Official Luthiers Forum!

Hello everyone,
I was wondering if you all might be able to recommend some good digital
SLR's - this will be for taking UPCLOSE guitar photos. I have a decent
quality digital but it is not an SLR. I find I have a very hard time focusing
on specific details - many pictures are not in clear focus. The camera is
great for everyday life photos but is not really meeting my needs.

Here is what I'm looking for:

1) Good quality (not cheap nor expensive)
2) The ability to manually focus

So let's try to keep it under $900. What camera and what lense?

Thanks,
SimonSimonF38827.4755324074

I have an olympus e-500 that I got for right at $900 or so (maybe it was
just barely over $900..not sure) and I love it. Takes incredible pictures...

and that price was with two lens' one 14-45mm, and one 40-150mm

John Mayes38827.5917592593

_________________
John Mayes
http://www.mayesluthier.com

Just to confuse you more, I love my Cannon EOS 8.0. I think it can be had for right around your price range.
The lenses are awesome. Here is a shot I took with the standard 55-80 lens.

Another good choice is the Canon 350D. This is basically the same camera as the (more expensive) 20D, with a less robust casing.

Canon has (along wih Nikon) the largest variety of good lenses to choose from as well.

Edit: I was using Euro parlance on this one...this is the same camera as the Digital Rebel in the US. The XT is the newest version. You can get the body (only) from B&H Photo for about $590 after rebate, I believe...russ38827.5188425926

I would go for a Canon Digital Rebel. I have a regular Digital Rebel and the latest Rebel XT is even better. I use it all the time and been working with photoshop for years.
for in depth reviews go to dpreviewpeterm38827.5171296296

_________________
Peter M.
Cornerstone Guitars
http://www.cornerstoneukes.com

First, if you already have an SLR, you may very well be able to re-use your lens on the digital SLR body. in that case, your choice is pretty clear.

I have the Nikon D70. The D50 is essentially the same camera, just less feature rich. I love my D70. The kit lens that comes with it is actually a really good lens - something you'd actually consider buying if it wasn't part of the kit. Whereas, I hear, kit lens for the Canon kits typically aren't something you'd really want.

The Olympus cameras are often underestimated. The E500 is supposed to be very nice for the price - a lot of feature you wouldn't normally get in that price range, with a few negatives - hard highlights, a slow startup, and bad at high ISO compared to Canon.

I second the dpreview recommendation. Extremely sound advice on that site.

I love my Canon 300D (the original Digital Rebel), still takes great pictures, but a lot of it is down to the lens; whether you get a Canon, Nikon (biggest players, most options re: lenses), Pentax (great value, great camera, played around with one not too long ago) or an Olympus (also pretty sweet camera), doesn't matter hugely. I can't get on with the Rebel XT because it's too small for my hands, but that's about the only negative thing I have to say about it. Go fondle a few cameras.

For good macro shots, you'll want a Macro lens; the 100-105mm range 2.8 lenses are a good focal length, meaning you can get closups without having to get too close, although a 50mm 1.8 would make a great addition as a wider range portrait lense, work better for taking shots of the entire guitar. The kit lenses aren't half bad, either, for what they cost. In Canon land, Canon's own 100mm/2.8 Macro gets great reviews, Tamron's 90mm/2.8 Macro seems like it's a perennial favourite, and I am quite taken with the quality of shots I get out of my Sigma 105mm/2.8, although compared to the 17-40L/F4 zoom I got, with USM focussing, it's kinda noisy and not as fast. Still, got it second hand, as new, for a very nice price.

I'd reccomend at least handling one or two digicams before buying; see which one feels comfortable. Don't worry too much about control layout; you'll learn. But do realize you're probably buying into a system, not just a camera; your glass will last you a lot longer than the camera body will.

In your price range, a Canon DSLR with kit lens + second hand Tamron, Sigma or Canon 100-ishmm macro prime should be achievable. I've yet to see a macro without a manual focus ring.

Simon, I just reread what you are looking for.

The issue is not SLR for you, it's macro closeup. Macro is completely a function of the lens, not the camera. An SLR with a typical kit lens isn't going to give you macro.

My old Nikon coolpix camera has excellent macro capability. I can stick it inside the guitar and take photos of braces,for example. It gets in nice and close. You could save yourself a LOT of money if you don't need the features that SLR provides you - interchangable lens, multi-frame per second shooting, etc.

That old Nikon coolpix can shoot MUCH closer than can my D70 with the kit lens. I have macro tubes that I can use for the D70 (already had them from my film Nikon), but that adds to the price that you'd have to spend.

I dropped a bunch on a Nikon D70 say 1500 and they've dropped in price. That's right, the lense it comes with has no macro ability.

Now here is a funny one, I bought my wife a Canon Powershot A510, so she wouldn't take my camera to school to shoot pictures of the kiddies. Ahem, now it's the other way around. She can hardly pry it out of my hands, I use it every day.

It does zoom 4x but no macro. A great general camera at 3.2 megapixels, the next model up has 4 megapixels and is virtually identical, under 200, Walmart.

_________________
http://www.dickeyguitars.com

Ditto on the Coolpix. Mine is probably 4 yrs old. Takes good enough snaps, excellent at macros. Focuses down to about an inch, and I've never needed to manual focus with it at macro distances. The swivel lens is a great feature and it has manual focus. Mine is a 995, with the latest incarnation being the 4500. If you can find 'em on ebay, they're cheap.burbank38827.6309722222

_________________
now known around here as Pat Foster
_________________
http://www.patfosterguitars.com

I'd vote for the Nikon D 50 or 70. In clarity, their lenses are second only to
Zeiss (Hasselblad, Leica). I also like that Nikon didn't change their lens
mounts as Canon did when it started to produce the EOS lines. So all those
old Nikon and Nikkormat lenses you see at pawn shops, garage sales, will fit
on that brand new digital. Not that anyone wants to do that but you can.

To clarify: all standard EF mount lenses (what, last 25-30 years) made for Canon fit all Canon DSLRs. The EF-S line will only fit selected digital models. As for better glass, well, Nikon leads the pack in wideangles, but Canon seems to have the edge in longer glass; there's a reason for the forests of white L glass at sports events and for nature photography.

I agree, though, that if you just want good performance in good light, and good Macro, that some of Nikon's coolpix cameras are awesome. But I wouldn't trade my DSLR for any compact cam.

The Rebel XT has $100 manufacturer's rebate currently. I saw it at Costco, don't know if the rebate is at other retailers as well. Total price = $699 with a starter package after rebate. Not a bad price.

With my Canon powershot A40, I have to run my pix through MS digital image suite 9 to resize and refocus.

Do newer cameras automatically "resize"? Esp. handy for olf. I hate taking pix to the digi-darkroom.

Thank you all for the information. I really do appreciate it.

It isn't that my camera won't take good pictures - it is a decent digital.
However, the autofocus feature is not that helpful. The macrofunction
works but it takes a long time to capture the image. And many of the
closeups don't turn out that well. However, for an entire
guitar shot and most everyday situations it is perfectly adequate.

So while my camera works - I find it inconvenient for snapping guitar
closeups. Also, I think it is
important to have some really high quality gallery pictures. While
expensive, it is something that I would use on a daily basis and would
make the whole picture taking process more enjoyable.

You all have started me in a good direction.

Thanks and God bless,
SimonSimonF38827.8148958333

Also for a Digital SLR instead of buying a new macro lens most times it is
more affordable to buy an extension tube. I'm looking at getting a new
35mm digital macro lens for my Olympus though....

_________________
John Mayes
http://www.mayesluthier.com

Just to confuse the issue, I have a Sony DSC-F828. it is an SLR but has an attached lens. It takes incredible pictures to the point that I am using it to sell some of them. I get raves on the quality. The best part is that it will caost well under $900. The only downside is that the lenses aren't interchangeable. I will, at some point have to upgrade to one that does but I don't think it will be for a while.

Good luck in your quest, Steve

PS It's close-up capabilities are phenomenal!sfbrown38827.8753356481

[QUOTE=Terry Stowell] With my Canon powershot A40, I have to run my pix through MS digital image suite 9 to resize and refocus.

Do newer cameras automatically "resize"? Esp. handy for olf. I hate taking pix to the digi-darkroom.[/QUOTE]

Lance shared this long ago: Go to www.microsoft.com and search for Image Resizer. It's a free download and you can make three image sizes within Windows, with a right click of the mouse.

Recently I learned you can hold down the shift key when selecting and make a dozen resizes at once, very handy for OLF, Ebay, Websites, and email.

_________________
http://www.dickeyguitars.com

Now that the Canon 30D has hit the market, that makes my 10D two generations old, in that segment of the Canon lineup (advanced amateur/semi-pro.) [10D, 20D, 30D]

That should translate into drastically reduced prices for the Canon 10D, which is a very good digital SLR.

