• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up
  • You can now follow UKAPS on Instagram.

Recommend me a body only camera sub £150

Angus

Member
Joined
29 Aug 2008
Messages
620
Location
Vauxhall, London.
Looking mainly at 2nd hand DSLR, i know there are a fair few photography heads on here, just wondering what people would choose at the really budget end, i'm not bothered about age or features, i just want to take some nice reversed lens macro shots.

Thanks in advance, Gus.
 

Nick potts

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2014
Messages
698
Location
Torbay
The body isn't all that important, even I rather old DSLR will take good pictures, it's all about the glass in front of it.

Having said that I haven't bought a new camera body in a long time, I am currently using a canon 550D, has all the features I would need including video and an 18mp sensor, you could pick up a used one sub £100
 

Angus

Member
Thread starter
Joined
29 Aug 2008
Messages
620
Location
Vauxhall, London.
The body isn't all that important, even I rather old DSLR will take good pictures, it's all about the glass in front of it.
My plan is to get one of the lens adapters and front to front adapters, start with a single lens reversed, then go to 2 once i have the money for another lens, macro lenses are just too expensive for my means.
 

Nick potts

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2014
Messages
698
Location
Torbay
The body isn't all that important, even I rather old DSLR will take good pictures, it's all about the glass in front of it.
My plan is to get one of the lens adapters and front to front adapters, start with a single lens reversed, then go to 2 once i have the money for another lens, macro lenses are just too expensive for my means.

Do you have any experience with reversed lenses or similar? It is frustratingly difficult to do, the depth of field is tiny and anything the moves is going to be next to impossible.

You could look at extension tubes which are a little easier.
 

Angus

Member
Thread starter
Joined
29 Aug 2008
Messages
620
Location
Vauxhall, London.
Do you have any experience with reversed lenses or similar? It is frustratingly difficult to do, the depth of field is tiny and anything the moves is going to be next to impossible.

You could look at extension tubes which are a little easier.
I was also looking at locking the aperture how does that perform compared to reversed lenses or a extension tube? i mean i have a lot of patience, just not satisfied with cheap point and click shots.
 

Nick potts

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2014
Messages
698
Location
Torbay
The thing with a reversed lens or even extension tubes is that the aperture on the lens doesn't really make much difference to the depth of field. The nice pictures you will see on the internet using these methods are usually stacked shots of multiple images all taken at different distances and run through an editing program to get the entire thing in focus.

I remember trying it once for a while but it was just too frustrating for me so I buckled and bought a macro lens, and even they take some getting used to and learning techniques like proper lighting etc.

Edit to add, another issue with reversed lenses or extension tubes is the need tons of light (ideally a ring flash)
 

Angus

Member
Thread starter
Joined
29 Aug 2008
Messages
620
Location
Vauxhall, London.
The thing with a reversed lens or even extension tubes is that the aperture on the lens doesn't really make much difference to the depth of field. The nice pictures you will see on the internet using these methods are usually stacked shots of multiple images all taken at different distances and run through an editing program to get the entire thing in focus.

I remember trying it once for a while but it was just too frustrating for me so I buckled and bought a macro lens, and even they take some getting used to and learning techniques like proper lighting etc.

Edit to add, another issue with reversed lenses or extension tubes is the need tons of light (ideally a ring flash)
Extension tube looks like the way i'm going to go... have you used an extension tube and diopter at the same time? i know lighting can be an issue with diopters, i mean i'm not looking for "true macro" myself as i'm a complete amateur photographer, how are ring lights when photographing through glass?
 

Nick potts

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2014
Messages
698
Location
Torbay
With a tank, I would likey try and light from the top with a flash, otherwise you'll get reflections.

