Suitable SLR camera to photo gemstones?

<p>Hi all. I'm in the market to replace my Canon EOS Rebel XT w/ 18-55mm Lens. I did some searching on the forum and found threads on the subject, I came across this camera, and was hoping for some feedback if its a good choice. I'd like to stay between $400-500. Open to other suggestions.</p>

<p>http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00XVHM674/ref=gb1h_rlm_m-3_9742_69121f55?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_s=merchandised-search-3&pf_rd_r=1WMPE1AB008NX83755ET&pf_rd_i=761198&pf_rd_p=2094549742</p>

<p>What is it that your present camera can't do? It seems to me the issue probably isn't a camera body, but rather an appropriate lens for photographing gemstones- such as a prime macro lens, and, of course, appropriate lighting equipment.</p>

<p>You don't need a new camera, you need a new lens, I suggest the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro lens as a good starter. You also need lighting equipment. I suggest that you buy and read the book "Light -- Science and Magic" to learn how to light and photograph shiny objects, before you buy any gear.</p>

 

<p>The camera in the link isn't going to do anything your existing camera can't do. As Stephen says, what you need is a macro lens and appropriate lighting. Short of a macro lens, Canon makes a high quality closeup lens that screws into the front of an existing lens that probably fits your kit lens, so you might not even need the macro lens.</p>

<p>I should have included that the reason I am replacing the camera is, unfortunately, the camera was damaged in transit, and is not repairable. I do own a light box and accent lighting, and have gotten good results in the past with the camera. Some gems have proven difficult to photo for me, ie. Mystic quartz/mystic topaz, and for that I will purchase the book, however, I am sitting on inventory that needs to be photographed so hope to find a similar current model soon.</p>

<p>Check Matt Laur's tips on photographing jewelry. His wife makes custom jewelry so he has some experience. Google using the "site:photo.net" operator to narrow the search. I'll try to find a specific thread later - got stuff on the stove at the moment.</p>

<p>Adding a close-up lens to a kit lens is largely pointless but if you simply got the 55-200 lens of the advert and added a low power CU lens you will start to get somewhere though better would be to get the 55-200 AND an auto-extension tube. [ but I now have read that your camera is damaged so you need another body ]<br>

The basic need for an auto extension tube rather than a plain tube which is cheaper is that the lens in question has no way to adjust its aperture other than by the camera body. This is a common feature of many modern lenses unfortunately.<br>

It would be possible to use extension tubes with your existing lens but personally this will bring you too close to the subject. A common mis-understanding is that you need to get close to shoot small objects ... the alternative option is to use a longer lens with the means to get it to focus closer than its makers designed.<br>

As others have said you need lighting and knowledge of how to use it so the book would be a good investment towards our aims. [seems unlike others asking similar questions you have a fair bit of knowledge of lighting, though the book may give you some ideas ]</p>

 

<p>Thanks Lex, I had come across a few of his posts, his cardboard tip is something I'm looking forward to trying once I replace the camera.<br>

<br />JC/Charles: Both the body and lens were damaged. </p>

Regarding camera features, consider a model with

tilt screen for live view. Makes it easier to

compose with a tripod mounted camera, especially

aimed at odd angles.

<p>That camera will certainly work, as would most with the right lighting. I'm not a Canon shooter, but I'd also look at the T5i, SL1, and T4i. The T4i might not be available new anymore and the T5i is over budget, but we photo enthusiasts are well-known for stretching the budget to get what we presume to be better equipment ;).</p>

<p>If I was making the purchase, I'd probably go with the T5i just based on what I've read.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

<p>If what you're trying to do is shoot gems, that camera would work fine (it's basically a newer version of the same camera you had). But there's no point to buying the kit since you're paying for lenses that aren't the ones you need for what you want to shoot. (And, hopefully, the lenses from your existing camera were not damaged and you still have them.) I would buy just the body, but also buy a macro lens such as the one Charles recommended.</p>

<p>is there a body / macro combo in the $400-500 range?</p>

The most affordable may be an older manual focus

macro lens - almost any brand and lens mount will

do - with an adapter for your preferred camera

body. Some adapters will lose infinity focus but

it won't matter for macro photography.

 

Check Fotodiox and other brands for adapters. Be

sure your camera will meter with those

combinations, otherwise you'll be doing lots of

test photos to get the exposure right.

<p> I would suggest that you see what is available in a simple Olympus or Panasonic M43 camera body and then add a longish lens which can be anything reasonable with the adaptor as Lex suggests.<br>

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-GX1-Compact-Discontinued-Manufacturer/dp/B00604YTFM/ref=sr_1_11?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1431568415&sr=1-11&keywords=m43+Panasonic+body<br>

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-14-140mm-Micro-Four-Thirds/dp/B0028Y5GLO/ref=sr_1_34?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1431568624&sr=1-34&keywords=m43+Panasonic+lens<br>

http://www.amazon.com/Fotasy-AMME-Extension-Olympus-Panasonic/dp/B00DFS2570/ref=sr_1_4?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1431568747&sr=1-4&keywords=m43+Auto+extension+tubes<br>

This similar to what I have except I have a GH2 body which is effectively a DSLR but without a mirror, with the external control knobs etc rather than by a menu :-)</p>

 

JC -- appreciate the response/

suggestions, but even buying used it

is over budget, 700-800 is just too

much, are there less expensive

lens/body combos That would work as

close to $500?

