I wanted the D5300 but the 70D makes more sense!

If you're on a budget, it's hard to beat the D7100 for stills and you still get excellent video too. I have taken some pictures with my D7100 that shocked the crap out of me with their sharpness and clarity. I've used macro lenses with other cameras and I *thought* I knew what sharp was, until I got the D7100. In my opinion, it's THE best bang for the buck right now. The D5300 could enter that category when the price drops a bit ($700 or less) and the D5200 is still pretty good, but you won't get images nearly as sharp for photography, but you may see just a smidge more DR. In terms of video, they all three should be identical. I can't tell any difference between the video of my D5200 and D7100, I would imagine the D5300 will be identical to those two quality-wise, but with the addition of the 60p 1080 video, which I'd never (or VERY rarely) use anyway. If I were going to buy the D5300, I would wait for someone to do a moire/aliasing test, but I don't anticipate that it will be a problem, since it supposedly has the same sensor as the D7100.

If you need low light, I'd say 5D3 or D800. Samuel's Flaat Shootout 2012 video showed that the 5N made an excellent showing, too, but it wouldn't quite be in the same class as 5D3 or D800.

As far as autofocus with video, none of the Nikon cameras are even close to ready for primetime. I've tried lens after lens, different settings, different situations, it doesn't matter, autofocus just sucks for video. For stills, the D7100 is brilliant and focuses ridiculously fast and it's always spot-on. So really, if you're only doing video, you won't notice any difference between 5200, 5300 or 7100 because you'll be manually focusing anyway (the 5200 and 5300 lack the focusing motor so it only works with "G" lenses, you will be stuck manually focusing with "D" lenses). Of course the D lenses give you aperture control (manual) in live view, so that's why I go with those when I can. The only time I can trick the D7100 for photography autofocusing is when I'm shooting a strongly backlit subject and they're moving toward/away from the camera, but even that isn't a deal-breaker, for me anyway.
 
Samuel H said:
My picks, right now, and depending on budget: NEX-5N, D5200, D7100, BMCC, 5D3

For stills, BMCC is out, 5N and D5200 only an option if you won't use AF (first one has contrast-detect only, second one lacks AFMA), so, D7100 or 5D3, and I would also consider the D800 if stills are your main thing and video is secondary.
Click to expand...


Video is my primary use, but have been getting more involved lately also in stills. The 70D does suffer from moire so does their 6d as if canon trying to push videographers towards the 5D. This should be a basic enhanced feature in all cameras. Still for it's prices range the 70D is a decent camera. Canon seems to try to emulate film look in it's colors. This footage shows sharp video but you can see how bad moire at 6:00 minutes. I am in the market for a macro lens, Which macro lens would you recommend on a budget.



 
baronmax said:
If you're on a budget, it's hard to beat the D7100 for stills and you still get excellent video too. I have taken some pictures with my D7100 that shocked the crap out of me with their sharpness and clarity. I've used macro lenses with other cameras and I *thought* I knew what sharp was, until I got the D7100. In my opinion, it's THE best bang for the buck right now. The D5300 could enter that category when the price drops a bit ($700 or less) and the D5200 is still pretty good, but you won't get images nearly as sharp for photography, but you may see just a smidge more DR. In terms of video, they all three should be identical. I can't tell any difference between the video of my D5200 and D7100, I would imagine the D5300 will be identical to those two quality-wise, but with the addition of the 60p 1080 video, which I'd never (or VERY rarely) use anyway. If I were going to buy the D5300, I would wait for someone to do a moire/aliasing test, but I don't anticipate that it will be a problem, since it supposedly has the same sensor as the D7100.

If you need low light, I'd say 5D3 or D800. Samuel's Flaat Shootout 2012 video showed that the 5N made an excellent showing, too, but it wouldn't quite be in the same class as 5D3 or D800.

As far as autofocus with video, none of the Nikon cameras are even close to ready for primetime. I've tried lens after lens, different settings, different situations, it doesn't matter, autofocus just sucks for video. For stills, the D7100 is brilliant and focuses ridiculously fast and it's always spot-on. So really, if you're only doing video, you won't notice any difference between 5200, 5300 or 7100 because you'll be manually focusing anyway (the 5200 and 5300 lack the focusing motor so it only works with "G" lenses, you will be stuck manually focusing with "D" lenses). Of course the D lenses give you aperture control (manual) in live view, so that's why I go with those when I can. The only time I can trick the D7100 for photography autofocusing is when I'm shooting a strongly backlit subject and they're moving toward/away from the camera, but even that isn't a deal-breaker, for me anyway.
Click to expand...


