# Bridge Cameras for macro pictures



## Ryan Thang To

hello guys

I like to get a camera for macro picture and I don't have a clue about camera at all. Im not fuss about high quality picture just need it for my shrimps. can I get one for £200?

cheers
ryan


----------



## Alan Fluxion

usually as far as I know the photos are taken with a DSLR with a Macro lens (can be done with non macro lense, just a little more difficult and limited), whenever I want to add depth to a macro photo I add these magnifying glass filters to my macro lenses.

You can get any entry level DSLR (Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc...) for about 200 with a single very entry level lens.


----------



## Ryan Thang To

Alan Fluxion said:


> usually as far as I know the photos are taken with a DSLR with a Macro lens (can be done with non macro lense, just a little more difficult and limited), whenever I want to add depth to a macro photo I add these magnifying glass filters to my macro lenses.
> 
> You can get any entry level DSLR (Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc...) for about 200 with a single very entry level lens.


Thanks for getting back to me alan. If I was going to get a b Bridge Cameras is there some sort of marco attachments lens? Also can you name some dslr models so I can look them? 

Cheers
Ryan


----------



## Sacha

Ryan take a look at the Canon 1100D. I have recently developed an interest in photography, and this is my first "proper" camera. It is a fantastic entry- level DSLR.


----------



## Rasbora

There are screw on macro lenses for bridge camera, e.g. the Canon SX50 HS. Never used one so I don't know how good they are.


----------



## X3NiTH

Below is an image taken today using the Macro Mode on a Nikon AW100 which is a waterproof 16Mpx point+shoot for around £200.

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5556/14745107993_9ee955b0ef_b.jpg

While it's nice and close and in focus, it lacks the detail you would get with a dedicated macro lens on DSLR body as seen below.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7372/14149575246_8f00843d60_b.jpg

The dedicated lens is the important bit, the DSLR body can be an entry level offering or one from the top of the range, but in each case it's the lens that produces the pictures.


----------



## Lewis G

I'd go for a DSLR. I just bought a nikon d3100 with 18-55 lens for £300. You can't get really close but the detail is great when you crop the photos. If you went to spend less you can get an older camera d60 or d80. Any reputable DLSR you buy from a reputable company will take really nice photos, these days cameras are about features.


----------



## Ryan Thang To

Sacha said:


> Ryan take a look at the Canon 1100D. I have recently developed an interest in photography, and this is my first "proper" camera. It is a fantastic entry- level DSLR.


Hey sacha nice camera you got. Have you try out the macro lens?[DOUBLEPOST=1406127513][/DOUBLEPOST]





X3NiTH said:


> Below is an image taken today using the Macro Mode on a Nikon AW100 which is a waterproof 16Mpx point+shoot for around £200.
> 
> https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5556/14745107993_9ee955b0ef_b.jpg
> 
> While it's nice and close and in focus, it lacks the detail you would get with a dedicated macro lens on DSLR body as seen below.
> 
> https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7372/14149575246_8f00843d60_b.jpg
> 
> The dedicated lens is the important bit, the DSLR body can be an entry level offering or one from the top of the range, but in each case it's the lens that produces the pictures.


Wow that is what im looking for. Amazing pictures. You got to love them shrimps


----------



## BigTom

Macro for 200 notes is always going to be about compromise. You can get an entry level DSLR + kit lens, then use reversing rings, extensions or a Raynox adaptor. These will get you high level of magnification, but at the cost of fidlyness, light loss, extremely narrow depth of field and (perhaps impossibly) short working distances.

Or a very cheap older second hand DSLR and a legacy macro lens (Nikkor 105mm f4 macro, or similar), which should provide good images with no downsides other than needing to manual focus, not being much use for anything other than macro unless you add another lens down the line, and possibly crap high-ISO performance in low light from ending up with an old camera with an out of date sensor.

Or you could get a superzoom bridge camera of some sort and a Raynox or other macro adaptor. Again, light loss and working distance will be a challenge, but perhaps more useable in an aquarium setting and image quality will suffer somewhat compared to an SLR.

If it were me I would probably spend ~£250 second hand and buy one of the last-gen micro four thirds bodies (GX1 springs to mind) and an Olympus 12-50 lens, which has a very useable semi-macro mode. You won't get extreme closeups but it should work well for whole-shrimp shots, whilst being a damn site easier to use than the other options and also making a great all-round setup for general photography.


----------



## X3NiTH

If you buy second hand, (I looked at mpbphotographic.co.uk) a Micro Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D can be had for £214 (one of Nikons sharpest lenses and the lens used to take the pic of the saddled RR Shrimp above) and a second hand Nikon D60 DSLR (10Mpx) is £89 which is capable of mounting and metering the above lens but manual focus only as the body has no drive screw to drive the old style focus mechanism in this lens, however it's easier to use this lens in manual at macro distances. That's a dedicated macro (you don't have to use it as a macro) DSLR setup for near £300.

