Advice Please -- Which G For Lab Work?

[Xtrema]

I'd like to obtain a G7, G9 or G10 for laboratory work. I need to take images of mechanical parts, oils, vehicles, etc. Most of the time the images are not macro, but fairly often I need to take images of tiny pits found on the surface of gear teeth. Which G series camera would work best? I am hoping to find a used one from a reputable source.

[arg245]

Pretty much any of those you mentioned will work for you. I have used the G10 for this purpose. Just make sure you have enough lighting. The flash on the camera works well enough, but sometines will overpower the image.

Look on the "Sell" forum here on POTN and do a search for threads. I'm sure you'll find one for sale.

[rang]

I'd like to obtain a G7, G9 or G10 for laboratory work. I need to take images of mechanical parts, oils, vehicles, etc. Most of the time the images are not macro, but fairly often I need to take images of tiny pits found on the surface of gear teeth. Which G series camera would work best? I am hoping to find a used one from a reputable source.

hmmm I suppose the G9/10 as both can shoot RAW (so you would have more data to work with if post work is necessary in Photoshop.

If your talking almost microscopic pitting...you would probably want to visit Lensmate for an adapter and even an inexpensive macro/wide angle adapter combo to get really close.

If you find you need more light...here is a relatively inexpensive ring flash that is light in weight/size and works well for macro work ...but very basic.

http://www.newworldvideodirect.com/productdetail.asp?productid=19792

[doctorpaul]

noob here, but if you really need macro, i wouldnt get a g series.

I have a g11, and am a dentist, and need the odd macro shot. I love the camera, but it just doesnt get in close enough to things, and the lens isnt good enough for detailed macro stuff. even with a digital zoom, i can get about a shot that is about 4 or five inches wide with nice detail, and not much smaller.

Even when you can get in really close, lighting is an issue, where the camera basically blocks the light. Yes, it has a flash, but it comes from one corner of the camera, and you always get reflection when used super close to things

Personally, id forget about a g11, and post in the macro section and make sure you get things right to start with, else you may either be disapointed, or out of more cash when you need to upgrade to get the job done properly

Just my 2c worth

[GordonSBuck]

I do the same sort of photography regularly with my G9 and prior to the G9 with a G3. If I were to purchase a camera today, it would be the G11 because of the flip out screen.

The increased depth of field with these small sensor cameras is great for this type of work. Realistically, you'll be using flash and will need to zoom out a bit to get good separation for lighting. You'll probably want an external flash and a set of screw in close up lenses (will look like filters). To attach these close up lenses, you'll need the Lensmate or Canon adapter tube.

To get 'microscope' type pictures, you can reverse mount an old 35mm film lens (but a microscope is better).

RAW is great but if you do much of this you'll want to use the JPEG and minimize processing.

I've written about some of this sort of thing on my blog, see

http://lightdescription.blogspot.com/2009/04/1-2-4-10.html
http://lightdescription.blogspot.com/2008/03/g9-macro.html
http://lightdescription.blogspot.com/2008/05/lensmate-and-canon-adapters-for-g9.html
http://lightdescription.blogspot.com/2008/01/cable-release-for-g9.html

[doctorpaul]

If he need to be taking photos of tiny pits on gear teeth, then surely he would be better with something designed to do this?

By the time you take a g11 and put an adaptor on (my understanding is the canon one is very plasticy, and you often wind up with vignetting), and a new lens, and possibly ring flash, this is an expensive combo, and we have basically wasted the cost of an adaptor and a lens

WOuldnt something designed to do the macro work properly be better, much cheaper in the long run?

Speaking from experience, the g11 just doesnt get perfect dental shots for me, and i am looking at say 4 or five inches in width, even when i can often have heaps of ambient light

I am not unhappy with my choice, as i knew there would be a compromise, didnt want the bulk of an slr and wanted a rugged camera to take snaps of the kids, 95% was simply good enough for me. (if i was say an orthodontist, and needed perfect pics, then g11 totally unsuitable, and need a proper slr, macro lens, ring flash, etc)

However, if i was to be just using it for work, id splurge the extra dollars and make sure it does the difficult stuff

A real issue with the g11 macro, is, yes, you can go into 1cm, or 5cm, but, unless you have heaps of light, COMING IN FROM EVERYWHERE, then you just dont get something good. If you are doing technical stuff, where is your light coming from? will the camera block it out?

If i was in ops position, id just look in the for sale section for someones old setup who has just splurged on a new purchase and needs to offload their old rig for a good price

[GordonSBuck]

Details of tiny pits on gear teeth (or people teeth!) would be difficult with my setup but my setup would render a good picture of a gear tooth that had pits. The parts that I normally photograph range from about 2 inches in diameter to 12 inches in diameter. I got a cheap set of screw-in closeup 'filters" for about $25 and place an old flash nearby but off-camera. The flash is triggered by a cheap wireless unit. For details, I'm normally working with full telephoto + 4X closeup lens at a distance of 10 inches instead of the 20 inches minimum without the 4x closeup (full telephoto).

If the subject justifies the effort, I move the pieces from the shop to a small table that I converted for use as a lighting 'tent' except that I use plastic light panels. Again, the flash is off camera. This is the best way for me to get pictures of stainless steel parts. I've also used this same setup to get many of the (photography) product photos use in my blog.

I haven't tried a ring light but would like to. I think it might not do so well with stainless steel subjects.

If you attempt to use 35mm full frame equipment for such work, you'll be dismayed at the very short depth of field. You'll be forced to use a very small aperture which means lots of light will be needed.