Confused as to which camera to buy

Jenn · January 16, 2013

I've been looking into buying a new camera and I'm just getting a headache from reading everything there is to read about them. Right now I have a point and shoot (the info will be in my sigtag), but it is pretty limited as to what it will actually do. I thought about a Canon T2 or T3 18mp ... then I saw a Nikon dslr 24mp ... both came in packages with various lenses and other items. I also saw various cameras at Sams Club.com, too. I swear I'm going to start having nightmares about megapixels chasing me down the street.

What I want to do with a camera is 1- take macro photos. I love doing that but my camera really doesn't do it very well. Secondly, I'd like to be able to take any sort of photo that dgrin challenges throws at me... and not have the camera be so difficult to learn that I need a degree to use it. :huh

I was reading some threads here and I'm no closer to knowing which camera would work for me than I was this morning. :scratch There's so many details to take into consideration when buying a good camera.

I sure could use some advice.

thanks!

Zerodog · January 16, 2013

The right one all depends on your budget. For macro shots, a macro lens will be needed. So what is your budget?

Fletcho · January 16, 2013

Think about lenses
Hey Jenn from Oklahoma,

I'd think more about lenses than cameras. As a good photo friend told me long ago - and it's proven true through the years - "if you're going to invest, invest in glass." Which is to say that most of the dslrs out today will do a great job for you. I've been shooting Canon's for years but am intrigued by the Nikons out today as well as the Sonys. I would buy a good mid-range camera that didn't break the bank (not part of a package deal at Sams because those are - generally - pretty cheap lenses) and then buy a nice couple of lenses that give you macro capability if you can swing it. I'd even go so far as to say think about a good used camera - maybe one that comes with a usable zoom - then look at the macro lenses available. Think about what kind of macro you want to do and then select the right lens. There are a couple of wide range zoom lenses out there from second-party mfgs - sigma, for example, that have macro capability that would be good to start with. Yes, you can pay more and get Canon L quality macro lenses and if you happen to have an extra $1,000 laying around and are very concerned about pixel peeping, that's the way to go. Otherwise, at least consider a good usable every-day lens and another with macro that gets good reviews. Chances are you'll keep the glass for a long time and upgrade the camera, so invest for glass first. (Which is all to say I've been agonizing on a which macro I'm getting next for six months!) Good luck. ~ fletcho

Jenn wrote: »

I've been looking into buying a new camera and I'm just getting a headache from reading everything there is to read about them. Right now I have a point and shoot (the info will be in my sigtag), but it is pretty limited as to what it will actually do. I thought about a Canon T2 or T3 18mp ... then I saw a Nikon dslr 24mp ... both came in packages with various lenses and other items. I also saw various cameras at Sams Club.com, too. I swear I'm going to start having nightmares about megapixels chasing me down the street.

What I want to do with a camera is 1- take macro photos. I love doing that but my camera really doesn't do it very well. Secondly, I'd like to be able to take any sort of photo that dgrin challenges throws at me... and not have the camera be so difficult to learn that I need a degree to use it.

I was reading some threads here and I'm no closer to knowing which camera would work for me than I was this morning. There's so many details to take into consideration when buying a good camera.

I sure could use some advice.

thanks!

DsrtVW · January 17, 2013

Jenn go Nikon Yes I am a Nikon Shooter, Canon will do just as well. But you can find a lot of older Nikon lenses at good prices even though most will be manual focus on a D3200 or D5200 because there is no internal drive motor on those for focus. Make sure your computer is up to speed for those files sizes that will come from a 24mp camera. Used cameras or refurbished are a good way to go too. Lots of good prices out there on D7000, D700, D300
I bought my first macro lens for 120.00 a Micro 55mm f2.8 AI-s it works well but I have since bought a 105mm f2.8G VR Micro Nikkor which is outstanding but is about 900.00

paddler4 · January 17, 2013

Canon vs. Nikon is for the most part a straw man. Few of us are good enough that the choice is a substantial limitation.

At least in the Canon lineup, one choice is level of body. Frankly, it won't make a huge amount of difference in image quality. Many superb macro photographers use Rebels, like the t2 and t3 you mention. However, there is a big difference in controls and responsiveness between the Rebels and the next step up (60D, 70D). I personally much prefer them (I use a 50D), but if the choice is between the more expensive body and lenses, I think I would go for the latter, as fletcho suggested.

If you are serious about macro, you are going to end up needing a macro lens. Yes, there are lots of ways around this, but all have limitations, and every serious macro photographer I know uses a macro lens. So factor that into your medium-term budget.

The less expensive cameras in both lineups are so called "crop sensor" cameras, meaning that the sensor is smaller than in the much more expensive "full frame" (35mm equivalent) cameras. If macro is your concern, that is just fine. At minimum working distance, crop sensor cameras will put more pixels on the subject than will the less dense full frame sensors. Most macro photographers I know use crop-sensor cameras. So if that is your interest, I'd say stick with the cheaper crop sensor cameras.

rtbaum · January 17, 2013

As far as the body, I use the nikon D90. Canon surely has a comparable body. The macro lens that I use is the Tamron 90mm. The thing about macro lenses is that there seems to be a lot more parity among different manufacturers than there is with other lenses. A photo taken with a third party lens is indistinguishable from either Nikon or Canon lenses. One factor that must be considered is the focal length, the longer the lens the further that you will be from your subject for the 1:1 capture. This is important for some subjects, like skittish insects. All of the true macros will be able to achieve the 1:1 capture, meaning that you can focus close enough that the subject will fill the entire sensor. Put another way, the sensor in the D90 is roughly the size of a dime, if you focus as close as possible to a dime, the coin will fill the entire frame. My laptop's screen is 17", that coin will be 17" wide with incredible detail. Canon actually produces a lens that produces 5:1 magnification!

Do be aware that shooting with a true macro may not be for everyone, depth of focus is very real challenge as it can be razor thin.

If you are planning on shooting large flowers or entire plants, you may not need a true macro. Many other lenses can give you a pretty darn close image as well; not too muddy the waters too much, I have 400mm telephoto that was picked up used for $400 that I am really looking forward to using on butterflies and dragonflies this summer. I can pretty much fill the frame from 15'.

I think that for now you should be thinking about getting a body that will allow you to grow, the lenses that are likely to come as part of a package are generally 18-55mm zooms and/or 55-200mm zooms. These lenses are more than adequate for many beginning photographers. The beauty of these lenses is that they act as an inexpensive way to discover one's personal style. The first lense that I puchased was a Tamron 18-270mm, it has served me well. It is a good walk around lens, but is not excellent in any situation. My favorite would have to be the 90mm Macro; ironically, not due to macro capability but due to it being an incredible portrait lens. I find that I frequently think outside the box and the only way I can do that is by taking baby steps, which is why I recommend the starter lenses first.

Try not to become too discouraged at this point; your greatest resource right now is the experience found on this website. Glass is the most important investment as you progress, but right now you just need encouragement. Good luck on your journey, we are here for you

Jenn · January 17, 2013

rtbaum wrote: »

Do be aware that shooting with a true macro may not be for everyone, depth of focus is very real challenge as it can be razor thin.
If you are planning on shooting large flowers or entire plants, you may not need a true macro
I think that for now you should be thinking about getting a body that will allow you to grow,
I find that I frequently think outside the box and the only way I can do that is by taking baby steps, which is why I recommend the starter lenses first.
Try not to become too discouraged at this point; your greatest resource right now is the experience found on this website. Glass is the most important investment as you progress, but right now you just need encouragement. Good luck on your journey, we are here for you

Even with my current camera I'm nearly always wanting to max it out as far as taking macro shots. I LOVE it when I can capture some detail that I can't normally see like the tiny hairs on the stem of a plant. Once I took a photo of a plant leaf and I could swear I could see the movement of the tiny leaf cells in the shot but it wasn't as IN focus as I wanted it to be. And you're right about becoming discouraged... I've been struggling and wondering if I should just give up and accept that what I can do now is as good as it gets or if I should keep trying because some day I might really be a photographer.

paddler4 wrote: »

If you are serious about macro, you are going to end up needing a macro lens.

The less expensive cameras in both lineups are so called "crop sensor" cameras, meaning that the sensor is smaller than in the much more expensive "full frame" (35mm equivalent) cameras. If macro is your concern, that is just fine. At minimum working distance, crop sensor cameras will put more pixels on the subject than will the less dense full frame sensors. Most macro photographers I know use crop-sensor cameras. So if that is your interest, I'd say stick with the cheaper crop sensor cameras.

I think macro shots are some of the most beautiful images I've ever seen... So which camera is best for macro for someone starting out with a more serious camera? I've read some lenses are manual focus and others are automatic focus, and what's a fair price to pay for the camera and lenses?

DsrtVW wrote: »

Jenn go Nikon Yes I am a Nikon Shooter, Canon will do just as well. But you can find a lot of older Nikon lenses at good prices even though most will be manual focus on a D3200 or D5200 because there is no internal drive motor on those for focus. Make sure your computer is up to speed for those files sizes that will come from a 24mp camera. Used cameras or refurbished are a good way to go too. Lots of good prices out there on D7000, D700, D300
I bought my first macro lens for 120.00 a Micro 55mm f2.8 AI-s it works well but I have since bought a 105mm f2.8G VR Micro Nikkor which is outstanding but is about 900.00

I have been thinking about a Nikon, too, and my husband has some lenses he used with his older 35mm Nikon that he believes would work with todays digital... So, far the advice is leaning towards getting a medium ranges camera and put the real money into the lenses.. right?

Fletcho wrote: »

Hey Jenn from Oklahoma,

I'd think more about lenses than cameras. As a good photo friend told me long ago - and it's proven true through the years - "if you're going to invest, invest in glass."
I'd even go so far as to say think about a good used camera - maybe one that comes with a usable zoom - then look at the macro lenses available. Think about what kind of macro you want to do and then select the right lens.
Chances are you'll keep the glass for a long time and upgrade the camera, so invest for glass first. (Which is all to say I've been agonizing on a which macro I'm getting next for six months!) Good luck. ~ fletcho

Is there more kinds of macro photography that I don't know about besides taking pictures of tiny things and magnifying the detail?

I really appreciate your advice and it makes a lot of sense to me to put the money into the lense.

Zerodog wrote: »

The right one all depends on your budget. For macro shots, a macro lens will be needed. So what is your budget?

The budget is a bit flexible right now depending on what I find and how badly I really want it. The best deal in the world isn't worth much if it's not something I really want to do, and I know that I get a great deal of enjoyment from taking macros. I also like taking photos of things that breaks the rules and are different from what everyone else does...

This is probably silly but I took a photo of this desk lamp tucked away in a storage room for a challenge selective color challenge ... That poor little lamp had such vibrant color and looked like it just wanted to be useful, but someone was done using it and it ended up in a storage room. When I saw the photo it made my heart ache at bit and wonder who used to use it.... (as if objects have feelings and feel left out of life when they're stored away!) That's the kind of photos I want to take... pictures that make me feel something.

Anyway ... so the verdict is a mid range Nikon or Canon body and good lenses. If anyone happens to see something advertised that I could print out and actually look for something locally like it ... I'd sure appreciate a link to it.

Thanks for all the help and advice.

rtbaum · January 18, 2013

If you are set to go the macro route, I would recommend a prosumer body, suchas the D90 or D7000. Tamron 90mm macro will have autofocus ability, but you will find that autofocus is as useless as tits on a boar hog in macrophotography. Depth of focus is incredibly shallow when you get up close, it is best to manually focus to achieve the detail. A tripod that adjusts to a low position is pretty much mandatory for this type of photography. You will want to think about investing in photo-editting software that is able to do stacking. I personnaly use Adobe Photoshop CS4 for stacking. You will have noticed by now that there is a section of dgrin devoted to macro, I would frequent that section and begin picking their brains. You will find that macro has its own challenges; the tiniest movement of your setup or subject will ruin the shot. I do primarily wildflower photography, it is not unusual for me to be found lying facedown in a walking path for 10-15 minutes waiting for the breeze to abate, I once looked up just in time to see a group of hikers dialing 911:D. It is somewhat easier to shoot in an indoor studio.

I have a link for a local brick and mortar camera store in Minneapolis for you to check prices, http://natcam.com/

paddler4 · January 18, 2013

I LOVE it when I can capture some detail that I can't normally see like the tiny hairs on the stem of a plant. Once I took a photo of a plant leaf and I could swear I could see the movement of the tiny leaf cells in the shot but it wasn't as IN focus as I wanted it to be. And you're right about becoming discouraged... I've been struggling and wondering if I should just give up and accept that what I can do now is as good as it gets or if I should keep trying because some day I might really be a photographer.

Macro photography is demanding, but it just takes practice and -- if you will pardon my sounding old-fashioned -- study. There are great tutorials on the macro forum on this site. That would be a good place to start.

for what you are describing you want to do, I think you have no choice but to buy a dedicated macro lens. Almost all of them are very sharp, but they differ in other features. For example, the canons are all internal-focusing lenses, which means that the outer element does not move in and out as you focus. Some of the Tamrons are not. Personally, I would not buy a macro lens that does not allow you to use full time manual focusing--that is, focusing manually while the lens switch is still in the AF position. A great deal of macro work is done with manual focusing, but when I am in the field, I often leave AF on and use it to get a starting point. If you put the focus control on a back button instead of the shutter, depressing the shutter will not override manual focus. These are details, but they are important in macro work, I think.

I can't speak to Nikon's offerings, because in 45 years of shooting SLRs, I have never owned one. In the Canon world, there is a lot of overlap between the consumer models (Rebels) and the prosumer models (60D, 7D) in terms of sensors. For some pairs, they are identical. Therefore, if you are in a situation where you have all the time in the world, you can get the same quality of macro images from either. However, if you are out chasing bugs, or doing anything else where ergonomics, speed of adjustments, etc., are an issue, the prosumer models are a step up. I have done macro with an old Rebel XTi and a 50D, and no one has ever commented on a difference in image quality. However, I find the 50D (an older model sort of midway between the 60D and 7D in features) much easier to use.

Here is one of my early flower macros, shot with the XTi and the EF-S 60mm macro:

Here is a more recent one, shot with a 50D, also with that lens. This uses Zerene focus stacking to combine multiple images for greater depth of field:

2012-06-09-20.57.01%20ZS%20DMap_cloned-XL.jpg

2012-06-09-20.57.01%20ZS%20DMap_cloned-XL.jpg

I also use a 100mm lens for flowers, but given that I have both at hand, I often use the shorter one when working on a table top. I more often take the long one in the field.

slpollett · January 18, 2013

Hi Jenn,
I recognize your struggle with deciding upon a new camera. From what I know of you from the challenges forum, I 'think' you might be happier with a good mid price range Canon (like the T3i). The reason I say this is--Canon's control are very easy to learn, there are a LOT of good quality reasonably priced lenses from both Canon and other manufacturers, and it is easy to find other accessories that are compatible with Canon. I don't shoot either Nikon or Canon, but my good friend has a Nikon and my daughter shoots a Canon Rebel. Both take great pictures, but (to me) the Nikon's controls are not as 'user friendly' and I got frustrated trying to find features that my friend asked me to help her figure out. The Canon my daughter uses is just so comfortable. I can figure out how to do almost anything without dragging out the manual. (Just for the record, I shoot with an Olympus E5). I love that my daughter can add lenses without breaking the budget. She also wanted to shoot macro and we gave her a nice Canon 50 mm macro lens for Christmas that did not explode the budget. She loves it.

Anyway, that is just my $.02.

Happy shopping.

Sherry

Oso · January 19, 2013

Hi Jenn;

Picking out a new camera is a total headache and the camera makers and sellers often don't help much -- I suspect the reason there are so many duplicative models, etc., is to make you feel bad about whichever one you purchase so you'll immediately want to buy another!

For what it's worth, I have a Nikon D5100 that is considered a low to mid-range DSLR and I really like it. I paid $550 for the body, leaving me money to buy a couple of nice lens. If you practice, shoot in RAW and have a good program to process (I bought Lightroom for $149, which I like), you'll get images you like. And you can always invest in a new macro lens.

Nikon just brought out the new Nikon D5200, which isn't all that different from the 5100 -- although certainly more expensive. So if you shop around on Amazon, B&H, Adorama, you can probably find a good deal on the 5100. I'm just a hobbyist and I know I'd rather spend money going somewhere interesting with my camera rather than breaking the bank for a perfect pro-style camera.

One other tip: if you're considering a camera model, go to SmugMug or Flickr and do a search for photos taken with that particular camera (it's super easy on Flickr). That will give you a good sense of what the cameras can do.

Have fun!

Steve

Zerodog · January 20, 2013

First off. Go to a store and look at some bodies. Decide which brand based on how you like the layout of the controls. You really can't go wrong with Nikon or Canon. I am partial to Nikon. After that set aside $500-800 for a macro lens. Or a lensbaby! If you like a different style one of those will give it to you on a budget. Macro, fisheye, 35mm, 80mm and lots of other creative options can be had.

A really good option is something like a used D90, D300s or on the higher end a D700. Fantastic bodies for very good prices right now.

Matthew Saville · January 20, 2013

The two main decisions are, Nikon VS Canon, and Full-frame VS Crop. So I'll cover those bases:

Nikon, Crop: They have a great 24 megapixel sensor out right now that will do incredible macro work for you considering all that magnification power that you'll get out of so many megapixels on a crop sensor. Get a ~100mm macro that can handle such high resolution, like the new Sigma 105 OS macro, and you'll be in heaven. However, these current Nikon crop cameras are more amateurish, and if you get hardcore into photography then other aspects (action, portraits) ...might leave you wanting for something better. The older Nikon crop, the D7000, is still quite new and a great camera, I'd highly recommend it if you're thinking of buying used and looking for a bargain but you don't want to go all the way to "beginner" DSLR status. Keep in mind, however, that a D7000 replacement (prosumer) or even a D300s replacement (semi-pro) might be on the horizon.

Canon, Crop: The 60D, 7D, and the rebels are all great cameras, but replacements are on the horizon for the 60D and 7D, and again getting a Rebel might leave you wanting more in a year or two, trust me!

Nikon, Full-frame: If you can afford the D600, the image quality will boggle your mind. If you value dynamic range just a little bit more than ISO performance, this is a huge winner. However since it's full-frame, to get the same type of macro you might want to get the Sigma 150mm Macro instead, however any of the ~100mms will still work fine and are quite long on full-frame. The Sigma 105mm, the Nikon 105mm, and the Tamron 90mm as well as the Tokina 100mm are all razor sharp, just get the most expensive one you can afford. Keep in mind that the D600 is just slightly limited however, as it is a prosumer body. If you value portability and image quality over anything else though, this is the clear choice instead of a D700 (cheapness and sheer speed) or a D800 (the crown champion of landscapes) Read my D600 review here: http://www.slrlounge.com/nikon-d600-review-best-all-around-dslr-ever

Canon, Full-frame. Again, if you can afford a Canon 6D, the image quality will boggle your mind. This is a great option if you value ISO more than dynamic range, compared to the D600. The 6D just keeps going and going; you can easily shoot at ISO 12800 and get great web / small prints out of it. It also has a few helpful functions (quick zoom button, heck yes!) that really make it my current favorite DSLR for aspiring hobbyists and pros alike. And this is coming from a Nikon owner, too. Read my review of the 6D here: http://www.slrlounge.com/canon-eos-6d-dslr-review-and-field-test-canons-highest-quality-dslr-yet

I don't know if I helped clear up any confusion, but there you go! Good luck deciding! Personally if I were you, I'd pony up and get the Canon 6D or the Nikon D600 now. Of course these cameras are very new so their price will drop significantly over the next 12 months, and if you're okay with buying used gear then you might just want to buy something else intermediate right now, such as a 60D or D7000, and see how you like the system, then in ~1 year sell that camera and upgrade to a used 6D or D600...

=Matt=

puzzledpaul · January 20, 2013

A major issue that I can't see mentioned - lighting.

If you're not going to use natural light, then you'll have to factor some sort of lighting gear into the budget - whatever system you end up with.

A standard flash (with macro arm and diffuser) can be of more general use for different types of photography ... whereas the dedicated macro flash rigs are less useful.

Tripods are not essential when using flash, although a means of supporting the rig will invariably help (eg bean pole - see LordV)

I'd suggest a macro lens in the 90 > 105mm range + a complete set of extension tubes ... which'll give you 2:1.

pp

time2smile · January 22, 2013

I'm a Nikon shooter, but am envious of Canon having the MP-E for micro.

Jenn · January 22, 2013

paddler4 wrote: »

<snip>
Here is one of my early flower macros, shot with the XTi and the EF-S 60mm macro:

Here is a more recent one, shot with a 50D, also with that lens. This uses Zerene focus stacking to combine multiple images for greater depth of field:

I also use a 100mm lens for flowers, but given that I have both at hand, I often use the shorter one when working on a table top. I more often take the long one in the field.

OMG! They are beautiful!
I'm so jealous.

Jenn · January 22, 2013

rtbaum wrote: »

If you are set to go the macro route, I would recommend a prosumer body, suchas the D90 or D7000. Tamron 90mm macro will have autofocus ability,<snip>it is not unusual for me to be found lying facedown in a walking path for 10-15 minutes waiting for the breeze to abate, I once looked up just in time to see a group of hikers dialing 911:D. It is somewhat easier to shoot in an indoor studio.

ROF<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/Laughing.gif" border="0" alt="" >! I laughed good at you looking up at hikers dialing 911!

So far .. I'm leaning towards a Canon (fill in the blank) ... I think! There's a camera store close by.. I may see if I can take a look there and see if they have anything used.

Jenn · January 22, 2013

Oso wrote: »

Hi Jenn;
Picking out a new camera is a total headache and the camera makers and sellers often don't help much -- I suspect the reason there are so many duplicative models, etc., is to make you feel bad about whichever one you purchase so you'll immediately want to buy another!
For what it's worth, I have a Nikon D5100 that is considered a low to mid-range DSLR and I really like it. I paid $550 for the body, leaving me money to buy a couple of nice lens. If you practice, shoot in RAW and have a good program to process (I bought Lightroom for $149, which I like), you'll get images you like. And you can always invest in a new macro lens.

Steve

Hi Steve... Thanks for the info and advice. What is the difference in shooting in RAW?? My camera doesn't have that option. Also, is Lightroom anything akin to PHotoshop because I do have Photoshop already.

slpollett wrote: »

Hi Jenn,
I recognize your struggle with deciding upon a new camera. From what I know of you from the challenges forum, I 'think' you might be happier with a good mid price range Canon (like the T3i). The reason I say this is--Canon's control are very easy to learn, there are a LOT of good quality reasonably priced lenses from both Canon and other manufacturers, and it is easy to find other accessories that are compatible with Canon. <snip>I love that my daughter can add lenses without breaking the budget. She also wanted to shoot macro and we gave her a nice Canon 50 mm macro lens for Christmas that did not explode the budget. She loves it.
Anyway, that is just my $.02.
Happy shopping.
Sherry

I Sherry! I was actually looking at (more like drewling over) a t2i 18mp at Sams Club:
http://www.samsclub.com/sams/search/searchResults.jsp?searchCategoryId=all&searchTerm=t3i&fromHome=yes&_requestid=160536 I've no idea if the pkg they sell there is worth the money, or if the lenses that come with the pkg are any good, either.... but I still drewl over it! <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/Laughing.gif" border="0" alt="" > What do you think? (everyone else, too)

Zerodog wrote: »

First off. Go to a store and look at some bodies. Decide which brand based on how you like the layout of the controls. You really can't go wrong with Nikon or Canon. I am partial to Nikon. After that set aside $500-800 for a macro lens. Or a lensbaby! If you like a different style one of those will give it to you on a budget. Macro, fisheye, 35mm, 80mm and lots of other creative options can be had.

A really good option is something like a used D90, D300s or on the higher end a D700. Fantastic bodies for very good prices right now.

Thanks for the info ... I know of a camera shop in town here and I've been thinking of going there to see what they have ... What exactly is a lensbaby??

puzzledpaul wrote: »

A major issue that I can't see mentioned - lighting.
If you're not going to use natural light,

A standard flash (with macro arm and diffuser)

Tripods are not essential when using flash,

I'd suggest a macro lens in the 90 > 105mm range + a complete set of extension tubes ... which'll give you 2:1.
pp

Hi Paul ... I try to use natural light when I can or use various lights on hand (like flashlights or overhead lights) and bounce the light off of maybe white or black backgrounds, and sometimes try painting things with light when I don't have enough light when I want it... I rarely ever use my camera flash because that's the advice many people have offered, and I do have a mini-tripod that I use all the time! Love it.

Thanks for all the ideas, too, Paul.

Jenn · January 22, 2013

Matthew Saville wrote: »

The two main decisions are, Nikon VS Canon, and Full-frame VS Crop. So I'll cover those bases:

Nikon, Crop: They have a great 24 megapixel sensor out right now that will do incredible macro work for you considering all that magnification power that you'll get out of so many megapixels on a crop sensor. Get a ~100mm macro that can handle such high resolution, like the new Sigma 105 OS macro, and you'll be in heaven. However, these current Nikon crop cameras are more amateurish, and if you get hardcore into photography then other aspects (action, portraits) ...might leave you wanting for something better. The older Nikon crop, the D7000, is still quite new and a great camera, I'd highly recommend it if you're thinking of buying used and looking for a bargain but you don't want to go all the way to "beginner" DSLR status. Keep in mind, however, that a D7000 replacement (prosumer) or even a D300s replacement (semi-pro) might be on the horizon.

Canon, Crop: The 60D, 7D, and the rebels are all great cameras, but replacements are on the horizon for the 60D and 7D, and again getting a Rebel might leave you wanting more in a year or two, trust me!

