Kit for Medical Photography

scottmcc · Aug 20, 2011

I am a surgeon, and have convinced my clinic that I need a camera to document my work. I do exclusively surgery from the collar-bones up (ENT surgery/otolaryngology).

This will be a mix of before and after shots as well as intraop "action" shots. As I do "small parts" surgery, I'd need a decent macro as well as a portrait lens to take full face shots without distorting facial contours. Most important is accuracy and reproducibility of results--the images aren't going to be pretty, they have to document. Also, I'd like a longer working distance so that sterility isn't compromised.

Does anyone with experience in medical photography want to weigh in with an adequate setup? Cheaper is better of course as it's not my money being spent and the budget guys are tight. One of the folks at work thought the ricoh gxr system with 50mm lens would work, but I'm nervous about going away from an slr. Also, I use nikon for fun when I'm not at work so it would be nice to stay with them just so I don't have to relearn the workings of a camera.

Overread · Aug 20, 2011

Never done medical work, but for macro and portrait you can easily use the same lens, and many of the 100mm or shorter macro lenses are often used for portraits and macro work combined (and are oft complained at for being too sharp when modern people want nice smooth skin in pictures). As you have experience with Nikon and no existing camera gear on site I'd certainly have no problem pushing for a nikon based setup.

I'd say you've the choice between a short focal length macro of say 60 or 70mm in focal length (Nikon 60mm or Sigma 70mm) or for a bit more range (for the sterility issues) a 90mm or 100mm macro lens would suit well.

Nikon also has their new 85mm macro which might well be the happy medium between neither being too far nor too close to the subject.

The other option is lighting, you can use flash and a ringflash and macro lens combo is oft used by dentists for close up shots of teeth. However if you want to avoid flash you'll have to invest more into a camera body of a higher level to get more usable high ISOs.

Josh66 · Aug 20, 2011

A 100mm (or close to that - I think it would be 105mm for Nikon) macro lens sounds like it would be just about perfect.

You could use it for the close details (assuming you don't need more magnification that 1:1) and the full face shots. At that focal length, the full face shots would put you far enough away that I don't think you would have to worry about compromising the sterility. Also, a macro lens is going to be about as distortion free as you can get.

It may be too long for the impromptu action shots though... Maybe toss in a 35 or 50 for that.

If possible, I would take your camera in there under typically expected lighting conditions to see if you need to add a flash to the kit.

edit
Looks like Overread types faster than me, lol.

scottmcc · Aug 20, 2011

Sharp is good-I need to see exactly what the skin looks like, wrinkles, blemishes, and all. I prefer flash as the existing light in the medical world stinks and I need bright, even lighting. A little oblique light is nice sometimes to show texture.

What I would prefer would be a nikon d7000 or d5100, prime lens in the 80 to 100 mm range (macro of course), and a ring flash. But the penny pinchers think I should think about a micro 4/3 system which I think will frustrate and disappoint me. Any thoughts on that? Thanks for the great advice so far.

tirediron · Aug 20, 2011

If you can find one, and the budget will stretch to one, than a Nikkor Medical 120 f4 is what you want. Specifically made for your sort of work. Failing that, than any good macro lens and ring flash will do the job.

Edited to add: I see the 200mm f5.6 is fairly commonly available. This will allow the photographer to be farther back from the subject.

tirediron · Aug 20, 2011

scottmcc said:
...What I would prefer would be a nikon d7000 or d5100, prime lens in the 80 to 100 mm range (macro of course), and a ring flash. But the penny pinchers think I should think about a micro 4/3 system which I think will frustrate and disappoint me. Any thoughts on that? Thanks for the great advice so far.

This really depends on what the final product will be. If I were doing this (and no, I do not have ANY medical background) I would want a full frame body for the increased dynamic range. One benefit of the 4/3 system will be increased DoF at a given focal length however.