Mirrorless camera for watch photos and everything else

[witti]

Let me be a bit lazy here. I arrived to the point where a simple mobile phone can shoot better images then my (several years old, entry level) mirror lens camera.
I started to look and research what would be a good choice for a new camera, but usual needs are apparently differ from mine.
Therefore I came to the point to askit here as apparently there are other WIS here who is using there camera how I would.
80% watch shooting 20% anything else like family holiday photos etc.
I think a mirrorless would do it these days as they became good enough and they are more compact.
When I take photos of watches don't use professional lighting and shooting mostly from hand. This means I need something which can make good enough photos in low light conditions. Seems like a good image stabilizing would be essential.
I use manual mode a lot.
Real macro is a good to have, but I accept that you need usually another lens for that.
I would be highly thankful if the collective wisdom of TZ-UK could point me into the right direction and save me from endless camera review readings.
I'm not that much into cameras as into watches, just need a good solution and don't want to break the bank with the choice.
Thanks


Sent from my SM-A202F using TZ-UK mobile app

[Ped22]

Hey man,

Saw this title pop up so wanted to share my experience. I do a lot of watch photography but in no way and expert so don’t take my advice as gospel.

With watch photography or any photography for that matter, lighting is the most important thing. I would say much more important than the camera itself and if you’re starting out with a new mirrorless camera, it worth noting that at first you will be the limiting factor to how good the shots are. Once your photography work improves and you realise that the camera is starting to limit you then I’d suggest trading up.

The other thing I would say is that, more than the camera, it’s the lens that matters most. The camera can only do so much after the image has passed through the lens so again consider getting the best lens possible before upgrading your camera.

With that out of the way, I use a cropped sensor mirrorless rather the more expensive full frame and that is good enough for most situations. My camera is a canon M50 and I use a 28mm macro lens for my watch photography. I’ve attached some shots below (these are compressed but can send you the full res if you want)- in most of these I have used a LED light from Amazon so wouldn’t consider it a professional set up but the results you get even by using a iPad with a white screen as your source of light can improve an image tenfold.

In terms of photography outside of the watch world, again the shots you take will depend on the lens you use. The standard lens on Canon M50 is not great and that will be the case for most cameras that come with a standard lens. It’s worth doing some research to see what you can get for your budget.

Hope that helps but drop me a pm if you have any more questions.












Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[witti]

Thanks for taking the time to an extensive answer. Seems like the M50 is already a good candidate. Your photos are impressive, congrats. I know good lighting is important, but seeing some people making beautiful and sharp images in low light conditions. The only critics I heard about Canon is that usually lenses are more expensive for them but this is apparently not true for mirrorless cameras?

Sent from my SM-A202F using TZ-UK mobile app

[Ped22]

No problem and thank you :)

I got the camera on a blackfriday deal at around £350 so it was just a no brainer at the time and the macro lens was just under £300 if I remember correctly so it wasn’t a huge outlay.

In terms of lenses, you can use an adapter on this to allow you to use the older (EF and EF-S) lenses or use the newer EF-M lenses which are made for their Cropped sensor mirrorless cameras such as the M50. These lenses are reasonably priced.

Having said that, Canons RF line of lenses which are designed for full frame mirrorless tend to be more expensive.

I can’t speak for other brands or specific cameras as I don’t have experience but hopefully a few more people will chime in with their experience and help you with your decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[witti]

Thanks again, it seems like you got a bargain there!
What I found for first glance was not even close.

Sent from my SM-A202F using TZ-UK mobile app

[redmonaco]

No problem and thank you :)

I got the camera on a blackfriday deal at around £350 so it was just a no brainer at the time and the macro lens was just under £300 if I remember correctly so it wasn’t a huge outlay.

In terms of lenses, you can use an adapter on this to allow you to use the older (EF and EF-S) lenses or use the newer EF-M lenses which are made for their Cropped sensor mirrorless cameras such as the M50. These lenses are reasonably priced.

Having said that, Canons RF line of lenses which are designed for full frame mirrorless tend to be more expensive.

I can’t speak for other brands or specific cameras as I don’t have experience but hopefully a few more people will chime in with their experience and help you with your decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Love your F P Journe!!!

[MartynJC (UK)]

Do invest in a table top tripod. Almost any camera with macro zoom will do - set to Aparture priority and as you are on tripod you don’t need stabilisation. don’t need the latest or greatest. If your posting online a 4MPix camera will do. I’d recommend a canon IXus type - which can be used to great effect. You can also buy little light tents off Amazon to get rid of nasty shadows.

saying all that - I use a Nikon D850 + 105mm micro Nikkor but that is way overkill.

