Kenny, Which would you recommend for Macro Photography?

[diagem]

Hi Kenny,

Who better to ask than from the master..., hope you dont mind answering, which of the following Cameras would you choose?

For Diamond Macro photography of-course...

option 1: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-T3i-Dig...226131&sr=1-1&keywords=canon+camera+eos+600+d

option 2: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Rebel-D...226198&sr=1-6&keywords=canon+camera+eos+700+d

Lens: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-100mm-Macro-Digital-Cameras/dp/B002NEGTSI

Thank you in advance,

 

[kenny]

Yoram, thanks for the kind words.

I'm going to make a few posts.
Before picking a lens and body I'm going to mention bellows.
You are a pro and have suggest some fine and expensive gear.
It would be a shame if you didn't add a bellows.

To get the sharpest macro pics (like those you are complimenting me on) you must fill the view with the diamond before you take the pic.
Cropping in after taking the pic using software is inferior since you won't use all the camera's pixels.
Diamonds are so tiny that even that fine $1,000 Canon macro lens does not have enough magnification so a diamond fills the viewfinder.
Placing a bellows between the lens and the body gives you the necessary magnification.
Bellows have no optics; they just move the lens away from the body.
Here is my bellows, fully extended.



Next, I'll post two pics.
Both are full-frame, meaning what you see is exactly what I saw when looking into the camera ... no cropping in after taking the pics.
The first pic is what I get using a Nikon 105mm lens with no bellows, similar to what you'd get with that Canon gear.
The round green diamond is 0.26 carat; Diameter is 3.9mm.



Sure, I could crop in tighter on those two fuzzy little colored blobs using software ... but that would mean I'd only be using about 10% of my camera's pixels, so he resolution would be worse than my camera is capable of.
If I crop in tighter using software my pics would not pop out and grab you by the throat with their astonishing clarity.

For the next pic I used the same lens and camera but added a bellows between the same camera lens.
Look how much closer I can get!
The tiny diamonds almost fill up the entire field with not cropping after taking the pic.



When judging these pics keep in mind that Pricescope's software makes the pics look very blurry compared to how they look 'in person'.
In person you can blow them up to fill up a 27" monitor and they look razor sharp.

 

[diagem]

Yoram, thanks for the kind words.

I'm going to make a few posts.
Before picking a lens and body I'm going to mention bellows.
You are a pro and have suggest some fine and expensive gear.
It would be a shame if you didn't add a bellows.

To get the sharpest macro pics (like those you are complimenting me on) you must fill the view with the diamond before you take the pic.
Cropping in after taking the pic using software is inferior since you won't use all the camera's pixels.
Diamonds are so tiny that even that fine $1,000 Canon macro lens does not have enough magnification so a diamond fills the viewfinder.
Placing a bellows between the lens and the body gives you the necessary magnification.
Bellows have no optics; they just move the lens away from the body.
Here is my bellows, fully extended.



Next, I'll post two pics.
Both are full-frame, meaning what you see is exactly what I saw when looking into the camera ... no cropping in after taking the pics.
The first pic is what I get using a Nikon 105mm lens with no bellows, similar to what you'd get with that Canon gear.
The round green diamond is 0.26 carat; Diameter is 3.9mm.



Sure, I could crop in tighter on those two fuzzy little colored blobs using software ... but that would mean I'd only be using about 10% of my camera's pixels, so he resolution would be worse than my camera is capable of.
If I crop in tighter using software my pics would not pop out and grab you by the throat with their astonishing clarity.

For the next pic I used the same lens and camera but added a bellows between the same camera lens.
Look how much closer I can get!
The tiny diamonds almost fill up the entire field with not cropping after taking the pic.



When judging these pics keep in mind that Pricescope's software makes the pics look very blurry compared to how they look 'in person'.
In person you can blow them up to fill up a 27" monitor and they look razor sharp.

Thanx for the quick response Kenny...
So let me get it straight..., both camera body's and the chosen lens as well will do the "same" trick?
Bellows (I love learning new things..., can you throw some suggestions (e.g. brands, costs etc...)?

