DSLR body for macro

[joethephotographer]

I'm considering purchasing my first DSLR in the next month or two. I am primarily interested in macro photography (with an occasional portrait or landscape pic). What I'd really like to do is get a Raynox DCR-250 as well since I probably won't be investing in a macro lens initially.

With this in mind, what should I be looking for while selecting a DSLR? Are there any specific features that should get a higher weightage?

I've narrowed my choices down to one of the following:

- Nikon D3100
- Nikon D5100
- Canon EOS 1100D/T3

Are there any other cameras that I should be looking at?


PS: The subjects of my macro pics will not include bugs so I can get in close if the lens needs me to. :mrgreen:

 

[TheFantasticG]

Any of those will do, but the D5100 would be your best shot unless you want to go more than 1:1 then it is easiest done by the MP-E which is an EF lens.. The sensor in it is pretty nice for pulling the shadows back. Also, if you are primarily interested in macro you should invest in a macro lens for best results.

 

[robbins.photo]

I'm considering purchasing my first DSLR in the next month or two. I am primarily interested in macro photography (with an occasional portrait or landscape pic). What I'd really like to do is get a Raynox DCR-250 as well since I probably won't be investing in a macro lens initially.

With this in mind, what should I be looking for while selecting a DSLR? Are there any specific features that should get a higher weightage?

I've narrowed my choices down to one of the following:

- Nikon D3100
- Nikon D5100
- Canon EOS 1100D/T3

Are there any other cameras that I should be looking at?


PS: The subjects of my macro pics will not include bugs so I can get in close if the lens needs me to. :mrgreen:

If it were me I'd probably look at one of the two Nikons, particularly for Macro work where the better image quality an superior dynamic range will really make a difference. As to lenses, I'm not a macro photographer myself however the lens that my friends who are into macro seem to recommend more than most is the Nikon 40mm f/2.8G AF-S DX Micro Nikkor Lens. If your budget allows for it I would recommend the D5100 over the D3100, it is a pretty big step up in image quality. I use a D5100 myself and I love it - but really the lens is probably more important than the body in this particular case - well in most cases really

 

[goodguy]

ABSOLUTLY the D5100 from these cameras is the best.
Nikon has some nice Macro lenses, I own the 60mm 2.8G which is fantastic.
Also you can look at the 105mm but that one is more expensive.
For lower budget you can get the 40mm Macro

 

[KmH]

With experience and some knowledge of photography the Raynox DCR-250 can produce some decent photos.
The Raynox DCR-250 is an attachment to a camera lens.

But for good photos you will need a good tripod - preferably with a head that has focusing rails because AF won't work, expect some vignetting, depth-of-field will be extremely shallow, you can't use a lens hood because that's the attachment uses the lens hood mount, and the front of the lens will have to practically be touching your subject.

Any of the 3 cameras you listed will work fine, The differences between them are actually pretty minor.

The biggest influence on the image quality you produce will be your photography skill and knowledge.

 

[lambertpix]

Having just picked up a Canon 100mm macro lens to use in lieu of an extension tube on a "normal" lens, I'd recommend spending some time looking at lenses you might want to wind up using at some point. I'm not sure there's a whole lot of shots I can get with the 100mm macro that I couldn't have gotten with another lens and an extension tube, but it's hard to overstate how much nicer it is to use a lens that can do macro focusing natively.

The Canon 65mm MP-E mentioned above produces some absolutely staggering closeups, and it might be more than you really need, but if that *is* what you need, you'll want to figure that out before you buy the body, because I'm not sure there's a whole lot out there that really competes with that lens.

 

[lwoo]

I use Nikon D5100 and I can recommend it as a great camera for almost any use. But as far as macro or close-ups go, I could use virtually any DSLR as long as I could attach it to macro bellows and use old manual lenses or extension tubes. The only drawback is that it requires LOTS of patience, as the depth of field is usually veeeeeery shallow.

Also, it's best to use as fast lens as possible, since using bellows or extension tubes takes away some exposure value.

If you prefer to use the lens alone, then Tamron 28-75/2.8 might be good and reasonably cheap way to go.

 

[goodguy]

For serious Macro work I would stick to prime lenses that are design for Macro photography.
There are the 3 lenses I already have recommended and if money is tight there are lots of after market lenses you can choose from in different focal length.

 

[Dao]

May I ask the type of macro photos you are planning to shoot?

 

[joethephotographer]

Thanks everyone, you've convinced me to go with the D5100 + Nikon 40mm f/2.8G for starters. I have a tripod, but it doesn't have any focusing rails but I guess I can always go in for an attachment like this.

I'll mainly be shooting inanimate objects along with a little abstract-macro photography.

Photography is mainly a hobby - I don't see myself going pro. I have a job I love but it gets stressful sometimes. Photography is one of the ways I am able to keep my head.