Newbie question about macro with DSLR

"Eric Smith" <eric.RemoveThis@brouhaha.com> wrote in message
news:m3wsmionuw.fsf@donnybrook.brouhaha.com...
> I'm considering buying a Canon Digital Rebel XSi for a project involving
> macro photography, and I'm looking for advice regarding macro lenses,
> reverse mounts, etc.
>
> Basically I'm trying to photograph a flat subject such that an area
> about 1 mm on a side will be full-frame. It would be better yet if
> I could do that for an area 0.5 mm on a side.
>
> The camera has an APS-C size sensor (22.2 x 14.8 mm).
>
> I have a precision X-Y stage with stepper motors and microstepping
> control, so I can position the subject in increments of less than
> 0.1 mm. I plan to take many photos with a small shift, and stitch them
> together, probably using Hugin. Because I expect there to be a lot of
> overlap between the images, I think I can tolerate some amount of
> vignetting, spherical abberation, etc.
>
> Is this feasible with some macro lens, combination of lenses, reversing
> ring, extension tube, etc?
>
> I'm hoping to avoid the need to buy a microscope and adapter, due to
> the cost, though that's obviously an option. I'm not sure how to tell
> whether a particular microscope would be suitable without trying it;
> for instance, I've looked at a 7x-90x microscope, but apparently 10x
> or 20x of that magnification is due to the magnification of the
> eyepiece, which I wouldn't have with the camera adapter.
>
> Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
>
> Thanks!
> Eric
>

Eric,

You need to learn about 'extension tubes'. They are simple, inexpensive, and
yield amazing results when doing macro photography -- even without a
so-called macro lens. I have the Kenko versions. Here's a picture of them:

http://www.pbase.com/image/85976907

You'll need to consult Canon's website to see what lenses are compatible
with them. There's a spreadsheet somewhere on the Canon site that gives
these details.

I use the extension tubes with the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens and have taken
some incredible pictures of little bugs. I sent some of these pictures to a
friend of mine and she threw up (she really did). So, you know they were
good pictures.

I'm not sure you can get a 1mm object to fill your camera's sensor, but just
using a macro lens won't get you there (for sure).

If you can't get the information you need to confirm whether you can do what
you want (or not), then post a reply and I'll try it on my setup.

Bob
--
== NOTE: I automatically delete all Google Group posts due to uncontrolled
SPAM ==
 >> Stay informed about: Newbie question about macro with DSLR 

"BobW" <nimby_NEEDSPAM.TakeThisOut@roadrunner.com> wrote in message
news:Js6dnc-EXZUw2YjVnZ2dnUVZ_t-nnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Eric Smith" <eric.TakeThisOut@brouhaha.com> wrote in message
> news:m3wsmionuw.fsf@donnybrook.brouhaha.com...
>> I'm considering buying a Canon Digital Rebel XSi for a project involving
>> macro photography, and I'm looking for advice regarding macro lenses,
>> reverse mounts, etc.
>>
>> Basically I'm trying to photograph a flat subject such that an area
>> about 1 mm on a side will be full-frame. It would be better yet if
>> I could do that for an area 0.5 mm on a side.
>>
>> The camera has an APS-C size sensor (22.2 x 14.8 mm).
>>
>> I have a precision X-Y stage with stepper motors and microstepping
>> control, so I can position the subject in increments of less than
>> 0.1 mm. I plan to take many photos with a small shift, and stitch them
>> together, probably using Hugin. Because I expect there to be a lot of
>> overlap between the images, I think I can tolerate some amount of
>> vignetting, spherical abberation, etc.
>>
>> Is this feasible with some macro lens, combination of lenses, reversing
>> ring, extension tube, etc?
>>
>> I'm hoping to avoid the need to buy a microscope and adapter, due to
>> the cost, though that's obviously an option. I'm not sure how to tell
>> whether a particular microscope would be suitable without trying it;
>> for instance, I've looked at a 7x-90x microscope, but apparently 10x
>> or 20x of that magnification is due to the magnification of the
>> eyepiece, which I wouldn't have with the camera adapter.
>>
>> Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Eric
>>
>
> Eric,
>
> You need to learn about 'extension tubes'. They are simple, inexpensive,
> and yield amazing results when doing macro photography -- even without a
> so-called macro lens. I have the Kenko versions. Here's a picture of them:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/image/85976907
>
> You'll need to consult Canon's website to see what lenses are compatible
> with them. There's a spreadsheet somewhere on the Canon site that gives
> these details.
>
> I use the extension tubes with the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens and have taken
> some incredible pictures of little bugs. I sent some of these pictures to
> a friend of mine and she threw up (she really did). So, you know they were
> good pictures.
>
> I'm not sure you can get a 1mm object to fill your camera's sensor, but
> just using a macro lens won't get you there (for sure).
>
> If you can't get the information you need to confirm whether you can do
> what you want (or not), then post a reply and I'll try it on my setup.
>
> Bob
> --
> == NOTE: I automatically delete all Google Group posts due to uncontrolled
> SPAM ==
>