Thank you Kenny...

 

[kenny]

You are diving into a specialized field.
Finding a bellows is not simple.
Canon and Nikon do not make bellows today.
The German company Novoflex does, but they are over $1,000 after buying all the necessary attachments.
I don't recommend the cheap bellows made in China.

There are some old Canon bellows at www.keh.com for only $43: http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-Manual-Focus-Bellows/1/sku-CA199990075820?r=FE
KEH is very reputable and they inspect and rate used gear, so I feel comfortable buying from them if the gear is rated EX or better.

But before buying a bellows you must consider if, and how well, it will work with the camera and lens you are considering.
One way to find out is to buy everything from vendors with good return policies, and see if it works.
You are in Israel so that may be a hassle, so I recommend some homework.

What does it mean for a bellows to 'work' with a body and lens?
A few things.
First most new lenses (including the one you are considering) do not have an aperture ring.
They have an aperture, but instead of adjusting it with your fingers it is controlled by an internal motor that gets instructions from an electrical signal from the body.
That's great if the lens is on the body but the minute you break that contact (with a bellows) the lens cannot get instructions from the body so the aperture stays stuck at one position, rendering it a useless $1,000 hunk of glass.

Next, some bodies simply shut down if they cannot talk to the lens.
With Nikon their more expensive bodies do work with a bellows, sort of.
You can't use autofocus, shutter priority mode, Image stabilization feature, and you have to buy an old macro lens with an aperture ring ... like this ...



Canon and Nikon are very close in quality.
The only reason I buy Nikon is I started with Nikon in the 1970s and have a bag of old lenses I still use.
If you are starting from scratch and love research do your homework on Canon vs. Nikon.

If you just want to buy what I know will work I can recommend Nikon gear with a high budget and a low budget.
High budget would be a D7100 body, Novoflex Bellow system and a new Nikkor-micro 105mm f2.8 lens.
Low budget would be a new D7100 body, a used Nikkor-micro 105mm f2.8 lens (make sure it has an aperture ring) and a PB-4 or the PB-6 bellows both from KEH.
I recommend buying new gear from B&Hphoto or Adorama, not Amazon.
FWIW, B&H in New York is run by Israeli immigrants and they are closed on Jewish holidays and maybe there is some advantage buying from them since they'll be shipping to Israel; I have no idea and was not sure I should even mention it.

If you want to stay with Canon you can look into the used bellows and an old used Canon macro lens.
If you want new gear look into the Novoflex bellows, but make sure it will work with that new Canon lens.

Notice in the pic below that the Novoflex bellows does have those little gold electrical contacts so perhaps it allows use of all the features that nice new Canon lens. (Image stabilization would be a dream for macro gem photography).
You may also have to buy lens and body adaptors for the Novoflex.
Moving the bellow's camera stage adjusts the extension and therefore the magnification.

 

[kenny]

So let me get it straight..., both camera body's and the chosen lens as well will do the "same" trick?

Sorry, I do not understand this question, or what you mean by same trick.

???

 

[Serg]

Hi Yoram,

how do you want use macro photos:
1) High quality print in magazines , poster,..
2) Internet

?
in first case you need optical magnification higher then 1x
in second case you can use just Canon 100mm Macro lens.

see sample from 100mm macro lens

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nsxtyoe2qmxgxmq/Screenshot%202013-10-31%2018.23.36.png

resolution for 1ct diamond is around 1500x1500 pixels

 

[kenny]

I agree with Serg in that if you are only going to post pics on Internet a bellows may be overkill.

But if you ever want to crop/zoom in on an inclusion or a laser inscription you'll be glad you bought a bellows.

 

[kenny]

If you get a bellows the high magnification requires a heavy tripod and good head.

Don't pay extra for carbon fiber or basalt.
You want mass.
In fact some macro-geeks hang bags of sand from the center column of the tripod.

