Camera recommendations

[Simplicity]

I'm looking to get into photography (mainly macro) and would like some recommendations for an entry level camera. I'm looking to take shots of various things such like my keyboards, keycaps and wildlife but I'm not sure how involved I want to get into this so at the moment I'm mainly looking for a point and shoot camera within the $200-400 range (either new or second-hand).

If somehow I can get a decent DSLR body + lens (preferably Nikon since my brother has some gear of his own but his is more suited for portrait style shots) for under $500 then I'd be willing to get one of those instead.

Here are some example photos I've found in which I am interested in doing: Example1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
I'm obviously not expecting to get the same quality photos with my budget but these are the style of photos I'd like to take.

[tbc]

welll...i would imagine alot of the deals have gone away by now.

but look up the sony a5100 or the a6000.  a6000 is better, but the a5100 is less expensive and more compact. 

the only real reason to go dslr nowadays is for bird photography. camerawise, macro photography is 99.99999% the lens and not the camera body.


i would recommend you find a vintage macro lens($100 or so) and get an adapter for it ($20 or so).



ps, for the love of gawd, use a link larger than 1 character, otherwise it's impossible to open on a touch device

EDIT:

i seriously doubt you can find a $400 used p and s that will take that flower shot.

[Melvang]

welll...i would imagine alot of the deals have gone away by now.

but look up the sony a5100 or the a6000.  a6000 is better, but the a5100 is less expensive and more compact. 

the only real reason to go dslr nowadays is for bird photography. camerawise, macro photography is 99.99999% the lens and not the camera body.




ps, for the love of gawd, use a link larger than 1 character, otherwise it's impossible to open on a touch device

Wrong on the suggestion for the only reason to go DSLR.  The real reason is if you want to make money and be professional you buy a DSLR.  Trying to do wedding photography with anything but a DSLR would be like a pro football team buying their gear from Wal-Mart.

For the hobbiest, anthing from the Canon Rebel line with an older macro can be had for decent prices on ebay.

[tbc]

welll...i would imagine alot of the deals have gone away by now.

but look up the sony a5100 or the a6000.  a6000 is better, but the a5100 is less expensive and more compact. 

the only real reason to go dslr nowadays is for bird photography. camerawise, macro photography is 99.99999% the lens and not the camera body.




ps, for the love of gawd, use a link larger than 1 character, otherwise it's impossible to open on a touch device

Wrong on the suggestion for the only reason to go DSLR.  The real reason is if you want to make money and be professional you buy a DSLR.  Trying to do wedding photography with anything but a DSLR would be like a pro football team buying their gear from Wal-Mart.

For the hobbiest, anthing from the Canon Rebel line with an older macro can be had for decent prices on ebay.

a7 + 70-200 has DEFINITELY seen usage in weddings .

[scubaste]

It might not be the advice you are asking for exactly, but I'd say to budget for a decent tripod.

[Simplicity]

welll...i would imagine alot of the deals have gone away by now.

but look up the sony a5100 or the a6000.  a6000 is better, but the a5100 is less expensive and more compact. 

the only real reason to go dslr nowadays is for bird photography. camerawise, macro photography is 99.99999% the lens and not the camera body.


i would recommend you find a vintage macro lens($100 or so) and get an adapter for it ($20 or so).



ps, for the love of gawd, use a link larger than 1 character, otherwise it's impossible to open on a touch device

EDIT:

i seriously doubt you can find a $400 used p and s that will take that flower shot.

Thanks for the suggestions, I'll look into those cameras. Honestly the only reason I considered DSLR is because my brother is a semi professional photographer and wanted to be able to borrow some of his lenses if I ever needed it ).
Sorry about the links , I'll go ahead and fix those up and regarding the flower photo, I realize with my budget I wouldn't be able to capture photos with the same quality as that one but it was more the style of that photo that I was mainly highlighting.

welll...i would imagine alot of the deals have gone away by now.

but look up the sony a5100 or the a6000.  a6000 is better, but the a5100 is less expensive and more compact. 

the only real reason to go dslr nowadays is for bird photography. camerawise, macro photography is 99.99999% the lens and not the camera body.




ps, for the love of gawd, use a link larger than 1 character, otherwise it's impossible to open on a touch device

Wrong on the suggestion for the only reason to go DSLR.  The real reason is if you want to make money and be professional you buy a DSLR.  Trying to do wedding photography with anything but a DSLR would be like a pro football team buying their gear from Wal-Mart.

For the hobbiest, anthing from the Canon Rebel line with an older macro can be had for decent prices on ebay.

[Simplicity]

It might not be the advice you are asking for exactly, but I'd say to budget for a decent tripod.

Thanks for the advice , but I've already bought one of my brother's many tri pods which I'll be picking up when I get a camera.