I’m sure there are good YouTube vids on watch photography for guidance

Martyn

[M1011]

Surprised you find your phone better than your current mirrorless camera. Do you mean specifically for macro? Are you not using a macro lens?

I'm the furthest thing from a watch photographer, but I got some nice shots using a Sony 30mm f3.5 macro, which most importantly isn't expensive (like ballpark £100). You can stick that on an old a5100 to keep the cost down, as it's the same image sensor in that as an a6600.

Personally I focus much more on the travel/holiday stuff, so these days I've pivoted to a X100V which I'm enjoying. Wouldn't be the camera to choose for macro though!

[Kamakazie!]

Sharpness is more to do with the lens than the body but as above, lighting & a tripod trump's everything.
My recommendation is always to go for smaller setups like m4/3 as the overall package is much better for travel & family snaps but any modern camera can take great photos.

If your current camera is decent, invest the money in a better lens or the other kit mentioned by others first.
Go second hand for the lenses and even if you decide to change camera system in the near future you won't have lost much money.

Oh and unless you are taking extreme close ups of dials etc, you won't need a macro lens. Just get something with a reasonably close minimum focal distance and you'll be all good. You can always crop in for shots not being printed in large format anyway.

[endo]

Surprised you find your phone better than your current mirrorless camera.

Tbh i’m in the camp of the modern phone is better alot of the time.

For 95% of “photographers” a modern phone camera will suffice, there’s a misconception that rocking a DSLR/mirrorless will make your pics better.
A pro photgrapher skilled in adjusting for lighting, reflection control, and an eye for composition using a potato will blow the socks of a hipster with a Leica, who insists RAW is the only way and spends way to much time post processing. (Thank god HDR abuse of the mid 00s is less common place)

The squishy thing behind the lens, as well as the lens it’s self matter most.... modern sensors are almost all good enough at the end of the day.

For wrist shots, in particular you have two moving elements, the arm with watch, and the arm holding the camera, the heavier the camera, the more shake.... and in anything but bright sunlight, you’ll find you need to ramp up the iso and run wide open reducing your focal depth.
In this instance, a phone which weighs a fraction of a mirrorless camera will induce less shake, if you’re taking a wristshot (allowing you to run a lower ISO, there are apps like ProCamera on Ios that give you a similar level of flexibility as a proper camera)
There are tricks to lock both arms together as one, so the watch remains static relative to the camera, but usually its more unweildy with a heavier camera.

Both phone and a camera can be tripod mounted, and particularily with a phone you can just shove it your back pocket if you need to take a more composed photograph. You can get spectacular results tripod mounting a Phone.

Plus there’s the organic nature of phone photography which alows faster candid shots.

Now where phone cameras fail is color contrast/replication, but if you can compensate if your know the camera’s limitations and chose and appropriate background.
Black and white contrast is okay, but color replication is a big problem, ie you have a bright yellow dial, next to a purple and blue background, stuff gets a tad muddy vs a mirrroless/dslr.
Focus & sharpness are also a con vs a decent bit of glass on a proper camera, it’s doable Manual Focus can also be a bit dodgy too on phones, even with focus peaking in apps, but this may also be down to resolution limitation of my iphone Xs.

Going back to tripods, personally, if i were taking a more composed photograph, i’d probably run a mirrorless rather than a phone, purely to make use of the better lenses, and remote shutter.

Not saying that a mirroless is bad, i own 3, but its worth considering how you intend to use the camera, and trying to maximize the kit you’ve got, before adding new stuff.

Afterall the garb,
Pics as examples probably help https://www.instagram.com/time4nothing/
I’m no photographer, would never consider myself, but i’ve been using allosorts of cameras since the days of the Spotmatic F

most of them were taken on an iphone SE or Iphone Xs, but to break down when I use which camera:

wrist shots, all iphone.
candids, random out and about pics, all iphone
staged arty pics, iphone + tripod mostly (unless there’s alot of color contrast ie purple Moser)
Lume shots, NEX-7
macros with an NEX-7,
Anything else a RX1R II (fixed fullframe, 50mm mirrorless, and not ideal for watch pics... but it has got 42mp, so you can be lazy and leave some space for cropping)

[witti]

Do invest in a table top tripod. Almost any camera with macro zoom will do - set to Aparture priority and as you are on tripod you don’t need stabilisation. don’t need the latest or greatest. If your posting online a 4MPix camera will do. I’d recommend a canon IXus type - which can be used to great effect. You can also buy little light tents off Amazon to get rid of nasty shadows.

saying all that - I use a Nikon D850 + 105mm micro Nikkor but that is way overkill.

