Photocameras

If absolutely stationary, with a firmly fixed tripod - then Canon MP E 65 mm: http://www.foto.ru/canon_mp-e_65mm_f_2.8_1...acro_photo.html
Only it is very specific, the depth of field is minimal - you will have to glue together images from several layers. This lens was just recently discussed here in some parallel topic about macro photography, I don't remember exactly where.
I shoot small things Sigma 150 mm + a set of Kenko macro rings. You can also recommend the Canon 100 1.8 L (or the previous model without an optical stabilizer), also with rings.

If absolutely stationary, with a firmly fixed tripod - then Canon MP E 65 mm: http://www.foto.ru/canon_mp-e_65mm_f_2.8_1...acro_photo.html
Only it is very specific, the depth of field is minimal - you will have to glue together images from several layers. This lens was just recently discussed here in some parallel topic about macro photography, I don't remember exactly where.
I shoot small things Sigma 150 mm + a set of Kenko macro rings. You can also recommend the Canon 100 1.8 L (or the previous model without an optical stabilizer), also with rings.

I strongly advise against MR-E. the lens is not for everyday routine. yes, and expensive.

buy a sigma 50 mm macro. the thing is just super . and most importantly-it is inexpensive - you can find it for 9 thousand rubles. and for the field, a canon 100 mm macro is good, but it will be too expensive in the L version.

I strongly advise against MR-E. the lens is not for everyday routine. yes, and expensive.

buy a sigma 50 mm macro. the thing is just super . and most importantly-it is inexpensive - you can find it for 9 thousand rubles. and for the field, a canon 100 mm macro is good, but it will be too expensive in the L version.

There is no time for photos in the fields.

I strongly advise against MR-E. the lens is not for everyday routine. yes, and expensive.

buy a sigma 50 mm macro. the thing is just super . and most importantly-it is inexpensive - you can find it for 9 thousand rubles. and for the field, a canon 100 mm macro is good, but it will be too expensive in the L version.

50mm is not a macro range at all)) weaving is the best option for all cases. but for small things, you will need rings or attachments for it.

by the way, there is also a Tamron 90mm Macro. also a good lens, and a little cheaper than a hundred. but also a little shorter ))

50 mm is the macro range. very good glass. I tested it

Tip-for the future, buy EF lenses, not EF-S. If you switch to a fullframe , you will have to sell and buy EF-S.

Come on, Stas, it's all nonsense. The probability of the transition of the average user (and even makrushnik) to FF is not so great, and if something happens, it's not a problem to sell it together with the carcass and EF-Sy. There is always a demand for Sapop. Why limit yourself? Another thing is that often the lens itself is good, but the fact that it is FF is an extra plus (rather, at the level of emotions).

50mm is not a macro range at all)) weaving is the best option for all cases. but for small things, you will need rings or attachments for it.

Svyatoslav, what does FR have to do with the "macro" or "non-macro" range? Macro alt decides the scale, not the FR. For the field-yes, the long end may be more interesting than the short one, but technically the macro scale can be achieved with a fifty-kopeck piece of bread, and a hundred-kopeck piece of bread (and higher).

by the way, there is also a Tamron 90mm Macro. also a good lens, and a little cheaper than a hundred. but also a little shorter ))

If you don't need AF, then yes, it's fine there, too. Pradva 100 from Canon draws more beautifully probably, and 100L-for sure. On the other hand, for a simple technical survey, this is not a very important factor.

buy a sigma 50 mm macro. the thing is just super . and most importantly-it is inexpensive - you can find it for 9 thousand rubles.

Duc, what's wrong with Canon's 60mm? God bless EF-S...

in the firebox 60 mm canon. sigma really draws better )

Then what kind of lens do you recommend? For shooting still objects starting from 2-3 mm in size.
I'm honestly a complete teapot.

