£400 - What would you do?

[IntenseJason]

Hi there,

I do the majority of my work with an RX10, I have found the all in one nature of it really liberating, I take it out with me without thinking about it as there so much less faff than carrying a bag of kit.

But there is an issue - I have a requirement for macro work and it is falling a little short, so I would like to get a body to deal with this.

Previously I had a D7000 with a Nikon and Cosina (Better than you think.) macro lenses, but I would like to try something different.

So where would your £400 go in terms of a body? (Separate budget for the glass.) As I am starting from scratch I am not tied to any system.

Nikon D700 or D7100?
Canon 5d or Crop body?
Something from Pentax?

Availability of dedicated macro lenses is vital, which kind of ties me to the big players i think.

Thoughts?

Jason R

 

[snerkler]

I would probably go D7100. It gives you extra 'reach' over FF and you get 24mp for extra cropping vs 12mp on the D700. I would therefore assume you can get much 'closer/zoomed in' to the subject with the D7100 compared to the D700 if you wanted to. Of course the D700 has the advantage of the better noise handling so it would depend on what light you're working in and whether you're using flash.

Another option worth considering is the Olympus m4/3, with a 2 x crop factor you can get even closer, assuming you use the same focal length. From memory Olympus only go up to 60mm for macro (120 mm eq), but you can get an adapter to use nikon/canon glass so you could get something like the Sigma 105mm f2.8 Macro and get 210mm eq reach. You don't get AF with the adapter I don't believe, but with macro you tend to manually focus anyway.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

Hi there,

I do the majority of my work with an RX10, I have found the all in one nature of it really liberating, I take it out with me without thinking about it as there so much less faff than carrying a bag of kit.

But there is an issue - I have a requirement for macro work and it is falling a little short, so I would like to get a body to deal with this.

Previously I had a D7000 with a Nikon and Cosina (Better than you think.) macro lenses, but I would like to try something different.

So where would your £400 go in terms of a body? (Separate budget for the glass.) As I am starting from scratch I am not tied to any system.

Nikon D700 or D7100?
Canon 5d or Crop body?
Something from Pentax?

Availability of dedicated macro lenses is vital, which kind of ties me to the big players i think.

Thoughts?

Jason R

Jason, Mike @dibbly dobbler is probably the man to talk to, he has had an RX10 and played about the Raynox style converters, as well as delved into Macro with other camera brands, he may have a solution that means you stick with the RX10

 

[Brazo]

I would try the raynox converters first.

 

[nandbytes]

Have you tried raynox? I know someone who gets excellent results with raynox on rx100m3.

For dedicated macro I'd skip DSLRs. No need for all that bulk.
Go down m43 route like EM1 which has great stacking features for macro with their awesome 60mm macro.
Or A7R and adapt pretty much anything.
Mirrorless is better for manual focussing aids which is how most people shoot macro.

 

[IntenseJason]

Have you tried raynox? I know someone who gets excellent results with raynox on rx100m3.

For dedicated macro I'd skip DSLRs. No need for all that bulk.
Go down m43 route like EM1 which has great stacking features for macro with their awesome 60mm macro.
Or A7R and adapt pretty much anything.
Mirrorless is better for manual focussing aids which is how most people shoot macro.

No, not tried Raynox as yet, I did try a closeup filter and was unimpressed, but it wasn't a known brand.

Lots of people saying Raynox, will look into it. Hadn't though of M 4/3 either, had kind of assumed the bigger the sensor the better if I am honest.

 

[BillN_33]

another consideration is the Nikon V1 - I use this quite a bit with the Nikon 300mm f4 - for close ups, (but NOT Macro)

It is useful because you can "fill the frame"

 

[stevelmx5]

No, not tried Raynox as yet, I did try a closeup filter and was unimpressed, but it wasn't a known brand.

Lots of people saying Raynox, will look into it. Hadn't though of M 4/3 either, had kind of assumed the bigger the sensor the better if I am honest.

I'd look at a Sony NEX5 body and use it with legacy lenses. I always got good results from mine;

NEX5 with £5 extension tubes and an OM Zuiko 50/3.5 macro. Held a flashgun in my other hand and triggered with the popup flash on the NEX;

DSC03181 by Steve Lloyd, on Flickr


Alternatively, this was the same lens/flash setup on my GF1 (micro 4/3rds)

It's a small world by Steve Lloyd, on Flickr

NEX5 with Kiron 105/2.8 Macro

Woodlouse - Kiron 105mm 2.8 by Steve Lloyd, on Flickr

Mosquito larvae in a bucket of water

Mosquito Larvae by Steve Lloyd, on Flickr

 

[GTG]

I would 100% save a little extra and get a 7200. It has the customisable record button that you can set for ISO. A god send for all the people who hated Nikons iso placement of the past

 

[dibbly dobbler]

Thanks for the mention @Mr Perceptive

I used to use a Canon crop body and a 100mm prime - got some nice results with that.

Now shooting with Fuji and finding it to be good for macro also!

