Noob question about budget macro shooting

[Eamike261]

Hi all, I'm looking to take the best budget macro shots possible. The objects are motionless and about 1-2cm in size with millimeters of detail. Shooting from 4 to 18 inches away. I realize the best possible solution is to buy an $800 macro lens but I'm trying to figure the best option for $300-500 (including lens and body). I'd like to capture as much detail as possible while staying inside bag price range.

The Canon Rebel T6 2-Lens bundle is $300 on sale brand new. Seems like a really solid option for the price but it's 18 megapixels. Of course I know megapixels alone don't tell you much about the ability to capture fine detail, which is why I'm asking.

There are other options like the Nikon D3500 w/ 1 lens for $400, which is 24 megapixel. Or with some patience, I can try to snag a Canon T7, T6i, or SL2 for about $500 on sale or refurbished, which are all 24 megapixel.

So basically - my question is: in the case of lowend entry-level DSLRs targeting budget macro shots, will the difference between 18 and 24 megapixel be significant or not worth the extra money? Or is there a better solution within my price range?

Thanks for any input!

 

[Overread]

Honestly macro is one area where you can go cheap and get great results and an entry level body is more than capable. The megapixel issue now is more a case of asking yourself - are you going to blow this up to posterboard size. If so then its better to have more, if not then 18mp is more than enough. In fact 12 is more than enough these days.

So chances are the rebel or entry level nikon cameras will suit you ideally for this.


Now the second question is regarding the distance, you mention it quite specifically and I just need to know if that is for a very specific reason and limitation of what you've got to work with. There are cheap ways to get to 1:1 magnification for small sized subjects, but they often have very little working distance (distance from the front of the lens to the subject) which can affect lighting even if you're shooting a static subject.

Now the other issue is lighting and support. Ideally you want a good set of tripod legs, a geared tripod head and a focusing rail. Now all that together isn't dirt cheap, however it would let you support the camera firmly and steadily and thus let you take photos with a longer exposure (slow shutter speed) so you could avoid the need for supplemental lighting (eg flash).
Tripods oddly tend to devalue when second hand, even though they are generally very durable. A heavy set of cheap lens from Manfrotto, second hand on ebay would be an ideal starting point. Geared tripod heads are more expensive though and for now you might have to settle for a cheaper 3 way head (these are easier than ball heads for macro). If you ever do work toward a better head then a Manfrotto Junior Geared head is the head of choice for most doing macro - geared heads are like 3 way heads, only that they let you move each plane of motion with a turning knob that moves very slowly, thus giving you very fine motion that helps with macro work.
Lastly the focusing rail isn't too bad, B&H and other companies make them where its just a name stamped on a general brand model and those are good quality rails that will suit you. Rails basically add a back/forward motion to the tripod; which helps a lot with moving the camera right into focus where you want it.

 

[InFlight]

There is a fellow that I know of who shoots with I believe 18mp. Over 200k on his camera.
Great success and I aim to be as good as he is.

 

[Eamike261]

Honestly macro is one area where you can go cheap and get great results and an entry level body is more than capable. The megapixel issue now is more a case of asking yourself - are you going to blow this up to posterboard size. If so then its better to have more, if not then 18mp is more than enough. In fact 12 is more than enough these days.

So chances are the rebel or entry level nikon cameras will suit you ideally for this.


Now the second question is regarding the distance, you mention it quite specifically and I just need to know if that is for a very specific reason and limitation of what you've got to work with. There are cheap ways to get to 1:1 magnification for small sized subjects, but they often have very little working distance (distance from the front of the lens to the subject) which can affect lighting even if you're shooting a static subject.

Now the other issue is lighting and support. Ideally you want a good set of tripod legs, a geared tripod head and a focusing rail. Now all that together isn't dirt cheap, however it would let you support the camera firmly and steadily and thus let you take photos with a longer exposure (slow shutter speed) so you could avoid the need for supplemental lighting (eg flash).
Tripods oddly tend to devalue when second hand, even though they are generally very durable. A heavy set of cheap lens from Manfrotto, second hand on ebay would be an ideal starting point. Geared tripod heads are more expensive though and for now you might have to settle for a cheaper 3 way head (these are easier than ball heads for macro). If you ever do work toward a better head then a Manfrotto Junior Geared head is the head of choice for most doing macro - geared heads are like 3 way heads, only that they let you move each plane of motion with a turning knob that moves very slowly, thus giving you very fine motion that helps with macro work.
Lastly the focusing rail isn't too bad, B&H and other companies make them where its just a name stamped on a general brand model and those are good quality rails that will suit you. Rails basically add a back/forward motion to the tripod; which helps a lot with moving the camera right into focus where you want it.

Thank you for the detailed reply. For distance I may be able to get within 1-4 inches for some shooting but otherwise it will be mostly 4-18 inches, so I'm pretty limited. Is there a cheap lens that you were going to suggest for macro shots with a tiny working distance?

