Home PageAbout MindatThe Mindat ManualHistory of MindatCopyright StatusWho We AreContact UsAdvertise on Mindat
Donate to MindatCorporate SponsorshipSponsor a PageSponsored PagesMindat AdvertisersAdvertise on Mindat
Learning CenterWhat is a mineral?The most common minerals on earthInformation for EducatorsMindat ArticlesThe ElementsThe Rock H. Currier Digital LibraryGeologic Time
Minerals by PropertiesMinerals by ChemistryAdvanced Locality SearchRandom MineralRandom LocalitySearch by minIDLocalities Near MeSearch ArticlesSearch GlossaryMore Search Options
The Mindat ManualAdd a New PhotoRate PhotosLocality Edit ReportCoordinate Completion ReportAdd Glossary Item
Mining CompaniesStatisticsUsersMineral MuseumsClubs & OrganizationsMineral Shows & EventsThe Mindat DirectoryDevice SettingsThe Mineral Quiz
Photo SearchPhoto GalleriesSearch by ColorNew Photos TodayNew Photos YesterdayMembers' Photo GalleriesPast Photo of the Day GalleryPhotography
╳Discussions
💬 Home🔎 Search📅 LatestGroups
EducationOpen discussion area.Fakes & FraudsOpen discussion area.Field CollectingOpen discussion area.FossilsOpen discussion area.Gems and GemologyOpen discussion area.GeneralOpen discussion area.How to ContributeOpen discussion area.Identity HelpOpen discussion area.Improving Mindat.orgOpen discussion area.LocalitiesOpen discussion area.Lost and Stolen SpecimensOpen discussion area.MarketplaceOpen discussion area.MeteoritesOpen discussion area.Mindat ProductsOpen discussion area.Mineral ExchangesOpen discussion area.Mineral PhotographyOpen discussion area.Mineral ShowsOpen discussion area.Mineralogical ClassificationOpen discussion area.Mineralogy CourseOpen discussion area.MineralsOpen discussion area.Minerals and MuseumsOpen discussion area.PhotosOpen discussion area.Techniques for CollectorsOpen discussion area.The Rock H. Currier Digital LibraryOpen discussion area.UV MineralsOpen discussion area.Recent Images in Discussions
Mineral PhotographyCamera made for mineralogists?
4th Apr 2014 00:39 UTCEugene & Sharon Cisneros Expert
Gene
4th Apr 2014 01:35 UTCReiner Mielke Expert
4th Apr 2014 01:56 UTCDoug Daniels
4th Apr 2014 02:48 UTCEugene & Sharon Cisneros Expert
If you are referring to digital zoom, then yes, that isn't widely accepted by professionals. It's hard to tell from the specs, but it appears to have a 4X Optical Zoom, 2X Super Resolution Zoom and 4X Digital Zoom. I have no idea what they mean by 2X Super Resolution Zoom, but it must be good.... right? :-S
However, since the camera has 16MP, some digital zoom may be a reasonable tradeoff in many instances where the ultimate resolution isn't required, such as images that are down sampled for presentation on the web.
This isn't going to be the ultimate camera that replaces dedicated studio setups for extreme macro and micro, but it should be of use to those who wish to do better than what they can with older technology point and shoot cameras. It also makes available some degree of stacking to the casual macro photographer. And, I think that the price is right...
Unless something even better is available before June, when this is available, I will certainly be purchasing one to use as a field trip camera. Being ruggedized, having GPS and extreme macro are the most important features for me, in that order.
Gene
4th Apr 2014 03:15 UTCDoug Daniels
Guess we'll wait for your tests - you always do a pretty good job of evaluating such things. When I win the lottery, I'll be looking into buying a decent camera.......
4th Apr 2014 06:15 UTCHarald Schillhammer Expert
As for the built in stacking - I have serious doubts, particularly when I think of the crap of stacking software that Olympus offers with its imaging solutions for microscopes. Well, even a graphic SW giant like Adobe is not able to write a good stacking software. What is implemented in Photoshop is simply a joke. The panorama stitching in Photoshop, OTOH, is not so bad.
