# Camera Blues



## sejoy (Jan 18, 2011)

I don't know what to do. 
I Broke my Canon PS S5IS on a fishing trip a while back. Going totally insane without it.
For some reason I thought it was a DSLR this whole time...I don't know why I thought that.

Anyways, now I need a new camera, and I'm completely back to square one as far as deciding on one. 
I loved my camera. I loved Super Macro. But It's time to upgrade, and I have one issue.

Is there a way to get a DLSR for under 500$ that can do decent macro? 

I mean, I know DSLRs take great macros. That's kinda of what they're designed to do. But do you have to buy a separate macro lens in all cases? 

I've been using my friend's Rebel XS, and I can't for the life of me take a decent macro fish shot. Or a decent macro shot of...anything. It's very possible it's my fault, but I thought this would be a lot easier. (I'm not a complete newb at photography). I took maybe three decent shots out of over 100...and it was no where near great. I just want to curl up in a ball and cry. :fish1: 
My old camera took fantastic macro shots, and did so 98% of the time. I want to go back to it...But I feel like I need to upgrade to a DSLR, while I'm in the market for a new camera. I'm not the kind of person that will buy a new camera every 2 years...this has to last me a while. 

Is there any camera or setting that you have found does a great job at photographing tanks and super close shots without any accessories?

I can't spend more than 4-500$. I'm willing to buy used/older versions of cameras, either Canon or Nikon. 

:help:Camera savvy hobbyists...some guidance would be highly appreciated. ;_;


----------



## dodohead (Jan 11, 2010)

i cant take good macro shots with my dslr either. i think u really need a macro lens if u want nice macro pictures. maybe u can use extention tubes+ a regular lens, but thats sort of not the best way to go. 

i use my point and shoot to take macro pictures, its not ideal, but its better than my dslr and kit lens

i think a decent macro lens will cost around $300 though.... how about getting another s5 IS?


----------



## sejoy (Jan 18, 2011)

> i cant take good macro shots with my dslr either. i think u really need a macro lens if u want nice macro pictures.


Hmm...that's really strange. I guess they have to have the accessories to work at their full capacity. 



> i think a decent macro lens will cost around $300 though.... how about getting another s5 IS?


I thought about that, I'm just not sure that I want to 'regress' if you know what I mean. 

What I left out in the first post is that I'm an art student, and I feel that a DSLR would better serve my purposes in the long run. It's the standard in all the classrooms, even in the non-photography classes. just feel that I'd be at a disadvantage at this point if I were to go so far back. Even some of the point and shoots out now far exceed the s5is I bought three years ago. 

=/ I'm very confused at this point.


----------



## northey87 (May 24, 2009)

My wife and I have a Canon PowerShot XXXX? And to be honest it is the best point and shoot I have ever seen! I just bought a Canon T2i last year and it's AWESOME!!! My bother-in-law got a new T1i (for around what you are looking at spending) just after I got mine and its a great camera. So I am partial to Canons. I had a Kodak and hated it from the moment I got it.


----------



## sejoy (Jan 18, 2011)

northey87 said:


> I just bought a Canon T2i last year and it's AWESOME!!! My bother-in-law got a new T1i (for around what you are looking at spending) just after I got mine and its a great camera.


Do you use the macro on that often? How is it with focusing at such a close level?


----------



## jahmic (Jan 30, 2011)

A true macro lens capable of taking a photo at a 1:1 ratio for a DSLR will, in most cases, cost you upwards of $400 for the lens alone. There's really no way around that. When investing in a DSLR, if you want to save some money, buy a decent camera body, ditch the kit lens, and spend the majority of your budget on a quality lens upgrade. The major differences in upgrading to the higher end camera bodies are metering systems and resolution (megapixels). The right lens is what gives you those jaw-dropping shots. I used to shoot with a 35mm Canon Rebel that I purchased for under $200...but spent $400 on a portrait lens and had amazingly clear prints every time.

If you have no need to make large high resolution prints...then you would be fine to pick up a body that shoots at ~10MP. I have a Nikon D80 that's more than capable for what I shoot...the zoom kit lens is crap though.

That being said, as much as I enjoy shooting macro, I'm not going to spend that much cash on a prime macro lens (prime meaning single focal length). The solution: pick up a fast prime lens and get as close as you can. Nikon, for example, makes a 50mm 1.8 lens that only costs about $100. Sure, it's not a "true" macro lens since it's about a 1:6 ratio...but using a tripod will allow you to get enough clarity that you can always crop an image taken at 10.2 MP (with the D80) and get that same "macro effect". Sure, a macro lens would be able to get a lot closer, but if it's tanks that you're shooting the 50mm would be more than enough; it takes notoriously tack sharp images. I think the minimum focusing distance on that camera is about 9"...but don't quote me on that.

