Bridge Cameras for macro pictures

Ryan Thang To

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
1,567
Location
London. milton keynes
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

Member
Joined
17 Apr 2014
Messages
116
Location
Bydgoszcz, Poland
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

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
1,567
Location
London. milton keynes
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

Member
Joined
3 Jan 2014
Messages
998
Location
London
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

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2014
Messages
61
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

Member
Joined
13 Apr 2014
Messages
997
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

Member
Joined
31 Mar 2014
Messages
70
Location
Glasgow
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

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
1,567
Location
London. milton keynes
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]
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

Member
Joined
1 May 2009
Messages
2,281
Location
Edinburgh
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

Member
Joined
13 Apr 2014
Messages
997
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

Member
Joined
3 Jan 2014
Messages
998
Location
London
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

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
1,567
Location
London. milton keynes
Thank for all the comments guys.[DOUBLEPOST=1406138873][/DOUBLEPOST]
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 :banghead: 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?
 
Last edited:

Edvet

Global Moderator
Staff member
Joined
15 Aug 2013
Messages
5,149
Location
Lelystad, Netherlands
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

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
1,567
Location
London. milton keynes
Legytt, I have just the stock lens that came with the camera, and the 50mm 1.8 prime lens. That one takes fantastic portraits.
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

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
1,567
Location
London. milton keynes
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

Member
Joined
1 May 2009
Messages
2,281
Location
Edinburgh
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

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
1,567
Location
London. milton keynes
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

Global Moderator
Staff member
Joined
15 Aug 2013
Messages
5,149
Location
Lelystad, Netherlands
Just one point, I have used my lenses on three consecutive bodies. You will use a good lens far longer then a body.
 

BigTom

Member
Joined
1 May 2009
Messages
2,281
Location
Edinburgh
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

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
1,567
Location
London. milton keynes
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
 
Top