Options:
1. Save 60D, buy a soap dish with a macro range, check before buying whether it focuses normally at minimum distances and whether it is possible to control it from a computer with image output to a monitor in real mode. If everything is OK, there is no serious interest in the photo theme, and excessive" quality " of the image is not required — take soap, the difference in money between a 60D plus macro lens and soap — drink it or use it for an extra trip to the field.
2. Take MR-E 60. It is good on an achievable scale without the use of additional funds. Roads. Working with him is specific, look, Stas has recently been scaring people here. Before buying, be sure to try it out.
3. Take the EF-S 60mm plus Raynox nozzles. Cheaper than the MP-E 60. For large scales, it requires these very attachments. But it can be used for smaller scales than 1:1, as well as for civil (non-macro) shooting. You never know, maybe in the field of time there is or else where.
In more detail, the issue of photonanism with more serious scales than 1:1 is discussed more than once at the Macro Club (macroclub.ru).

in the firebox 60 mm canon. sigma really draws better )

When such a question was relevant to me, I made a conclusion for myself that 60 is sharper — once and less differs in "quality" from instance to instance — two. I assume that this is subjective (the sample of instances/outlets was not large enough). Just like the feeling of the glass in your hands.
Yes, here's another thing. As far as I remember, the Canon lens has much nicer AF. But in a technical/subject survey, et is still important. Because if I shoot a lot of effects in the same conditions, it is more convenient to pokulapatsya with AFom, so that then it worked normally, than every time with pens...

This post was edited by Asar - 13.11.2011 16: 44

Yes, yes, please continue, I'll take notes
As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), most use the usual versions of cameras, not with a lens in the form of a long tube stupidly inserted into the tube of a trinocular?

The choice of a camera generally depends on the goals, as already mentioned - in nature or at home, live or dry, available budget, weight carried on yourself, etc.First of all, you need to understand what you want to achieve and at what cost. The debate about DSLRs and compacts has been going on for a long time. No one disputes that theoretically the DSLR gives the best frame (without soap and with better detail), but when it comes to normal large-scale shooting. And in macro, other factors are already working (especially if we are talking about shooting beetles 2-5 mm) - the problem of depth of field is already more acute and here the DSLR is already losing because of the large matrix. You can certainly fight stacking, but stacking in nature... You will not make every beetle sit, and the wind happens and trams sometimes pass nearby (and this is really a real problem, voiced by a familiar SLR) and they sometimes move their antennae there, etc.
Take a look at the macroid or macro club (~80k photos) what they shoot with. Try to find small beetles captured by DSLRs...

Although if the question is about collections, then I would really consider the option with a scanner, and zin.ru just for an example...

People, tell me the blonde girl...
the task is to look for a camera for shooting with a trinocular microscope.

Write down more details -
what objects to shoot
with a microscope (transmitted light) or a stereo microscope (binocular for reflected light), give it to mark

When such a question was relevant to me, I made a conclusion for myself that 60 is sharper — once and less differs in "quality" from instance to instance — two. I assume that this is subjective (the sample of instances/outlets was not large enough). Just like the feeling of the glass in your hands.
Yes, here's another thing. As far as I remember, the Canon lens has much nicer AF. But in a technical/subject survey, et is still important. Because if I shoot a lot of effects in the same conditions, it is more convenient to pokulapatsya with AFom, so that then it worked normally, than every time with pens...

There is a caveat. 60 mm from Canon - EFS. and I have FF. it doesn't suit me in any way. But sigma is just right .

Vorona, but here basically everyone is measured, who has a longer object

There are two options for microframing.
The first one, which is also generally accepted, requires any digital camera with removable lenses. You don't need an object. The kit requires a special adapter, which is screwed on instead of the objective, the camera with the adapter is put on the tube, focusing is carried out by means of a microscope. Everything And what brand the camera will be - absolutely all the same))) The main thing is that it has an adapter to the tube.
There are nuances, for example, ideally, you need to control the camera from a computer, the object of shooting is also displayed on the monitor. Not all models can support this, but you can also "stupidly" press the button on the camera, as it was done back under Tsar Pea

The second option is for beggars, I used to use this, you buy the cheapest soap dish, always cheap, with a zoom of no more than 3.2 X, set the macro mode, and shoot leaning against the eyepiece of the microscope-of course it comes out once in a while, but it comes out - as an example-a bunch of micrographs that I posted here many places(objects approx. 10-500mkm)

So you need to take care first of all to find a set of adapter-camera for a specific microscope(s), and then configure it all, and what kind of camera it will be-this is the third case

There is a caveat. 60 mm from Canon - EFS. and I have FF. it doesn't suit me in any way. But sigma is just right .

Well, you can't argue with that, of course:--)

Please tell us more
about which objects you want to shoot
with a microscope (transmitted light) or a stereo microscope (binocular for reflected light), and give us its brand.

There is a microscope (Micromed-3, var. 3-20), there is a stereo microscope (MS-2CR).
The objects are also different: freshwater algae, pollen samples, leaf sections, small crustaceans, and small parts of plants.
You don't need to get such photos as you stitch together from many layers. Just normal decent illustrations for students, for example, term papers and theses.
Or is there one option not enough?