[Melvang]

If you need real cheap, get a tripod that fits the camera that you have access to along with what is called a reversing ring.  What it allows you to do is mount the lens to the body backwards to get ghetto macro.  For this you will want to use the standard lens that ships with most DSLR's.  I have personally used one with the wife's Canon using the stock 18-55 lens.  The shorter the lens focal length is set the more magnification you will get.  This will be full manual though.  None of the electronics in the lens will communicate with the body.  However, set to 18, if I was to focus on someones eye, the only thing in the shot will be the pupil.  The biggest down side to this is you will have very narrow depth of field and focusing is achieved by physically moving the entire camera.  Plus shooting this way without a tripod is all but impossible. 

To increase the depth of field, you will need to drastically increase the amount of light and then close the aperture down as far and you can go.  I know for canon the only way to do with with mounting backwards is to set the aperture with the lens mounted correctly, hit the preview button that sets the aperture where it is set, then with that button held down, remove the lens and it will stay stepped down.  It is very fiddly but can work.  Though image quality will be less than a dedicated macro lens, but for borrowing camera equipment and a reversing ring only costing about $20, it can't be beat for bang for the buck.

[Simplicity]

If you need real cheap, get a tripod that fits the camera that you have access to along with what is called a reversing ring.  What it allows you to do is mount the lens to the body backwards to get ghetto macro.  For this you will want to use the standard lens that ships with most DSLR's.  I have personally used one with the wife's Canon using the stock 18-55 lens.  The shorter the lens focal length is set the more magnification you will get.  This will be full manual though.  None of the electronics in the lens will communicate with the body.  However, set to 18, if I was to focus on someones eye, the only thing in the shot will be the pupil.  The biggest down side to this is you will have very narrow depth of field and focusing is achieved by physically moving the entire camera.  Plus shooting this way without a tripod is all but impossible. 

To increase the depth of field, you will need to drastically increase the amount of light and then close the aperture down as far and you can go.  I know for canon the only way to do with with mounting backwards is to set the aperture with the lens mounted correctly, hit the preview button that sets the aperture where it is set, then with that button held down, remove the lens and it will stay stepped down.  It is very fiddly but can work.  Though image quality will be less than a dedicated macro lens, but for borrowing camera equipment and a reversing ring only costing about $20, it can't be beat for bang for the buck.

Thanks for these tips, I'll definitely give this a try if I do decide to get a DSLR.

[JaccoW]

The first and the last example look like shots than can be done with any kitlens at a wide enough aperture. The other two are serious Macro shots where a dedicated 90+mm macro lens was probably used. (correct me if I'm wrong)
You already have a tripod, next one would be some studio lighting (ask your brother) or budget about $100 for a good set of rechargeable led-spots.

Camera wise I would suggest looking second-hand. DSLRs that are a few years old can be had for next to nothing but even excellent mirrorless models such as the Sony NEX-C3 can be had for $130 on eBay or even less if you keep an eye out.
Order a $20 adapter and buy some vintage lenses and you will be set for macro work.

[Simplicity]

The first and the last example look like shots than can be done with any kitlens at a wide enough aperture. The other two are serious Macro shots where a dedicated 90+mm macro lens was probably used. (correct me if I'm wrong)
You already have a tripod, next one would be some studio lighting (ask your brother) or budget about $100 for a good set of rechargeable led-spots.

Camera wise I would suggest looking second-hand. DSLRs that are a few years old can be had for next to nothing but even excellent mirrorless models such as the Sony NEX-C3 can be had for $130 on eBay or even less if you keep an eye out.
Order a $20 adapter and buy some vintage lenses and you will be set for macro work.

Thanks for the info

So if I were to get a second hand DSLR (which will probably be a Nikon so I could borrow some of my brother's lenses if I wanted to) what is the sort of price range where you consider it "next to nothing" Having a quick look on gumtree (Australian version of craigslist) someone near my area is looking to sell a Nikon D50 body for $130 which looks to be in good condition. Also I'm curious about using vintage lenses. Are there different types of vintage nikon lenses where I would require different adapters to use or is there some sort of universal adapter that works with a lot of the vintage lenses? Also do you think you could give me some starting points for vintage lenses? I'm really interested in going this route.

[demik]

i love my a6000

got it cheap (well, amazon price)+ no taxes at a B&M store. i'm still trying to learn it though. but it's really easy to understand (with the help of epzy/youtube)

[tbc]

focus magnification > ovf for macro all day every day.

[Simplicity]

i love my a6000

got it cheap (well, amazon price)+ no taxes at a B&M store. i'm still trying to learn it though. but it's really easy to understand (with the help of epzy/youtube)

A lot of people are recommending me that camera, how much were you able to get it for?

