Small Objects

[redflag69]

Hi, Im new to the forum, and not great with cameras and photography yet.

I need a camera that is good for photographing small objects, for a jewelery business. I've heard that Canon isnt the greatest for that, but could anyone verify and point me in the right direction?

thanks.

[SmartWombat]

Just not true.
What will make the most difference is good lighting, and a tripod.
Much more than what camera you buy.

How big is your budget ?
And how small is the jewelry ?

[Anbesol]

Actually any brand will do plenty for you. Each brand has a slew of Macro lens at your disposal, which is what you're looking for. Canon has plenty too, don't know where or why you heard Canons 'no good' but its far from the truth.

There are also many lens available with 3:1 magnification (think of blowing up a grain of rice to printable billboard size, that kind of magnification).

I can only reccomend something from the system I use, as I am most familiar with it. I use the Sony system. The major advantage Sony has with Macro work is its live view (not available in all models), its a handy feature for much photography, but its hugely handy for macro work. However, keeping this in mind - this is not a performance advantage, its a convenience advantage. Between the brands (Canon, Sony, Nikon, Olympus and 4/3rds, and Pentax) there would be virtually no qualitative performance advantage.

The 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens available in the Sony mount would likely do everything you need. I use the 100mm f/2.8, I can fill the frame with the surface of a finger tip, you could literally collect fingerprints from a picture with this lens even at a 1:3 ratio - much more so its 1:1 ratio. You will see every shape, every line and detail far greater than the human eye can see with this lens. There are many macros available for the mount, but I would say this is easily the best choice of them for all around macro work, and specifically for what you are doing. There is also a 50mm Macro which would do what you want, but I think you'll find the flash distance and focus distance a bit more limiting than the 100mm.

Whatever you end up getting, get good lights and a good tripod, after that the sky is the limit. Set some long exposures at f/16 and really see all that microscopic detail!

[n8]

maybe the ts is thinking of the point and shoots having the best macro abilities...

[Anbesol]

Well I would hope not, doing macro shots of jewelry with a point and shoot would almost be pointless.

Wonder what he ended up doing.

[caleb]

My mom is looking to do macro photography. Ideally a point and shoot because technology beyond a single button scares her. I'm not against setting her up with a D40, 50mm lens, tripod, and some extension tubes... but I feel like if possible, getting a point and shoot with good macro capabilities would be better... any ideas?

edit/ this would be for insects and flowers/plants mostly.

[Anbesol]

to get in real close I would get a 100mm macro instead of a 50mm, that way she doesn't need to be right up on the insect to get it, and it also helps improve macro flash performance. Also I'd get a larger mpix camera than 6mpix, prime macro lens shine much more on 12-15 than on a 6. Also look for live view.

Unfortunately I cannot think of a point and shoot that can come even close to SLR macro, perhaps there is one that does really well at that, I'm not sure. I'll let someone else have a go at that one.