Extreme low light macro suggestions

[nos33]

So I have a project that requires me to shoot pictures of some metal parts that are 1/2" x 1/2". We are dying them and looking for cracks. The parts that have cracks on them glow under black light. I am trying to get extreme close ups of the cracks in a dark room with the only light source being the intense black light and the dye coming out of the cracks.

I am looking for suggestions on lenses and possibly a camera. I have a Nikon D5000 but my boss wants to buy a new camera specifically for this project.

Thanks for any suggestions.

 

[o hey tyler]

You're going to need a macro lens, tripod, and remote shutter release it sounds like... Because you're going to be shooting on bulb mode, and the exposures are going to be much longer than 30 seconds. Especially considering you're going to have to stop the lens down a considerable amount to have an appropriate DoF.

Someone more familiar with Nikon can fill you in on the lens part, I just wanted to make sure you know what you're getting into.

 

[nos33]

the dye glows very brightly. If i leave the shutter open the glow coming from the dye might over expose the picture.

 

[o hey tyler]

the dye glows very brightly. If i leave the shutter open the glow coming from the dye might over expose the picture.

With a macro lens, you're going to be shooting past f/11 more than likely. I don't think you'll have to worry about over exposure if black light is your only lighting.

 

[cgipson1]

I would recommend a D700 if that is in the budget. They are easy to find, and are an excellent full frame body. Full frame would be best for this.. just because of the low light sensitivity. A tripod and a remote will be a must, as well as a good macro lens (nikon 105mm 2.8 highly recommended... although the Tokina 100mm would be a good bet also). Do not use any filters... or any type of external enhancement lens either.

I would seriously do some bracketing also....at least several stops either way, just to make sure you get what you need.

 

[unpopular]

If the budget is in the thousands, and this is something you will do on a regular basis, it makes much more sense to use an appropriate materials science microscope. Many modern microscopes have cameras built in suitable for this kind of work.

I would contact http://www.micro-shop.zeiss.com/ for consultation.

 

[o hey tyler]

I would recommend a D700 if that is in the budget. They are easy to find, and are an excellent full frame body. Full frame would be best for this.. just because of the low light sensitivity. A tripod and a remote will be a must, as well as a good macro lens (nikon 105mm 2.8 highly recommended... although the Tokina 100mm would be a good bet also). Do not use any filters... or any type of external enhancement lens either.

I would seriously do some bracketing also....at least several stops either way, just to make sure you get what you need.

Why do you need great ISO performance if the subject isn't moving and you can use a long exposure on ISO100? I'd rather spend more money on the lens itself than a full frame body if I were shooting macro. The crop factor would also work in their favor.

 

[cgipson1]

I would recommend a D700 if that is in the budget. They are easy to find, and are an excellent full frame body. Full frame would be best for this.. just because of the low light sensitivity. A tripod and a remote will be a must, as well as a good macro lens (nikon 105mm 2.8 highly recommended... although the Tokina 100mm would be a good bet also). Do not use any filters... or any type of external enhancement lens either.

I would seriously do some bracketing also....at least several stops either way, just to make sure you get what you need.

Why do you need great ISO performance if the subject isn't moving and you can use a long exposure on ISO100? I'd rather spend more money on the lens itself than a full frame body if I were shooting macro. The crop factor would also work in their favor.

The OP asked for Body recommendations.. that is what I would recommend! I also recommended lenses... and some technique. The crop factor advantage is very minimal really.... and the FX capability would be an advantage in that kind of low light / long exposure setting... just less noise.

 

[nos33]

I know my boss would like to keep the budget for body and lens under 1500. he wants to be able to set the camera up less than a foot away from the part. what is the focal range of the nikon 105 2.8 lens you recomended

 

[cgipson1]

I know my boss would like to keep the budget for body and lens under 1500. he wants to be able to set the camera up less than a foot away from the part. what is the focal range of the nikon 105 2.8 lens you recomended

The Nikon 105 (and the Tokina 100) both do true 1:1 macro and have minimum focusing distances of about 12" from sensor plane (say around 6" from the end of the lens).