Eric,

I found that Canon document and it looks like the best magnification you can
get *is* with their MP-E65mm f/2.8 1-5x macro lens (5x max magnification).
With a 25mm extension tube, the best you can get is about 1.25x with a
non-macro lens (the 24-70mm f/2.8L), or 1.39x with their EF 100mm f/2.8
macro USM lens.

You can stack extension tubes to get more magnification, but at some point
you will not be able to achieve focus.

Even with about 1x magnification, you'll still get a decent number of pixels
to cover your subject. You might want to give it a try.

Bob
--
== NOTE: I automatically delete all Google Group posts due to uncontrolled
SPAM ==
 >> Stay informed about: Newbie question about macro with DSLR 

>> Eric Smith wrote

> I plan to take many photos with a small shift, and stitch them
>>> together

The bellows arrangements which allow this kind of shifting the camera
with the lens held in place aren't cheap, or at least not common for
35mm work.
 >> Stay informed about: Newbie question about macro with DSLR 

"Eric Smith" <eric RemoveThis @brouhaha.com> wrote in message
news:m3wsmionuw.fsf@donnybrook.brouhaha.com...
> I'm considering buying a Canon Digital Rebel XSi for a project involving
> macro photography, and I'm looking for advice regarding macro lenses,
> reverse mounts, etc.
>
> Basically I'm trying to photograph a flat subject such that an area
> about 1 mm on a side will be full-frame. It would be better yet if
> I could do that for an area 0.5 mm on a side.

I don't think you will be happy with macro in this instance. Macro is good
for a "magnification" of 1x to 5x and my be able to go to 10x with some
aberation around the edges. At this mag factor the DOF is so tight that the
difference between the distance from the center of the lens to the subject
and the distance from the lens to the side of the subject would be more than
the DOF and so either the center of the image would be in focus or the edge,
not both.

So your need of making .5 to 1 mm full frame would be almost impossible and
so badly formed that you may get only a few clear pixels in the center of
the image. For the level of magnification you are looking for you would be
better off going with a microscope and adapter. Even then you may have
problems with flat focus. You may have to center the subject in the image
and crop the out of focus edges before attempting the stitching.