Cheers
4th Apr 2014 08:59 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder
Jolyon
4th Apr 2014 12:58 UTCPaul Brandes 🌟 Manager
4th Apr 2014 18:15 UTCEugene & Sharon Cisneros Expert
I recently tested a new Dino-Lite digital microscope that does internal stacking. No, it doesn't replace the sophisticated equipment that the best macro/micro photographers are using, but is a useful instrument for the amateur. Here is an example of automatic stacking and processing in the camera. In the interest of disclosure, we do represent the company that manufacturers these.
Single image
Auto stacked 7 images
The stacked image is a composite of 7 images. The total time to take the image was 3 seconds to make the exposures plus about 20 seconds to process. Whether the stacked image is good or bad I leave to the viewer, as the apparent quality of an image can be subjective.
Gene
4th Apr 2014 19:20 UTCWayne Corwin
4th Apr 2014 22:38 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder
5th Apr 2014 00:22 UTCEugene & Sharon Cisneros Expert
Ready for this? It's 1.3MP, but with a new sensor and processor. A 5MP version is in the works, but no availability date as yet.
One issue that I have with it is that the intermediate images are not saved. That's only a software issue though and I suspect that future software upgrades will provide that function. I think that the user should be able to process the images with a stacking software of their choice, not just with the imbedded software.
Gene
10th Dec 2014 19:30 UTCReiner Mielke Expert
30th Dec 2014 10:29 UTCAchille Sorlini
is it possibile to see some shots in order to better understand what kind of images we can expect from OLYMPUS TG3?
Today in internet you can find it for 325 euros, so, if the quality can be good enough, may be a good choice
for non professional users.
Thanks for an answer.
Achille
30th Dec 2014 11:57 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder
I would suggest one of the budget EOS cameras for starting - The EOS 1200D or EOS 100D are good starting points (these have different names in the US, look them up on Wikipedia to get the equivalent model numbers). Once you get one of these you can start investing in newer lenses as and when your budgets allow.
I also have the EOS-M, the mirrorless EOS camera which is much smaller but packs in a full EOS 600D size sensor in it - and of course has full manual control of aperture, etc. It's not as easy to work with as a full DSLR, but it is much lighter and more convenient if that's what you need, plus you can get an adaptor to fit any EOS lens onto it.
30th Dec 2014 12:41 UTCReiner Mielke Expert
30th Dec 2014 14:03 UTCAchille Sorlini
My best wishes for a mineralfully 2015.
30th Dec 2014 17:13 UTCturtledove thrushe
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would say that for serious mineral photography
> it is essential to have aperture control. There
> are plenty of small cameras that will take 'nice'
> photos - you can even get really good photos from
> the camera on a modern smartphone (eg iPhone 6
> plus) . But if you want to be serious about
> mineral photography then a camera with full
> aperture control is essential.
>
> I would suggest one of the budget EOS cameras for
> starting - The EOS 1200D or EOS 100D are good
> starting points (these have different names in the
> US, look them up on Wikipedia to get the
> equivalent model numbers). Once you get one of
> these you can start investing in newer lenses as
> and when your budgets allow.
>
> I also have the EOS-M, the mirrorless EOS camera
> which is much smaller but packs in a full EOS 600D
> size sensor in it - and of course has full manual
> control of aperture, etc. It's not as easy to work
> with as a full DSLR, but it is much lighter and
> more convenient if that's what you need, plus you
> can get an adaptor to fit any EOS lens onto it.
The problem with investing in a DSLR or even a Mirror-less is the need to carry around several different lens depending on the environment and the object that will be shot. I am sure our cameras shoot more than just our specimens so if we use our cameras outdoors we would need a separate telephoto lens. If we are shooting small objects then we would need a macro lens. When you add all these lenses up you end up with alot of weight and bulk. This is why I am particularly in favour of "Bridge" cameras as they often combine an excellent telephoto/superzoom capability with macro capability. They also cost less than en entry DSLR.
I have been researching this quite thoroughly and I think the following "Bridge" cameras would be well suited for overall usage including for mineral photography:
Canon SX50 HS/SX60 HS
Sony HXV400
Nikon P600
There is a user on Mindat that is using the Canon SX30 IS (an older series from the SX50/SX60 released around September 2010) and he provides a quality comparison of his shots especially macro available on his homepage here:
http://www.mindat.org/user-11779.html#2_0_0_0_0__
Here is an example shot with the SX30 IS super-macro mode:
http://www.mindat.org/photo-363512.html
In my honest opinion the money saved by not purchasing even a flagship DSLR can be spent towards specimens or other necessities of life. Sure DSLR's and Mirrorless may have better low-light performance but if we are using a light-box or even a studio lighting environment the advantage becomes not as apparent.