You are at a tough price point ($900) for a digital SLR AND a true macro lens. The macro lens I have, the EF 100mm 2.8 Macro (the older version) or its newer sibling with slightly better specs will set you back half your budget.

I would be a little bit more inclined to buy a used 10D body (somewhere like Ebay) and then get a new lens.

If you are not familiar with true macro lenses, see if you can possibly go to a good camera store and try to focus on something. You'll see that you not only require a tripod, you'll get a very shallow depth of field.

At or near minimum focusing distances (where macro lenses really shine), you will fill the frame with a small detail, like a single tuning machine or a heel cap. You may be surprised, for example, just how far away from a headstock you have to be to get the whole headstock in the shot.

Hope this helps.

Dennis
p.s. Use a camera's built-in timer, or a remote for macro shots, so you're not touching the camera.

_________________
Dennis Leahy
Duluth, MN, USA
7th Sense Multimedia

The 30D is the 20D with a few very minor updates, and I believe the same core processing stuff. Not really a full-blown 'next generation'. As for image resizing, ALL digicams I've seen will let you set the size of the picture in-camera; shoot in lowest quality/resolution, and you can more or less go straight to web, but forget ever making a print. Heck, I shoot everything in RAW format, which means the 1 gig mem card is just about the bare minimum. The digital darkroom is part of the workflow for digicams. Par for the course. I use Pixmantec's RawShooter for initial processing, then adobe Photoshop Elements for any modification/cropping, and Irfanview for batch resizing of lots of pictures.

Second-hand Canon lenses hold their value very well, so often you might as well get new glass. I got my second hand Sigma 105mm macro for about 250 dollars, and I've seen similar prices on second-hand Tamrons, both of which are very, very highly rated bits of glass. The sigma is probably only just slightly less tack-sharp than my 50mm/1.8 canon standard lens, but that's an absurdly good piece of kit for the price (under 100 bucks). Just not a macro lens. Thing is, exactly how close do you need to get? Do you need TRUE macro capability? (1:1 image, which is 1:1.6 on a crop factor DSLR, which is all of the ones in your price range). Example of some (more or less, I think) uncropped shots straight out the cam (quality's not great, shot immediately after I got the lens):

Shellac'd (slapped on) cocobolo, f2.8 (I think), shows you the narrow depth of field:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~mvalente/macro/coco01.jpg

qtip on some standard 80gram printer paper:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~mvalente/macro/qtip01.jpg

True Macro on a guitar is a bit nuts, really. You can go down to entirely filling a frame, completely, with a tuner knob.

Re: the Sonfy F828, it's not really an SLR. Doesn't have the mirror/pentaprism/all that. It's also nowhere near as good at low light photography as any of the true DSLRs on the market, because of it's small sensor size (larger sensor with the same number of pixels = lower noise = acceptable results at ISO settings of 800, 1600, 3200; I won't even consider popping the ISO past 200 on most compact/small sensor digicams). However, the follow-up to it, Sony's R1, is essentially the half-way point between SLR and compact cam: fixed lens, SLR-ish handling, and most importantly, large sensor. And it's got most of the high ISO performance you expect from a DSLR. Downside: it ain't great for Macro.Mattia Valente38828.1869675926

OK Bruce, good point to help with my existing camera.

BUT do the newer cameras automatically or manually compress files beyond the typical 3 file size choices, small, med, & lrg? B/c even if I don't upload to web, the more pix I can get on the card the better.

So, anyone have the answer?

Terry, not the SLRs, no. SLRs are pro level, and the last thing a pro wants is to lose bits, even if the final file size is going to be small. For serious work, I shoot in RAW mode, which is the data directly from the CCD, with no white balance, exposure, etc., applied to the image, so I can do all that on the PC. It comes off the camera looking ugly, but if you over or underexposed you can just fix it rather than throw away the shot.

The dpreview site will tell you what file sizes the camera can do.

What Roger Said. My 300D can do smaller image sizes, but still nothing so small I'd dump it straight on the web from the camera, and basically, I still shoot in RAW. 1 gig mem cards are cheap enough, and 130-150 shots, in RAW format, gives me a lot more control over the quality. I'm sold. It's not quite a magic bullet (overexpose or underexpose too much, and you got bupkiss, and it still needs to be in focus, no camera shake), but it opens op a wealth of creative possibilities.

The answer, with today's prices, is shoot at the highest possible quality. Then process down. Need more pictures? Buy an extra memory card. Simple.

Mattia! I'm glad that was a clean Q-tip! That level of detail would be pretty unsettling with a used one!

Good explanation of what "MACRO" really means...