I recommend what I got, a Manfrotto 410 junior head on a Gitzo GT 3330 tripod.
The head allows coarse and fine control in 3 axes ... a dream for macro work.
I did not take this pic, and the Gitzo tripod shown is a more expensive model which I consider overkill.



http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/611066-REG/Gitzo_GT3330_GT3330_Series_3_Aluminum_Tripod.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/124665-REG/

http://www.manfrottoschoolofxcellence.com/2011/12/john-dominick-manfrotto-410-junior-geared-head-review/#.UnKIlhbA4qY

 

[Karl_K]

If you don't go for the bellows the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM APO HSM IF Macro Lens is a better choice than The 100mm canon has a shorter working distance than the sigma 150 which means more obstruction on the diamond. In English, the 150 sigma can be further away from the diamond when you take the picture.

I second b&h photo they are experts, if you contact them they will put together a package with everything you need and guarantee it will work. If you go for a bellows I do not recommended going any other way but with them.
Don't forget a quality tripod.

It will take a lot of practice no matter what you buy, Taking quality photos is 5% equipment and 95% process. Hmmm sounds like diamond cutting :}

 

[0-0-0]

Hi Yoram and Karl! I don't have anything to add to this thread, but if you have time can you please take a look at my thread? [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ec-jackpot.194759/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ec-jackpot.194759/[/URL]

Apologies for the thread jack. You two are step cut experts and I would really appreciate your input into the EC I'm considering. Many many thanks.

 

[kenny]

Karl, you are right that a greater working distance is better but here's why that lens won't work with a bellows.



Normally a camera body is mounted on the tripod and the lens just hangs on the body.
This lens is so heavy that it has its own tripod mount, so the body just hangs on the lens.
The bellows also has a tripod mount.
You can't mount two things (which must be free to move with respect to each other) on the same tripod and using two tripods would be impossible.
I would not risk letting such a heavy lens just hang on the front stage of the bellows.
Over time it may stress and warp the bellows' front stage, or cause it to sag enough so the lens is no longer parallel to the camera's sensor, which would result in focus problems.

I wanted to buy Nikon's $1,649 200mm macro lens for its wonderful long working distance but it also suffers from this two-mount problem.
I think the problem is insur-mount-able.

60mm macro lenses are not good for gem photography since they have to be almost kissing the gem.
This makes it hard to get light into the front of the gem and the lens is a huge black thing that the gem reflects more of when it is so close.

IMO 105mm is the perfect compromise for use with bellows.
If I was not going to use a bellows I'd get Canon's 180mm or Nikon's 200mm macro lenses.
People vary, and I won't buy 3rd party optics.

Also you are paying extra for that unnecessarily fast f2.8 aperture.
Nikon and Canon's offerings of 180 and 200 mm macro lenses are f4 and f3.8.
In macro work you are always on a tripod and rarely shoot at f2.8.
In fact all lenses are sharpest at mid-aperture, around f8 so that's were I shoot.
If you stop down much beyond that, f16 f22, you do get more depth of field but the entire image starts to soften in focus because of diffraction.
Also an f2.8 lens at that focal length has a much greater diameter, 72mm filter size vs. 62mm for the Nikon, for more obstruction.

 

[Karl_K]

Kenny, that's why I said if he doesn't go with a bellows.
If he does go with a bellows I would consider a couple used full manual lenses with adapters from b&h.
The nice thing about that is that it opens the door to many different lens not just the 3 or 4 good macros available.
B&H can and will put together a kit to make it work.

One of the best bellows rigs I have ever seen used a Zeiss copy lens with separate aperture not camera lenses.
Big $$$$ but unbelievable pictures.

 

[kenny]

Opps, my bad Karl.

But I'm glad I got to point out why the longer macro lenses and bellows are not compatible.

If anyone learns of a solution to the two-tripod-mount problem I'd love to hear it.

