Needing Recommendations on Digital Camera(s) for Mineral Photography

I am needing to purchase a Digital Camera suitable for taking quality photographs of mineral specimens. I am mainly going to be photographing minerals to scale in actual view. I am going to be using the camera for more than just personal photos.

I want to get a quality camera but am not certain I want to make a $2,000. investment on my first camera.....

Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Matt

I dont think you need to spend $2000, it really depends on how profesional you want your photos to be, i have taken pictures that i am very pleased with with my Canon powershot A630, which is now out of date but still does the job! and that cost me about £100 (not sure what that is in dollars) although it was second hand, i recon you could get a decent enough camera for $500, of course there will be people here with high end DSLR cameras who will scoff at my suggestion, but at the end of the day, as long as the pic is clear, crisp and in focus, then who cares what the equipment used to take it! and remember its not just about the equipment, its the person taking the pic, getting the best light is important to, some minerals look betetr in natural sunlight, some look better in artificial light.
Make sure whatever camera you choose has a decent macro mode, and full manual controls so you can adjust the exposure, aperture etc.
Hope these comments are usefull to you, I am not a profesional but i do enjoy taking photos of my minerals and have added over 100 photos here on Mindat, and they only accept photos that are clear and in focus here so my pics cant be that bad! feel free to look at my gallery to see what you can with a camera that you could get for $500 at the most, you could probably get one even cheaper.
[www.mindat.org]

Matt,

You're getting into it huh! Awesome! I know very little about photography and can't afford the equipment to get really into it, but I have a question. Do you have a microscope? That makes a big difference in mineral pictures - photomicrography or just macrophotos. I would suspect that you would want a different camera for each type, but I may be wrong. Anyway, the art of taking pictures through a microscope is a lot different than just taking pics of a rock. And, to me, a lot cooler - the most fascinating pictures, taken with multiple shots and a large field of depth, "crystal" clear sharp crystals - are microphotos.

So if I were you, I'd get a nice microscope and then pick the camera that would go best with it. It's your call though of course! Hopefully we'll see some good pics coming from you soon!

Ben Kirchner

Matt,
As a photographer who has taken lots of quality macro photos with digital compact cameras before moving up to a DSLR and macro lens, I think I can speak a little to the subject you have raised. You may think it is a simple question of what camera to get, but if you intend to photograph minerals accurately and with some level of quality it has more to do with your light source, stage and your aesthetic sense than just the camera. For us to help you with our recommendations we need to know what you want to try to do. As previous posts have stated, photographing minerals through a microscope is a completely different kettle of fish from macro photos.
So, my first question is what is your level of photographic expertise? Do you know how to take photos in M, A, and S modes, or only in auto? Do you know about depth of field? Do you know something about white balance? All these are as important as the camera choice.
Most of the good new compact digital cameras on the market today have excellent macro capability and the more advanced ones >$300, have full M (manual) controls. The disadvantage of a compact digital camera is that most macro settings only work on the wide angle setting. You can't zoom in and still have the camera focus close. This puts your camera very close to small specimens, which can be a problem. The other disadvantage is the small size of the sensor. There is a limit to the quality you can get in an 8mp camera with a sensor 1/3 the size of a DSLR.

To go to a DSLR, like the Nikon D80, D90, or D5000, and buy a 60mm macro lens from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina in addition to the kit zoom they practically give you, will cost you something over $1000 and less than $1500. Of course you still need a good tripod ($200+), extra batteries, remote cable, AC adapter, lights ($20 to $1000), reflectors, etc. So you could easily go over $2000 with all the extra gear.

Have to run now, but I'll check tomorrow and see if I need to write more.

I own a wholesale/retail business and am expanding to the web. I do have a good understanding on all modes and funcitons on the camera. I did take a few photography classes in school, but the equipment then was not digital.
As for lights, I have all my equipment from when I worked at a Television Station, so lots of reflectors, tripods and lights.
I live in a rather unconnected area, so I do not have access to Camera Specific Retailers, so the web is my main source of info, which I am finding can be quite hard to base judgement off of for these cameras.
I can make the proper display and lighting adjustments, I just need a Quality and Affordable Camera that will achieve for me the Highest Expectations as opposed to meeting my current skill level...I am a quick learner and know i can quickly adapt to the equipment.....Just looking for the insight to avoid purchasing a $2000.00 regret.