So really any good system will be fine - either zoom + Raynox or 100 prime. If you go Fuji - say a used XT1 - I have a Samyang 100 prime in the classifieds

Cheers

 

[woof woof]

I'd just like to add to the crowd recommending mirrorless and possibly old manual lenses for macro. Manual focusing is easy with mirrorless so much so I don't think there's any real contest compared to a DSLR and film era macro lenses can be found at reasonable prices. I have a Sigma 50mm f2.8 which is 1:1 and cost £60 giving a FF equivalent of 100mm on my MFT cameras.

I'd recommend that anyone looking to use manual focus should take a look at the various mirrorless options as they really are (IMO) a quantum leap ahead of any optical view camera as you can greatly magnify what you're looking at and focusing on and see detail which would simply be invisible with an optical viewfinder. And of course you can also see the depth of field and the exposure and what is the picture you're about to take.

PS.

Lots of people saying Raynox, will look into it. Hadn't though of M 4/3 either, had kind of assumed the bigger the sensor the better if I am honest.

I suppose a lot depends on the final pictures size and viewing scenario and what quality you're happy with. With MFT I find the image quality easily good enough to withstand a heavy crop and still fill a screen. If you want a heavy crop to withstand scrutiny of an A3 print with a magnifying glass that may be a different matter.

 

[BillN_33]

No, not tried Raynox as yet, I did try a closeup filter and was unimpressed, but it wasn't a known brand.

had kind of assumed the bigger the sensor the better if I am honest.

what's quite important is a). the number of pixels you can get on your image and b). noise

You may find that with the Nikon V1, for example you can "fill the frame" with your image - even from a distance if you use say a 300mm lens, versus a cropped image from a DSLR DX Body - you may therefore get as many or even more pixels on your V1 image as you would on a cropped D7000 image

noise is another thing - mirrorless can be noisy so with the V1 for example it's good to keep shots at ISO 400, or below, but don't venture above D800 ........ but again once you crop say a Nikon D7000 image you will probably find the image noisy unless taken at a low ISO - (I found all Nikon DX bodies, up to the D7200 noisy and stopped using them because of that)

also look at the minimum focusing distances of any set up you plan to use

 

[woof woof]

noise is another thing - mirrorless can be noisy so with the V1 for example it's good to keep shots at ISO 400, or below, but don't venture above D800 ........ but again once you crop say a Nikon D7000 image you will probably find the image noisy unless taken at a low ISO - (I found all Nikon DX bodies, up to the D7200 noisy and stopped using them because of that)

also look at the minimum focusing distances of any set up you plan to use

I know I'm being pedantic but just so no one is misled... being mirrorless is (just about) nothing to do with image noise per se. There are mirrorless choices including sensor sizes from smaller than MFT, MFT, APS-C and FF with image quality comparable to that of DSLR's with similar sensors and tech.

Again, sorry to be pedantic.

 

[BillN_33]

I know I'm being pedantic but just so no one is misled... being mirrorless is (just about) nothing to do with image noise per se. There are mirrorless choices including sensor sizes from smaller than MFT, MFT, APS-C and FF with image quality comparable to that of DSLR's with similar sensors and tech.

Again, sorry to be pedantic.

"mirrorless can be noisy so with the V1 for example"

£400 - what mirrorless can he buy for that - a small sensor mirrorless which are by far the most common at what is available

 

[Snapsh0t]

The Raynox DCR-150 & 250 vignette over most of the zoom range when used with the RX10 or RX10 II as their 62mm filter size is on the limit for the DCRs. Trying them on the RX10 III & IV with 72mm filter threads is not productive...... The Marumi 330 and 200 Achromats are a better solution as they're available in 62mm and 72mm sizes.

My personal preference would be to go for a D7100 with a Sigma 105mm but that's just me.....

 

[nandbytes]

No, not tried Raynox as yet, I did try a closeup filter and was unimpressed, but it wasn't a known brand.

Lots of people saying Raynox, will look into it. Hadn't though of M 4/3 either, had kind of assumed the bigger the sensor the better if I am honest.

you get more DoF with a smaller sensor. Why do you need FF for macro? how would it be better?

well you can get high res FF sensors which is why i suggested A7R which can be nice for macro. But otherwise there isn't much benefit.

 

[Faldrax]

"mirrorless can be noisy so with the V1 for example"

£400 - what mirrorless can he buy for that - a small sensor mirrorless which are by far the most common at what is available

Sony A5100 with 16-50 kit, price £349, ISO performance very similar to the Nikon D7200 (£846 body only) - both APS-C bodies

Yes, mirrorless can be noisy, but if you compare like for like, not nosier than a DSLR equivalent.

 

[snerkler]

"mirrorless can be noisy so with the V1 for example"

£400 - what mirrorless can he buy for that - a small sensor mirrorless which are by far the most common at what is available

TBH I still find this quote misleading, it does read as though you're suggesting it's a mirrorless thing which it isn't. Being mirrorless has no effect on noise as I'm sure you're aware. I understand this isn't what you meant but it did read that way imo

 

[BillN_33]

Sony A5100 with 16-50 kit, price £349, ISO performance very similar to the Nikon D7200 (£846 body only) - both APS-C bodies

Yes, mirrorless can be noisy, but if you compare like for like, not nosier than a DSLR equivalent.