 

[Serg]

re:If you don't go for the bellows the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM APO HSM IF Macro Lens is a better choice than The 100mm canon


Karl,

in Macro photography better avoid any touch of camera . if you use Canon body , canon lens and software then you may use software for focusing, shots, live mode, changes AV, TV, lift mirror, etc
it significantly reduce vibration .( may be same for Nikon)
Tamron lens +canon body does not support all above facilities( for some lens focusing does not work with canon SDK )

se better use canon 100mm macro or 180 mm macro, but 180 mm macro is much more expensive and heavy . there is more cheap way to avoid obscuration with 100 macro lens

 

[thediamondshopper]

Hi All,

Having recently upped my photo gear I was in a similar predicament. I ended up going with a set of kenko extension tubes for my nikon 105 f2.8 on a D7000 body and have had great results for product photography. Unfortunately I wasnt aware of the use of bellows, any one have an Idea of how they compare to extension tubes, other than the obvious that they provide more distance from the lens to the body?

For photographing the actual diamond and inclusions I purchased a Dino-Lite AM413ZTA, http://www.dinolite.us/diamond#image-31 and am amazed with the clarity and quality of extreme closeups. I would say in all honesty this is the best product for capturing non product images of diamonds that I have worked with to date. Now if Gary H could design an IS and or ASET attachment for this product I would be a very happy camper.

 

[kenny]

I ended up going with a set of kenko extension tubes for my nikon 105 f2.8 on a D7000 body and have had great results for product photography. Unfortunately I wasnt aware of the use of bellows, any one have an Idea of how they compare to extension tubes, other than the obvious that they provide more distance from the lens to the body?

Besides the primary benefit of greater extension for much more magnification, a bellows allows the entire system to slide forward and backwards for focusing without changing the magnification.
This is extremely useful compared to lifting and moving the tripod or moving the gem set up closer to or further from the camera.

I have both Nikon extension tubes and Nikon bellows.
In fact to mate a Nikon DSLR body to a Nikon bellows you need an extension tube.

I noticed Kenko extension tubes have electrical contacts.



That's a good thing.
The old Nikon Bellows, PB-4 and PB-6, have no contacts so you can't use new G-series lenses which have no aperture ring.
To get a bellows with electrical contacts you have to buy a $1,000+ Novoflex.

 

[kenny]

Hi All,

Having recently upped my photo gear I was in a similar predicament. I ended up going with a set of kenko extension tubes for my nikon 105 f2.8 on a D7000 body and have had great results for product photography. .

Which Nikkor 105 mm f2.8 lens do you have, the older one on top or the newer one on the bottom?



If you have the top lens, you can use this Nikon bellows ... http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Manual-Focus-Bellows/1/sku-NK190102016980?r=FE
I know your D7000 will work with a Nikon bellows and an old 105mm f2.8 with an aperture ring (the top lens) because I used them.
Nikon bodies lower/cheaper than the D7000 would don't work with an old Nikon Bellows.

If you have the bottom lens you cannot use a Nikon bellows since they have no electrical contacts.
You'd have to buy the new expensive Novoflex bellows because it has the electrical contacts the newer lens needs to operate.

 

[thediamondshopper]

Hi Kenny,

Thank you for the comparison! I guess I went the right route considering I have the 2nd 105mm. I do have a few older nikon lenses which I will check for compatibility with the bellows you linked to, as I would love to try it to compare to the extension tubes. The next task is perfecting a lighting environment...

 

[diagem]

So let me get it straight..., both camera body's and the chosen lens as well will do the "same" trick?

Sorry, I do not understand this question, or what you mean by same trick.

???

Sorry, I should have known better... , for my level of photography understanding..., 18 vs 20 pixels...

Like the differnve between spotting a VVS1 from a VVS2??

I just got home and noticed I finally stirred up a good old fashioned academic discussion on PS
We are all profiting already.

Let me digest this long and complicated discussion (I will probably need to read a few times to start understanding).
I am sure I will find a lot of questions for you guys...

 

[kenny]

On Canon's website I compared the Canon bodies you listed.

I'd save $100 and get the T3i EF-S

The more expensive one has stuff that won't help macro work:
A faster processor
Touch screen
1.2 more frames per second

But I'm not a Canon guy so please let the Cannonites speak up.
Someone from the Canon religion may recommend a different body.

 

[diagem]

I agree with Serg in that if you are only going to post pics on Internet a bellows may be overkill.

