Which Camera For Detailed Watch Macros

[jkingston]

I am looking for a general purpose camera, but also one that excels in one particular macro application: highly detailed photos of watch movements. This imposes the requirements of high resolution, great macro performance and, since watch movements have components layered in, good depth of field in the macro shot.

I can see two types of shooting environments. One at home with a light dome and tripod. Another much harder, "on the fly" with watchmakers at the bench--where I have to lean over try and prevent glare with a piece of paper and shoot away (but get detail nonetheless).

I have narrowed the field down to the G6, Nikon 8400, Olympus 8080 and possibly the Pentax 750. Frankly, the G6 and 8400 seem to have the inside track. Now the published macro minimum for the G6 is 5 cm; the Nikon is 3 cm. However, others have suggested that what matters is macro performance not at max wide angle, but with some telephoto so that one can get better depth of field.

Looking for advice here. These all seem like excellent cameras and I am at wits end trying to choose. Help appreciated

[Susan Porter]

The following info came from J. Keller: What matters is a) how close you can
get to the subject and b) how small of an area the camera can capture
in macro mode. Look at the minimum area captured.

[speaklightly]

The Canon G-6 also has a super macro or close-up mode as well. I have had outstanding macro results with the Canon G-6. It is a digital camera that is a pleasure to use and its output demonstrates great photographic quality.

Sarah Joyce

[John_Reed]

I am looking for a general purpose camera, but also one that excels in one particular macro application: highly detailed photos of watch movements. This imposes the requirements of high resolution, great macro performance and, since watch movements have components layered in, good depth of field in the macro shot.

I can see two types of shooting environments. One at home with a light dome and tripod. Another much harder, "on the fly" with watchmakers at the bench--where I have to lean over try and prevent glare with a piece of paper and shoot away (but get detail nonetheless).

I have narrowed the field down to the G6, Nikon 8400, Olympus 8080 and possibly the Pentax 750. Frankly, the G6 and 8400 seem to have the inside track. Now the published macro minimum for the G6 is 5 cm; the Nikon is 3 cm. However, others have suggested that what matters is macro performance not at max wide angle, but with some telephoto so that one can get better depth of field.

Looking for advice here. These all seem like excellent cameras and I am at wits end trying to choose. Help appreciated...What counts is how much of the frame your small subject can occupy. Here are two examples of "macro" photos taken with my Panasonic FZ1:
Close-up of small daisy, shot with FZ1 in "macro" mode, ~5 cm (2") distance, FL=84mm equivalent
http://john-reed.smugmug.com/photos/4202964-M.jpg
Closer-up of bee on flower, shot with FZ1 and Nikon 6T +3 diopter lens, 10" distance, FL=420mm equivalent (full telephoto)
http://john-reed.smugmug.com/photos/4223420-M.jpg
Using the added Nikon +3 diopter lens (I think it cost ~$60) in combination with the long telephoto (and you can also get higher diopter add-ons) affords the nice feature of actually having a little distance between camera and subject, which allows for easier lighting, as the camera itself doesn't shadow the subject. (It's also helpful in preventing bee stings!)

[speaklightly]

Thanks for the great macro digital photos, John!

Sarah Joyce

[Susan Porter]

John, What did you mean by...."...What counts is how much of the frame your small subject can occupy. " Does this have anything to do with "minimum area captured?" I need a camera that will take good close up shots of antique buttons and I'd like to know what to ask at the camera store. Any help appreciated. Thanks in advance. Susan

[John_Reed]

John, What did you mean by...."...What counts is how much of the frame your small subject can occupy. " Does this have anything to do with "minimum area captured?" I need a camera that will take good close up shots of antique buttons and I'd like to know what to ask at the camera store. Any help appreciated. Thanks in advance. SusanSusan, I meant that "closeup" isn't always "macro." Some cameras achieve their macro (really "closeup") specs by forcing the user to shoot at the shortest focal length of the lens, i.e., widest angle. When you do it that way, though your small object may be close to the lens, it doesn't necessarily occupy a large part of the frame, since the view is so wide. I have a Nikon CoolPix 4500 whose "macro" function is actually performed at a "normal" focal length, and it can get within 2cm (0.8") of the subject. So it does a pretty good job at getting "closeup" in a manner that could be called "macro." With my two shots I was demonstrating the same kind of thing with the little daisy, though in that case the camera (FZ1) was shooting in a mild telephoto perspective at ~85mm equivalent. So even though it was ~5cm away from the daisy, the small daisy occupied a good fraction of the frame due to the telephoto. And the bee photo shows that you can occupy an even larger fraction of the frame at a greater distance, by using the extreme telephoto of the 12X (420mm) FZ1 lens coupled with the Nikon +3 diopter closeup adapter. If you want to compare various "macro" functions for different cameras, put a dime down on the counter and shoot the macro photo with each of your candidates; the one for which the dime occupies the biggest fraction of the frame will likely be the best at doing what you want to do. I haven't run that test for my Nikon 4500 vs. my Panasonic with the 6T closeup lens, but I suspect they're about the same in that respect. And I happen to like the longer working distance. I hope that was helpful, and not confusing? :o

[speaklightly]

Sincere thanks to John Reed for an excellent and comprehensive answer to the intracies of close-up/macro digital photos. Its a great explanation, John.

Sarah Joyce

[D70FAN]

Susan, I meant that "closeup" isn't always "macro." Some cameras achieve their macro (really "closeup") specs by forcing the user to shoot at the shortest focal length of the lens, i.e., widest angle. When you do it that way, though your small object may be close to the lens, it doesn't necessarily occupy a large part of the frame, since the view is so wide. I have a Nikon CoolPix 4500 whose "macro" function is actually performed at a "normal" focal length, and it can get within 2cm (0.8") of the subject. So it does a pretty good job at getting "closeup" in a manner that could be called "macro." With my two shots I was demonstrating the same kind of thing with the little daisy, though in that case the camera (FZ1) was shooting in a mild telephoto perspective at ~85mm equivalent. So even though it was ~5cm away from the daisy, the small daisy occupied a good fraction of the frame due to the telephoto. And the bee photo shows that you can occupy an even larger fraction of the frame at a greater distance, by using the extreme telephoto of the 12X (420mm) FZ1 lens coupled with the Nikon +3 diopter closeup adapter. If you want to compare various "macro" functions for different cameras, put a dime down on the counter and shoot the macro photo with each of your candidates; the one for which the dime occupies the biggest fraction of the frame will likely be the best at doing what you want to do. I haven't run that test for my Nikon 4500 vs. my Panasonic with the 6T closeup lens, but I suspect they're about the same in that respect. And I happen to like the longer working distance. I hope that was helpful, and not confusing? :o

Macro shooting is why the CP990 is not in a box.

Good post John. See, you've still got it. ;)