Which new camera to buy

[impr_pht]

<p>Hi,<br /> I have a t3i but my client wants higher res pictures, <br /> which camera should i get?<br /> I do mainly jewelry... and my main challenge is extra small diamonds....</p>

[kerry_grim]

This does not quite sound right. I would think the resolution of the camera is probably good enough. Possibly, they need to crop the photos too much. Also, your depth of field may be too shallow. What lens are you using and are you using flash and or tripod setup? Hopefully not handheld.

 

More than likely, if you are getting a large enough image, properly focused with an aperture of, say f16, your photo should be sharp, but even with a true macro lens, a diamond will be a small image and still need to be enlarge quite a bit. The problem therefore may be getting a large image and not the camera.

 

A macro lens, like the EF-S 60 would focus to life-size. Better yet is the Canon MP-E 65 macro but it is expensive.

 

Could you attach a photo or attach a link to a photo that we can examine, preferably with EXIF data.

[impr_pht]

<p>I have the 65 mm macro lens<br>

you can only focus from 6 inches away<br>

so usually a ring wouldn't be bigger then 2000x2000 pixels<br>

my client wants to be able to print it on huge banners, and i don't want to enlarge it in photoshop, i want to have good quality with original high res</p>

 

[impr_pht]

<p>i have a tripod, no flash, i have strobes </p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>Have you considered changing the client instead of the camera? Your camera produces 18 megapixel images, a significant upgrade would need a fourfold increase in size, a 5DS® will double the resolution in height and width. Or do you need to crop your pictures to a high degree? Huge pictures do not need a very high resolution since they are normally viewed at a (large) distance. <br>

A t3i camera must be adequate. Extension rings will give you some extra enlargement, perhaps combined with focus stacking for extra depth of view.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>The description of the your 65mm macro that I just read says it goes down to 1:1 reproduction ratio. That means a ring that's an inch in actual size, for example, will be an inch on the sensor. If that's not filling up the frame, my first step would be to get an extension tube so you can go closer. Your camera has 18 mp, so if you fill the frame you should be able to print as large as you like. Keep in mind that the resolution on a banner doesn't have to be as sharp as on a normal size print because banners get viewed from a farther distance than a regular print.<br /><br />"no flash, i have strobes"<br /><br />Strobes are flash. <br /><br /></p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Look into "Focus Stacking" as a way to get sharper images of the entire product at high magnifications. </p>

[DavidTriplett]

<p>+1 on Craig's comments. I also have had excellent success using a 2x teleconverter with my Micro-Nikkor 55mm/2.8. This photo was made on a D7100 with the Micro-Nikkor 55mm/2.8 AI and a Tamron 2x teleconverter. The scale on the right side is in millimeters on a 1.5 crop sensor. </p><div></div>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>my client wants to be able to print it on huge banners,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One thing that people often do not seem to realise: the idea that you need 300dpi for high quality prints is only true if you look at prints from very close distance. The longer the viewing distance, the more you can drop down. For a large banner, which will only be looked at from ~5 metres distance, probably 150dpi will already suffice.For really large banners, looked from a distance, you may even go a lot lower.<br>

Meaning: 18MP can easily suffice, as long as you avoid having to crop.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Jewelry photography is a very specialized process. I'm confused by your description of your lighting. Do you use a tent when you photograph your jewelry? The lighting of jewelry and the managing of reflections and the "sparkle" is critical.</p>

[richsimmons]

<p>What you have should be fine, but how are you printing? I've been printing banners since 8 megapixels. Viewing distance does make a difference, but who is printing? Are you having a professional shop do it for you? They can enlarge with no discernible loss of quality.</p>

[impr_pht]

<p>thanks a lot for all your responses <br /> Do you really believe that with my 700 dollar T3i +700 dollar macro lens, i can get maximum quality images? <br /> there are more expensive cameras for a reason ....<br /> I know that part of the advantages of more expensive cameras, is that it is stronger and can be out doors, and high ISO..... but isn't there a difference in quality in a studio with proper lighting?</p>

[DavidTriplett]