What the D5300 needs is to allow video control through wifi, the 70D does not have that feature. If I can monitor video and control camera through wifi (even a basic record/stop) I will definitely get it. This would be a great feature particularly for jib shots. What's a good macro lens on a budget?
 
Last edited:
I bought a Tokina 100mm f/2.8 macro a while back and I've totally fallen in love with it. I wrote a review with a couple of pictures on B&H (should be the top review or second one down). No stabilization, though. It's tack sharp and is surprisingly easy to manually focus (although it does autofocus on all but the D3xxx and 5xxx series, as it's a D-lens). It's got a huge focus ring and you can change the aperture manually, which is always nice. It would be the perfect lens if it had image stabilization. Tamron makes a 90mm with stabilization, which is supposedly a great macro lens too. My Nikon 40mm macro is sharp, but doesn't give me much working distance (I can practically touch the lens with things and get focus, though). I've shot video with it too and it gives really great images, but stills are where this lens truly shines because you can actually USE all that sharpness. It's rather difficult to shoot video with a 150mm (equivalent) lens. The autofocus isn't what I'd consider "snappy" by any means, but it helps if you turn the focus limiter on, since about 2/3rds of the focus range is down in macro range. I wouldn't say it is abnormally slow or anything, but it's not like a 50mm prime or anything, either. I rarely use the autofocus anyway, as I feel I can usually get better results with manually focusing, but I like having the option to use AF when I want.

Here's my flickr, all of the images down to the second group of wasps are taken with the Tokina, it hasn't left my camera for more than a couple of shots since I got it:
https://secure.flickr.com/photos/60637962@N03/
 
Re: macro lens
If you're on a budget, it's difficult to beat this. Real macro lenses are usually better, but you can't beat the price. And it's not as if it didn't work: it's surprisingly good for such a cheap and simple solution, just not as good as a $1000 dedicated lens.
 
Samuel is right, if you want to try macro, start with extension tubes. It's a cheap way to get into macro (you can get basic extension tubes for $20, or more advanced for $100+). That's how I started with macro and I got a few pretty interesting pictures. In fact, when it comes to pure magnification, I got more with extension tubes than I did with an actual macro lens.
 
baronmax said:
I bought a Tokina 100mm f/2.8 macro a while back and I've totally fallen in love with it. I wrote a review with a couple of pictures on B&H (should be the top review or second one down). No stabilization, though. It's tack sharp and is surprisingly easy to manually focus (although it does autofocus on all but the D3xxx and 5xxx series, as it's a D-lens). It's got a huge focus ring and you can change the aperture manually, which is always nice. It would be the perfect lens if it had image stabilization. Tamron makes a 90mm with stabilization, which is supposedly a great macro lens too. My Nikon 40mm macro is sharp, but doesn't give me much working distance (I can practically touch the lens with things and get focus, though). I've shot video with it too and it gives really great images, but stills are where this lens truly shines because you can actually USE all that sharpness. It's rather difficult to shoot video with a 150mm (equivalent) lens. The autofocus isn't what I'd consider "snappy" by any means, but it helps if you turn the focus limiter on, since about 2/3rds of the focus range is down in macro range. I wouldn't say it is abnormally slow or anything, but it's not like a 50mm prime or anything, either. I rarely use the autofocus anyway, as I feel I can usually get better results with manually focusing, but I like having the option to use AF when I want.

Here's my flickr, all of the images down to the second group of wasps are taken with the Tokina, it hasn't left my camera for more than a couple of shots since I got it:
https://secure.flickr.com/photos/60637962@N03/
Click to expand...


I like your photos, very nice and sharp. I do see some noise though is it because you did a lot of sharpening or it's expected of macro lenses?
 
baronmax said:
Samuel is right, if you want to try macro, start with extension tubes. It's a cheap way to get into macro (you can get basic extension tubes for $20, or more advanced for $100+). That's how I started with macro and I got a few pretty interesting pictures. In fact, when it comes to pure magnification, I got more with extension tubes than I did with an actual macro lens.
Click to expand...


I bought some cheap tubes of Ebay few months ago and had a hard time getting the mount of my lens and didn't use them. Are tubes better than macro filters? Did you use those tubes you linked to, Are they easy to get off after mounting?
 
* noise in macro shots can appear irregardless of the lens, because it's difficult to throw enough light into the subject
* macro tubes work better than cheap macro filters, and they are as easy to put on and off as changing lenses. It's basically a tube with male and female lens mounts on each end.
 
Ken1212 said:
I like your photos, very nice and sharp. I do see some noise though is it because you did a lot of sharpening or it's expected of macro lenses?
Click to expand...