Hope that info helps, and makes some sense. I cracked my 50mm on a hiking trip last year (bad things happen when you're shooting birds of prey and a bear sneaks up on you, haha), and have been itching to get a new one since setting up my tank. For $100 spent on a lens, it saves a significant amount of cash and still gets the job done IMO. If you want some versatility and are really into shooting, nothing beats a DSLR. Sure, point and shoots are fun, convenient, and have tons of features...but, for example, when you start getting into lighting and getting a bit more creative...the limitations are minimal, if not non-existent (aside from how much you're willing to spend on equipment). Just last year I picked up a couple flash units from a local store on sale as, well as a remote and 2 slaves off ebay. Total cost: $145. With my spare tripod and some creative DIY, I now can run 2 remote flashes and have a portable "studio" setup that, although not high-tech, is extremely effective. 

If you're thinking about taking the leap...you might as well do it. There's nothing to regret...it just may take a little longer to save up for equipment here and there.


----------



## dodohead (Jan 11, 2010)

yeah i know what you mean about having a camera and moving forward... even a used 40d is pretty cheap now a days.. around $350 used? but that doesnt leave u much left over for a macro lens.. i guess u can always use a whatever lens now.. and upgrade to a macro later when u get money. 

if you'll only be taking macro pictures, the quality wont be all that and u might get frustrated. i get annoyed because i cant get good macro shots. i have lenses for the other kinds of pictures i take, but when it comes to wide angle and macro shots, its kinda depressing because the pictures just dont look good. you can tell it the picture was taken with a cheap lens because theyre not crisp and sharp =T

ive sorta wanted to try extension tubes, but people say thats the lame route to macro, so i'm not too sure i want to do that... coupled with my kit lens... bogus.


----------



## jahmic (Jan 30, 2011)

dodohead said:


> ive sorta wanted to try extension tubes, but people say thats the lame route to macro, so i'm not too sure i want to do that... coupled with my kit lens... bogus.


What do you have for a kit lens?


----------



## thewife (Jan 26, 2011)

I just bought a Lumix LX5. It's a P+S, but more of a bridge than just run-of-the mill. It is FREAKIN fantastic and takes great macros, and you can get a conversion lens for it specifically for macros. Heck, even my Sony Cybershot took good macros.

It's a bit on the pricier side though, especially if you buy the extra lens + adapter. 

On the other hand, I've heard the Canon S95 is right up there with the Lumix in terms of control and performance, and it's cheaper. I'd focus in on those two if you don't want to spring for a DSLR quite yet.


----------



## mordalphus (Jun 23, 2010)

---


----------



## mordalphus (Jun 23, 2010)

Extension tubes work, you just have to set your lens to the lowest f stop before mounting it onto the tubes. I took several hundred pictures with the extension tubes, and it does get you closer to the subject.

However, you could just go for broke and buy the macro lens, it's not that expensive.



dodohead said:


> yeah i know what you mean about having a camera and moving forward... even a used 40d is pretty cheap now a days.. around $350 used? but that doesnt leave u much left over for a macro lens.. i guess u can always use a whatever lens now.. and upgrade to a macro later when u get money.
> 
> if you'll only be taking macro pictures, the quality wont be all that and u might get frustrated. i get annoyed because i cant get good macro shots. i have lenses for the other kinds of pictures i take, but when it comes to wide angle and macro shots, its kinda depressing because the pictures just dont look good. you can tell it the picture was taken with a cheap lens because theyre not crisp and sharp =T
> 
> ive sorta wanted to try extension tubes, but people say thats the lame route to macro, so i'm not too sure i want to do that... coupled with my kit lens... bogus.


----------



## dodohead (Jan 11, 2010)

jahmic said:


> What do you have for a kit lens?


just a 18-55mm ..the non IS version... 

i let my aunt borrow my 50mm 1.8 mkI, my friend borrow my 100-400mm... 

all i have is a 70-200 2.8L for myself now.. and the 18-55 for wide angle




oh yeah i might get a macro lens someday.. just not now.. its not a huge biggie for me.. i might have to buy another dslr.... mine has too many clicks on it...


----------



## sejoy (Jan 18, 2011)

Thanks for all the information. I think I'm just going to go Dslr, at thus point it'd be a waste of time and money to " go back". 

Since I need the macro lens for my art as well, that's the main lens I'm working towards. 
Would it be better to buy a camera body and the lenses (used) separate? What I'm aiming for is a camera, macro lens, and a good "everything else" lens. Any suggestions on what lenses would be good for me if I do this? Could I get a cheaper macro lens if the ratio is lower? (not entirely sure how that works so forgive me). Can you use nikon lenses on canon cameras and vice versa?

Sorry there's so many questions!


----------



## Wasserpest (Jun 12, 2003)

I know you have already sort of decided, but... It can be much harder to do decent macro shots with a DSLR. The larger sensor = reduced depth of field, which is aggravated when it comes to macro.

