lens. My sister has a Rebel XTi and I have a couple friends with other Rebel models and I personally do not like any of the EF-S kit lenses I have played with. I will have to compare them back to back so that my comments seem more useful.

As far as your last paragraph, it has everything to do with the lens - EVERYTHING!!!! Any competent photographer giving advice to someone just starting out will say to spend the money on the glass and get whatever body will work. A Rebel body will mount L lenses, so that could work - they are certainly good enough, and usually much lighter than the better bodies because they are smaller and have plastic housings.

iiiezekieliii

iTrader: (2)

Canon FD 50mm F/1.4 lens - ~$60 dollars
Canon 20mm macro tube - ~$20 dollars
Sony Nex3 or Nex5 - ~$500
FD/Nex Adapter - ~$50 dollars

VRT MBasile

iTrader: (17)

With Macro you definitely do not want to skimp on camera and, more importantly, lens quality. THe point of macro is to pick up those fine details close up, if you have a soft lens the images are going to look like crap. Also, lighting is very very important to get the details.

Ok, just read more of the thread. You said he wants to keep records, so are these photos going to be seen by customers? Or just him?

psoper

That was what I was going to say, regardless of how much money you spend on lenses and camera, if you don't have the lighting right for this kind of work you won't be happy with the results, I'd probably look to spend almost as much on a really high quality light box as I would on camera and lens

wombatsauce

iTrader: (7)

While I am sure you are correct and I have seen some really great photos you have taken, I am not sure how to use that info even with my limited experience with cameras. I am not sure what a "soft" lens is or how to choose one based on that adjective. Lighting is and may very well be very important but... How do you know what to do about that? Not trying to nit-pick as I am curious myself.

I see psoper mentioned a light box, and that it should cost almost as much as the camera/lens but the only "light box" experience I have is helping my father and a photographer friend make stuff like that with very simple wood, white sheets, opaque plexi (spray one side with anti-reflective or just "flat clear" paint) and some other stuff. My DSLR cost me $1500 for the body alone in 2005. My current 17-40mm lens was around $750 and my favorite lens I own, a 50mm 1.4 prime, was around $350. I would want to stab myself in the eyes before spending over $2,000 on a lighting box setup when it seems that something like that can be so easily made. If he is just shooting jewelry and small items, he could get away nicely with a very small setup. Maybe I am missing something...? I must be.

In an effort to demonstrate my interest in this subject, I have produced the following images. I used my Canon G10 "point and shoot" for all of these:

Wife's rings and some key I found in the street:


Sort of a "response" to "iiiezekieliii's" shot above - not sure what the desired effect was there...


The same watch, depicted a little more clearly:


My MH Bertucci field watch:


My wife's ring again, pretty obviously hand-held haha..


I have no idea, I like weird stuff, so what:


Disclaimer: I know these are crappy, but I was shooting in my kitchen, hand-held, with overhead fluorescent light and some of these I used this crazy lighting setup which consisted of an IKEA lamp, a piece of 8.5x11 paper and a black apron I found in the kitchen. I also used an assortment of different colored items, as well as some actual jewelry! Imagine if I had some skill, and a tri-pod!!

Crazy lighting setup: