Re: Should I buy a decent camera?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FatalSaviour
The Digital Picture - great site by the way gives the minimum focusing distance of the 18-55 IS II is is 28cm, which yields a maximum magnification of 0.28x. This means that a subject can be rendered at .28x life-size onto a sensor. While not a macro lens figure, .28x is very useful for flowers and other moderately small subjects. The IS II actually actually has the MFD as 25cm on the side, so it'll be slightly higher than this.
The MFD of the 100mm is 30cm, as you correctly stated, but it's also a 100mm focal length. This gives a MM of 1x, so the image that the sensor sees is going to be a lot higher.
....
Interesting, because Canon quote the Min Focus Distance of the EF-S-18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS II as 25cm and the magnification as .34x.
See the Canon manual (download here), section 9.
But, the differences are minor.
GeorgeStorm, the point FatalSaviour is making are quite right - the kit lens is not a "macro", the normal definition of which is that it can do at least 1:1 magnification. You need to be a bit careful with what manufacturers call "macro" because they play a bit (or sometimes a lot) fast and loose with that definition.
And by 1:1, what is meant is that the image on the sensor (or film) is the same size at the size of the subject of the photo. A 1cm bug would have an image on the sensor of 1cm .... and a 2:1 macro would have a size of the sensor of 2cm for a bug 1cm in size.
That kit lens is .34x, so you'll get an image of .34cm if the bug is that same 1cm bug.
But there are other implications of that difference, too.
The minimum focus distance refers to the distance from the film plane or sensor to the subject being photographed, and the maximum magnification will be at the closest focus distance. The further you move away, the lower the magnification will be. You will also often see quoted the "minimum working distance", with is the closest you can get (hence, maximum magnification) from the subject to the end of the lens.
So consider what you're photographing.
If it's a bug, and if it's at all skittish, if you try to get to within a few inches, you'll quite possibly scare it off. The longer the focal length of a "macro" lens, the further away you can be and still get maximum magnification. But on the other hand, the further away you are, the more the perspective e makes the image appear "flat".
But there's yet another consideration. One of the largest challenges with macro is often lighting. And with a smaller lens, you'll be that much closer, and thus blocking more light simply by being there. A longer focal length reduces that effect a bit.
It will also make a little difference to the depth of field, and the closer you are to a subject at a given aperture, the narrower the depth of field will be. And in macro, the depth of field is small. And by that, in case you don't know what I mean, I mean the bit of the image (front to back) that's generally regarded as being in reasonably sharp focus. With macro, you'll often be dealing in a cm or two at best, and fractions of a centimetre a lot of the time. So having versatility with a "fast" f2.8 lens gives you more options both in playing with depth of field (i.e. between deliberately blurring the background, at one end, while trying to get more of the subject in focus, at the other end) to maximising available light with a wide-open shot.
Macro lenses are rarely cheap, not least because they're relatively specialised, and in order to do their prime function (macro) well, they need to be very well, and accurately, built.
Canon's 100mm, both in L and the older non-L but still USM are very, very good lenses. I use the non-L one rather a lot, for everything from general purpose use, to product photography (on smaller items) and it makes an impressive portrait lens too. And my brief tests on the L suggest it's better yet .... but not by enough to have yet convinced me to upgrade.
But George, there are many ways of skinning the macro cat, as it were, and many of them are a LOT cheaper than a macro lens .... though the price you do often pay is convenience. Fatal already mentioned a couple .... extension tubes and close-up lenses. But that's not the end of it, with bellows and reversing rings also being on the list.
But in either case, you compromise ease of use. Bellows are big and awkward, and while okay for studio use, aren't ideal for wandering around the countryside, and that's putting it mildly. And reversing rings will mean you're in manual mode, so forget auto-focus (though, truth be told, a lot of macro work is manual focus anyway, because depth of field is so tight and focus critical) but you'll also lose aperture control, too. But you can get very high levels of magnification from a cheap lens on backward, and probably under £10 for a reversing ring. It's just a pain doing non-still life type stuff rigged that way.
All told, while some kit lenses do a decent job of close-ups, if you want true macro and the ease of use of just attaching a lens and pointing the camera, you need a macro lens. And which focal length depends on what you're going to be photographing, and in what circumstances. My feeling is that 100mm is probably the best overall compromise, but that's not to say it's suits everyone .... and it comes at a price.
Re: Should I buy a decent camera?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Saracen
Interesting, because Canon quote the Min Focus Distance of the EF-S-18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS II as 25cm and the magnification as .34x.
See the Canon manual (
download here), section 9.
I meant to note that in my previous post actually :( - having owned the MkI IS, and knowing that that was 25cm, I spent a while finding a picture of the side of the MkII lens to check that they hadn't taken a step backwards here!
IIRC, the old (non-IS) kit lens had a longer MFD...
Re: Should I buy a decent camera?