If I were to go dSLR it would hands down be the Pentax K-7 or even the Pentax K-x. What the K-7 offers would cost you over $3K just for the body from Canon or Nikon. It offers extremely in depth controls, weather & dust sealed, very accurate color reproduction with extreme white balance controls, image stabilization built in to the body so EVERY lens(even the older manual focus ones) will become IS/VR lenses... no need to pay hundreds to thousands more per lens for IS/VR, great DR(dynamic range), largest lens selection of any manufacturer by far(when considering 3rd party lenses and all K-mount and M42 mount available for the camera), even has full focus confirmation when using any MF lenses with it, etc. I used to shoot Canon with L glass and switched when they released the K10D and couldn't be happier! Far better setup then my Canon ever was. The K-7 would place somewhere between the 50D and the 1D MkIII/IV cameras in options/features, build quality, and image quality, but at the price of a Rebel body!

The best camera if you need absolute perfect colors is the Sigma SD14, due to the FoveonX3 sensor being the only one that actually captures true colors. The Bayer based sensors in Canon, Nikon, Pentax, etc. do not actually capture true colors, I can explain in detail if required. But the camera is no frills and definitely not for an amateur.

As for the 60mm lenses, I find those way to short and cause more issues with lighting. I would not go under 100mm personally. My personal choice for a macro lens would be the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro, it is and has been the best macro lens ever made, nothing out there even comes close to its quality.

What I have found to work well for a dSLR is a bellows + a 3 lens set, 35mm, 50/75mm, and 135/150mm as well as a set of extension tubes. The cheapest route would be to get an M42 mount adapter and then snag the setup in M42 thread mount.

A good solid tripod & head is a must!! I also prefer a macro rail system as well. The most universal tripod I have found is the Giottos MT series. They even allow for the tripod to actually be switched to a special macro/close-up setup! I chose a Bogen/Manfrotto 488RC0 ballhead for my head and I have a Novoflex macro rail system.

I would also recommend a copy stand as well, they come in quite handy for macro/close-up work.

But, to be totally honest, if ending images are not to be printed in large sizes or larger then 1/4 page printed ads, then the most universal setup I have found is the following:
•Panasonics FZ28 or FZ35 camera
•Extended attachment tube
•Raynox DCR-150, DCR-250, and MSN-202 macro add-on lenses
•Copystand with lightbox(I have the Raynox version but it is no longer made)

The above combination allows for magnifications in excess of 24:1(24x). You would typically need a microscope to reach the magnifications the FZ28/35 + MSN-202 will reach in tele macro mode. Due to the design of the all in one cameras, you will actually have much more DOF(depth of field) then you would with a dSLR setup and better control over DOF as well. It is the most universal setup I have used to date and I have been shooting for over 25yrs! I also own numerous dSLR macro setups and unless doing larger prints or 1/4 page+ printed ads I use the Panasonic over the dSLR setups for the ease of use and flexibility. The FZ28/35 also offer full manual settings and an enhanced MF(manual focus) mode too! They also offer full RAW capabilities as well. The macro mode functions completely through the zoom range and goes into a tele macro mode at the long end. The lens is made and designed by Leica, and is of top notch quality, would easily cost $1K+ to cover the range in same quality on a dSLR. They have extremely accurate white balance and great color reproduction.

Sorry Matt,

I had you confused with someone else! Just realized that. Anyway good luck with the pics! Jamey you should write an article or something, you seem to have tons of experience - I know who to ask about camera equipment from now on! I ordered one of those adapters and it's on the way I'll let you know how it works. Matthew, good luck!