Good luck

Randy
 >> Stay informed about: Newbie question about macro with DSLR 

Eric Smith wrote:
> I'm considering buying a Canon Digital Rebel XSi for a project involving
> macro photography, and I'm looking for advice regarding macro lenses,
> reverse mounts, etc.
>
> Basically I'm trying to photograph a flat subject such that an area
> about 1 mm on a side will be full-frame. It would be better yet if
> I could do that for an area 0.5 mm on a side.
>
> The camera has an APS-C size sensor (22.2 x 14.8 mm).
>
> I have a precision X-Y stage with stepper motors and microstepping
> control, so I can position the subject in increments of less than
> 0.1 mm. I plan to take many photos with a small shift, and stitch them
> together, probably using Hugin. Because I expect there to be a lot of
> overlap between the images, I think I can tolerate some amount of
> vignetting, spherical abberation, etc.
>
> Is this feasible with some macro lens, combination of lenses, reversing
> ring, extension tube, etc?
>
> I'm hoping to avoid the need to buy a microscope and adapter, due to
> the cost, though that's obviously an option. I'm not sure how to tell
> whether a particular microscope would be suitable without trying it;
> for instance, I've looked at a 7x-90x microscope, but apparently 10x
> or 20x of that magnification is due to the magnification of the
> eyepiece, which I wouldn't have with the camera adapter.
>
> Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
>
> Thanks!
> Eric
>
I don't know what your ultimate goal might be....BUT....
The following option may work for you and it is very inexpensive.
See: http://www.jr.com/JRProductPage.process?Product=4220456
Bob Williams
 >> Stay informed about: Newbie question about macro with DSLR 

"BobW" <nimby_NEEDSPAM.DeleteThis@roadrunner.com> writes:
> I found that Canon document and it looks like the best magnification you can
> get *is* with their MP-E65mm f/2.8 1-5x macro lens (5x max magnification).
> With a 25mm extension tube, the best you can get is about 1.25x with a
> non-macro lens (the 24-70mm f/2.8L), or 1.39x with their EF 100mm f/2.8
> macro USM lens.

So the extension tube gets me less magnification? I thought the point
of it was to get more?

I'm looking at Canon's chart:
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/lens/EFLensChart.pdf

The list the EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM as having a magnification of 10.9x
when used with the EF 12 II extension tube. Is this a typo?

How does the magnification achievable with reverse-mounting a lens
compare with that of macro lenses?
 >> Stay informed about: Newbie question about macro with DSLR 

Paul Furman <paul-.RemoveThis@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>> Eric Smith wrote
>
>> I plan to take many photos with a small shift, and stitch them
>>>> together
>
>The bellows arrangements which allow this kind of shifting the camera
>with the lens held in place aren't cheap, or at least not common for
>35mm work.

Didn't he describe owning a very nice platform to shift
the position of the object, not the camera. It should
do fine.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.RemoveThis@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Newbie question about macro with DSLR 

Randy Berbaum wrote:
> "Eric Smith" <eric.DeleteThis@brouhaha.com> wrote in message
> news:m3wsmionuw.fsf@donnybrook.brouhaha.com...
>> I'm considering buying a Canon Digital Rebel XSi for a project involving
>> macro photography, and I'm looking for advice regarding macro lenses,
>> reverse mounts, etc.
>>
>> Basically I'm trying to photograph a flat subject such that an area
>> about 1 mm on a side will be full-frame. It would be better yet if
>> I could do that for an area 0.5 mm on a side.
>
> I don't think you will be happy with macro in this instance. Macro is good
> for a "magnification" of 1x to 5x and my be able to go to 10x with some
> aberation around the edges. At this mag factor the DOF is so tight that the
> difference between the distance from the center of the lens to the subject
> and the distance from the lens to the side of the subject would be more than
> the DOF and so either the center of the image would be in focus or the edge,
> not both.
>
> So your need of making .5 to 1 mm full frame would be almost impossible and
> so badly formed that you may get only a few clear pixels in the center of
> the image. For the level of magnification you are looking for you would be
> better off going with a microscope and adapter. Even then you may have
> problems with flat focus. You may have to center the subject in the image
> and crop the out of focus edges before attempting the stitching.

This sounds right. A typical macro lens gets to 1:1 and 1mm is 1/18 of
that size (for the height).