No, there's no noise with a macro lens, typically. They do require a lot of light though, especially when you get zoomed into the maximum. The depth of field is razor thin as you zoom in closer, the only way to increase the DoF is to stop down and when you stop down, you lose light. So in order to keep a decent shutter speed, I upped the ISO on some of the pictures, which introduces noise. Some are crops, which also introduce noise. I do use a bit of sharpening (unsharp mask) on some pictures, but on most it's not necessary.

I can stop down to f/64 with my tokina macro lens, although I try to avoid stopping down any more than I have to. If it's a stationary subject, I often just shoot at f/8 and do macro stacking, which allows me to get more in focus. If it's a moving subject, stacking is difficult (if not impossible), so my only real choice is to stop down the lens a bit to get as much depth of field as possible. That's why the pictures of stationary objects have less noise, I don't have to worry so much about it moving away (although wind is an issue with plants).

But typically, macro lenses give you the best sharpness of all the lenses. Then primes, then zooms. There are zoom macro lenses, but I wouldn't recommend them for photography, but they may work for videography, since you won't need more than about 2 megapixels worth of resolution. I've gotten some decent video with an ultra-cheap 70-300mm Tamron "macro" zoom lens, but it's really not that great for photography. I use it when I am photographing things that bite/sting/poison because it gives me more working distance (about 4.5 feet at 300mm). I don't get nearly the magnification from that as I do from a dedicated macro lens though. A true macro lens is 1:1 magnification, the tamron is 1:2. I would rather have my life and lower resolution pictures than have a great picture and be dead or hospitalized, so the zoom "macro" is important to me. :D
 
There is another way to do macro, if you need EXTREME levels of magnification, it's called a lens coupler. What it does is it allows you to use a 50mm lens, then attach a zoom lens on the front of the prime, but it goes on backwards. This gives you extraordinary magnification, but it's also wildly difficult to use because the loss of light is pretty radical, the depth of field is also razor thin (even thinner than using a regular macro lens). The full light of the sun will barely give you enough light to make passable images when you use two coupled lenses, but there's no better way to get up close and personal than that. This is also a really cheap way to get high magnification, though, as a lens coupler only costs $5-10. I say 50mm lens, but you can use other focal length, it's just that most people use 50mm from what I've read. I haven't tried this particular type of macro photography, but I've seen others do it.

I'll give you all a quick rundown of ways to do macro and their benefits and drawbacks:

--Extension Tubes:
Pros: Uses existing lenses. Relatively cheap ($20-100). Allows for good magnification.
Cons: Vignetting. Somewhat difficult to focus. No automatic camera settings, except with the more expensive tubes. Depending on lens used, you may need to get very close to your subject. You lose infinity focus. Video would be possible, but difficult.

--Coupler
Pros: Uses existing lenses. Very affordable. EXTREME magnification.
Cons: Requires massive amounts of light. Difficult to focus (you're using 2 lenses, after all). Automatic camera settings are limited. You will need to get close to your subject. No focus outside a very close distance. Video would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

--Reversing ring
Pros: Uses existing lenses. Cheapest way to get into macro. Decent magnification (depending on which lens is used). Requires less light than coupling or extension tubes.
Cons: Somewhat difficult to focus. No automatic camera settings. Limited working distance. No far focusing. Video would be difficult.

--Macro lens
Pros: Sharpness and clarity. Allows all functions of your camera to be used. Requires less light than other methods (but still more than regular photography). Allows you to choose your working distance (to some extent). Can be used for other types of photography (portraits, for example). Allows infinity focusing. Will give you the best results out of all of the methods listed here. Longer focal length macro lenses give you more working distance. I shoot video with my macro lens and it works nicely, I don't think I would want to try shooting video with any of the other methods listed here, it would be extremely difficult.
Cons: Expensive (could be VERY expensive, depending on what you need/want). Still quite shallow depth of field as you get in close to your subject. Macro lenses are often quite heavy. While they have autofocus, you will likely want to manually focus for optimal results. Autofocus is often (much) slower than non-macro lenses, but the better macro lenses have switches to limit the focusing motor to the non-macro range to make focusing slightly faster.

I enjoyed macro when I used extension tubes and reversing rings, but I started to love it when I got my first macro lens. Then I started shooting macro video...which is difficult, but I think this will be my first love from now on. I think shooting video with the reversing ring or extension tubes would have been so difficult that I would have gotten frustrated and stopped, but the dedicated macro lens makes this possible...not EASY, but possible. There are still some pretty wicked depth of field and focus issues, even with a true macro lens.