Ben Kirchner

Ben,
Congrats! Let me know how it works out for ya! I love mine! I just wish my little Sony had manual controls, sadly it is auto only, so it makes things a bit difficult at times, lol. And my Panasonic FZ8K is too big for the mount. So for difficult shots I have to break out the Pentax K10D or Sigma SD14 + adapter for the camera to the trinoc port and go that route, pain in the butt, lol.

Hi Matt,

At the risk of going against the grain here, I would suggest that before you invest megabucks in a DSLR system you might try using an inexpensive (but quality) compact digital camera. Unless you're going to publish your photos in print you realy don't need lots of megapixels, and there are some very good "point-and-shoot" cameras with excellent macro capabilities out there. You will definitely experience a learning curve doing mineral photography, and it is better to go through that with an inexpensive setup before spending a lot of money.

I use the Nikon Coolpix 5400, which is a 5-year old model that you can find on eBay for less than $100. Every photo in my mindat gallery was taken using this camera (see [www.mindat.org]). It is 5 megapixels, will focus down to 1 cm., has a custom white balance setting and all the manual controls that you will need (note that the newer Nikon Coolpix cameras do NOT focus this closely). My setup is incredibly simple and consists of the following:

- The Camera
- AC adapter (so that you can shoot for a long time without changing batteries)
- Two to four table-edge mounted swivel-arm lamps with white inner hood, commonly available in office supply stores.
- Lights: I use the Philips "Halogena" Classic bulbs, but just about any bulb will do if you measure the white balance.
- The stage: Two big boxes, one taller than the other, draped with background material.
- The diffusion: sheets of plain white wrapping tissue, each attached to a bent coathanger which is stuck into a cardboard box base that can be moved around.

I used an 18% gray card, photographed under the same lighting conditions, to measure the white balance for correct color balance. It is a very simple procedure to do this with the Nikon. With rare exceptions, I do not need to do any color correction in Photoshop.

One tip if you plan to get this camera - at the widest angle setting there is slight barrel distortion due to the extra-wide aspect of the lens. I zoom in slightly so that I can back the camera away from the specimen enough to eliminate the distortion, but I can still focus down to 1.5 cm. The only caveat is that for some small subjects the camera will block some of the light, but this has never been a show-stopper for me yet.

If you do decide to get this camera, feel free to IM me so that I can tell you the settings that work best for me.

Hope this helps,
Nik Nikiforou

Everyone who does mineral photography is going to have opinions on what is best, and a lot of what you need to pay attention to will depend on the sort of photos you want to produce. Without getting into an overwhelming amount of detail here, I would recommend that, at a minimum, you get a camera that has manual modes for all the important functions of the camera, such as focus, aperture, exposure time, ISO (or "film speed", and white balance. This will allow you maximum flexibility with the camera as you develop your own style and techniques. Personally, I am currently using a Canon EOS Rebel XTi (aka 400D). These can be had, including lens for around $650, and are a good introductory-level DSLR camera.

As mentioned, there is a lot more to taking good photos of minerals than just the camera. You will need to pay attention to lighting, reflector cards, diffusers, staging, and computer processing to optimize the image afterward. If you're just starting out with digital photography, this is a lot to learn. A suggestion would be to look through the user photo galleries here on Mindat and find people who's work you like. Most would likely be happy to share information with you about their techniques.

Matt,

If you have the time I would suggest you look at the first five newsletter articles I wrote on choosing a digital camera for lapidary use, from June 2009 - Oct 2009 . It is NOT camera specific, but simply goes through the things I feel you should consider before purchase. There are between 2 and 3 pages in each newsletter. (http://www.charlottegem.com/newsletters.html)

My only recommendation that is more specific is the use of a good Macro Lens, like speakers in a stereo system, your lens will determine more about the quality of your photos than any other particular camera feature. I, like Jamey, recommend a macro lens between 100 mm - 180 mm for macro work. The extra working distance between the subject (mineral/cab/etc.) being photographed and the camera provide far more opportunities to light the subject. The quality of most of the 50-60 mm macros is excellent, but you have to get too close to the subject to focus.

