What equipment

mindcrime

Suspended / Banned
Messages
688
Name
Sid
Edit My Images
Yes
A friend has asked me to take some photographs of some very old maps and charts that she is in the process of cataloguing. These will then be published in a catalogue and also online. Now, all I have is a D50 and the 2 kit lenses (18-55 & the 55-200). I have a feeling that these won't be adequate enough to get the detail shown on the maps and charts. So, what other lens(s) would I be better using? And should I look at getting any other equipment, ie external flash etc etc.

Thanks
 
A macro lens is the obvious choice, as they give better resolution right out to the edge of the frame. People who photograph old documents, drawings and engravings use macro lenses for that reason.

AS for lighting, I'd tend to avoid flash and do the job in good daylight or using lamps to light the docs, which will give you a better control of exposure. Make sure you keep an eye on the correct white balance setting. :)
 
i agree with ct, keep lighting to lamps, and don't use flash. set a custom white balance and go from there. i do this when i photograph my mothers paintings occasionally for online use, flash just didn't quite look right.
 
Getting everything lined up square to the camera is really the difficulty. You can get copying stands which make the job considerably easier.

Something like this...

copy_stand_III.jpg


A right angle viewfinder attachment is very convenient too and saves you needing to be a contortionist to get your eye to the viewfinder. :D
 
Cheers Guys. So something like the Nikon AF Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 Micro would do then? Or would a wider lens, like a 24mm be better?

I'd go for the micro Nikkor, I had one and it's excellent.

The trouble with a 24mm is at close distances you're likely to get distortion, which is the last thing you want with maps and docs.
 
Cheers CT. Looks like it's time to go and try the Nikkor one then, and possibly have a look at the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro.

Just found out that my friend will be able to claim the lens as an expense for her business, so money may not be an object.
 
....... and possibly have a look at the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro.

Just be aware though that the 'Macro' setting on a zoom lens isn't true macro at all, in fact it's very misleading. All it does is enable you to focus a little closer than you would be able to normally. It's a handy feature to have in a 'walkabout' lens, but it gives nowhere near the image quality or image size (on the sensor) of a dedicated macro lens.
 
Good zooms can be really handy, but macro is one area where you really do need the prime one for the job. :)
 
Four lamps at the corners focussed on the centre of the image - to check if the strength of the light is equal from all four, place a pencil point vertically in the centre of the copy subject and look at the density of the four resulting shadows that are cast. When all are of equal density, your lights are correctly positioned. Remember to check white balance if you're not shooting RAW (and if not, why aren't you?).
 
Bumping this thread as I'm doing the photography work in a few weeks and still undecided on what lens to use. Most of the work will be of the title blocks on the plans (which are on linen, I just found out). They have got to come out pin sharp. I had convinced myself to get the Nikon 60mm f/2.8, and all the reviews I've read say it's great for photographing copy material as it's really sharp. But have now been reading up on the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 and feel this may be more useful after the job for more general photography. They are both roughly the same price, so that isn't a problem, but the Sigma just looks so good :bang: :bang:

Anyone have any views on which is the better lens?
 
I have the Sigma 105mm f2.8 and it's very good. I haven't used the nikkor though.
 
The 60 micro would be the perfect choice for reproducing documents I think. It's as sharp as any nikkor ever made, right across the field (Unlike the 105 micro say, which is a tiny bit softer in the corners when wide open. I don't know what the Sigma is like in that respect never having used one.)

The 60 is also a cracking short tele (on a DSLR) used anywhere in close to medium range, although it's so ferociously sharp you might not be thanked much by anyone whose portrait you took with it. It's a superb flower lens for example, although I prefer the new 105 VR micro for that, many people would rather have the 60 because it's possibly a bit sharper (I can't tell the difference but I've seen test charts that say there is one), lighter and so much more compact.

You can generally find the 60 pretty cheap in mint condition somewhere like Aperture, Ffordes or Grays. There seem to be a lot of them about at the moment, perhaps because people are selling them to buy the 105 VR.

If you can find one, the rare AF version of the 55 micro might be an even better choice, because it reputedly (I've never even seen one in person) performs equally well up close, but maintains that performance out to infinity, whereas the some people say the 60 isn't quite as good to infinity as it is close up (it seemed fine to me though)

I'm assuming that you don't want to be mucking about with the various MF 55 versions (which are very good bargains and readily available) if you're using a D50 because they won't meter. (Although they will on a D200)

If money is no object though, I'd be awfully tempted to go for the 105 VR and stop it down a bit to get the corners dead sharp for your copying job. It's an incredibly flexible lens with superb colour reproduction and contrast, probably just as sharp as the 60 in the centre and very close in the corners when it's stopped down to about f5.6 - f8. Used wide open it perhaps isn't quite as sharp (although there's not much in it that you can see in any normal situation) but it produces really dreamy-looking half-melted backgrounds which I find very appealing and which are far nicer than the ones you'd get using the 60. It's a bit of a bazooka in size (about the same as a 17-55 say) especially with the hood, but the VR makes it very useful as a general purpose moderate length telephoto hand-held and still works fairly well even when you're doing stuff like flower or butterfly pictures around 1:3 - 1:4. You'd turn that function off and use a tripod or copy stand for serious macro though because it doesn't really do anything to help once you're down past about 1:2.

I should make a disclaimer here though because I got one a couple of months ago and I'm in love with it. I've hardly had the thing off my camera since acquiring it :)
 
Check the minimum focusing distance on both as well, the 105 may need to be prohibatively further away
 
you may also want to grab yourself a remote control to use as a remote release.
 
Check the minimum focusing distance on both as well, the 105 may need to be prohibatively further away
Yep, good point. Closest focus for the 105 is about a foot, the 60 is a lot closer if I recall right, about 8 inches, although it's a much more compact lens to start with.
 
Cheers for the replies. I went back to my original choice of the 60mm Nikkor. One of the things that did cross my mind was the focusing distance, and the extra length of the 105 did bother me. Anyway, I got the 60mm for $430usd and have picked up a remote, too. Roll on March!
 
Back
Top