I haven't used the above combo, I have tried a raynox macro with some success. I can only say that whatever route you choose macro is a steep learning curve at the best of times :)

This is with the raynox and I think 70mm lens

26993728_10215337886225681_1176780312885209917_n.jpg

26991925_10215337886505688_4213839335691464174_n.jpg


These were taken with a cheap 35mm Olympus macro lens

6177957571_981612f634_o.jpg
6178475892_92e31ed55a_o.jpg
6178476666_e5a50e1024_o.jpg
6178478350_f692f92745_o.jpg
 

Angus

Member
Thread starter
Joined
29 Aug 2008
Messages
620
Location
Vauxhall, London.
Oh man those are really nice nick! gives fuel to my fire for sure, well at least i have a path i'm going down now, it can only lead to better quality than i currently have.
 

MichaelJ

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2021
Messages
850
Location
Minnesota, USA
The body isn't all that important, even I rather old DSLR will take good pictures, it's all about the glass in front of it.
@Nick potts Yes, the glass is key.... But the last couple of generations of DSLR cameras made great strides on sensitivity vs. noise performance. It gives you the ability to shoot at ridiculously high ISO and still get a sharp and low noise images - this is especially valuable when shooting fish in low-light tanks as it enables you to shoot at fast shutter speeds. Personally I am currently shooting with a great, but fairly aged 5DSR 50mp, and I own a ton of EF-L lenses. I don't really do much tank photography, but for my general (daylight) photography its all about the lenses for sure.

Great shots above! 👍

Cheers,
Michael
 

Angus

Member
Thread starter
Joined
29 Aug 2008
Messages
620
Location
Vauxhall, London.
@Nick potts Yes, the glass is key.... But the last couple of generations of DSLR cameras made great strides on sensitivity vs. noise performance. It gives you the ability to shoot at ridiculously high ISO and still get a sharp and low noise images - this is especially valuable when shooting fish in low-light tanks as it enables you to shoot at fast shutter speeds. Personally I am currently shooting with a great, but fairly aged 5DSR 50mp, and I own a ton of EF-L lenses. I don't really do much tank photography, but for my general (daylight) photography its all about the lenses for sure.

Great shots above! 👍

Cheers,
Michael
5DSR A little out of my range...:lol: i went for a EOS 500d that came with a standard lens and a battery grip, also bought a set of extender tubes with the metal contacts for auto focus, and some filters/diopters to play with as they were quite cheap.
I will look to upgrade lenses later my wallet is full of mothballs. :)
 

Angus

Member
Thread starter
Joined
29 Aug 2008
Messages
620
Location
Vauxhall, London.
So i tested to make sure it's working, this snail is the result of about 30 some test shots with the crappy portrait/landscape lens that came with it and some extender tubes and a +3 diopter, still waiting on my reverse set up, time to learn!
Plant is helianthum tenellum and the snail is a ramshorn.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5563.JPG
    IMG_5563.JPG
    5 MB · Views: 12
Last edited:

MichaelJ

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2021
Messages
850
Location
Minnesota, USA
So i tested to make sure it's working, this snail is the result of about 30 some test shots with the crappy portrait/landscape lens that came with it and some extender tubes and a +3 diopter, still waiting on my reverse set up, time to learn!
Plant is helianthum tenellum and the snail is a ramshorn.
Not bad there @Angus ... Try and increase the distance a bit from the subject matter to get more depth of field. A sharp image at lower resolution is better (usually - depending on your artistic vision) than a blurry image at higher resolution.

Cheers,
Michael
 

Angus

Member
Thread starter
Joined
29 Aug 2008
Messages
620
Location
Vauxhall, London.
Not bad there @Angus ... Try and increase the distance a bit from the subject matter to get more depth of field. A sharp image at lower resolution is better (usually - depending on your artistic vision) than a blurry image at higher resolution.

Cheers,
Michael
Thanks for the advice michael, really appreciated. :)
i'm going to try an isolation hood on the lens when photgraphing through the glass when i get my carl zeiss fast fifty, i can't get the fish till i get my soft flash hahaha they are too fast.
 
Top