But if you ever want to crop/zoom in on an inclusion or a laser inscription you'll be glad you bought a bellows.

What about if I want to add Art-photography on high detailed Diamond Cuts and their Artsy qualities (play of light, cut quality features etc...)
I am starting a journey, who knows where I wind up...

I imagine I will attempt to photograph features on par as inclusions and/or laser inscriptions...

The majority is geared towards Internet images Sergey..., thanks for dropping in.

 

[kenny]

I agree with Serg in that if you are only going to post pics on Internet a bellows may be overkill.

But if you ever want to crop/zoom in on an inclusion or a laser inscription you'll be glad you bought a bellows.

What about if I want to add Art-photography on high detailed Diamond Cuts and their Artsy qualities (play of light, cut quality features etc...)
I am starting a journey, who knows where I wind up...

I imagine I will attempt to photograph features on par as inclusions and/or laser inscriptions...

The majority is geared towards Internet images Sergey..., thanks for dropping in.

Art is whatever you think it is.
If your artistic vision for a pic is to go from sharply in focus to blurry and dreamy in the background then you could argue the more sharply in focus the in-focus parts are the better the artistic vision is realized.

I can tell you a bellows will get you much greater magnification/resolution when shooting things smaller than your sensor.
The sensor size in those bodies is 22.2 x 14.8 mm and called APS-C.

The definition of true macro lens 1:1.
That means the image of a penny would be the size of the actual penny on the sensor.
If you had an emerald cut diamond with dimensions of 22.2 x 14.8 mm and had a true macro lens the diamond would fill up the frame and use all the pixels of the sensor.
If you only cut diamonds 22mm wide a bellows would be unnecessary.
If you cut smaller diamonds a bellows will help you fill up the frame and use more pixels.

The million dollar question is, "Do you need or just want optimum resolution for tiny things?"
I don't need it, but I want it and I'm thrilled to have it and enjoy it.
I love reaching for the limits of quality in many of my endeavors.

People vary.
If you are a business and must justify every penny spent you could argue that the results without a bellows is 'good enough" especially if all your pics are to be displayed in a 4 inch square on the Internet.

If you want better quality because you just enjoy seeing it, that's your business too.

Also, it's not quite true that if you only post pics on the Internet you don't need a bellows.

A clear close up of an inclusion or a laser inscription, even if seen only 4" long on the low-resolution Internet, is only possible with a bellows.

 

[diagem]

The million dollar question is, "Do you need or just want optimum resolution for tiny things?"
I don't need it, but I want it and I'm thrilled to have it and enjoy it.
I love reaching for the limits of quality in many of my endeavors.

I guess I will be needing these bellows

Thank you Kenny...

 

[diagem]

I understand extension tubes can replace the use of bellows, but is their replacement worthy?

Here is an article which I read and .... http://fhf.org/archives/552

Here are some extensions I am contemplating:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300603-REG/Canon_9199A001_Extension_Tube_EF_25.html

Am I still on track or losing direction?

 

[denverappraiser]

Kenny,

I'm mostly a Nikon guy for the same reasons as you and I notice they have several discontinued models of bellows, all of which are occasionally available on ebay. Do you have any preference for one over the others or is there something else you prefer entirely?

 

[kenny]

Kenny,

I'm mostly a Nikon guy for the same reasons as you and I notice they have several discontinued models of bellows, all of which are occasionally available on ebay. Do you have any preference for one over the others or is there something else you prefer entirely?

Good question.
I bought a Nikon PB-6 Bellows new in 1982 and 90% of my pics posted on PS were taken with it.
When I discovered the older PB-4, more useful and perhaps better-built, I sold my PB-6 to get a PB-4.
The PB-4 has 'movements'.
Also while the PB-6 was very substantially built the PB-4 feels like a tank.

Normally a lens is held perfectly parallel to the film plane … opps, I means sensor plane.
Movements is a term familiar to those who have used those big 4x5, or 8x10 or larger view cameras, like what Ansel Adams used.
It means the stage holding the lens can move so it is no longer parallel to the film.