Nikon, Full-frame: If you can afford the D600, the image quality will boggle your mind. If you value dynamic range just a little bit more than ISO performance, this is a huge winner. However since it's full-frame, to get the same type of macro you might want to get the Sigma 150mm Macro instead, however any of the ~100mms will still work fine and are quite long on full-frame. The Sigma 105mm, the Nikon 105mm, and the Tamron 90mm as well as the Tokina 100mm are all razor sharp, just get the most expensive one you can afford. Keep in mind that the D600 is just slightly limited however, as it is a prosumer body. If you value portability and image quality over anything else though, this is the clear choice instead of a D700 (cheapness and sheer speed) or a D800 (the crown champion of landscapes) Read my D600 review here: http://www.slrlounge.com/nikon-d600-review-best-all-around-dslr-ever

Canon, Full-frame. Again, if you can afford a Canon 6D, the image quality will boggle your mind. This is a great option if you value ISO more than dynamic range, compared to the D600. The 6D just keeps going and going; you can easily shoot at ISO 12800 and get great web / small prints out of it. It also has a few helpful functions (quick zoom button, heck yes!) that really make it my current favorite DSLR for aspiring hobbyists and pros alike. And this is coming from a Nikon owner, too. Read my review of the 6D here: http://www.slrlounge.com/canon-eos-6d-dslr-review-and-field-test-canons-highest-quality-dslr-yet

I don't know if I helped clear up any confusion, but there you go! Good luck deciding! Personally if I were you, I'd pony up and get the Canon 6D or the Nikon D600 now. Of course these cameras are very new so their price will drop significantly over the next 12 months, and if you're okay with buying used gear then you might just want to buy something else intermediate right now, such as a 60D or D7000, and see how you like the system, then in ~1 year sell that camera and upgrade to a used 6D or D600...

=Matt=

I'm going to refer back to everything you said here... it's a lot to take in for sure. I think I've see the Canon 6D, so I'll look into that, too, plus the macro lense that you mentioned.

Frankly, I wish I could take you all to a camera shop with me so I won't make the wrong decision!

paddler4 · January 22, 2013

Hi Jenn,

I'll throw in two more comments. First, re the flower macros: all it takes is a lot of patience (and failed attempts) and a lot of reading up. Once you are ready to go, start with the tutorials on the macro forum on this site.

Second, re Matthew's advice about a 6D: if macro is really what you are after, I disagree. I would save your money and buy a crop sensor camera. Here are some reasons:

1. The price difference is very large. You need to ask: is that money better spent on a more expensive body or on all the other things macro work requires, like a macro lens, a tripod, and probably a monopod?
2. One of the reasons people like FF cameras is shallower depth field at a given aperture. That is NO use in macro, where the struggle is usually to increase depth of field.
3. When you are not shooting at minimum working distance (MWD), the smaller field of view of a crop sensor camera will give you more reach with a given length of lens--that is, you can fill the frame at a greater distance. Because minimizing motion is extremely important in macro, a longer, heavier lens is a pain.
4. People will say, oh, you can crop your FF images to get the same field of view as a crop sensor camera. That is literally true but misses the boat in macro work. Here's why. at MWD, a macro lens will give you 1-to-1 magnification. That is, the image on the sensor is life size. Just for illustration, suppose that at MWD, a subject completely fills a crop sensor camera's sensor. In the case of canon, where the crop factor is 1.6, the crop sensor is about 39% the size of a FF sensor. That means that the subject will fill 39% of a FF sensor. If you crop a 6D image to that percentage, you will have .39 x 20.2 = 7.9 million pixels on the subject. with an 18 MP crop sensor camera, you would have the full 18 MP on the subject.
5. A FF will give you less noise at high ISOs. this is of some value in macro, because it is advantageous in hand-held natural light work to be able to use a higher ISO and smaller aperture for greater depth of field. However, a lot of macro work is done with flash or other artificial light, or on a tripod, in which case higher ISOs are not valuable.