I’m sure there are good YouTube vids on watch photography for guidance

Martyn

Thanks Martyn, will get a better tripod as the one I have is useless. On the other hand I still find myself taking photos mostly from hand, because of composition and time saving.

Surprised you find your phone better than your current mirrorless camera. Do you mean specifically for macro? Are you not using a macro lens?

I'm the furthest thing from a watch photographer, but I got some nice shots using a Sony 30mm f3.5 macro, which most importantly isn't expensive (like ballpark £100). You can stick that on an old a5100 to keep the cost down, as it's the same image sensor in that as an a6600.

Personally I focus much more on the travel/holiday stuff, so these days I've pivoted to a X100V which I'm enjoying. Wouldn't be the camera to choose for macro though!

Sharpness is more to do with the lens than the body but as above, lighting & a tripod trump's everything.
My recommendation is always to go for smaller setups like m4/3 as the overall package is much better for travel & family snaps but any modern camera can take great photos.

If your current camera is decent, invest the money in a better lens or the other kit mentioned by others first.
Go second hand for the lenses and even if you decide to change camera system in the near future you won't have lost much money.

Oh and unless you are taking extreme close ups of dials etc, you won't need a macro lens. Just get something with a reasonably close minimum focal distance and you'll be all good. You can always crop in for shots not being printed in large format anyway.

No macro lens here. What I have is a rather old Nikon D3100 with the basic 15-55mm lens. Not ideal for the job. I'm not sure a simple lens upgrade would be a better choice now.
On top I'm not keen on carrying a rather heavy camera on a trip if a phone/smaller camera can do the job.

[witti]

Tbh i’m in the camp of the modern phone is better alot of the time.

For 95% of “photographers” a modern phone camera will suffice, there’s a misconception that rocking a DSLR/mirrorless will make your pics better.
A pro photgrapher skilled in adjusting for lighting, reflection control, and an eye for composition using a potato will blow the socks of a hipster with a Leica, who insists RAW is the only way and spends way to much time post processing. (Thank god HDR abuse of the mid 00s is less common place)

The squishy thing behind the lens, as well as the lens it’s self matter most.... modern sensors are almost all good enough at the end of the day.

For wrist shots, in particular you have two moving elements, the arm with watch, and the arm holding the camera, the heavier the camera, the more shake.... and in anything but bright sunlight, you’ll find you need to ramp up the iso and run wide open reducing your focal depth.
In this instance, a phone which weighs a fraction of a mirrorless camera will induce less shake, if you’re taking a wristshot (allowing you to run a lower ISO, there are apps like ProCamera on Ios that give you a similar level of flexibility as a proper camera)
There are tricks to lock both arms together as one, so the watch remains static relative to the camera, but usually its more unweildy with a heavier camera.

Both phone and a camera can be tripod mounted, and particularily with a phone you can just shove it your back pocket if you need to take a more composed photograph. You can get spectacular results tripod mounting a Phone.

Plus there’s the organic nature of phone photography which alows faster candid shots.

Now where phone cameras fail is color contrast/replication, but if you can compensate if your know the camera’s limitations and chose and appropriate background.
Black and white contrast is okay, but color replication is a big problem, ie you have a bright yellow dial, next to a purple and blue background, stuff gets a tad muddy vs a mirrroless/dslr.
Focus & sharpness are also a con vs a decent bit of glass on a proper camera, it’s doable Manual Focus can also be a bit dodgy too on phones, even with focus peaking in apps, but this may also be down to resolution limitation of my iphone Xs.

Going back to tripods, personally, if i were taking a more composed photograph, i’d probably run a mirrorless rather than a phone, purely to make use of the better lenses, and remote shutter.

Not saying that a mirroless is bad, i own 3, but its worth considering how you intend to use the camera, and trying to maximize the kit you’ve got, before adding new stuff.