Thanks for that, hadn't really looked into it a massive amount yet, since I won't be able to buy a macro lens for a while, so didn't want to get too hyped up about something quite yet :P
Something I will be buying soon will be another battery or two, what are your guys opinions on 3rd party batteries? In general I've heard good things, since even if they aren't quite as good, they are sooooo much cheaper.
Re: Should I buy a decent camera?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GeorgeStorm
Thanks for that, hadn't really looked into it a massive amount yet, since I won't be able to buy a macro lens for a while, so didn't want to get too hyped up about something quite yet :P
Something I will be buying soon will be another battery or two, what are your guys opinions on 3rd party batteries? In general I've heard good things, since even if they aren't quite as good, they are sooooo much cheaper.
If budget is the major concern, one way into macro is the reversing ring route.
The reversing ring is cheap, but you need to know the lens you'll use it with, because you need to know the filter thread size. Then you can keep you eyes open for an old, non-auto lens, and even lens make doesn't matter. There are some bargains, including old enlarger lenses, and the like. You screw the lens onto the ring, and mount it backwards onto the camera. All you need is to be able to lock the lens aperture wide open. Some lenses have manual control, and some you cam lock the slider. Older lenses tend to be easier than newer ones.
And depending on the reversing ring and the lens you use, you may need a step up or step down ring (eBay, a pound or so) to match the reversing ring to the filter size on the lens.
As I said before, this is a bit fiddly in use, but the results, if you put in the effort, can be stunning. And you can probably do it for £20 or £30, all-in, if you pick your lens well. You might even be able to use that kit lens if you can lock the aperture open. I don't know if you can with that.
This is not the easiest set up to use, but as I say, the results can be stunning, and the magnification can be way beyond anything a 100mm macro can do. It's a good learning technique, too. ;)
Re: Should I buy a decent camera?
On batteries, personally Ive found the 3rd party ones dont hold their charge as long as my Nik originals.
Not had any burn up on me so far, which was a concern in the early days AFAIK.
Re: Should I buy a decent camera?
Re: Should I buy a decent camera?
I'll have a looksie at reverse lens stuff then.
And Bobster I've heard good things about Phottix batteries before (although your link doesn't work for me)
Maybe I won't buy one yet, just plan further ahead as to when I will charge mine etc.
Re: Should I buy a decent camera?
link works fine here.. bizzar..
Re: Should I buy a decent camera?
I've joined the DSL...T club since last Friday. Figured I'd use this thread to tell my story. Picking the camera has been quite a journey in itself, I think about 2 years. At first, I was driven by the desire of a more powerful zoom as I frequently found the 3x zoom on my P&S insufficient. So I started looking at superzoom cameras with manual control to learn on, but ruled them out when I found out that quite often their sensors were smaller than my P&S!
But at around the same time, I found out about mirrorless cameras. I was completely sold by Panasonic's offerings eventually decided to wait for the GH2. If I hadn't bought a new laptop last year (out of necessity), I very well might have bought it when I went to the US. Actually, I was still tempted, but then realised that Sony's NEX-series, which I had missed up until then, was a contender. I was particularly interested by the larger sensor and built-in HDR function, and thought of the smaller size as a plus even though I was a little unsure of how it would feel with a zoom lens. Still, rumours about the NEX-7 was rife and I decided to wait for it. The NEX-7 was released around the same time as two DSLT cameras, the A65 and A77 and I started wondering what was the point of those much bigger cameras, other than the range of lenses available. From a performance point of view, I still suspect that the NEX-7 will do all I need. But the deal breaker is..... a lack of GPS. Sometime I go on a long-ish holiday, get busy after I get back, and find myself not entirely sure where a particular picture was taken. It might be available as an accessory someday, but I wasn't taking the chance.
So the A77 it is. I did not know if it was worth the fairly significant price premium but I was tired of waiting and figured I can't go wrong with a "better" camera? Yet every time I went to a store and held the A77, I kept thinking "this is kinda big and heavy, will I get used to it?". The A65 did not have that issue. On top of that, I "accidentally" negotiated a very decent price on the A65 and the lens I wanted (Tamron 18-270mm - remember that this all started because I wanted more zoom?). Pure fluke, I only went to the store because it was raining (I had thought of asking friend or family of getting one from the US or HK because the menus are multilingual and more importantly, it was much cheaper), and the salesman misunderstood my intention (I was not even thinking of negotiating) and I ended up getting it cheaper than the online prices in the US/HK. With cherry-blossoms blooming this week, I went for it. And I am loving it, I am carrying with me every time I go out. Yes the camera is not without compromise (there are cameras with better ISO performance), a telephoto lens is clearly about compromise and I will be looking to supplement it with a prime in due time. But I am sure I'll learn a lot with this camera, and it will allow me to know which feature I really use (e.g. if I didn't get a camera with built-in HDR/GPS, I might be asking myself "what if") and make a more educated decisions with my next upgrade (which won't be for a while, and might well be a full-frame - I reckon that the size of this camera will enable me to get used to more weight and easier to get used to an even bigger camera).