So, the picture is mixed. I am probably going to replace my camera this year, and for other things I do, such as night photography, I would love a FF camera. But I do a lot of macro, and for macro, #4 above is a very big drawback for FF. I am not sure what I will do, although I suspect I will end up with the rumored replacement for the 7D (that is, another crop). However, I have been doing this a long time (I bought my first SLR in 1968), and I have a lot of the other equipment, so the tradeoffs for me are very different than they are for a novice. For a novice, I would recommend not spending too much. You can get truly great images from a Rebel, and if you want the advantages of a step up, like better ergonomics, a mid level camera like a 7D or 60D is more than adequate. they are both better than what I use.

puzzledpaul · January 23, 2013

Jenn wrote: »

... I rarely ever use my camera flash because that's the advice many people have offered ...

re using on-board dslr flashes, there are various (cheap) ways to modify same to make them more useful for macro work... here's an example

pp

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=998&highlight=

Edit
Seeing this setup reminded me that the eqt shown... was that used to take the nag's eye pic here.

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=230834

TJRidgway · January 24, 2013

Everyone has covered the Canon vs Nikon fairly thoroughly, but what about a Micro 4/3 camera? There is a very well regarded 60/2.8 and 45/2.8 Macro in the Micro mount, as well as the amazing 50/2 and 35/3.5 Macro in the full size mount (useable with a basic adapter), and Olympus has been running pretty good deals on the OM-D and their lenses off and on recently. Also, the kit lens for the OM-D (12-50) is macro capable and weather sealed (as is the body). Being a 2x crop (sensor is 25% the size of FF) you get twice the DoF at the same effective focal length, which I think is a help in macro.

Anyhow, good luck with whichever system/camera you end up choosing!

Matthew Saville · January 24, 2013

TJRidgway wrote: »

Everyone has covered the Canon vs Nikon fairly thoroughly, but what about a Micro 4/3 camera? There is a very well regarded 60/2.8 and 45/2.8 Macro in the Micro mount, as well as the amazing 50/2 and 35/3.5 Macro in the full size mount (useable with a basic adapter), and Olympus has been running pretty good deals on the OM-D and their lenses off and on recently. Also, the kit lens for the OM-D (12-50) is macro capable and weather sealed (as is the body). Being a 2x crop (sensor is 25% the size of FF) you get twice the DoF at the same effective focal length, which I think is a help in macro.

Anyhow, good luck with whichever system/camera you end up choosing!

Considering the Panasonic GH3 is definitely a very good idea. The OM-D series is also really awesome, and there are some killer lenses available for the format too. I heard they just announced a wide angle f/1.8 prime I believe!

Especially if compactness and affordability is an issue, consider Micro 4/3. Or, if the latest high-tech EVF and all those other neat features (cell phone tethering and camera control!) ...then again, consider this system!

=Matt=

puzzledpaul · January 25, 2013

I've no idea whether the OP is considering buying used - but if so, isn't there a much wider range of quality used kit (readily) available for Canon / Nikon systems than any other?

pp

angevin1 · January 25, 2013

Jenn wrote: »

I'm going to refer back to everything you said here... it's a lot to take in for sure. I think I've see the Canon 6D, so I'll look into that, too, plus the macro lense that you mentioned.

Frankly, I wish I could take you all to a camera shop with me so I won't make the wrong decision!

Hi Jenn,

Make a list. Must have & Like to have. for the Camera Body.

For instance: Must have ISO capability to 6400ISO, Like to have swing out LCD.

There are tons of used Camera's available from some really great sources, all the fav's such as B&H, Adorama, and KEH as well. Canon makes a very special lens for Macro called the MP-E. But there are several other good offerings for much less from Sigma and Tamron.

But since you're talking Camera Body, make a list. It'll help you focus on the choice.

puzzledpaul · January 25, 2013

angevin1 wrote: »

Hi Jenn,

...Canon makes a very special lens for Macro called the MP-E. But there are several other good offerings for much less from Sigma and Tamron...

This reads (to me) like it could be suggesting that Sigma / Tamron make gear with similar capabilties to the mpe-65.

No other system has a 1-5x macro lens in its lineup - last time I looked, anyway

(Not disputing the quality of 'std' / fixed focal length macro lens offerings by 3rd parties, btw - I have a couple of Tamrons myself)

pp

angevin1 · January 25, 2013

puzzledpaul wrote: »

This reads (to me) like it could be suggesting that Sigma / Tamron make gear with similar capabilties to the mpe-65.

No other system has a 1-5x macro lens in its lineup - last time I looked, anyway

(Not disputing the quality of 'std' / fixed focal length macro lens offerings by 3rd parties, btw - I have a couple of Tamrons myself)

pp

Then you missed the point of my reply. Hopefully the OP will get that point and: Make a list.

Your reply to my post adds nothing to the OP's goal.

Confused as to which camera to buy

Comments