 

[unpopular]

Will the focus be fixed? If so, then you will not need AF. The older manual focus version of the Nikkor 105 are less.

 

[Infidel]

I would recommend a D700 if that is in the budget. They are easy to find, and are an excellent full frame body. Full frame would be best for this.. just because of the low light sensitivity. A tripod and a remote will be a must, as well as a good macro lens (nikon 105mm 2.8 highly recommended... although the Tokina 100mm would be a good bet also). Do not use any filters... or any type of external enhancement lens either.

I would seriously do some bracketing also....at least several stops either way, just to make sure you get what you need.

Why do you need great ISO performance if the subject isn't moving and you can use a long exposure on ISO100? I'd rather spend more money on the lens itself than a full frame body if I were shooting macro. The crop factor would also work in their favor.

The OP asked for Body recommendations.. that is what I would recommend! I also recommended lenses... and some technique. The crop factor advantage is very minimal really.... and the FX capability would be an advantage in that kind of low light / long exposure setting... just less noise.

Actually, the DX, specifically in the flavor of a D7000, would probably be better...for the following reasons:

1. Depth of field advantage for smaller sensor
2. Pixel density
3. Very good ISO performance for DX body

For tripod mounted macro work, I think the first 2 factors outweigh the ISO advantage of the D700. Granted, the blacklight scenario is novel, macro work is generally one area where dx > fx. Also, the D7000 high ISO performance is very good.

 

[cgipson1]

Why do you need great ISO performance if the subject isn't moving and you can use a long exposure on ISO100? I'd rather spend more money on the lens itself than a full frame body if I were shooting macro. The crop factor would also work in their favor.

The OP asked for Body recommendations.. that is what I would recommend! I also recommended lenses... and some technique. The crop factor advantage is very minimal really.... and the FX capability would be an advantage in that kind of low light / long exposure setting... just less noise.

Actually, the DX, specifically in the flavor of a D7000, would probably be better...for the following reasons:

1. Depth of field advantage for smaller sensor
2. Pixel density
3. Very good ISO performance for DX body

For tripod mounted macro work, I think the first 2 factors outweigh the ISO advantage of the D700. Granted, the blacklight scenario is novel, macro work is generally one area where dx > fx. Also, the D7000 high ISO performance is very good.

As a former D7000 owner, I would agree with you.. I should have mentioned that body also.

 

[o hey tyler]

The OP asked for Body recommendations.. that is what I would recommend! I also recommended lenses... and some technique. The crop factor advantage is very minimal really.... and the FX capability would be an advantage in that kind of low light / long exposure setting... just less noise.

Actually, the DX, specifically in the flavor of a D7000, would probably be better...for the following reasons:

1. Depth of field advantage for smaller sensor
2. Pixel density
3. Very good ISO performance for DX body

For tripod mounted macro work, I think the first 2 factors outweigh the ISO advantage of the D700. Granted, the blacklight scenario is novel, macro work is generally one area where dx > fx. Also, the D7000 high ISO performance is very good.

As a former D7000 owner, I would agree with you.. I should have mentioned that body also.

Haha. That's the body I was going to suggest in lieu of the D700... For those reasons.

 

[Overread19 7]

For a subject half an inch in size any DSLR and regular macro lens will suit for capturing photos. A DSLR setup like this will deliver superior results to a microscope based setup (at least of similar price -I'm sure there are high cost options that will deliver as good if not better results, but they might be harder to track down and cost more).

I would suggest that your boss get teh 105mm either the newer or the manual (since you'll be in manual focus anyway). Then the next part of the budget wants to be on a good, solid tripod and either a 3 way head or (ideally if the budget will allow) a manfrotto junior geared head. Legs could be something like a manfrotto 055XPROB or a 190XPROB series set (if you want to go cheap you can get pretty cheap, if heavy, legs second hand on ebay).

From there I'd use your camera body with a remote/timer to experiment initially to make sure you get the results you want. After that pretty much any modern DSLR should suit your needs so I'd factor that last into the pricing structure. The main part will be the lens - the lighting (which you've got fixed) and the support.