If you are going to be shooting flowers, you can get away with a much shorter focal length (40-85mm). If you are going to be shooting non-dangerous bugs/animals, 85-105mm is a great range. If you want to shoot skiddish or dangerous animals, I wouldn't recommend anything less than 200mm. Be warned, the 200mm macro lenses are quite expensive, but you will have considerably more working distance (relatively speaking). Your working distance at 40mm is about 1 inch from your lens. At 100mm it's 8 inches or so. 200mm would give you a bit over a foot at maximum magnification. I would also recommend image stabilization if you plan on doing any handheld work at all, but when you are at maximum magnification, you will NEED a tripod because your entire depth of field might be 1/64th of an inch and it's impossible to hand-hold, but I find that I don't work at maximum magnification very often because it's very difficult. If I'm hand-holding, I wouldn't even consider it.

If you have any other questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. I'm not a macro expert, but I've done a fair amount of it and I understand how to do it. :)
 
baronmax said:
There is another way to do macro, if you need EXTREME levels of magnification, it's called a lens coupler. What it does is it allows you to use a 50mm lens, then attach a zoom lens on the front of the prime, but it goes on backwards. This gives you extraordinary magnification, but it's also wildly difficult to use because the loss of light is pretty radical, the depth of field is also razor thin (even thinner than using a regular macro lens). The full light of the sun will barely give you enough light to make passable images when you use two coupled lenses, but there's no better way to get up close and personal than that. This is also a really cheap way to get high magnification, though, as a lens coupler only costs $5-10. I say 50mm lens, but you can use other focal length, it's just that most people use 50mm from what I've read. I haven't tried this particular type of macro photography, but I've seen others do it.

I'll give you all a quick rundown of ways to do macro and their benefits and drawbacks:

--Extension Tubes:
Pros: Uses existing lenses. Relatively cheap ($20-100). Allows for good magnification.
Cons: Vignetting. Somewhat difficult to focus. No automatic camera settings, except with the more expensive tubes. Depending on lens used, you may need to get very close to your subject. You lose infinity focus. Video would be possible, but difficult.

--Coupler
Pros: Uses existing lenses. Very affordable. EXTREME magnification.
Cons: Requires massive amounts of light. Difficult to focus (you're using 2 lenses, after all). Automatic camera settings are limited. You will need to get close to your subject. No focus outside a very close distance. Video would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

--Reversing ring
Pros: Uses existing lenses. Cheapest way to get into macro. Decent magnification (depending on which lens is used). Requires less light than coupling or extension tubes.
Cons: Somewhat difficult to focus. No automatic camera settings. Limited working distance. No far focusing. Video would be difficult.

--Macro lens
Pros: Sharpness and clarity. Allows all functions of your camera to be used. Requires less light than other methods (but still more than regular photography). Allows you to choose your working distance (to some extent). Can be used for other types of photography (portraits, for example). Allows infinity focusing. Will give you the best results out of all of the methods listed here. Longer focal length macro lenses give you more working distance. I shoot video with my macro lens and it works nicely, I don't think I would want to try shooting video with any of the other methods listed here, it would be extremely difficult.
Cons: Expensive (could be VERY expensive, depending on what you need/want). Still quite shallow depth of field as you get in close to your subject. Macro lenses are often quite heavy. While they have autofocus, you will likely want to manually focus for optimal results. Autofocus is often (much) slower than non-macro lenses, but the better macro lenses have switches to limit the focusing motor to the non-macro range to make focusing slightly faster.

I enjoyed macro when I used extension tubes and reversing rings, but I started to love it when I got my first macro lens. Then I started shooting macro video...which is difficult, but I think this will be my first love from now on. I think shooting video with the reversing ring or extension tubes would have been so difficult that I would have gotten frustrated and stopped, but the dedicated macro lens makes this possible...not EASY, but possible. There are still some pretty wicked depth of field and focus issues, even with a true macro lens.

If you are going to be shooting flowers, you can get away with a much shorter focal length (40-85mm). If you are going to be shooting non-dangerous bugs/animals, 85-105mm is a great range. If you want to shoot skiddish or dangerous animals, I wouldn't recommend anything less than 200mm. Be warned, the 200mm macro lenses are quite expensive, but you will have considerably more working distance (relatively speaking). Your working distance at 40mm is about 1 inch from your lens. At 100mm it's 8 inches or so. 200mm would give you a bit over a foot at maximum magnification. I would also recommend image stabilization if you plan on doing any handheld work at all, but when you are at maximum magnification, you will NEED a tripod because your entire depth of field might be 1/64th of an inch and it's impossible to hand-hold, but I find that I don't work at maximum magnification very often because it's very difficult. If I'm hand-holding, I wouldn't even consider it.