<p>The core functionality of most DSLR's is very similar, particularly if you are shooting in RAW format. Generally you pay more for external functionality, such as controls, high ISO, autofocus, anything over 24 MP, etc. In-camera processing can benefit from the latest and greatest software, but that is mostly moot for RAW images. In a studio setting with artificial light, your camera and lens should be capable of capturing fully usable images. You could spend a ton of money for more expensive equipment, and the results will still depend more on the photographer than on the hardware. Take note of the wonderful macro images submitted in last month's contest. Most of these were made using equipment not extraordinarily different from yours. The inexpensive addition of extension rings and/or a teleconverter might make all the difference. Or, perhaps, a more powerful macro lens (but 1:1 is about as good as it gets.) Only you and your client will know. Just keep in mind that there is no DSLR, even at 50 MP, that will print banners that look as good at 24 inches viewing distance as they do at 24 feet. You need to scale the printing and resolution (and expectations) to the intended viewing condition, as stated by others.</p>

[paddler4]

<blockquote>

<p>Do you really believe that with my 700 dollar T3i +700 dollar macro lens, i can get maximum quality images? </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, pretty much. For macro work of the sort you are doing, virtually none of the fancy features on more expensive cameras will help you at all, assuming a similar number of pixels. In fact, Canon has often put the same sensor in both a Rebel model and a more expensive model. You could get slightly more resolution in large prints with a full frame camera, but frankly, I doubt you would notice it. I think the biggest issue is filling the frame with your jewelry. I agree with Craig that a logical next step would be to use extension tubes to get more magnification.</p>

<p>I don't know your lens. Which 65mm macro?</p>

[paddler4]

<p>Let me correct my previous post. The site won't let me edit it. Forget full frame. That adds additional complications because of the lower pixel density.</p>

[DavidTriplett]

<p>+1 to Dan's correction. A 1:1 image on a crop sensor will cover more of the sensor, and thus more of the pixels, than it will on a full frame sensor of the same resolution. Given reasonably equivalent lens and sensor performance, the crop sensor will give you a more detailed image. That can be a big "given", but is far less a differential today than it was a few years ago. The crop sensor will also give a deeper effective depth of field than the full frame.</p>

[paddler4]

<p>To add to David's comment: I have both a 5DIII and a first-generation 7D. I almost always use the 7D for bug macros, for the reason that David gives. </p>

<p>Here's a macro shot taken with a 50D, an old crop-sensor camera with lower resolution than your t3i:</p>

<p><img src="https://dkoretz.smugmug.com/Bugs/Butterflies-damselflies/i-2GRpRpx/0/XL/_MG_3720-XL.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[impr_pht]

<p>Thanks a lot for your responses<br>

i think that i should look in to buy a Tube that will make me fill up the ring in my Camara<br>

Just a correction, I have 60 mm Canon Macro lens, not 65 mm<br>

I like to have more pixels to work with, especially when zooming in on very small diamond on the sides of a ring for example, and also, why shouldn't i make my client happy... if they want higher res....<br>

What Tube do you recommend me to get?<br>

Will the details of the picture be the same clear and sharp, when i use a tube?<br>

what about focus stacking shots, will i be able get more DOF in focus, by being able to put the camera further back for a client that does not need such high res, and will need to shoot less images for the focus stacking?<br>

thanks for your responses in advance</p>

<p> </p>

[DavidTriplett]

<p>There is a fair explanation of extension tubes versus tele-converters <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00dhJE"><here></a> . The biggest difference is that extension tubes will allow for a much closer nearest focus distance. This can get to the point where the lens will obscure light on the subject. Extension tubes are typically used to facilitate macro photography with non-macro lenses. Tele-converters increase the focal length of a lens. The point of using a tele-converter with a macro lens is to provide a larger image on the sensor while preserving the lens-to-subject distance. The down side of a tele-converter can be diminished sharpness due to the additional lens elements. For me (this is very much my own opinion) I have had excellent results combining a really sharp macro lens with a good tele-converter. See the image I posted above. You can obtain similar results with a longer focal length macro lens, IF it will give 1:1 resolution on your sensor. I recommend extension tubes and tele-converters only as an inexpensive first step, but one which can have a very significant impact on your images. The next step is a lens upgrade.</p>

<p>For extension tubes, because they have no optics, any of reasonable quality that fit your camera and lens will work. For tele-converters, you should buy the best you can get. I'm not familiar with Canon, but the Tamron 2x I have works very well on my Nikon. Note that your largest effective aperture decreases as you add tubes/converters. Since you will likely be using smaller apertures for maximum DoF, this should not be an issue, but you need to be aware of it. If this less expensive approach will not work for you, then you should look at upgrading your lens(es), rather than the camera body. The right lens will give you the single largest improvement.</p>