Afterall the garb,
Pics as examples probably help https://www.instagram.com/time4nothing/
I’m no photographer, would never consider myself, but i’ve been using allosorts of cameras since the days of the Spotmatic F

most of them were taken on an iphone SE or Iphone Xs, but to break down when I use which camera:

wrist shots, all iphone.
candids, random out and about pics, all iphone
staged arty pics, iphone + tripod mostly (unless there’s alot of color contrast ie purple Moser)
Lume shots, NEX-7
macros with an NEX-7,
Anything else a RX1R II (fixed fullframe, 50mm mirrorless, and not ideal for watch pics... but it has got 42mp, so you can be lazy and leave some space for cropping)

You can see above above I'm not sure investing into the old kit is the best even if I can use the lens later on. In fact I'm not doing as many wrist shots simply because it's not my prefred subject. So two shaking hands is a less problem here. But shooting a good enough picture without preparation (using tripod extra lighting etc) would be fantastic. Cool pictures you have there! I'll check out Sony as well.

[endo]

You can see above above I'm not sure investing into the old kit is the best even if I can use the lens later on. In fact I'm not doing as many wrist shots simply because it's not my prefred subject. So two shaking hands is a less problem here. But shooting a good enough picture without preparation (using tripod extra lighting etc) would be fantastic. Cool pictures you have there! I'll check out Sony as well.

Tbh, your previous post where you considered getting a different lens from you kit lens is the best path, it gives you a route to upgrade you body at a later date if you find the lens gives you the results you need.

To put in perspective my Nex-7 was bought at launch around 2011?, and while slow to save, slower AF and doesnt like 512gb memory cards, it still produces good results today with a decent lens

[sundial]

One 'camera support' option for watch photography is a decent copy stand ... but not one of the cheapo stands. Advantage of a copy stand is that the camera is at 90º to the baseboard thus the camera image plane is parallel to the subject . Simple matter to rig up a couple of diffused light sources each side of the copy stand.
Most compact cameras have a macro mode but it's usually at the wide angle end of the zoom ... which means the lens is far too close to the subject. However, add a supplementary achromatic close up lens (e.g. Raynox 150) to the camera lens, and its macro capability will be improved by 500%

IWC caliber 89 photographed with an APS-C fixed zoom lens camera with an achromatic close-up lens screwed into the filter thread





Pics of same watch after the ratchet wheel was replaced











Camera was on a copy stand ... watch supported on a tube above the copy stand baseboard. Supplementary c/u lenses attached to APS-C fixed zoom lens and used at the longer zoom settings

Supplementary c/u lenses are much cheaper than macro lenses and they can be used with e.g. a kit zoom lens

I used a Leitz Elpro achromatic supplementary close up lens for the above photos https://www.ffordes.com/p/SH-18-0319...-close-up-lens. ... has a 55mm filter thread so easy to adapt to any prime or zoom lens via a stepping ring

Cheaper than Raynox c/u lenses https://www.amazon.co.uk/Raynox-DCR-...c=1&th=1&psc=1

More about Raynox lenses. http://extreme-macro.co.uk/raynox-adapter-techniques/

If on a very limited budget, also possible to obtain reasonable results by buying cheap reading glasses from e.g. Aldi ... support one lens in front of the camera lens and experiment at longer zoom settings ... easy when using a copy stand

A good quality magnifying lens supported in front of the camera lens will also enable close-up photographs

Copy stands can be cheaper than many tripods: https://www.thedarkroom.co.uk/collec...m-max-height-1. ... and https://www.speedgraphic.co.uk/copy_...d/25946_p.html

... cost effective purchase if photographing watches regularly ... and no need for a focusing rack

dunk

[endo]

Camera was on a copy stand ... watch supported on a tube above the copy stand baseboard. Supplementary c/u lenses attached to APS-C fixed zoom lens and used at the longer zoom settings

I like support stand for the watch, seems a bit more elegant than my use of bluetack


For anything with a changeable lens, reverse mounting is a cheap and great way for getting macros too.

16mm lens reverse mounted to a NEX7 (and for focusing i HDMI output going to my PC monitor)

https://www.instagram.com/p/CEhUqgQH41E
https://www.instagram.com/p/CDyVV4MHi7J
https://www.instagram.com/p/CEulOmhHbci


Sorry for the IG links (my website has an SSL problem, so pics dont show up when i hotlink)

[MartynJC (UK)]

Thanks Martyn, will get a better tripod as the one I have is useless. On the other hand I still find myself taking photos mostly from hand, because of composition and time saving.

No macro lens here. What I have is a rather old Nikon D3100 with the basic 15-55mm lens. Not ideal for the job. I'm not sure a simple lens upgrade would be a better choice now.
On top I'm not keen on carrying a rather heavy camera on a trip if a phone/smaller camera can do the job.

