Canon EOS 6 D

Hello everybody, I want to buy me a camera for macro photography. I looked at Complete Canon EOS 6D Review - but its budget at $1700 is very expensive. Is there an alternative that can produce good macro shots?

a camera for macro photography

Why pick the 6D for that? Clarifying: I'm sure it can do something in that field but either we are using rather loose definitions or I must assure you it won't make you entirely happy.

In macro photography we tend tor un out of DOF for that reason it is common to use the smallest sensor one could get away with or back away and crop. The 6D has a big low resolution sensor.

It also lacks macro specific extra features like automated in camera focus stacking (support) or for static subjects probably nice to have pixel shifting.

What kind of lens are you going to use how? For hand held available light shots of flowers, I'd surely want the 100/2.8 IS to get more DOF from slower shutter speeds (at still sane ISO).

Do you already own canon glass?

Is the camera intended to do other photography too?

In the Canon world I'd look at the latest high resoklution crop sensor releases EOS M6 II or D *double digit*, get the best macro lenses available and some speedlights to be able to stay at minimum ISO.

For serious (really close to tiny stuff) macro I'd even ponder a modern MFT system instead, for focus stacking's sake.

 

If you are not into sports and need the camera for just everything too and want to shoot the odd flower the 6D might do well. I'd see its strength in portraiture general budged photography with affordable lenses and if you can get hold of IS lenses in low light stuff, like concert photography, too.

 

In doubt, I'd buy the camera used, to save money.

If macro lenses are out of your reach and you intend to utilize a 50/1.8 and extension tubes or diopter lenses, maybe even in front of zooms, the 6D might be a reasonable choice since the over all performance of affordable glass in front of smaller high resolution sensors might drop way too far.

Lots of "trailing edge" used cameras will work fine, as Jochen says.

 

Some of the "Rebel" line APS-C cameras are not as sophisticated, but would be good for what you're talking about, I think.

Hello everybody, I want to buy me a camera for macro photography. I looked at Complete Canon EOS 6D Review - but its budget at $1700 is very expensive. Is there an alternative that can produce good macro shots?

Is this the 6D or the 6D MK II. Even a used 5D MK III can be found for under $1000.

Seems very expensive for the 6D original. Used go for around $600. And you can get a Canon refurbished 6D Mk II for around $1080 with a year warranty.

Lots of Black Friday sales coming too.

 

The camera will work well for Macro. Do some shopping around and don't over pay.

or I must assure you it won't make you entirely happy.

 

Not sure why not to be honest. Pair it with any 100mm macro lens and it would be excellent. Agree with Mark about the high cost in this case. You could get the 6D original or others for less.

 

However, I do agree with Jochen that I would seriously consider looking at, say, the Olympus OMD Em5 mkIII with the 60mm macro lens. This has focus stacking built in that is really useful and the price is not bad. The increased depth of field is useful and the quality is excellent. It's much smaller than the FF. Some of us even prefer the 4:3 format over the 2:3 of full frame. If you splashed out on the 12-100m lens you have a lens that goes pretty close (although not 1:1 like a true macro lens) has focus stacking and is an excellent general purpose lens that is probably all you need for general photography. It will depend on whether you really need a macro lens. They generally are not necessary for most close ups of flowers for example, although many people think they are.

Edited November 18, 2019 by Robin Smith

Too little information. Are you talking about macro in the field, like chasing bugs? Studio macro of flowers or other small things?

 

A key issue in macro, particularly field macro, is pixel density. the size of the image cast on the sensor at minimum focusing distance is identical, regardless of the sensor size. Therefore, higher pixel density gives you more pixels on the subject and more ability to crop without degrading the image if you can't get close enough. I usually use an old APS-C camera (Canon 7D first generation) for bugs because (1) it has a higher pixel density than my FF camera, and (2) it's smaller and lighter than my FF camera. For studio work, I use a FF camera that gives me better images. I can control distance and can add extensions, so pixel density doesn't matter.

 

Focal length also matters, particularly for field macro. Background blur (not the same as depth of field) is a function of focal length: the narrower the angle of view, the more blurred the background. The longer the focal length, the greater the working distance--a big issue with bugs--but the harder it is to hold the rig steady enough, particularly if you are using flash.

 

Re in-camera stacking: this too depends on your use and how you work. I stack the large majority of my macro images, but I have zero interest in in-camera stacking because AFAIK, you can use these functions only if you shoot JPEG. I virtually never shoot JPEG. If you do, I can see how it would be useful.

 

How close do you want to get? For bug macros, you can make do with a close-focusing nonmaco lens for big bugs, say, full-body shots of large dragonflied. However, for most of what I do, a 1:1 macro lens is essential, and I usually go closer, shooting bugs with an extension tube.

 

Keep in mind that for most real macro work, many of the bells and whistles of expensive bodies aren't of much use--sometimes no use at all. A good sensor that you can attach to a suitable lens is what you need.

Not entirely true re the stacking. With Olympus for one the camera takes a series of images in RAW although the composited image is a JPEG, but at full resolution, and you can always use another program to redo the constituent RAW images, as these are downloaded with the stacked image. It's pretty trivial to adjust any parameters and take another set anyway, unless of course you have a rapidly moving subject, in which case stacking is of limited use. Of course you can used automatic focus bracketing if you really hate the idea of a stacked JPEG. I think Panasonic has the same features, although I'm not sure their in camera stacking is full resolution(?). I too always shoot RAW, but the in-camera stacking is a really cool feature.

Hello everybody, I want to buy me a camera for macro photography. I looked at Complete Canon EOS 6D Review - but its budget at $1700 is very expensive. Is there an alternative that can produce good macro shots?

Watch for upcoming sales. You can get it a lot cheaper than 1700. Check the large stores like Adorama and B&H. I have the 6dmkii and love it.