[impr_pht]

<p>Thanks David for your reply<br>

the only Canon lens that zooms in more then mine that canon has, is the manual focus 60 mm..... it is not very practical at all having to do manual focus for my workflow, Canon has a 100 mm lens, but the closest it can focus is 12", my lens is 65 mm but i can go up to 6" close<br>

Canon doesn't have a lens with Auto focus that a Ring can fill up the frame..... I woke to them on the phone</p>

[impr_pht]

<p>FYI<br>

I spoke to Canon, an extension Tube is not made for a Macro lens</p>

[DavidTriplett]

<p>Correct, they are intended for use on non-macro lenses to allow very close focus. Using them on a macro lens, which already is designed for close focus, results in an extremely close focus distance, one which MAY be too close to work. Check out the tele-converter options, typically 1.4x, 1.7x, and 2.0x. Or, go straight to the lens upgrade. Remember, you want to get a 1:1 reproduction ratio of the image on your sensor, or as close thereto as possible. Assuming reasonable sharpness, that will provide the highest-density pixel count for extreme enlargements. Your 60mm Canon lens is already good, and should be producing the images you want. If you already have a 1:1 ratio, then the only thing a longer lens will get you is more working room between your lens and the subject. The 100mm macro lens is rated as excellent, if you want to spend the money. Adding a 2x tele-converter to your 60mm lens should help, but only a test will tell. Take your camera and lens to the store and ask to try a it out. Then decide where you want to spend your money.</p>

[impr_pht]

<p>Thats David,<br>

I will look in to this tele-converter</p>

[a-peer]

<p>As long as you are willing to take a hit on crisp details the teleconvertor option will work. The better option would be buying extension tubes, a set of three - 36mm, 24mm, and 12mm). 12mm will get you ~1.2:1 magnification, 24mm will get you ~1.4:1 magnification, and the 36mm will get you in ~1.6:1 magnification. Stack all three and you'll achieve ~2.2:1 magnification. When using tubes you will take an illumination hit but you are photographing a static subject so strobe pulse duration isn't an issue. You'll probably need to open up aperture a stop or two, 2:1 on an APS-C I'd start at f/8 or so and see if diffraction is starting to eat into your details. Haven't shot jewelry so I'm not sure how far you can push it, maybe f/10 or f/11...</p>

<p>The best option for maximum magnification and IQ is a 65mm macro lens, the MP-E 65mm. It's strictly for macro use, i.e. doesn't focus beyond ~4 inches. It has a native magnification of 1:1 through 5:1. It would allow you to fill the frame as much as you want and has excellent IQ. That said you will be limited to what you can fit in the frame, nothing larger than 22.2mm x 14.8mm. Then again if you have larger pieces the 60mm macro lens can handle those subjects. Cost maybe an issue with the lens, ~$1050 new. If it is tubes are your best option IQ wise. If you can justify the MP-E cost and your subject size(s) fit the magnification criteria it is the best IQ option and ease of use for capturing macros greater than 1:1 in the Canon system. </p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>I have the 65 mm</strong> macro lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just a correction, <strong>I have 60 mm</strong> Canon Macro lens, not 65 mm</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And later:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the only Canon lens that zooms in more then mine that canon has, is the manual focus 60 mm..... it is not very practical at all having to do manual focus for my workflow, Canon has a 100 mm lens, but the closest it can focus is 12", <strong>my lens is 65 mm</strong> but i can go up to 6" close</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is still unclear from your recent posts, which macro lens it is that you have.<br /> Do you have the <strong>EF-S 60mm F/2.8 Macro</strong>?<br /> Do you have the <strong>MP-E 65mm F/2.8 1 to 5x Macro</strong>?</p>

<p>***</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have a t3i but my client wants higher res pictures, which camera should i get? I do mainly jewelry... and my main challenge is extra small diamonds....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For the record both the MP-E 65/2.8 and the EF-S 60/2.8 are very good optics: the MP-E 65/2.8 providing x1 to x5 mag. (1:1 to 5:1) and the EF-S 60/2.8 providing x1 mag. (1:1).</p>

<p>It is realistic to expect high quality imaging from either of these two lenses and the EOS T3i (EOS600D).</p>

<p>It is very likely that improvements in: lighting equipment and lighting technique; Post Production; and employing Focus Stacking Technique will render more improvement than buying either a new camera or a new lens or both.</p>