There is a microscope (Micromed-3, var. 3-20), there is a stereo microscope (MS-2CR).
The objects are also different: freshwater algae, pollen samples, leaf sections, small crustaceans, and small parts of plants.
You don't need to get such photos as you stitch together from many layers. Just normal decent illustrations for students, for example, term papers and theses.
Or is there one option not enough?

It seems that just for such cases there are camera attachments on the eyepiece.
As they say, all in one and sharpened for micrographs.
They also include programs for viewing the image on your computer, processing it, and saving it as a file.
It is better to have a trinocular, but both bi-and mono will work at least.

Here, for example, take a look

http://dino-microscope.ru/shop/kamery_okuljary/

From my experience, I will say that you need to focus on a camera with a 1-megapixel matrix (quite enough for scientific publications in good journals in color), but two is generally chic.

A search on the web will give you other models and more affordable ones.

This post was edited by amara - 11/15/2011 10: 29

Choose how much money is enough
http://www.micromed-spb.ru/catalog/20
you can read a little, there is of course very simplified, especially about digital cameras (Canon can almost always display live video on a PC), but in general it corresponds to
http://www.labor-microscopes.ru/lab/sys_visio.html

Vorona, but here basically everyone is measured, who has a longer object

There are two options for microframing.
The first one, which is also generally accepted, requires any digital camera with removable lenses. You don't need an object. The kit requires a special adapter, which is screwed on instead of the objective, the camera with the adapter is put on the tube, focusing is carried out by means of a microscope. Everything And what brand the camera will be - absolutely all the same))) The main thing is that it has an adapter to the tube.
There are nuances, for example, ideally, you need to control the camera from a computer, the object of shooting is also displayed on the monitor. Not all models can support this, but you can also "stupidly" press the button on the camera, as it was done back under Tsar Pea

The second option is for beggars, I used to use this, you buy the cheapest soap dish, always cheap, with a zoom of no more than 3.2 X, set the macro mode, and shoot leaning against the eyepiece of the microscope-of course it comes out once in a while, but it comes out - as an example-a bunch of micrographs that I posted here many places(objects approx. 10-500mkm)

So you need to take care first of all to find a set of adapter-camera for a specific microscope(s), and then set up this whole thing, and what kind of camera it will be - this is the third thing

Good image quality with this approach = a forgotten dream. And shooting anyhow is not the way of a Jedi.

eyepiece attachment cameras are a rare piece of shit. I tried a lot and different ones, from half a megapixel to 8 megapixels. It really sucks, I'm sorry.

Please help me!
Going to buy a trinocular Carton TRIO-0750 (http://intech-ec.ru/suppliers/optics/Videomicroscope.shtml) and a Z1017 camera holder is sold with it. I called them at the company, but they didn't explain anything to me about which cameras it fits: a camera with a removable lens or a regular digital soap dish. For example, the Canon PowerShot A570.
I read on another site that when you install this holder and the camera, you also need a 10X pseudo-eyepiece that comes with the trinocular. But here they say that it is not there - just an empty tube and when you insert the holder, you just need to insert the f/a and you will be happy.
The task is to shoot stationary insects (from 3 to 25 mm long) in layers and then stitch them together.

Please help me!
Going to buy a trinocular Carton TRIO-0750 (http://intech-ec.ru/suppliers/optics/Videomicroscope.shtml) and a sock is sold to it

Straight to him, nosey??? That's cool


This post was edited by lepidopterolog - 17.11.2011 18: 16

Please help me!
Going to buy a trinocular Carton TRIO-0750 (http://intech-ec.ru/suppliers/optics/Videomicroscope.shtml) and a Z1017 camera holder is sold with it. I called them at the company, but they didn't explain anything to me about which cameras it fits: a camera with a removable lens or a regular digital soap dish. For example, the Canon PowerShot A570.
I read on another site that when you install this holder and the camera, you also need a 10X pseudo-eyepiece that comes with the trinocular. But here they say that it is not there - just an empty tube and when you insert the holder, you just need to insert the f/a and you will be happy.
The task is to shoot stationary insects (from 3 to 25 mm long) in layers and then stitch them together.