After many years of DSLR photography, I just got a deal I couldn't refuse on a Canon SX130. If you use "Point & Shoot" cameras as their name indicates, don't be surprised if the results are disappointing. The same would happen with a DSLR (some of the images posted earlier could be examples). Now if you plan your shots with your P&S the same way someone with a $5000 collection of camera bodies and lenses would do, your results will be comparable.

For me, the P&S has put the fun back into photography. Not getting rid of my DSLR equipment (yet), but it stays in its cabinet much more nowadays.


----------



## sejoy (Jan 18, 2011)

That's a good point. I think the reason I miss my old camera so much is that I was very comfortable using it, and so I was able to get results comparable to a dslr. That's also probably why I thought it was a low end dslr for so long. 

I'm torn between replacing my s5is, or upgrading with a macro lens on a dslr. Hmmm


----------



## jcardona1 (Jun 27, 2008)

You can definitely get a good DSLR camera for less than $500. Nikon for example, has the D40/D3000 that you can get used for less than $500. 

A macro lens is nice, but I myself wouldn't use it enough to justify the purchase. I took these with an $80 lens using the reverse lens technique with a $5 ring adapter. Takes some patience, but the results can be amazing!!


----------



## Wasserpest (Jun 12, 2003)

Stink bugs are cool.

For some perspective, here is a quick shot with a cheap P&S camera. No frills, no flash, no filters, just P&S. Of course I put a frame around it to be competitive.










Note that this isn't even close to maxing out the macro capabilities. This camera can focus on things that almost touch the lens.


----------



## jahmic (Jan 30, 2011)

sejoy said:


> Thanks for all the information. I think I'm just going to go Dslr, at thus point it'd be a waste of time and money to " go back".
> 
> Since I need the macro lens for my art as well, that's the main lens I'm working towards.
> Would it be better to buy a camera body and the lenses (used) separate? What I'm aiming for is a camera, macro lens, and a good "everything else" lens. Any suggestions on what lenses would be good for me if I do this? Could I get a cheaper macro lens if the ratio is lower? (not entirely sure how that works so forgive me). Can you use nikon lenses on canon cameras and vice versa?
> ...


Big brand lenses...Canon - Nikon - etc. aren't going to be compatible with each other. You can get lenses made by other companies that work with specific bodies, for example, Sigma makes some surprisingly good lenses at a more affordable price than the major companies. Some people complain about quality...but unless I was comparing a good Sigma lens to a pro Nikon lens, I really could never tell the difference. 

I know one thing about Nikon that I like is they have been using the same mounting ring for decades (F-mount). Essentially what that means is that you can find used lenses in excellent condition that are 20+ years old, and save a lot of money on the lens. I used to shoot canon, but made the switch to Nikon when I went digital mainly for that reason...with Canon you are limited to the more current model lenses. You do run into some quirks with through the lens metering on the Nikon depending on the camera body you have and how old the lens is...but I digress.

In the end, if what you are looking to do is mainly shoot macro, then I'd say...if you're considering the DSLR...to go ahead and find a good deal on a body with a kit lens that you like. Go to a few shops, pick them up, see what feels good in your hands and who makes a function layout that you like. You are only going to save a small amount of money by getting the body only, then picking up lenses. The kit lens will most likely be a zoom, and will be your "everything else lens". Then just save up for a macro. Like I said, Sigma lenses are always a definite option and usually go for a bit less than a standard nikon/canon lens. roud:


----------



## soundgy (Jul 8, 2010)

jcardona1,

Can you explain what gear you were using for those pictures?

I am in the exact same boat. I want to start selling shrimp. To truly sell people on your shrimp you have to take great pictures. So I am looking for a camera that can take great pictures at shrimp scale.

Does anyone care to list some options that I can google? I have no desire to become a photographer, which is why I am leaning towards point-n-shoot.

I don't intend to thread jack or derail this, but I feel I have a similar goal.


----------



## jcardona1 (Jun 27, 2008)

soundgy said:


> jcardona1,
> 
> Can you explain what gear you were using for those pictures?
> 
> ...


Sure, I was using a Nikon D90 and the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF lens. I bought a reverse ring adapter on ebay for a few bucks which allows you to mount the lens backwards on the body. This gives you that ridiculous macro detail which you could only get with a true macro lens. You could even add some cheap extension tubes for even closer detail.

When the lens is mounted backwards, you get no metering, you have to expose for everything manually. The lens has a an aperture ring, so it's easy to turn the dial and choose the aperture I want. Then it's a matter of choosing the ISO, shutter speed, and the amount of manual flash I need to get the right exposure. 

Sounds complicated, but it's basically taking a bunch of shots until you get the exposure right. Oh one more thing, you have to focus manually by moving the camera closer to or away from the subject. That's the things you need to deal with when using reverse lens. Small price to pay compared to an $800 macro lens


----------