I do plan to blow up the image on the computer screen and/or crop it down to the object, so it sounds like the extra megapixels would be beneficial but relatively minimal benefit.

And thanks for the input about the tripod. I had thought about that but had not looked it into it yet!

 

[Overread]

Your distances are tricky if only because cheap options would easily work with 1-4 inch ranges. That would be something like using a 50mm f1.8 lens (very cheap from all brands) and a set of Extension tubes (Kenko make good ones in a set of 3).

The rough maths for extension tubes is
( length of tubes in millimeters divided by focal length of the lens ) + native magnification of lens = magnification :1

Where a full macro lens would give you a 1:1 ratio for a result. The native magnification of most lenses that are not macro isn't too high so its often left out of this casual maths. So with a 50mm lens and a full set of kenko tubes (which is about 65mm or so if memory serves) you'd get just over 1:1, so that's a little more than what a true macro lens would give you.

That said extension tubes work by reducing both infinity focus and minimum focus distances; meaning that the lens can end up focusing very close.



Now with regular macro lenses you can use longer focal lengths for increased distance to the subject, whilst they would still give you the same 1:1 magnification ratio at their closest focusing distance (so for most practical terms the photo from a 35mm macro and a 180mm macro would cover the same content).

The first table on this review (scroll a little way down) should help you.
Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG APO HSM Macro Lens Review

You want to look at both the:
MFD = Minimum focusing distance which is the distance from the sensor/film inside the camera to the subject
MWD = Minimum working distance which is the distance from the front of the lens to the subject.

MWD often only appears in macro because for most regular shooting you're at distances where the difference between the two is negligible. For macro it can make a huge difference in lens possibilities. Remember the working distance is the front of the lens, whilst the minimum focusing distance is always going to be greater because its measuring from subject all the way through the lens and front of the body to the sensor/film.



So if you are going to be fully at the 14 or even 20 inches away from the subject and you cannot move the camera closer then you're going to have to look at the 180mm macro lenses. Now some of those you might get second hand a little older in version; they will still be top grade and worth considering getting. With modern macro lenses whilst there are performance differences you're often well into the nit-picking realms when comparing them. Even own brand to 3rd party (eg sigma and tamron) the 3rd parties stand up very well when comparing lenses of a similar design age* (in my personal experience I've got Canons macro dedicated 65mm macro; Sigmar 150mm and 70mm (both earlier versions than those on the market now) and both the Sigma's stand up great; in fact the 70mm beats the 65mm Canon in a few apertures with regard to sharpness/crispness of detail.


*clearly newer lenses (own or 3rd party) can often improve a bit more due to use of new technologies

 

[ac12]

My personal setup

• D70 and D7200.
  • IMHO, the camera has very little practical difference beyond a certain point. The T6 or D3500 or similar used camera should be just fine. Or buy used and save $$$
    
  • Nikon D3400 Digital SLR Camera Body, Black {24.2 M/P}
  • Nikon D3300 Digital SLR Camera Body, Black {24.2 M/P}

• Ability for the camera to use a remote shutter release on the camera, either IR or wired. And the matching remote shutter release.
  • This is so that you do not move/shake the camera when you fire the shutter.

• Lens: Old manual Nikon 55 Micro Nikkor. You do not need an autofocus lens at macro distances. $57 on eBay.

• Nikon Nikkor Non-AI 55mm f3.5 P C Micro Lens 55/3.5 PC #087 | eBay
• Note for Canon, you MUST match the lens mount, as the older film lenses will not mount on the current EOS cameras.
• Note that for some camera/old lens combos, you will not be able to meter with the camera. But with digital it is not an issue; you just shoot, look at the image, adjust exposure and shoot again, till you get the exposure right. And that is what I do.

• An eyepiece magnifier to make it easier to manually focus the lens.

• 4-way macro rail (front/back, left/right). This makes it much easier than lifting and moving the tripod just an inch. About $25 or less.

• Yosoo 4 Way Macro Focusing Rail Slider/Close-up Shooting for DSLR DC Camera 741870239380 | eBay
• https://www.amazon.com/SHOOT-Alumin...8-5&keywords=4+way+macro+focusing+rail+slider

• Decent tripod with a 3-way pan head. Probably less than $100.

• Lights

• Can range from inexpensive $5 desk lamps to expensive specialized macro lights.

To follow up on @Overread .
Ideally you want a longer focal length macro lens, rather than a shorter FL macro lens. The reason is the minimum working distance (MWD), between the front of the lens and the subject. It is much easier to light the subject when you have a foot of working distance with a longer lens, than only 1 or 2 inches with a short lens. With only 1 or 2 inches of MWD from the front of the lens to the subject, you need more specialized smaller lights (ring and fiber optic lights), that will fit into that small space.

