- Messages
- 15
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Just to set the scene I take shots of ceramic tableware in a tent or on worktops with two or three 100 Watt continuous lights. I'm restricted with lighting because I don't have the space for flash lights with soft boxes. This is our own product, I'm not a professional photographer by any stretch of the imagination!
For many years I used a Nikon E5700 for product photography and it produced very crisp results - the whole product was always in focus.
The only frustration I had was not being able to see the images properly until I ripped them from the memory card so last year I upgraded to a Canon EOS 70D with 18-55mm lens in order to get Live Preview shooting on a connected laptop but the Canon's narrow depth of field drove me nuts. Even on a mug it might get the front of the rim in focus but the back would be blurry.
I've got round this by using an aperture of f16+ but it has been bugging me. A great deal of what I read has been pushing me to buy a 90mm lens but last night I sat down and compared the image properties of the Nikon with the Canon (when Aperture is set to auto). After many comparisons I found both cameras produced images with very similar properties (Exposure time, ISO, Metering Mode, etc). The only major difference was Focal length.
The Nikon's constant focal length was 9mm. The Cannon varied from 18-55mm as expected because I've tried close ups and moving the camera further away and then zooming in.
I also have a Panasonic HC-V720 for filming but I tried a few product shots with this and it gives excellent depth of field. Literally everything in focus with f/1.8 and a focal length of 3mm. However its not the silver bullet because it struggles in low light and there is not much you can do with the shutter speed.
What I'd like to understand is if I'm really better off with a 9mm lens like my old Nikon which had such a good depth of field and if so why is 90mm+ pushed so regularly for product photography? Many thanks in advance for anyone who can enlighten me!
For many years I used a Nikon E5700 for product photography and it produced very crisp results - the whole product was always in focus.
The only frustration I had was not being able to see the images properly until I ripped them from the memory card so last year I upgraded to a Canon EOS 70D with 18-55mm lens in order to get Live Preview shooting on a connected laptop but the Canon's narrow depth of field drove me nuts. Even on a mug it might get the front of the rim in focus but the back would be blurry.
I've got round this by using an aperture of f16+ but it has been bugging me. A great deal of what I read has been pushing me to buy a 90mm lens but last night I sat down and compared the image properties of the Nikon with the Canon (when Aperture is set to auto). After many comparisons I found both cameras produced images with very similar properties (Exposure time, ISO, Metering Mode, etc). The only major difference was Focal length.
The Nikon's constant focal length was 9mm. The Cannon varied from 18-55mm as expected because I've tried close ups and moving the camera further away and then zooming in.
I also have a Panasonic HC-V720 for filming but I tried a few product shots with this and it gives excellent depth of field. Literally everything in focus with f/1.8 and a focal length of 3mm. However its not the silver bullet because it struggles in low light and there is not much you can do with the shutter speed.
What I'd like to understand is if I'm really better off with a 9mm lens like my old Nikon which had such a good depth of field and if so why is 90mm+ pushed so regularly for product photography? Many thanks in advance for anyone who can enlighten me!