On the other hand, how much detail do you need? If cropping, it is pixel
counts that'll tell you what magnification you need. The height (short
side) of a 10MP DSLR is about 2,500 pixels. For a really sharp print,
figure 300 pixels per inch. That will show usable detail for people with
perfect vision but you can easily double that size & still look fine
(150ppi).
 >> Stay informed about: Newbie question about macro with DSLR 

On Apr 27, 7:54 pm, Eric Smith <e....DeleteThis@brouhaha.com> wrote:
> I'm considering buying a Canon Digital Rebel XSi for a project involving
> macro photography, and I'm looking for advice regarding macro lenses,
> reverse mounts, etc.
>
> Basically I'm trying to photograph a flat subject such that an area
> about 1 mm on a side will be full-frame. It would be better yet if
> I could do that for an area 0.5 mm on a side.
>
> The camera has an APS-C size sensor (22.2 x 14.8 mm).
>
> I have a precision X-Y stage with stepper motors and microstepping
> control, so I can position the subject in increments of less than
> 0.1 mm. I plan to take many photos with a small shift, and stitch them
> together, probably using Hugin. Because I expect there to be a lot of
> overlap between the images, I think I can tolerate some amount of
> vignetting, spherical abberation, etc.
>
> Is this feasible with some macro lens, combination of lenses, reversing
> ring, extension tube, etc?
>
> I'm hoping to avoid the need to buy a microscope and adapter, due to
> the cost, though that's obviously an option. I'm not sure how to tell
> whether a particular microscope would be suitable without trying it;
> for instance, I've looked at a 7x-90x microscope, but apparently 10x
> or 20x of that magnification is due to the magnification of the
> eyepiece, which I wouldn't have with the camera adapter.
>
> Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
>
> Thanks!
> Eric


I have done a lot of work with photography of surgical instruments for
ophthalmology including vitrectomy instruments which have a barrel and
cutting head of 1mm. These are made of stainless steel and anodized
steel or titanium. I mostly photographed them from 1:1 to 5x. My best
results were with a 120mm f5.6 Apo-Macro Nikkor a lens designed for
this magnification, some images were enlarged to 40x72 inches for
trade shows. Anything over 5x the metal texture got in the way of the
overall appearance/funtionality of the instrument photograph. You
didn't say what the purpose of the photos were or the the material you
were photographing but very high magnifications lower your depth of
field considerably, for this reason I shot with a 4x5 view camera so I
could vary my plain of focus. Also how close you get to the subject
affects your lighting, with most lenses at 10X mag you will be within
a few millimeters of the subject, and if the subject is reflective the
lens will make any lighting difficult. Consider fiber optics for
lighting.
You have a good solid stage to work on but pay close attention to how
your camera is mounted a heavy tripod, studio stand or copy stand is
necessary. At 10X you should look for a macro photography camera
system so everything can be steady, granted this is an expensive
proposition, but high mag photography can be a frustrating experience
if the equipment is getting in your way.

Tom
 >> Stay informed about: Newbie question about macro with DSLR 

"Eric Smith" <eric DeleteThis @brouhaha.com> wrote in message
news:m3abjepk4y.fsf@donnybrook.brouhaha.com...
> "BobW" <nimby_NEEDSPAM DeleteThis @roadrunner.com> writes:
>> I found that Canon document and it looks like the best magnification you
>> can
>> get *is* with their MP-E65mm f/2.8 1-5x macro lens (5x max
>> magnification).
>> With a 25mm extension tube, the best you can get is about 1.25x with a
>> non-macro lens (the 24-70mm f/2.8L), or 1.39x with their EF 100mm f/2.8
>> macro USM lens.
>
> So the extension tube gets me less magnification? I thought the point
> of it was to get more?
>
> I'm looking at Canon's chart:
> http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/lens/EFLensChart.pdf
>
> The list the EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM as having a magnification of 10.9x
> when used with the EF 12 II extension tube. Is this a typo?
>
> How does the magnification achievable with reverse-mounting a lens
> compare with that of macro lenses?

