Camera specifications to take good intra-oral photos

[SDMITE]

Hi, friends. My school want us to buy a camera to take intra oral pictures for portfolio. I heard SLR camera works best for that but I really dont want to invest 1K in such camera right now during school. Also being an amateur in photograph I dont have any idea about camera specifications. Can anybody please suggest me a specific current camera to go for or what all specification should i look to take good intra- oral images? Thanks.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[dentalprodigy]

I remember reading a thread on this topic on dentaltown forums... do a quick google search & I'm sure ull find that thread.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk

 

[danielfife530]

hi,
U can search in the shops. or else the best option is the search in google.
you will give all the detailed information about camaras.

 

[PhoebeAZ]

If you don't know anything about cameras or photography and are planning to just shoot in auto mode, then a DSLR won't do you any better than a simple compact point and shoot. Check dpreview.com for more help.

 

[DrJeff]

I took a CE course about dental photography given by Dr Ed McClaren out of UCLA about a month ago. When I walked into the room that the course was being given in, it literally looked like a professional portrait photographers studio! As was said by one of the students of his photography residency program that he runs, "i'm not quite sure if he's a dentist with a photography problem or a photographer with a dentistry problem!"

Basically from a DSLR camera body perspective, Nikon and Cannon were his favorites, and any of their current $500-$750 camera bodies are more than adequate for all but the most fanatical dental photography addicts!

Here's a link to one of his published articles on dental photography that has just an absolute wealth of information on the topic. I'd highly reccommend anyone who has an interest in dental photography (or heck even portrait photography with what I learned) take one of his courses if he is either lecturing in your area or is lecturing at a dental meeting that your attending. One of the best and most interesting (atleast for may based on my interests) CE courses that i've taken in a while! 👍

 

[yappy]

What is the importance of the techniques taught in the dental photo CE, or just dental photography, to clinical practice as a dentist?

 

[DrJeff]

What is the importance of the techniques taught in the dental photo CE, or just dental photography, to clinical practice as a dentist?

A combination of how to better enable you to communicate with the ceramist about what shades and color characterizations you're looking for in the ceramic restorations you're delivering to your patients and then also how to use the photographic images of finished cases for marketing (both internal and external) purposes if you so choose

 

[Bereno]

I took a CE course about dental photography given by Dr Ed McClaren out of UCLA about a month ago. When I walked into the room that the course was being given in, it literally looked like a professional portrait photographers studio! As was said by one of the students of his photography residency program that he runs, "i'm not quite sure if he's a dentist with a photography problem or a photographer with a dentistry problem!"

Basically from a DSLR camera body perspective, Nikon and Cannon were his favorites, and any of their current $500-$750 camera bodies are more than adequate for all but the most fanatical dental photography addicts!

Here's a link to one of his published articles on dental photography that has just an absolute wealth of information on the topic. I'd highly reccommend anyone who has an interest in dental photography (or heck even portrait photography with what I learned) take one of his courses if he is either lecturing in your area or is lecturing at a dental meeting that your attending. One of the best and most interesting (atleast for may based on my interests) CE courses that i've taken in a while! 👍

link??

 

[DrJeff]

link??

Sorry about that!

http://www.edmclaren.com/Pubs/PDFs/terry_mclaren_article.pdf

 

[HupHolland]

Nikon and Cannon DSLR body (as dr jeff said, don't have to go crazy expensive here, and make sure it is compatible with your flash)
Sigma ring flash
Sigma 105mm macro lens

Settings:
For intraoral shots, I shoot in aperture priority mode with a F stop of 29 and ISO of 200. Seems to do the trick.

At minimum every patient of record should have 4 shots for patient education:
-natural smile
-retracted smile
-maxillary and mandibular occlusal shots

 

[Bereno]

Sorry about that!

http://www.edmclaren.com/Pubs/PDFs/terry_mclaren_article.pdf

Thanks!! 😀

 

[BobLoblawDDS]

Nikon and Cannon DSLR body (as dr jeff said, don't have to go crazy expensive here, and make sure it is compatible with your flash)
Sigma ring flash
Sigma 105mm macro lens

Settings:
For intraoral shots, I shoot in aperture priority mode with a F stop of 29 and ISO of 200. Seems to do the trick.

At minimum every patient of record should have 4 shots for patient education:
-natural smile
-retracted smile
-maxillary and mandibular occlusal shots

From a pure photographer's standpoint, I wouldn't recommend shooting at beyond f/16. It's easy to run into diffraction issues at exceedingly small apertures. Usually this is only an issue for subjects at infinity but I wouldn't want to be taking chances. Crank ISO to 50-100 if your camera allows it.