I wrote and photographed the book "Agates and Jaspers" and teach a beginning close-up class at William Holland Lapidary School. My WEB site (http://www.theimage.com) has some general information (not as up to date as the current photo series in the newsletter) but still useful for some historical perspective. Currently the only book on mineral and gemstone photography is by Jeff Scovil - check out his WEB site for it. (http://www.scovilphoto.com/)

I have used a variety of cameras as I did a good deal of scientific photography in my pre-retirement carrier. I have used both Canon and Nikon and frankly cannot see that much difference between them, but I believe most of the current "name-brands" can all produce great photographs, it's more a function of the photographer, learning to light the samples and some general experience. (All of which can be learned and practiced.)

Always continue learning and questioning!

Hrm, my 50mm macro lens doesn't cause me any grief with lighting whatsoever. Less money and less bulk, too.

I'm very, very happy with my old Canon Rebel, and am considering upgrading to the new 21 megapixel version.

I'd suggest not getting anything under 10 megapixels, whether you're just after low-res shots for the web or not. Sooner or later you will get some great shots of fabulous specimens and will be kicking yourself when you can't blow it up to poster size.

Personally, I'd never buy any form of high-end electronic gear from anywhere but a bricks and mortar store with well-trained, experienced salesmen. Call me old school, but I want an address that I can actually drive to if I have problems.

Tons and tons of good info on the web. dpreview.com is a superb source of reviews.

Basically, do a month or three of research, go with a top name brand that's been selling camera's for a long, long time, and bear in mind that with digital SLR's you're buying a camera body, and then you're buying the lenses you need, which can cost many times more than the camera body.

Lastly, I don't think you can go wrong by taking the advice of guys like Swisher.

As a brief aside, I would like to mention that a lot of people focus simply on the number of pixels in the camera sensor chip as a gauge of the camera's resolution. This is not entirely correct. A lot of the resolution is also determined by the physical size of the chip as well. This is analogous to the difference between 35 mm film and larger format cameras.The chip in a DSLR will be larger than a chip in a pocket camera, has more light-gathering area, and will not require the additional image magnification from the lens that a chip in a smaller pocket camera will. Thus, one can not expect to get the same quality images from a 10 megapixel sensor in a pocket camera as one would from a 10 megapixel sensor in a DSLR.

Actually the megapixels is the resolution of the camera. There is nothing else that plays into it.

Now, IQ(image quality) on the other hand, that has to do with the number of pixels in relation to the size of the sensor. A dSLR is not always the best choice either. But you are correct, in total IQ, a 10mp P&S will not be equal to a 10MP dSLR except for the Sigma DP1 or DP2 as those P&S cameras actually use dSLR sized sensors.

The megapixel game has been used too much and is always touted as a major selling point. When, in reality, for internet sized images, 3MP is plenty, heck, 3MP will even make a top notch 8x10" print! When looking, the only thing that really matters along the lines of megapixels is the pixel density. The pixel density is what will dictate the amount of total IQ a camera can produce. Now, the lens quality must also be taken into consideration as well! A 10MP Canon P&S will NOT come close to the detail and IQ a 10MP Panasonic can produce. Both have about the same pixel density, but the Panasonic uses a top end lens made & designed by Leica and the Canon uses a lower quality lens, but neither is shabby.

Also, a 5MP dSLR can easily produce a billboard sized print, and has and does all the time. A 6MP P&S from a good camera with a good lens can easily produce an 11x14" print which is the small end of the poster sizes. A good 8MP P&S with good lens can do a 16x20" that is acceptable at normal viewing distances.

Megapixels should just be ignored honestly. Do NOT fall into that sales hype bs too many retailers try to push. It is nothing but a misnomer/myth. If you must look at something, looks at pixel density instead. But honestly, as far as dSLRs go, ANY of the ones currently on the market can produce top notch shots. Some just have more features then others that can make it easier to capture the winning shot. Many of the P&S cameras on the market can do the job as well, the best for macro work being the Panasonic line up, specifically the FZ28, FZ35, or LX3 and the LZ series doesn't do too bad either for internet viewing.