30th Dec 2014 17:21 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder
I find it amusing that you are turning the one major advantage of a DSLR into a negative. There are plenty of 'walkaround' lenses that combine a good zoom range to give you a good lens for general use (eg the EF-S 18-200mm, or 18-135mm although I use the 24-105mm and the 28-135mm usually for this). And keep a macro lens in your studio for when you're doing macro photography.
I nowdays tend to go out with one, maximum two, lenses with me. On Sunday I went to Richmond Park and took only my 70-200 f/4 lens with because I knew I'd be shooting mostly subjects from far away. Here's a couple of photos I took...
With a bridge camera when you 'outgrow' your lens you're stuck and have to sell your camera. Lenses are, in my opinion, far more important than the camera body in determining final image quality.
Buying a bridge camera may be cheaper, but it's penny wise, pound foolish in my opinion.
30th Dec 2014 19:13 UTCturtledove thrushe
-------------------------------------------------------
> > The problem with investing in a DSLR or even a
> Mirror-less is the need to carry around several
> different lens depending on the environment and
> the object that will be shot.
>
> I find it amusing that you are turning the one
> major advantage of a DSLR into a negative. There
> are plenty of 'walkaround' lenses that combine a
> good zoom range to give you a good lens for
> general use (eg the EF-S 18-200mm, or 18-135mm
> although I use the 24-105mm and the 28-135mm
> usually for this). And keep a macro lens in your
> studio for when you're doing macro photography.
>
> I nowdays tend to go out with one, maximum two,
> lenses with me. On Sunday I went to Richmond Park
> and took only my 70-200 f/4 lens with because I
> knew I'd be shooting mostly subjects from far
> away. Here's a couple of photos I took...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> With a bridge camera when you 'outgrow' your lens
> you're stuck and have to sell your camera. Lenses
> are, in my opinion, far more important than the
> camera body in determining final image quality.
>
> Buying a bridge camera may be cheaper, but it's
> penny wise, pound foolish in my opinion.
Jolyon at what kind of distances were either the deer and aircraft shot at. It's interesting you should mention a walkaround lens but the problem I forsee is weight and bulk of a mirrorless/dslr camera + lens + tripod and accessories. The body itself is quite lightweight for that specific camera but once you add in an external flash , lens the weight can probably approach near 1Kg if not heavier. Also to achieve similar telephoto capability as the newer superzoom cameras would cost roughly 100K for the telephoto lens (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/newsLetter/Mother-of-All-L-Lenses.jsp). As I also see it having a walkaround lens is a compromise since they normally don't incorporate macro capability and therefore you may need several lens depending on the shooting environment/target.
I disagree about out-growing a bridge camera. Take for example owners of the Canon EOS 7D (Mark I) which was released in 2009. That camera was quite a significant expenditure of money and Canon has released the much improved Mark II. The financial hit on a Bridge camera even when selling is not as much as a DSLR/Mirrorless. How much does a T3i cost with lens compared to a Bridge camera and all it accessories. The difference is quite significant. What about for owners of a DSLR who want to upgrade when the next generation/modernization rolls around ?
I know we probably have differing opinions I just wanted to outline why I feel a Bridge camera is more versatile and all-around for many purposes including mineral photography. I at one point wanted to get a T5i and even a T3i (a few years ago). I am sitting here still stuck with an old Sony Cybershot DSC-W1 which is insufficient :(
30th Dec 2014 20:19 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder
>Take for example owners of the Canon EOS 7D (Mark I) which was released in 2009. That camera was quite a significant expenditure of money and Canon has released the much improved Mark II.
Again you are making no sense at all. The 7D Mark 1 isn't obsolete - far from it it's still an excellent camera which will give far better results than ANY bridge camera. There's a newer model which is even better, but the mark 1 is far from worthless. And when you upgrade, you are only upgrading the body and keeping your expensive lenses. I have EOS lenses that were designed in the 1980s and are still on sale today. You may upgrade your camera body time and time again, when you feel the need, but your lenses can last you decades.
Yes, a DSLR is often more expensive than a bridge camera. But not always.