 

[Veloce]

From a pure photographer's standpoint, I wouldn't recommend shooting at beyond f/16. It's easy to run into diffraction issues at exceedingly small apertures. Usually this is only an issue for subjects at infinity but I wouldn't want to be taking chances. Crank ISO to 50-100 if your camera allows it.

To answer OP:

Any DSLR body will do. The more current the better.

Basically you need a DSLR, a macro lens, and a macro or ring flash. The reason why a non DSLR camera will not work is the lenses are not interchangeable on non DSLR cameras (for the most part.

It would probably be hard to put a kit together for under 1000. I think there are some companies that sell setups for dental photography, and I think some are close to or under 1000.

To cleanup:

Diffraction is likely minimal, and is dependent on the specific lens used. Remember that critical sharpness is not the most important thing in intraoral photography, and loosing a bit of sharpness due to diffraction, but gaining focus due to the deeper depth of field is much more important. So while you may lose some sharpness at the center of the image, you will gain more areas that would otherwise be blurry due to being out of focus. With digital photography, bumping up the sharpness a bit, especially shooting at low ISO's will take care of any loss of sharpness due to diffraction.

Also many cameras have the native ISO at 200, lowering it to 100 or 50 may result in poorer image quality.

 

[BobLoblawDDS]

To cleanup:

Diffraction is likely minimal, and is dependent on the specific lens used. Remember that critical sharpness is not the most important thing in intraoral photography, and loosing a bit of sharpness due to diffraction, but gaining focus due to the deeper depth of field is much more important. So while you may lose some sharpness at the center of the image, you will gain more areas that would otherwise be blurry due to being out of focus. With digital photography, bumping up the sharpness a bit, especially shooting at low ISO's will take care of any loss of sharpness due to diffraction.

Also many cameras have the native ISO at 200, lowering it to 100 or 50 may result in poorer image quality.

Sharpening cannot add detail that isn't there. Beyond that, a 105mm lens on a 1.6x crop body (so it's really a 168mm lens) at a distance of 6 feet and an aperture of f/16 gives you a depth of field of nearly 7 inches. That's plenty enough to take a photo of someone's oral cavity. Bumping it up to f/28 gives you over a foot of depth of field but this is overkill considering the diminishing gains in depth of field and the trade-off with diffraction. Significant fall-off of detail occurs past f/22 for most modern lenses and sensors. On a typical Canon crop body (like a 7D), pixel diameter is around 4.3 microns while at f/22, a spot of light at infinity (an Airy disk) has a central diameter of 29.3 microns on the sensor due to diffraction, seriously affecting resolving power. Would only be made worse with a flash.

Diffraction is not dependent on the lens used; it's a physical phenomenon and is dependent only on the aperture size with respect to the light's wavelength. If you had a camera whose pixels were visible to the naked eye, then maybe diffraction wouldn't be an issue. Of course, then you'd be taking photos that have about as much detail as a jar of peanut butter, unless the sensor is the size of the wall of your office. Good luck finding such a camera.

 

[bigstix808]

Sharpening cannot add detail that isn't there. Beyond that, a 105mm lens on a 1.6x crop body (so it's really a 168mm lens) at a distance of 6 feet and an aperture of f/16 gives you a depth of field of nearly 7 inches. That's plenty enough to take a photo of someone's oral cavity. Bumping it up to f/28 gives you over a foot of depth of field but this is overkill considering the diminishing gains in depth of field and the trade-off with diffraction. Significant fall-off of detail occurs past f/22 for most modern lenses and sensors. On a typical Canon crop body (like a 7D), pixel diameter is around 4.3 microns while at f/22, a spot of light at infinity (an Airy disk) has a central diameter of 29.3 microns on the sensor due to diffraction, seriously affecting resolving power. Would only be made worse with a flash.

Diffraction is not dependent on the lens used; it's a physical phenomenon and is dependent only on the aperture size with respect to the light's wavelength. If you had a camera whose pixels were visible to the naked eye, then maybe diffraction wouldn't be an issue. Of course, then you'd be taking photos that have about as much detail as a jar of peanut butter, unless the sensor is the size of the wall of your office. Good luck finding such a camera.

i'll give you that you're keen on your photography, but intraoral photos are taken at far less than 6 ft so with your f/16 settings at around 24 in, that gives you a DOF of only 2-3 inches.

i personally shoot with f/22, 100mm macro, and ring flash and my photos turn out great! i focus on lateral/canine for center shots and my field is clear. i'll admit i've only been amature at photography for 5-6 yrs but i know enough to know what looks good when i pull the picture up.

and i dont shoot at 12 MP either :x