Movements does two things.
While it unfortunately can distort the shape of things making a round diamond look a bit oval, it allows the 'plane of focus' to match and follow a subject that is not flat, as in the same distance to the camera.
This is groovy when photographing several diamonds that are not the same distance from the camera or a ring that is sloping towards the camera.
Technically it does not increase the depth of field but it does allow the plane of focus to follow the subject that is not all the same distance to the sensor.
That can get all the diamonds scattered on a table more in focus or more of ring that is sloping with respect to the sensor in focus.
Movements is less useless for one diamond.

Sorry I don't have a pic to post that demonstrates, but I'll try to get one up when I get some time. (I'm a very slow photographer. )
One pic will be worth a thousand words.
There's nothing wrong with the PB-6 if you don't need movements.

Also I'd never buy used camera equipment of eBay.
Too risky, a bellows may leak light or have non-parallel or scratched up stages, and www.KEH.com tests and rates them. :apple:
Again to use a Nikon Bellows with a DSLR you need an extension ring, I use the Nikon PK-13.
I don't know whether Nikon's other two shorter rings are long enough.

 

[denverappraiser]

I'm not wild about used photo equipment either but this is something of an exception since new isn't an option.
I take things like girdle inscriptions and inclusions through my microscope and I suspect that will continue to be the way to do ones with MAJOR magnification requirements but this may be better for more mainstream sorts of things. I'm very interested in your approach. thanks for sharing.

 

[kenny]

Oh yes a microscope pwns what I'm doing, though my set up may get a tad more depth of field than a microscope and may fill up more of the frame of the sensor for a bit higher resolution.

Confession: the girdle inscription pic above was achieved with the bellows fully extended but with an old cheap reversed 24mm f2.8 nikkor lens instead of the 105mm macro lens.

Nikon's $40 Lens reversal ring, model BA-2A 52mm was used … http://www.adorama.com/NKBR2A.html

The ring is screwed onto the 24mm lens' filter ring then mounted on the front stage of the bellows.

I don't blame you for avoiding used equipment, but so far so good with KEH, and they do have a return period.

 

[kenny]

I understand extension tubes can replace the use of bellows, but is their replacement worthy?

Here is an article which I read and .... http://fhf.org/archives/552

Here are some extensions I am contemplating:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300603-REG/Canon_9199A001_Extension_Tube_EF_25.html

Am I still on track or losing direction?

No, close up rings cannot replace bellows.
Extension rings do a similar thing, move the lens away from the body, but to a lesser extent.
Close up rings can only achieve so much extension/magnification … much less than a bellows, perhaps a sixth to a third of the extension depending on the particular bellows and combined extension tubes.
A bellows gives much more magnification since it can hold the lens much further from the body than a reasonable stack of tubes.

Theoretically you could stack up an infinite number of extension rings, but eventually the weight of the lens being so far from the body results in potentially-damaging stress to your body's lens flange.

The bellows prevents this because it is mounted to the tripod and right in the middle of the weight of the body and the weight of the lens.
Using a bellow intelligently includes keeping its position adjusted so the weight on both sides is balanced as in this pic … which also helps minimize picture-blurring vibrations.



Plus, a bellows is cheaper than the number of tubes that match the extension, and thereby the magnification.

One way some extension tubes are superior to old Canon/Nikon bellows is they have the contacts needed for some body/lens combinations.
Only the very expensive Novoflext bellows can offer that.

If you are using an old inexpensive manual lens like I do you don't need those connections so the old-cheap bellows work beautifully.

Again this whole bellows thing is all about getting educated and making your choice.
Cheap old stuff may work as well as expensive new stuff.

 

[Karl_K]

I love buying used for anything but digital bodies.
There are enough advances that a 2 year old digital body can be inferior to a new body where a 20 year old lens may be better than anything produced today.
Used film bodies I used to buy and sell a lot but digital is a different story.

Like anything else you have to be careful, try before buy locally or from someone who tests and warranties them.
That said I'v been out of it for a while and mostly shoot with a p&s these days but some things don't change much.