If you have any other questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. I'm not a macro expert, but I've done a fair amount of it and I understand how to do it. :)
Click to expand...




Thanks for the detailed info. The Tokina 100mm is priced at $449 and the least expensive, then comes the canon 100mm USM at $500, the Nikon 105mm is at $869, with Nikon being the only one with stabilization (the Canon 100mm L has stabilization and priced at $900 sale price). I just bought the 10-20mm sigma for Nikon few weeks ago and now that I ordered the 70D I am not sure which route to go. I don't know how well the 70D auto focusing will do with canon macro. On the other hand I could get a tube from ebay for about $50 box or just get a reversal ring and dedicate my two Nikon's 18-55mm for macro since I rarely use them. Usually I would prefer a dedicated lens but the Nikon Canon thing is making me think twice as it will be costly to keep building my arsenal based on both.
 
Ken1212 said:
Thanks for the detailed info. The Tokina 100mm is priced at $449 and the least expensive, then comes the canon 100mm USM at $500, the Nikon 105mm is at $869, with Nikon being the only one with stabilization (the Canon 100mm L has stabilization and priced at $900 sale price). I just bought the 10-20mm sigma for Nikon few weeks ago and now that I ordered the 70D I am not sure which route to go. I don't know how well the 70D auto focusing will do with canon macro. On the other hand I could get a tube from ebay for about $50 box or just get a reversal ring and dedicate my two Nikon's 18-55mm for macro since I rarely use them. Usually I would prefer a dedicated lens but the Nikon Canon thing is making me think twice as it will be costly to keep building my arsenal based on both.
Click to expand...

Oh, I forgot that you were a canon user. Canon has an excellent macro lens, the 65mm MPE. It's pricey, but it's probably THE best on the market for macro. It's magnification is like 5:1 or something (most macro are 1:1). It's expensive ($1000), but if you want the best, that's the one to get. If you don't want to drop another thousand dollars, extension tubes are always a good first step into macro. That will allow you to get your feet wet and know for sure you'll like it before you jump in and slap down a lot of cash on a real macro lens. Just keep in mind that the results you get from a dedicated macro lens tend to be better than what you can get with extension tubes. If I was a canon user, I'd definitely own the 65mm macro that canon makes, it's a beauty.

Most macro shooters don't autofocus with their macro because it takes such precision. I don't know if the 70D will have that precision or not. My D7100 will focus at macro range without much of an issue, but I tend to manually focus because of the very limited depth of field, it CAN confuse the camera sometimes and if it's a shot I need in a hurry, I'd rather just manually focus and not take the chance of missing the shot. The 65mm MPE is manual focus only, there's no autofocus motor built-in, so you won't be able to AF anyway.
 
Nice lens for a dedicated macro, but wish it had an auto focus to use for portraits too. I might try to rent it and check it out. I am still waiting for the 70D to be shipped and will only be starting with the 18-135mm. On the other hand I own several lenses for Nikon.
 
Ken1212 said:
Nice lens for a dedicated macro, but wish it had an auto focus to use for portraits too. I might try to rent it and check it out. I am still waiting for the 70D to be shipped and will only be starting with the 18-135mm. On the other hand I own several lenses for Nikon.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, the 18-135 is a 1:3 lens, which is somewhat close to macro. If you have either of the 18-55mm kit lenses from Nikon or Canon, those are 1:3 too. What that means is that something which is 1cm will be 3cm on your image sensor. True macro is 1:1 (life-size). So you can play around with getting somewhat closer with your kit lenses, to get started and it won't cost you any additional money. You won't get nearly the quality of a dedicated macro lens, nor the magnification of tubes, reversing ring or coupler, but it might let you figure out if you do want to get into macro. :)
 
baronmax said:
If I remember correctly, the 18-135 is a 1:3 lens, which is somewhat close to macro. If you have either of the 18-55mm kit lenses from Nikon or Canon, those are 1:3 too. What that means is that something which is 1cm will be 3cm on your image sensor. True macro is 1:1 (life-size). So you can play around with getting somewhat closer with your kit lenses, to get started and it won't cost you any additional money. You won't get nearly the quality of a dedicated macro lens, nor the magnification of tubes, reversing ring or coupler, but it might let you figure out if you do want to get into macro. :)
Click to expand...


I was going through some of my older gadgets and I found a Schact Travenar 1:2.8 90mm, it's a very nice portrait lens with rich colors, I have used it on my Nikon with an adapter and it works like a charm, it just requires focusing skill and patience. How about using it with a tube, it will be challenging to focus but should get sharp images!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top