# Best Macro Photography Camera?



## Spiritwind (Aug 23, 2011)

Hey Folks,
I was wondering if some of you could refer me to some good cameras for Macro Photography.
Price Range - Camera<$500 or somewhere around that area.  New or Used.
Other Qualifications of Camera - Possibility to add a macro lens. 
Camera used for - Taking close up photos of rough and slabbed wet rocks.  
Thanks a ton for your suggestions and if you need any more info I'd be happy to supply it!


----------



## mjhoward (Aug 23, 2011)

The lens is more important than the camera body.  Really any Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, etc. camera body will work well for Macro photography as long as you have a good Macro lens capable of 1:1 magnification or higher, a good lighting rig, and a tripod.  There have been several threads posted recently dealing exactly with this.  If you want to just look at my post history, you'll likely stumble across several threads on the topic and that should be enough to get you started and pointed in the right direction.


----------



## jrice12 (Aug 24, 2011)

I use the Canon 550d (Rebel 2Ti).  It is near the bottom end for pricing but has the same sensor as their more expensive models.  For macro work (well all photography) its the lens and the sensor that are important.  Don't pay more for faster burst modes etc.  Price on this camera body is something like $700 these days.  From there you need a great lens to go with it.  I use Canon's EF 100mm/f2.8 Macro USM almost exclusively.  This is not their L-series version but it is a great lens for the price (around $500 I think).  Frankly, I was shocked at the performance of this lens. Think about your tripod - pay up on this, don't go cheap.  OTOH I use a cheap tabletop tripod a lot, one of my favorite pieces of equipement - gets you nice ground-level horizontal shots.  I actually don't have a flash unit but some get great shots with them.  Finally the best investment of all.... TIME!!!  You need to work and work at your technique, reading up on how it's done, experimenting etc.  Anyway, this is written by a Canon fan so beware!


----------



## Overread (Aug 24, 2011)

A few questions:

1) Is the budget you state for the camera alone or for the camera and lens combined? 

2) How "macro" are we talking here. If you have links/examples of photos taken that can give an idea what kind of size the subject is that you need to take photos of that would help a lot as "wet rocks" makes me think you might just need close up rather than full macro.

3) A general idea of what the photos are being used for/taken for.


----------



## edddial (Aug 24, 2011)

On top of what mentioned above, for Macro Photography you need patience & creativity. It took sometime to adjust correct setting to get good result. Depends on how 'macro' (as above), you may need more gadget, i.e. ring flash or extension tube.


----------



## Markw (Aug 25, 2011)

Nikon D70, Nikon 55mm F/2.8 Micro, Pheonix Ring Light.

Mark


----------



## Spiritwind (Aug 26, 2011)

What are your guys opinions on a [h=1]*Canon Rebel XT Digital Camera*[/h]with a 
EFS 18-55mm lens
----
With the Price Range I would prefer it include the Lens, however I could possibly meet the budget if the lens wasnt *too* expensive.  I'm certainly open to any ideas.
Most of the pictures I take would need to be able to focus on an area of at least .5-1 inch diameter.  
Pretty much taking something the size of a penny, and showing it with good detail at high resolution.
Thank you guys a ton!  Really appreciate the help!


----------



## Overread (Aug 26, 2011)

For that kind of reproduction you will need to get to the 1:1 magnification factor of the proper macro lens. For rocks you've the advantage that they won't be running away anywhere so you can use a short focal length lens to get the shots. A Canon EFS 60mm macro; Sigma 70mm macro; Tokina 60mm macro; Tamron 90mm macro; Sigma 50mm macro (exclude the canon 50mm macro as is not a true macro lens unless purchased with its adaptor which sends its price up mugh higher). Each of those lenses would give you a high quality reproduction of the kind of sizes of area you need to cover.


However if your budget won't extend that far you can get yourself a set of Kenko Extension tubes (cheaper tubes lack communication contacts between camera and lens and prevent proper control; whilst canon extension tubes are vastly overpriced with no gain) which would fit between your kit lens and the camera body. They would remove infinity focus (can't focus on things further than a few inches away) but will also let you move the lens much closer and thus get a much more magnified image of the subject. 
Setting the lens to 50mm and using a full set of Kenko Extension tubes would get you to a bit over the 1:1 magnification ratio of the macro lenses so would be more than suitable for what you are after - though the kit lenses are nothing special, but stopped down to around f8 with proper lighting support of the subject and you should be able to get some decent photos (a good tripod will let you use a lower ISO when shooting, whilst letting your shutter speed slow to allow for the proper exposure - provided there is no wind and camera and subject are perfectly still)/.


----------