[demik]

598, no tax. kit lens w/ extra battery, 2x 32gb sd card, camera bag.

i got it off the recommendation of tjcaustin, the_beast, and houff's love of his NEX

[tbc]

i love my a6000

got it cheap (well, amazon price)+ no taxes at a B&M store. i'm still trying to learn it though. but it's really easy to understand (with the help of epzy/youtube)

A lot of people are recommending me that camera, how much were you able to get it for?

it won camera of the year and outperforms its competitors that cost $1000+

[Simplicity]

698, no tax. kit lens w/ extra battery and camera bag.

i got it off the recommendation of tjcaustin, the_beast, and houff's love of his NEX

Might have to get myself one for Christmas if I find photography enjoyable

I think for now I'll get a decent point and shoot so I can learn the basics and maybe when I get good enough I'll pick up a decent DSLR for Christmas at the end of the year. Thanks to everyone for the recommendations, tips and info this has a been a lot more helpful than my google searches   

[demik]

for the price of a "decent" P&S, you could get something like a nikon d3300 and actually learn something on it.

[JaccoW]

The first and the last example look like shots than can be done with any kitlens at a wide enough aperture. The other two are serious Macro shots where a dedicated 90+mm macro lens was probably used. (correct me if I'm wrong)
You already have a tripod, next one would be some studio lighting (ask your brother) or budget about $100 for a good set of rechargeable led-spots.

Camera wise I would suggest looking second-hand. DSLRs that are a few years old can be had for next to nothing but even excellent mirrorless models such as the Sony NEX-C3 can be had for $130 on eBay or even less if you keep an eye out.
Order a $20 adapter and buy some vintage lenses and you will be set for macro work.

Thanks for the info

So if I were to get a second hand DSLR (which will probably be a Nikon so I could borrow some of my brother's lenses if I wanted to) what is the sort of price range where you consider it "next to nothing" Having a quick look on gumtree (Australian version of craigslist) someone near my area is looking to sell a Nikon D50 body for $130 which looks to be in good condition. Also I'm curious about using vintage lenses. Are there different types of vintage nikon lenses where I would require different adapters to use or is there some sort of universal adapter that works with a lot of the vintage lenses? Also do you think you could give me some starting points for vintage lenses? I'm really interested in going this route.

I'm not very familiar with Nikon but I know you would have to do some research to see which lenses are usable because of the registration distance. (the distance between sensor/film and mount that the lens was designed for) But there should be plenty of lists available online though. Example

As for me, I still use a Sony Nex-5 from 2010 for most of my shots on here.
I might upgrade to an a6000 or A7II if funds allow me to later this year.

The setup:




The shots:






And links to the setup:

Nanguan CN-126 light + Sony NP-FM500H battery +
Dual channel charger for Sony NP-FM500H +
Mini Portable Tripod

X2 if you want a dual setup.

[jacobolus]

If you do decide to get a DSLR and want a Nikon so you can borrow lenses, I’d recommend getting a used body from a few years ago. For most purposes (even pretty great looking 11x14 prints), 6 megapixels is often sufficient, and you can get great pictures even from sensors from ~2005 (e.g. Nikon D50 / D70). So just pick the most recent good condition used body that fits your budget. (Obviously the newer ones have nice advantages, especially if you want to take pictures in low light.)

[demik]

ah, correction. i paid 598, not 698. looks like it went up in price.

[Melvang]

Just a bit of info regarding the primary difference between lenses designed for film and digital.  The main thing is an anti-reflection coating on the sensor side of the glass elements.  This is to prevent light from bouncing from the sensor, to the glass elements and back to to the sensor again from a property called partial reflection, partial refraction.  Essentially what this means is no matter what lens you are passing light through, not all will go through.  Some will be reflected back even with a pure clear glass flat lens.  The same thing happens with mirrors.  Some of the light reflects off the front face of the glass, but most does reflect off the backing material, usually silver for old mirrors.

[Rayoui]

The Nikon D3300 can be had for about 500USD and is a fantastic entry-level DSLR. Nikon also has a new, inexpensive 40mm f/2.8 macro lens designed for crop-frame DSLRs like the D3300 (40mm on a crop-frame sensor has a similar FOV to 60mm on full-frame). I haven't used it myself but from what I've heard it performs quite well for its price point, often comparably to Nikon's famous 60mm f/2.8 macro.

[Battou62]

The Nikon D3300 can be had for about 500USD and is a fantastic entry-level DSLR. Nikon also has a new, inexpensive 40mm f/2.8 macro lens designed for crop-frame DSLRs like the D3300 (40mm on a crop-frame sensor has a similar FOV to 60mm on full-frame). I haven't used it myself but from what I've heard it performs quite well for its price point, often comparably to Nikon's famous 60mm f/2.8 macro.

It was fairly easy to get a D3300 refurb and kit lens for ~$400 when I was looking for a camera around November. I have had no problems with mine, and it is an excellent camera to learn on.

[strafe]

That looks like a great lighting setup JaccoW. I purchased the same parts and should have them in a few weeks.  Should also be great for light painting cars and video use!

[JaccoW]

That looks like a great lighting setup JaccoW. I purchased the same parts and should have them in a few weeks.  Should also be great for light painting cars and video use!

Glad I could help. I'm sure they will work great for video too. These things throw out a whole lot of light!

[ctm]

There are some entry level DSLR within 400 dollars, but I don't think any of those kit lenses are good at macro.