The SX60 you mentioned is still more expensive than the EOS 1200D kit with lens, or the Nikon D3200 with lens. Both are entry level DSLRs which don't have the zoom you want, but invest in a good zoom lens and you will get FAR better results than you ever could with the bridge.
30th Dec 2014 20:50 UTCturtledove thrushe
-------------------------------------------------------
> With a bridge camera you can do 'fair quality'
> macro shots, as you showed in the linked image.
> But you won't ever get better than that. If you're
> happy to limit your ambitions then that's fine.
> But for me it makes much more sense to get a
> serious camera for when you want to do serious
> photography (ps your example of 'comparable' zoom
> lens is just insanity - you're talking about a
> small lens with a tiny sensor - quality at zoom is
> absolutely not comparable to a DSLR) and to keep
> your smartphone camera for everything else.
>
> >Take for example owners of the Canon EOS 7D (Mark
> I) which was released in 2009. That camera was
> quite a significant expenditure of money and Canon
> has released the much improved Mark II.
>
> Again you are making no sense at all. The 7D Mark
> 1 isn't obsolete - far from it it's still an
> excellent camera which will give far better
> results than ANY bridge camera. There's a newer
> model which is even better, but the mark 1 is far
> from worthless. And when you upgrade, you are
> only upgrading the body and keeping your expensive
> lenses. I have EOS lenses that were designed in
> the 1980s and are still on sale today. You may
> upgrade your camera body time and time again, when
> you feel the need, but your lenses can last you
> decades.
>
> Yes, a DSLR is often more expensive than a bridge
> camera. But not always.
>
> The SX60 you mentioned is still more expensive
> than the EOS 1200D kit with lens, or the Nikon
> D3200 with lens. Both are entry level DSLRs which
> don't have the zoom you want, but invest in a good
> zoom lens and you will get FAR better results than
> you ever could with the bridge.
Bridge cameras have a smaller sensor otherwise the body would approach true DSLR dimensions and weight. That is the trade-off for the superzoom capabilities and also the reduced weight and proportions of certain Bridge cameras. It is simply not fair to compare the sensor of that of a bridge camera with that of a DSLR. The increased sensor does provide better image quality but at the expense of size/weight and interchangeable lens.
The reason I mentioned the EOS 7D Mark I was in comparison to newer DSLR's and in comparison to the newer Mark II model. You don't have to take my word for it. Just look at the reviews of the current Mark II and see what they think and compare it to the older Mark I model. Also it is fair to say that the newer DSLR's are superior to the older Mark I. I didn't mention it was obsolete but rather a previous-gen (perhaps an understatement) technology.
It is not fair to compare a flagship DSLR to a flagship bridge camera. It's like comparing apple's to oranges. Nevertheless the example I linked was for a 4 year old camera the Canon SX30 IS. There have been numerous updates and improvements leading up to the current SX60 HS. If a bridge camera can produce macro shots of similar quality even being an older and dated model then perhaps it is worth looking into. The reason I even mentioned a bridge camera was in suggestion as a complement to the Olympus TG-3. The olympus TG-3 is a simple compact P&S camera and not a DSLR.
While it is true I am limiting my ambitions I simply don't see any need for me currently to have a T5i or even Nikon DSLR. I am not a professional photographer and would much rather spend money saved elsewhere. That's my opinion and my choice.
I can understand that you prefer a DSLR versus a bridge camera. This is in part due to the photo coverage of various events and shows but the majority of consumers would be satisfied with a bridge camera or even compact P&S camera. We are talking about a versatile camera that can be used by Mineralogists and by collectors in addition to various other shooting environments and targets. I am not saying that a DSLR is not useful but in the majority of the cases a bridge camera is more than satisfactory. I showed an example of a macro shot right there that was taken with a 4 year old camera. This same camera right now can be purchased for very cheap compared to even an entry level DSLR. Those savings can be spent elsewhere such as acquiring specimens. The question that I asked myself is why should I spend more money when I have a small budget allocated to a camera only to end purchasing more accessories/lens if I did pursue a DSLR. In my case I can afford a bridge camera but not a DSLR. Nevertheless I am not against a DSLR but one needs to look at it from many aspects and view points.
Jolyon have you ever owned or tried a current bridge camera? I recently went to a camera store and tried out the T5I and other entry-level DSLR's and also several bridge cameras. I liked the T5i but it was out of my budget somewhat (with lens) and I liked the P600 and the SX60. The Sony wasn't also a bad choice either. Also the SX60 is not that expensive unless you are judging by MSRP alone. There are numerous holiday specials on the SX60 and on other cameras. Not to mention that cameras such as the SX50 and older series can be purchased for as little as $200 roughly.