That lens will fit on any Nikon DSLR body now or in the future!


----------



## Sacha

Legytt, I have just the stock lens that came with the camera, and the 50mm 1.8 prime lens. That one takes fantastic portraits.


----------



## Ryan Thang To

Thank for all the comments guys.[DOUBLEPOST=1406138873][/DOUBLEPOST]





BigTom said:


> Macro for 200 notes is always going to be about compromise. You can get an entry level DSLR + kit lens, then use reversing rings, extensions or a Raynox adaptor. These will get you high level of magnification, but at the cost of fidlyness, light loss, extremely narrow depth of field and (perhaps impossibly) short working distances.
> 
> Or a very cheap older second hand DSLR and a legacy macro lens (Nikkor 105mm f4 macro, or similar), which should provide good images with no downsides other than needing to manual focus, not being much use for anything other than macro unless you add another lens down the line, and possibly crap high-ISO performance in low light from ending up with an old camera with an out of date sensor.
> 
> Or you could get a superzoom bridge camera of some sort and a Raynox or other macro adaptor. Again, light loss and working distance will be a challenge, but perhaps more useable in an aquarium setting and image quality will suffer somewhat compared to an SLR.
> 
> If it were me I would probably spend ~£250 second hand and buy one of the last-gen micro four thirds bodies (GX1 springs to mind) and an Olympus 12-50 lens, which has a very useable semi-macro mode. You won't get extreme closeups but it should work well for whole-shrimp shots, whilst being a damn site easier to use than the other options and also making a great all-round setup for general photography.


cheers for that tom
I think that what I will been doing. buy a second hand camera and get a good marco lens. I was going to get a Samsung one but marco lens was like a whooper £400  like I said I don't know anything about camera lol[DOUBLEPOST=1406139094][/DOUBLEPOST]one question if I get a canon camera for example do I have to get a canon marco lens or I can use any brand with the right size?


----------



## Edvet

The lens mount will have to be compatible, Nikon has F mounts, you can use Nikon lenses but also from f.i. Sigma or Tamron or Tokina. Canon's mount is called EF, and other firms make lensen in that mount too, like Sigma and Tamron and Tokina.
In those brands they will mention if a lens is for Nikon or Canon. There are oher brands and other mounts!


----------



## Ryan Thang To

Sacha said:


> Legytt, I have just the stock lens that came with the camera, and the 50mm 1.8 prime lens. That one takes fantastic portraits.





Edvet said:


> The lens mount will have to be compatible, Nikon has F mounts, you can use Nikon lenses but also from f.i. Sigma or Tamron or Tokina. Canon's mount is called EF, and other firms make lensen in that mount too, like Sigma and Tamron and Tokina.
> In those brands they will mention if a lens is for Nikon or Canon. There are oher brands and other mounts!


thanks now I get it cheers


----------



## Ryan Thang To

I decided to have a go at the canon dslr. My two options are a 1100d band new for £200 or a 6 month old 600d for £290. I like the 600d better but I want to know what you guy think?

Cheers
Ryan


----------



## BigTom

I'd normally say the 600D was worth the difference, but in this case with a limited budget you're probably better off putting the difference towards some sort of macro-capable lens which will make far more of a difference than a higher spec body. What are you planning lens wise?


----------



## Ryan Thang To

BigTom said:


> I'd normally say the 600D was worth the difference, but in this case with a limited budget you're probably better off putting the difference towards some sort of macro-capable lens which will make far more of a difference than a higher spec body. What are you planning lens wise?


Hi tom
Things has change now and I like to spend a little bit more and get a good camera rather than a standard one. I was planing on getting the cannon 600d and sell off the standard lens and replace it with a ef-s 55 - 250mm and a Raynox attachment or should I stick with the ordinal lens with the Raynox. Im not going to go all out with marco lens lol still learning here. I seen good pictures taken with the 55 -250mm with out no attachment


----------



## Edvet

Just one point, I have used my lenses on three consecutive bodies. You will use a good lens far longer then a body.


----------



## BigTom

Have a google for examples of shots taken with those lens/raynox combinations. The adaptors work better on some lenses than others (you tend to get very heavy vignetting at wider focal lengths and with larger lenses).


----------



## Ryan Thang To

BigTom said:


> I'd normally say the 600D was worth the difference, but in this case with a limited budget you're probably better off putting the difference towards some sort of macro-capable lens which will make far more of a difference than a higher spec body. What are you planning lens wise?


Hi tom
Things has change now and I like to spend a little bit more and get a good camera rather than a standard one. I was planing on getting the cannon 600d and sell off the standard lens and replace it with a ef-s 55 - 250mm and a Raynox attachment or should I stick with the ordinal lens with the Raynox. Im not going to go all out with marco lens lol still learning here. I seen good pictures taken with the 55 -250mm with out no attachment.