<p>However, if you want to investigate Extension Tubes and or Extenders EF (aka "tele-extenders" / "tele-converters"), then I suggest that you consider these points below.</p>

 

<p>I note there is some misinformation and also confusion in some of the preceding posts. It occurs to me that this is probably honest and innocent predicated as much by lack of clarity as to what lenses we are actually discussing and also assumptions and lack of detailed knowledge of the Canon EOS Lens System. For the record this is the main reason I have published such a detailed commentary on both the two lenses, one of which is likely the lens you have.</p>

<p>*</p>

<p>If you have the <strong>EF-S 60mm F/2.8 Macro:</strong></p>

<p>1. I am very confident that a Canon Extender EF or any third party Tele-converter will NOT work. This is because the lens has an EF-S MOUNT and as far as I know there is NOT any Extender EF or third party tele-converter which is made with a Female EF-S Mount. However there is a workaround. (see 3. below).</p>

<p>2a. If you want to use Extension Tubes with this lens then you must buy Tubes with an EF-S Mount on their Female end. The MkII version of the Canon Tubes EF Series have both an EF and EF-S Mount at the Female end, therefore your EF-S lens will attach to these Extension Tubes. The original Canon EF Tubes do NOT have an EF-S mount at the Female end, so the EF-S lens will NOT attach to these tubes. Canon tubes are made in 12mm and 25mm sizes.</p>

<p>2b. Third Party Extension Tubes are popular. I use a set of three Kenko Extension Tubes. This set comes in 12mm 20mm and 36mm sizes. If you buy Kenko Tubes then the latest version has both the EF and the EF-S mount, but earlier versions don’t have the EF-S mount, so look out for that if you are buying second hand.</p>

<p>2c. If you buy third party extension tubes, it is very useful that they have electronic connections so you lens maintains communication with your camera. Some of the cheaper brands do not have electronic connections. Other aspects to consider are: the robustness of the bayonet mount lock; the rigidity and build of the tube and the both bayonet mounting flanges; and the internal light baffle quality.</p>

<p>3. The work around to attach an Extender EF or Tele-converter to an EF-S Lens is to use an Extension Tube between the Lens and the Extender EF / Tele-converter. Obviously the Extension Tube must have an EF-S mount on its Female end to allow the lens to mount to it.</p>

<p>See here below, how an EF-S 18 to 55 Lens will mount to a 20mm Extension Tube which has an EF-S Female Mount (Kenko 20mm) and then the Extension Tube (with and EF Male Mount), mounts to the Canon x1.4 Extender EF and then the Extender mounts to the Camera. This set-up will lose infinity focus, but that's OK for Macro work.</p>

<p>The fact that the Extension Tube will accept an “EF-S” Lens Mount is indicated by the WHITE DOT.<br>

(BTW a RED DOT is indicative that the particular female mount will accept a device with an “EF” Male).</p>

<p>There is no ‘safe’ extension tube size to recommend for this workaround: but a 20mm has got me out of trouble on every occasion I have used or advised others to use, but on the other hand a 12mm tube has not fitted all combinations that I have encountered.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18202018-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="485" /><br /> <br /> ***</p>

<p>If you have the <strong>MP-E 65mm F/2.8 1 to 5x Macro:</strong><br /> <br /> 1. You can add an extension tube or tubes to this lens. If you add the set of three Kenko Tubes (total 68mm extension), and rack the lens out to x5 mag. Then the result is about x8 mag. But the DoF is very thin and the Working Distance is about 35mm.</p>

<p>2. Although Canon does not state that their Extenders EF (both x1.4 andx2.0) mount to this lens, I am nearly positive that they do. One ‘bonus’ using and Extender EF on a macro lens is leveraging the working distance relative to magnification. For example adding a x2.0 Extender EF (or third party tele-converter x2.0) enables this macro lens the ability to do 2x mag. at the same Working distance of its usual 1x mag. The down side is possibly too much Image Quality degradation caused by the Extender, but I have seen stunning results, which all goes back to the beginning suggestions of knowing the lighting; post production and focus stacking techniques to employ.<br>

 

<p>In summary I echo Kerry Grim’s comments and also the request: – <i>“This does not quite sound right. I would think the resolution of the camera is probably good enough. <b>Could you attach a photo or attach a link to a photo that we can examine, preferably with EXIF data</b></i>.

<br /> <br /> WW</p>