My brother-in-law the dentist uses a Fuji digicam (can't remember model) with ring flash. He loves it. I've never tested it out though.
For small objects at work, I bought two Canon G2s, both with ring flashes. They work great when set up properly, but I find that the Canon G2 can't throttle down the light output enough in idiot-proof mode and pictures are overexposed. Thus, I have to set it on aperture priority with relatively small apertures to get correct exposure. Granted, I do this anyway to maximize depth of field for my close up shots. (A better idiot-proof mode would be a bonus at my work though, since many people here using it don't really know much about setting up the camera.)
The results from the Canon G2 are very good, and definitely research journal publication quality if taken at full resolution (4 megapixel CCD) and at the lowest JPEG compression. I don't bother with the RAW image mode. The best quality JPEGs are excellent quality. I also purchased a mid-range film scanner at work for our film cameras. It's possible to get better pix from film, but it's a huge pain in the @ss, and it's very expensive comparatively. Plus there's no way of knowing if the pictures are properly exposed or properly focused with the film cameras. So, while film resolution is potentially better, all things considered we get consistently MUCH better results with digital.
However, if I had the extra cash at the time I would have liked to try one of the competing consumer Nikons (4-5 megapixel CCD). They are supposedly more idiot-proof for exposure with macro shots. (My G2s are easier to use for non-macro shots IMO though.)
The other option is to go pro with something like a
Canon D60 (low noise 6 megapixel CMOS). This is a real SLR, and you can get high-end macro lenses for it.
The key here is the ring flash. Unfortunately, as you probably know the flash alone costs about $600. ie. For a good consumer camera setup for this type of work, the flash costs as much as the camera.
Top
