GoldenOne

I am wanting to purchase a new camera for MACRO use. I photograph Mineral Specimens. I had a Fuji S7000 that ceased functioning. Want to upgrade. I am not a pro but need good quality for best results.

cmc65

Is there a question here?

Leitz Loc: Solms

What is the end use of your pictures? For the web, gallery prints, or what? (It makes a big difference in determining which cameras would be suitable.)

GoldenOne

I have a website northernnevadagold.com that I use to sell my Mineral Specimens. First step is to photograph the pieces then load to my site.

Leitz Loc: Solms

In that case, I would say that nearly any camera similar to your defunct Fuji will more than suffice. Rather than suggest a particular model, I would suggest you check online a store such as B&H or similar, where you can compare specifications and prices. Good luck!

GoldenOne

Thanks, I am thinking of a Canon 65mm f/2.8 MP-5 lens on a Canon EOS camera body. I havent decided which model to get yet?????????

Leitz Loc: Solms

That looks like an incredible lens, and being able to stop down for depth of field is a major advantage over a point and shoot. I'm not familiar with Canon cameras, so can offer no suggestions there. I don't think they make a bad one.

johnmowry Loc: Northern Indiana, USA

The Canon outfit you mentioned will make superb photos of objects smaller than 1". See the "true macro" section for many examples. It won't be able to photograph anything larger (entirely). For you use in making "web quality" photos a typical macro lens seems a better fit, and a bridge or point-shoot camera with macro capability might also work well. Take a couple of typical specimens to a camera store and try different models.

johnmowry Loc: Northern Indiana, USA

Further to my previous comment, a Rebel model and either a 60 or 100 mm macro lens should do the job well. I have the 100 mm and think it's very good. Check out the Canon website for refurbished items. I have gotten good-as-new items with guarantee for about 20% off.

Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

If you want high quality macro images you do need an SLR and a macro lens. Your choice of Canon is Ok but I can't suggest a specific model since I shoot Nikon. Go for a model that has a high resolution so you can crop your images without losing too much data. I understand there's a new body that has 50 megapixel resolution, that would be perfect.

I'd suggest a macro lens in the 100 mm range (I think Canon has a 105 mm f2.8). This gets you a reasonable working distance.

I'd spend twenty dollars or so for a white light tent. That allows you to provide an even light all around and it becomes easy to extract the image later when you're processing it.

Finally, depending on the lighting conditions you have or the moods you'd like to create, a macro flash would be handy too. I think Canon has such a thing and that it holds two flash heads. If they are wireless I'd use three or four heads to illuminate the back as well as the front. Generally I will sometimes use four heads for macro.

paulrph1 Loc: Washington, Utah

Remember it is in the glass and not the bells and whistled. the glass determine the best print but I like my bells and whistles because they allow me to do more.

Nikonhermit Loc: In This Place

To Bugfan:

RE:"Go for a model that has a high resolution so you can crop your images without losing too much data. I understand there's a new body that has 50 megapixel resolution, that would be perfect."

You are suggesting that he get a 50MP camera to shoot JPEGs that he will post on his website? Amazing!

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Picture solely for website use won't require a DSLR. Your previous camera was a point & shoot model & most any point & shoot model out there with "macro" capabilities should fit the bill. A DSLR would be preferable if other uses were indicated. The Canon MPE 65 macro has a steep learning curve & is difficult to use (lighting your subject primarily). Most any "true" macro lens will give you good results as long as your technique is good. If you were satisfied with the results from a point & shoot previously, there is no need to use a DSLR & true macro lens though.

Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

Hi Nikonhermit ... Yes that is what I am suggesting. But of course that depends on your subjects. I've done macro for years, mostly insects and other small crawling and flying things. Despite the length of my long macro lenses, sometimes it's just impossible to get close enough to get the picture and/or the subject is so small that even on life size it's not big enough. Cropping later was a disaster, there wasn't enough data.

My problem went away with the D800. With 36 megapixels I had lots of data that allowed me to sometimes crop significantly and still have a sharp fine image quality.

Obviously a web page doesn't need or want a 50 megapixel jpg image but then you don't need to upload a file that size, you can reduce the resolution accordingly. But getting to that point sometimes requires a lot of data to do a judicious edit before the up loading happens.

I agree that minerals don't offer the same challenge as a skittish bug does, but sometimes there are details in a rock that may need additional cropping as well when a life sized image doesn't really show enough detail.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

I have also read that the MPE 65 is both a great lens but very challenging to use successfully. Might be overkill for your need.

Best,
Todd Ferguson
Harrisburg, NC