Ah - so you have a D3100 - you have everything you need in that camera - so if you want great macro shots get yourself a Nikon macro lens - I use my trusty 105mm micro nikkor 1:2.8D - and mostly manual focus.

With a decent tripod - doent need to be expensive - just heavy / sturdy if using at home.
Set to full manual:
fixing the ISO to base 100
Aperture maybe f16
Adjust the speed until you get the exposure you want exposure - check images for the look you want - some like them very low-key (mentioning no names - Tony)
Focus manually - You may want to use the Nikkor-40mm - NIKKOR-40mm (new) or wexphotovideo.com-NIKKOR-40 (second hand) - which autofocus works with the D3100

But - yeh - camera phones are good - very good - these days for out and about - though the D3100 + NIKKOR 40mm will not weigh much and is a small setup. You could get a lighter weight tripod - maybe others can advise.

NB: I am a great fan of Nikon - ever since owning the D40 - which gave me excellent results even though only 6MP - here is a shot from an Egypt 2006 trip:

DSC_6131-X5.jpg

[Wimm]

One 'camera support' option for watch photography is a decent copy stand ... but not one of the cheapo stands. Advantage of a copy stand is that the camera is at 90º to the baseboard thus the camera image plane is parallel to the subject . Simple matter to rig up a couple of diffused light sources each side of the copy stand.
Most compact cameras have a macro mode but it's usually at the wide angle end of the zoom ... which means the lens is far too close to the subject. However, add a supplementary achromatic close up lens (e.g. Raynox 150) to the camera lens, and its macro capability will be improved by 500%

IWC caliber 89 photographed with an APS-C fixed zoom lens camera with an achromatic close-up lens screwed into the filter thread.



Pics of same watch after the ratchet wheel was replaced

Camera was on a copy stand ... watch supported on a tube above the copy stand baseboard. Supplementary c/u lenses attached to APS-C fixed zoom lens and used at the longer zoom settings

Supplementary c/u lenses are much cheaper than macro lenses and they can be used with e.g. a kit zoom lens

I used a Leitz Elpro achromatic supplementary close up lens for the above photos https://www.ffordes.com/p/SH-18-0319...-close-up-lens. ... has a 55mm filter thread so easy to adapt to any prime or zoom lens via a stepping ring

Cheaper than Raynox c/u lenses https://www.amazon.co.uk/Raynox-DCR-...c=1&th=1&psc=1

More about Raynox lenses. http://extreme-macro.co.uk/raynox-adapter-techniques/

If on a very limited budget, also possible to obtain reasonable results by buying cheap reading glasses from e.g. Aldi ... support one lens in front of the camera lens and experiment at longer zoom settings ... easy when using a copy stand

A good quality magnifying lens supported in front of the camera lens will also enable close-up photographs

Copy stands can be cheaper than many tripods: https://www.thedarkroom.co.uk/collec...m-max-height-1. ... and https://www.speedgraphic.co.uk/copy_...d/25946_p.html

... cost effective purchase if photographing watches regularly ... and no need for a focusing rack

dunk

Just wanted to say thank you for the heads up re copy stands. I'd been trying to figure out how to jury rig something out of my tripod and a few bit and bobs but now I don't.

And another recommendation for Raynox supplementary lenses. I use mine a lot but not so much for watch work.

[bobocat]

Let me be a bit lazy here. I arrived to the point where a simple mobile phone can shoot better images then my (several years old, entry level) mirror lens camera.
I started to look and research what would be a good choice for a new camera, but usual needs are apparently differ from mine.
Therefore I came to the point to askit here as apparently there are other WIS here who is using there camera how I would.
80% watch shooting 20% anything else like family holiday photos etc.
I think a mirrorless would do it these days as they became good enough and they are more compact.
When I take photos of watches don't use professional lighting and shooting mostly from hand. This means I need something which can make good enough photos in low light conditions. Seems like a good image stabilizing would be essential.
I use manual mode a lot.
Real macro is a good to have, but I accept that you need usually another lens for that.
I would be highly thankful if the collective wisdom of TZ-UK could point me into the right direction and save me from endless camera review readings.
I'm not that much into cameras as into watches, just need a good solution and don't want to break the bank with the choice.
Thanks


Sent from my SM-A202F using TZ-UK mobile app

There's still a lot depends on what kind of result you plan to get.