 

[Eamike261]

Your distances are tricky if only because cheap options would easily work with 1-4 inch ranges. That would be something like using a 50mm f1.8 lens (very cheap from all brands) and a set of Extension tubes (Kenko make good ones in a set of 3).

The rough maths for extension tubes is
( length of tubes in millimeters divided by focal length of the lens ) + native magnification of lens = magnification :1

Where a full macro lens would give you a 1:1 ratio for a result. The native magnification of most lenses that are not macro isn't too high so its often left out of this casual maths. So with a 50mm lens and a full set of kenko tubes (which is about 65mm or so if memory serves) you'd get just over 1:1, so that's a little more than what a true macro lens would give you.

That said extension tubes work by reducing both infinity focus and minimum focus distances; meaning that the lens can end up focusing very close.



Now with regular macro lenses you can use longer focal lengths for increased distance to the subject, whilst they would still give you the same 1:1 magnification ratio at their closest focusing distance (so for most practical terms the photo from a 35mm macro and a 180mm macro would cover the same content).

The first table on this review (scroll a little way down) should help you.
Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG APO HSM Macro Lens Review

You want to look at both the:
MFD = Minimum focusing distance which is the distance from the sensor/film inside the camera to the subject
MWD = Minimum working distance which is the distance from the front of the lens to the subject.

MWD often only appears in macro because for most regular shooting you're at distances where the difference between the two is negligible. For macro it can make a huge difference in lens possibilities. Remember the working distance is the front of the lens, whilst the minimum focusing distance is always going to be greater because its measuring from subject all the way through the lens and front of the body to the sensor/film.



So if you are going to be fully at the 14 or even 20 inches away from the subject and you cannot move the camera closer then you're going to have to look at the 180mm macro lenses. Now some of those you might get second hand a little older in version; they will still be top grade and worth considering getting. With modern macro lenses whilst there are performance differences you're often well into the nit-picking realms when comparing them. Even own brand to 3rd party (eg sigma and tamron) the 3rd parties stand up very well when comparing lenses of a similar design age* (in my personal experience I've got Canons macro dedicated 65mm macro; Sigmar 150mm and 70mm (both earlier versions than those on the market now) and both the Sigma's stand up great; in fact the 70mm beats the 65mm Canon in a few apertures with regard to sharpness/crispness of detail.


*clearly newer lenses (own or 3rd party) can often improve a bit more due to use of new technologies

My personal setup

• D70 and D7200.
  • IMHO, the camera has very little practical difference beyond a certain point. The T6 or D3500 or similar used camera should be just fine. Or buy used and save $$$
    
  • Nikon D3400 Digital SLR Camera Body, Black {24.2 M/P}
  • Nikon D3300 Digital SLR Camera Body, Black {24.2 M/P}
• Ability for the camera to use a remote shutter release on the camera, either IR or wired. And the matching remote shutter release.
  • This is so that you do not move/shake the camera when you fire the shutter.

• Lens: Old manual Nikon 55 Micro Nikkor. You do not need an autofocus lens at macro distances. $57 on eBay.

• Nikon Nikkor Non-AI 55mm f3.5 P C Micro Lens 55/3.5 PC #087 | eBay
• Note for Canon, you MUST match the lens mount, as the older film lenses will not mount on the current EOS cameras.
• Note that for some camera/old lens combos, you will not be able to meter with the camera. But with digital it is not an issue; you just shoot, look at the image, adjust exposure and shoot again, till you get the exposure right. And that is what I do.

• An eyepiece magnifier to make it easier to manually focus the lens.

• 4-way macro rail (front/back, left/right). This makes it much easier than lifting and moving the tripod just an inch. About $25 or less.

• Yosoo 4 Way Macro Focusing Rail Slider/Close-up Shooting for DSLR DC Camera 741870239380 | eBay
• https://www.amazon.com/SHOOT-Alumin...8-5&keywords=4+way+macro+focusing+rail+slider

• Decent tripod with a 3-way pan head. Probably less than $100.

• Lights

• Can range from inexpensive $5 desk lamps to expensive specialized macro lights.

To follow up on @Overread .
Ideally you want a longer focal length macro lens, rather than a shorter FL macro lens. The reason is the minimum working distance (MWD), between the front of the lens and the subject. It is much easier to light the subject when you have a foot of working distance with a longer lens, than only 1 or 2 inches with a short lens. With only 1 or 2 inches of MWD from the front of the lens to the subject, you need more specialized smaller lights (ring and fiber optic lights), that will fit into that small space.

Awesome info, thank you both! It looks like extension tubes or an older ~55mm macro lens will be my best choices options for the super close range shooting. But for the shots from 4-18 inches I will likely just do the best I can with the standard lens that comes with the kit. I'm sure it will suck compared to an actual macro lens but I expect it still beats the crap out the equivalent iPhone picture for detail and resolution.

 

[Overread]

If you can show us the results you get, might be that there's some editing or further ideas that could be worked on to help you out with your situation.