I would wonder if the binocular has such a name! Isn't that what it's made of?
But seriously, to attach a household soap dish that is not adapted for such a function, you really need such a holder. Previously, you had to do it yourself. the soap dish removes the image from the eyepiece lens, so you need to insert an additional eyepiece in the trinocular tube or in the holder itself, which is a multiple of those that are for the eyes. As I understand it, they offer to purchase it separately. Remember that first of all you need to take care of the software for the soap dish so that it supports the function of live video for transmission to the PC. For Sapop if a free prog from the Canon site or an improved PSRemote http://www.breezesys.com/downloads.htm#psremote
The broken version is still online, so you need to check out the list of supported Canon cameras! Sew Helicon Focus, they ask for a little money, made in Kharkiv !

Carcharot, this is for ordinary cameras, that is, you need to shoot with an eyepiece. http://www.prist.ru/produce.php/card/sold.htm?id=-1517988335. But in general, you can also shoot with your hands, without any programs, the main thing here is what exactly you need - a real picture for work or personal purposes, or you can shoot as a friend And shoot quite normally
By the way, when shooting with soap dishes, relief objects often do not need to be removed in any layers, because of the large depth of field, it all comes out normally anyway.

For example, here is a picture of Gregarin, recently posted here

Thank you all, now everything seems to be clear!

2 lepidopterolog:
and such noses fly outside my window without a trinocular

With the current trends, soon we will have white flies flying outside the windows In the Crimea, the branch of Antarctica was opened directly...

Please tell me! I'm going to buy myself a camera, and I'm confused about the choice. What is better to take for photographing not only large and medium-sized, but also small butterflies like leafworms? Cool "soap box" or better DSLR?

Thank you all, now everything seems to be clear!

2 lepidopterolog:
and such noses fly outside my window even without a trinocular

These definitely don't fly, this is a North American species

Please tell me! I'm going to buy myself a camera, and I'm confused about the choice. What is better to take for photographing not only large and medium-sized, but also small butterflies like leafworms? Cool "soap box" or better DSLR?

It depends on how much money you plan to spend. It is unlikely that a DSLR with a cheap lens is better than a fancy soap dish.

It depends on how much money you plan to spend. It is unlikely that a DSLR with a cheap lens is better than a fancy soap dish.

Well I think I'll spend it either on a Canon 1100D with a macro lens or on Canon Powershot G12. I rush between them.

In the macro fields, I use a fancy soap dish, and a DSLR with a staff lamp and a shirik for landscapes. From the soap boxes I have Canon G12 and Sony DSC HX1. Both cameras are excellent, but Sony Macro shoots better. At work, we use a Canon DSLR with a Tamron 90 macro lens on a tripod to shoot small objects in the office. The quality is excellent, if you do not hurry to set up manually. IMHO this field is not suitable.
My opinion-a soap dish is better for the field, a DSLR with a macro lens in a hospital.

My opinion is that a soap dish is better for the field, a DSLR with a macro lens in the hospital.

Conversely. If soap boxes are considered, then it is for the "studio", when the efficiency of shooting is not critical, the object does not run anywhere, etc. The mirror has more advantages in the field, when you need to quickly aim and shoot quickly: you can always focus completely manually, and with the use of AF, while on soap, focusing on the same eyes in the field and even God forbid with a more or less mobile object — horror: no viewfinder, manual focus ring no (God forbid, if at all), no focus fixation, no AF.

This post was edited by Asar - 20.11.2011 18: 02

Maybe. I only have experience with Tamron 90 from macro projects. It was guided by moving objects, and it was more convenient for me to shoot with a soap dish.In addition, it is inconvenient to change objects in the field.

This post was edited by vicgrr - 11/20/2011 18: 54

Maybe. I only have experience with Tamron 90 from macro projects. It was guided by moving objects, and it was more convenient for me to shoot with a soap dish.In addition, it is inconvenient to change objects in the field.

About AF, I agree — in the mirror, it depends not only on the camera, but also on the lens. It is quite possible that a bad mirror / lens bundle can be induced worse by AF than a soap dish with a good AF. But even in a bad combination, the mirror will always be able to focus properly manually on the viewfinder, and in the field this is more important than AF. In the case of a good bundle, the AF will also be faster/more accurate.
About changing lenses-et yes. If the photographer is walking and just takes pictures of butterflies, then landscapes on the road — it's easier to take two cameras here than to change the glass all the time. I myself have recently been going out with a makrushnik, and I either don't take a full-time employee at all, or I use it extremely rarely, if a very chic/interesting frame comes across.

This post was edited by Asar - 11/20/2011 19: 45