Here a link of the lens.
http://m.ebay.co.uk/itm?itemId=321463442555 

Cheers
Ryan


----------



## Edvet

real life picture samples: http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_s_55_250_40_56_is_ii

http://lenstests.com/reviews/canon-ef-s-55-250mm-f4-5.6-is-ii-page-2


----------



## Ryan Thang To

Edvet said:


> real life picture samples: http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_s_55_250_40_56_is_ii
> 
> http://lenstests.com/reviews/canon-ef-s-55-250mm-f4-5.6-is-ii-page-2


Hi edvet

Thanks for the link. Pictures look great. What do you think?


----------



## Alan Fluxion

imo - the 600D is defenitly worth the money, but still the weakest/strongest point is the lens, no matter how much you pay for the body £10,000 or £200 the more important part will be the lens... if you get a shoddy £50 lens that's got horrible light and shutter speed, you'll get shoddy pictures with the £10,000 camera and the £200 camera.... so it's worth doing some research, understand what each parameter means and get something that fits your budget and will make fantastic pictures.... for example, I started with the kit 18-55mm non macro, learned to take photos and then bought a proper lens that costs $1,400... regardless if I put the lens on mid level or starter camera, it still made the same quality photo... 12mpx vs 10mpx doesn't make _THAT_ huge of a difference for the price...


----------



## Ryan Thang To

Alan Fluxion said:


> imo - the 600D is defenitly worth the money, but still the weakest/strongest point is the lens, no matter how much you pay for the body £10,000 or £200 the more important part will be the lens... if you get a shoddy £50 lens that's got horrible light and shutter speed, you'll get shoddy pictures with the £10,000 camera and the £200 camera.... so it's worth doing some research, understand what each parameter means and get something that fits your budget and will make fantastic pictures.... for example, I started with the kit 18-55mm non macro, learned to take photos and then bought a proper lens that costs $1,400... regardless if I put the lens on mid level or starter camera, it still made the same quality photo... 12mpx vs 10mpx doesn't make _THAT_ huge of a difference for the price...


Yeah I get what you saying. I guess it worth the money getting a good lens. I don’t know nothing about them just by reading and looking it up on YouTube. Im not going to go high tech just need it to take some shrimp photo and family and friends. I think I will go with the canon 600d and start saving for a good lens near futures


----------



## Alan Fluxion

Exactly... I've also found I have more fun taking pictures with my starter canon than with the mid level, the mid level even though I have everything set to manual... it seems to do the job for me, and that does not teach a person to make good photos.


----------



## X3NiTH

I've written this and deleted this multiple times because I don't want to appear to be a troll. The 60mm lens I posted 'IS' Nikons sharpest Micro-Nikkor (whether it's a brand new model or one from 20 years ago) and that's not my opinion it's from Bjørn Rørslett from naturfotograf.com who appears to have tested more lenses than I've had hot dinners (and not just in the visible light spectrum either).

I'll say it again, 'The lens is the most important part to get right first time'. That lens will perform in exactly the same way on any body you care to put it on and that includes a Canon (using an F-mount adapter). You don't need any other lens like a 50mm kit lens as the 60mm micro works fine at any distance. Magnifying adapters will not improve crap glass.

At £200 second hand It's the best macro for your money, period. 

All DSLR's have auto modes so there's no excuse to say it will be too complicated to use. I've just spent 2 weeks abroad watching people use very nice (entry and mid level) DSLR's like a point and shoot, if they can do it anyone can do it. Whether a camera has a million settings or only ten it all still boils down to ISO, Aperture and Speed!

You wanted macro for taking pictures of your shrimp and somehow you seem to be talking yourself into buying a camera that blows your initial budget and doesn't do what you ask of it. If you don't have a macro to satisfy your shrimping pleasures that camera will not get the use it deserves. 

If you already had a DSLR all this talk would be moot, you'd just go buy a macro lens, the only difference being whether you can afford brand new or second hand lens. From what I've seen second hand from photographic retailers is that very expensive equipment tends to be better taken care of than say consumer kit lenses you can find in the bargain bin of Cash Converters!

Apologies for the rant!


----------



## Edvet

I agree with X3Nith, however difficult his name is......
The Nikon 60 macro can be found secondhand quite often, i guess people don't like the fact they have to go realy close to the subject to get the good magnification, but in tanks that can be done more easily then in the field, on your knees in the wet gras (that's why i have the sigma 150mm too).


----------



## BigTom

Sigma 150 is the daddy. I really miss that lens.

Sent from my LT30p using Tapatalk


----------



## Ryan Thang To

thanks guys. I got a canon 600d second hand 6 months old and will be saveing money for a marco lens. thank you for all the advice everybody

cheers
ryan


----------