30th Dec 2014 21:30 UTCReiner Mielke Expert
30th Dec 2014 21:33 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder
I thought the whole point of this discussion was to talk about the best cameras suitable for mineral photography. Clearly a bridge camera is a fine general purpose camera, but if you want to have a good camera for taking decent mineral photos then ABSOLUTELY the sensor size/quality is one of the most important things to think about (after optics quality). The Bridge suffers on both of these important respects.
Yes, it's cheaper. But in my opinion anyone interested in serious mineral photogrpahy would be wasting their money getting a bridge over a DSLR.
If you want to take the occasional photo, and as you say if photography is not a real interest, then sure, another camera may be suitable. But I would even go for a 2nd hand older DSLR (eg a 600D) than get a new Bridge.
ps. I was comparing an entry level DSLR with a 'flagship' bridge. both are comparable in price. I'd go for the entry level DSLR every single time.
30th Dec 2014 21:40 UTCReiner Mielke Expert
30th Dec 2014 23:24 UTCVolker Betz 🌟 Expert
I see this discussion with a mixture of amusement and irritation.
It is a little bit the same discussion as how can I do good pictures without spending so much money for the camera.
There are severals solutions.
1. For those who have talent: Take color pencils and paper and draw. Train your skills. Repeat your work. Compare it with the masters work. If you are better than good, then show it and post it, you will be admired for your work. You do not need buy a camera. you are an artist.
2. If you have no talent for drawing: Buy a bridge camera, its not so expensive and easy to use. No need to train and repeating your work. Point and shot is fine. d Don´t care for the masters work. Your results are not bad. Show it and post it. The servers have enough space. But be not be surprised if only a few look at your pictures.
3. You like to make good pictures, but you have no talent for drawing. Then look at the masters work. If you like it, then learn how it was made. It may be difficult and laborious. Save money and buy good equipment. Train to use it. Repeat your work and make progress. Compare it with the masters work. If you are better than good, then show it and post it and you will be admired for your work.
Not bad is also not good. Better than good is fine.
Volker
31st Dec 2014 00:14 UTCPaul Brandes 🌟 Manager
Jolyon is spot on about SLR cameras! Bar none, these are the best cameras for serious photographers whether it is for minerals, landscapes, night time photos, etc. I actually own three SLR bodies and a boatload of lenses, some dating back to the 70's. All of them work flawlessly on every body I have, and that alone is the biggest advantage of the SLR. I also own a point and shoot which I use mostly for stupid pet photos or to slip in my pocket if I'm on a long hike to an outcrop. But, for any serious shots, it's always one of my SLRs.
31st Dec 2014 01:24 UTCturtledove thrushe
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know Volker.... when I drew stuff with
> coloured pencils in field geology, I was told I
> was a "%^$# Picasso" compared to the other
> students. Maybe I should have become an artist
> instead! :-D
>
Perhaps I should have become a photographer as well when I was in school. Back then I was working with an older Zenit camera since we weren't allowed to use digital cameras in class.
I will say that developing a film and making sure it develops properly in a Darkroom was quite a process and if someone opens the room door the film could easily be ruined. I don't really miss the Darkroom but it was an interesting experience compared to how Digital cameras instantly process photos and videos without needing a darkroom and plenty of time. Provided this was not too long ago either but it's an interesting perspective on digital cameras and analogue cameras.
31st Dec 2014 11:36 UTCStephan Wolfsried Expert
http://www.mindat.org/article.php/2133/Objective+measurements
about objectives I showed, that the maximum resolution achievable with the most performing available objectives is about 2000 LP/FOV, and this by using at least four different objectives to cover a FOV Range from 1 to 22 mm. So its quite clear that an appropriate camera should have at least double i.e. 4000 Pixel per FOV, better more. This leads to a necessary sensor size of 12 Megapixel plus. As I showed in another article a APS-C Sensor is better than a full frame, because the pixel density is crucial.
My choice is the Sony Nex 7, which theoretically could be used also for outside, then with a 14-150 mm zoom for example.