<p>Mike .. myu fall back position is get a MFT camera body .. like an Olympus EPL-1 for less than $200 from KEH along with an MFT to M42 or EOS adaptor along with a older manual lens such as perhaps a 135 Pentax Takumar. You may also need extension tubes but I think that would be within your budget.</p>

<p> Lens ... https://www.keh.com/361168/olympus-40-150mm-f-4-5-6-m-zuiko-ed-msc-black-autofocus-lens-for-micro-four-thirds-system-58</p>

<p> Body... https://www.keh.com/361038/olympus-pen-e-pl1-black-digital-camera-body-12-3-m-p<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>Extension tubes manual since we are cutting costs http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Extension-Extreme-Close-up-Cameras/dp/B0054EPPZM/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1432456715&sr=1-3&keywords=MFT+Extension+tubes<br>

Hope these links help you :-)<br>

I was aware of your budget when I gave you the original links and assumed you would consider 2/h offerings to keep within budget.</p>

 

<p>I am a Pnasonic man so if you think you can trust Amazon I found these links ....</p>

<p>http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B004ACBYIQ/ref=sr_1_6_olp?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1432457273&sr=1-6&keywords=Panasonic+camera+body&condition=used</p>

<p>http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B005058B60/ref=sr_1_18_olp?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1432457273&sr=1-18&keywords=Panasonic+camera+body&condition=used</p>

<p>http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00604YTGG/ref=sr_1_20_olp?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1432457273&sr=1-20&keywords=Panasonic+camera+body&condition=used</p>

<p>all are 2/h but often people upgrade and what they let go is in good condition ... I just buy new and keep my older cameras for occasional use so I have cameras dating back ten plus years still in good working order though limited in their capabilities ... you have not told us what you hope your results will be ... web sales/exhibition prints average or large and so on. For the first I would suggest a Panasonic FZ70 plus a 2 dioptre CU lens is all you need which costs around $250 new. You might not need the CU lens though that should not be more than $25 from B&H in New York ... small ones are reasonably priced but big ones 77mm are pricey [ $145 ]</p>

<p>JC-- Firstly, the photos are for web sales, secondly, If possible, I'd like to buy brand new, though I'd consider if I felt the seller was trustworthy. I worry that if I buy 2/h and something is wrong, I may not catch it, and think it's my lack of photography experience/skills.<br>

I like the idea of the F270, I can always start with the smaller lens you suggested, and if need be, upgrade to the 77mm and still be in budget. </p>

<p>For web sales would your suggestions remain the same? </p>

<div></div>

<p>Sorry Mike but you are not upgrading to the bigger lens simply fortunate that you only need the smaller lens which suits the camera whereas the 77mm lens is what a DSLR owner with a larger lens doing the same job would need ... sorry you misunderstood me :-) And you could find with the long zoom you do not need it but probably you would. <br /> By the way it is an FZ70 not an F270. The FZ range and I have had several as they brought out new bells and whistles FX20/FX30 and currently have two FZ50 and 'stuck' when Panasonic went off in a different direction to what I thought I needed and I would only have been tempted by the FZ200 had I not taken the step to go to MFT ... but that is for my needs.<br /> But to your photo where I think it is less the damaged lens but your lighting which is the problem. You photo has most of it centered in the possible range and adjusting black and white points doesn't help much. I think the subject needs not the overall lighting of the light tent but one or more spot lights to reflect off some of the facets indicating the sparkle. One trick might help and this is to hang black /opaque paper in strips over the tent so you have few sources rather than the overall lighting of the tent.<br /> But since I have never tried such a subject. So while I know a bit about photography in general, I am a complete novice with regard to gems. I suspect the facets are badly over-exposed leading to them looking out of focus and below is the best I can come up with in editing. I like the background and not sure if it is water or cloth :-)</p><div></div>

<p>Hi JC:</p>

<p>Got lost in Gemworld :-). I've been playing with my camera and lighting some more, and have been getting some decent photos. I noticed I have to get some stronger accent lights for smaller gems----I'm having trouble getting the camera able to focus and capture smaller gems--- The first link shows my gemstone--the second shows varying sellers with results of what im looking for. With stronger lighting and the FZ70 should I be able to photo the smaller stones? </p>

<p>http://www.ebay.com/itm/49-15-ct-Radiant-Green-Mystic-Quartz-Heart-24x24mm-AAA-Natural-Gemstone-/111685349338?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1a00f72fda<br>

http://www.ebay.com/sch/Quartz-/10252/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=green+mystic+quartz</p>

<p>As to the background, it came with my lightbox, it is a brushed aluminum. :-). It accents stones nicely, I like it too.</p>