Extension tubes don't change magnification, they just allow you to focus
closer. While that likely was want you meant, there is a difference.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit
 >> Stay informed about: Newbie question about macro with DSLR 

Randy Berbaum wrote:
> "Eric Smith" <eric DeleteThis @brouhaha.com> wrote in message
> news:m3wsmionuw.fsf@donnybrook.brouhaha.com...
>> I'm considering buying a Canon Digital Rebel XSi for a project involving
>> macro photography, and I'm looking for advice regarding macro lenses,
>> reverse mounts, etc.
>>
>> Basically I'm trying to photograph a flat subject such that an area
>> about 1 mm on a side will be full-frame. It would be better yet if
>> I could do that for an area 0.5 mm on a side.
>
> I don't think you will be happy with macro in this instance. Macro is good
> for a "magnification" of 1x to 5x and my be able to go to 10x with some
> aberation around the edges. At this mag factor the DOF is so tight that the
> difference between the distance from the center of the lens to the subject
> and the distance from the lens to the side of the subject would be more than
> the DOF and so either the center of the image would be in focus or the edge,
> not both.
>
> So your need of making .5 to 1 mm full frame would be almost impossible and
> so badly formed that you may get only a few clear pixels in the center of
> the image. For the level of magnification you are looking for you would be
> better off going with a microscope and adapter. Even then you may have
> problems with flat focus.


The OP needs a microscope objective. With a good one flat field is
no problem. He needs a 20 or 40x one for best results. I am assuming
a truly flat subject where no depth of field is needed. It DOF
is needed, then the only hope is "slices" added up in software.

Remember that at 20x magnification, at f/1 AT THE SUBJECT
you get f/20 AT THE SENSOR. F/1 or even f/0.8 is available
in microscope objectives he can use. F/0.35 is available but
useless for his application (works only in oil!). Those are at the subject.

This is a specialized application. HE does NOT want an microscope since
he already has the stepper motor setup, he just need the objective
and some sort of illumination system. Olympus makes, or at least used to make,
the best equipment for this.

NOTE: some newer objectives are not designed to focus down on the
output side and need a "tube lens". These may have inacceptable
lateral chromatic if used without the manufacturer's tube lens.


Doug McDonald
 >> Stay informed about: Newbie question about macro with DSLR 

"Eric Smith" <eric.DeleteThis@brouhaha.com> wrote in message
news:m3abjepk4y.fsf@donnybrook.brouhaha.com...
> "BobW" <nimby_NEEDSPAM.DeleteThis@roadrunner.com> writes:
>> I found that Canon document and it looks like the best magnification you
>> can
>> get *is* with their MP-E65mm f/2.8 1-5x macro lens (5x max
>> magnification).
>> With a 25mm extension tube, the best you can get is about 1.25x with a
>> non-macro lens (the 24-70mm f/2.8L), or 1.39x with their EF 100mm f/2.8
>> macro USM lens.
>
> So the extension tube gets me less magnification? I thought the point
> of it was to get more?
>
> I'm looking at Canon's chart:
> http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/lens/EFLensChart.pdf
>
> The list the EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM as having a magnification of 10.9x
> when used with the EF 12 II extension tube. Is this a typo?
>
> How does the magnification achievable with reverse-mounting a lens
> compare with that of macro lenses?

The extension tubes will allow you to focus at a closer distance, so the
apparent magnification increases (as compared with not adding the tube).
There's a limit to focusability of a lens/tube combo, so it may be that for
a given tube length, the focus distance increases with that tube. I just
don't know enough about the physics.

It looks like Canon has updated their chart. I was looking at an old copy
(couple years). I would call them and verify that 10.9x number, but it may
be real. However, it's a $1200 lens (plus $80 for the tube).

I don't know about reverse-mounting lenses. Perhaps someone else will answer
that one.

Bob
--
== NOTE: I automatically delete all Google Group posts due to uncontrolled
SPAM ==
 >> Stay informed about: Newbie question about macro with DSLR 

I wrote:
> I plan to take many photos with a small shift, and stitch them
> together

Paul Furman <paul-.RemoveThis@-edgehill.net> writes:
> The bellows arrangements which allow this kind of shifting the camera
> with the lens held in place aren't cheap, or at least not common for
> 35mm work.

Thanks for the info, but I won't need one of those. I wrote in my original
posting that I have a precision X-Y stage with microstepping control, so
the camera will be fixed and the sample will move.
 >> Stay informed about: Newbie question about macro with DSLR