A retouching possibility with the entire pictures of a stack is mandatory in my opinion. Getting only the final result from stacking with the mentioned Olympus TG3 may very often lead to suboptimal pictures, at least if the crystals are transparent. Having a functionality of helicon focus embedded in the camera processor this must lead into compromises.
I also have my doubts that there are small enough increments (DOF/2 in that table of the mentioned article, typically down to below 0,002 mm).
In a nutshell the Olympus TG3 may be sufficient for users who do not like to go into the depth of stacking and who do not want to maximize the equipment efforts in getting a really high resolution.
Stephan
31st Dec 2014 12:41 UTCHarald Schillhammer Expert
As for the pixel density that Stephan mentioned - a high pixel density has a negativ effect on the diffraction limit - which only comes into account, though, when you work with conventional macro lenses or overdo the extension with fixed aperture microscope objectives.
Reiner Mielke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The big advantage to the PowerShot SX30 IS and
> similiar is the focus distance, it is zero. In
> otherwords you can be touching the subject with
> the lense and still get an in focus shot. Try that
> with any other camera.
Reiner, I can do this anytime with my Full Frame DSLR (Nikon D4). Just add an extension ring (> 1cm) to a wide angle lens (e.g. 20 mm) and you may even move the focus point inside the lens :).
Cheers
31st Dec 2014 21:00 UTCturtledove thrushe
-------------------------------------------------------
> The big advantage to the PowerShot SX30 IS and
> similiar is the focus distance, it is zero. In
> otherwords you can be touching the subject with
> the lense and still get an in focus shot. Try that
> with any other camera.
Precisely and coupled with the fact that the SX30-SX50 can be purchased for very cheap even used make it a good overall and versatile camera. There is a German collector who uses a cheaper and little brother version (Canon 115 HS) and is still able to provide decent photographs of his specimens. The only suggestion I have is when using the supermacro mode is to use a lens filter or uv filter to protect the actual lens at a focal length of 0cm. The other cameras I listed such as the Nikon P600 and the Sony HX400V have a focal length of 1cm in Macro.
Harald Schillhammer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reiner, I can do this anytime with my Full Frame
> DSLR (Nikon D4). Just add an extension ring (>
> 1cm) to a wide angle lens (e.g. 20 mm) and you may
> even move the focus point inside the lens :).
>
> Cheers
Harold I just looked at the price of the Camera without any lens for just the body and the pricing ranges from $3250 (used) - $4499 (refurbished). Here is the link:
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Digital-1080p-Video-MODEL/dp/B006U49XM6
I don't believe that is a fair comparison since that camera costs over 10x the price of even a Canon SX50 used.
Edit: That is the old model as well. The new model is found here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IMOB5SW/
This camera has a price tag of $6499 for the body alone so it is over 20x the price range of a Canon SX50 used.
31st Dec 2014 23:14 UTCHarald Schillhammer Expert
31st Dec 2014 23:19 UTCReiner Mielke Expert
31st Dec 2014 23:26 UTCHarald Schillhammer Expert
31st Dec 2014 23:35 UTCReiner Mielke Expert
1st Jan 2015 09:29 UTCHarald Schillhammer Expert
The reason why dedicated macrolenses can focus much closer is that the extension ring/tube is built in the lens so-to-say - that is also why you cannot shoot at F/2.8 (in a 60/2.8, e.g.) at close focus even if you set the aperture wide open. The above mentioned 18-55 is not designed for close-up work but as a cheap walk-around lens. Putting more functions into a construction would either make it more expensive or have a negative effect on the quality and that is not the purpose of a kit lens, the quality of which is at most average to begin with.
But I think this is getting somewhat off topic. I think everyone has to make the best of what he can afford. Extreme macro/micro is such a specialized field that up to this day there is no perfect all-in-one solution. It is possible to achieve very good results even with simple and rather cheap gear, but one has to bring along a basic knowledge of how macro/micro works and a certain amount of inventive spirit.
BTW - as a Nikon shooter, the only lens for which I envy the Canonians is the MP-E 65 which allows you to shoot from 1:1 to 5:1 without swapping lenses, and the optical quality is top notch as well.
Mindat.org is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2024, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Founded in 2000 by Jolyon Ralph.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us / DMCA issues - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: April 24, 2024 04:21:55
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2024, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Founded in 2000 by Jolyon Ralph.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us / DMCA issues - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: April 24, 2024 04:21:55