Thanks, I'm out of date - I'm looking for a mirrorless for birding as my D810/D750 with the Nikon 600mm f4 is getting to big to carry around and even when mated to the Nikon 300mm f4 PF is still quite big - whats the lens range like with this camera - do Sony do a 300mm or 400mm lens - as I said I never got on with Nikon DX bodies because of the "noise" ....... but a few years ago a look at Sony and thought that if they did a descent "long" lens range they would be worth a try

 

[snerkler]

Thanks, I'm out of date - I'm looking for a mirrorless for birding as my D810/D750 with the Nikon 600mm f4 is getting to big to carry around and even when mated to the Nikon 300mm f4 PF is still quite big - whats the lens range like with this camera - do Sony do a 300mm or 400mm lens - as I said I never got on with Nikon DX bodies because of the "noise" ....... but a few years ago a look at Sony and thought that if they did a descent "long" lens range they would be worth a try

Sony have the 100-400mm for the A7 series, stick it onto the A7Riii and you have plenty of effective reach and not much in the way of noise. It's mega money though for that combo.

 

[BillN_33]

TBH I still find this quote misleading, it does read as though you're suggesting it's a mirrorless thing which it isn't. Being mirrorless has no effect on noise as I'm sure you're aware. I understand this isn't what you meant but it did read that way imo

(obviously it is a personal opinion), but it is pretty clear to me

I am saying that mirrorless can be noisy and go on to quote my experiences with the V1 and also the DX D7200 - which I also found noisy, (in the context of this thread) - so I could say both mirrorless and DX can be noisy ...........(and it is logical to assume by implication that I am also saying the opposite) - all the shots in post 7 were taken with a V1 - are they noisy?

 

[BillN_33]

Sony have the 100-400mm for the A7 series, stick it onto the A7Riii and you have plenty of effective reach and not much in the way of noise. It's mega money though for that combo.

never been a fan of zoom lens - even with the 70 200mm f2.8VR Nikon that I have - it's a love hate relationship - I misguidely though that if I stuck a Nikon TC, (x 1.4 or x 1.7) on the end of it it would be good as a 300mm + (for birding) - I hardly ever got a good shot at the long end - but I do find it good for people and similar

Wez has just moved to mirrorless for Birding - interesting to see how he gets on!

Question: Is the OP wanting to take macro shots or is he wanting to take close up shots??

 

[BillN_33]

Sony A5100 with 16-50 kit, price £349, ISO performance very similar to the Nikon D7200 (£846 body only) - both APS-C bodies

Yes, mirrorless can be noisy, but if you compare like for like, not nosier than a DSLR equivalent.

From the reviews, that Sony kit looks a stellar buy for the money ...... then you dribble down to the cost of suitable lens ....... but if you are happy with just the 16 50 it looks really good

so if the OP bought that, a 50mm lens plus and inexpensive Raynox DCR-250 macro converter, (or could it be used with the 16 50mm kit lens?), he would be set up

 

[LongLensPhotography]

From your list - D700 without a doubt if they have now reached that level! I might be tempted myself as a cheap way into Nikon system if I find a lens or two I really like.

It is far more modern than any other FF camera at the price range, and older FF tends to be still far better from experience than more recent croppers.

 

[Faldrax]

From the reviews, that Sony kit looks a stellar buy for the money ...... then you dribble down to the cost of suitable lens ....... but if you are happy with just the 16 50 it looks really good

so if the OP bought that, a 50mm lens plus and inexpensive Raynox DCR-250 macro converter, (or could it be used with the 16 50mm kit lens?), he would be set up

It's probably worth getting the 50 f/1.8 - a nice little lens.
An alternative to the Raynox is extension tubes, which work with the 50 f/1.8 nicely.

 

[woof woof]

"mirrorless can be noisy so with the V1 for example"

£400 - what mirrorless can he buy for that - a small sensor mirrorless which are by far the most common at what is available

OK then say that small sensor cameras can be noisy. There's enough disinformation about mirrorless without adding to it either deliberately or unintentionally. IMO.

 

[niko]

OK then say that small sensor cameras can be noisy. There's enough disinformation about mirrorless without adding to it either deliberately or unintentionally. IMO.

since everyone is being pedantic, is there any such thing as a non mirrorless small sensor camera?

 

[IntenseJason]

Thanks all, i appreciate the advice and opinions given here - and the excellent image examples.

I decided to stay with SLRs, I handled a few mirrorless cameras this weekend, but just didn't gel with them - My hands are large and clumsy so the reduced size was of no benefit. (Also the reason I chose RX10 over RX100 for travel duties.)

The answer came from a friend moving to an A7 - I got his immaculate D600 for £550 (Blew the budget a little.) A couple of lenses and a set of extension tubes should keep things under £1K total.