|
|
# ? Apr 28, 2010 22:52 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 02:46 |
|
RustedChrome posted:That's the actual texture/reflection of the coin in direct sunlight. I think the sky, window and some bright red curtains reflecting off of all the tiny scratches on the surface are giving that look. It's just the reflection of the sun. It's a known phenomenon (though I'm forgetting its name), also very prone to happen with chitinous subjects such as flies. You can see it there, on the body. I'm tempted to say it's just iridescence, not sure though.
|
# ? Apr 28, 2010 23:04 |
|
Dispersion?
evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Apr 29, 2010 |
# ? Apr 29, 2010 00:04 |
|
There's some outrageous quality on the previous page, kudos to all.
|
# ? Apr 29, 2010 16:43 |
|
A few recent shots:
|
# ? May 1, 2010 20:17 |
|
Nice details overall, but you should diffuse the twin to kill the hotspots and make the light more even
|
# ? May 1, 2010 20:32 |
|
|
# ? May 3, 2010 01:36 |
An actual jumping spider on a drainpipe:
|
|
# ? May 6, 2010 21:18 |
|
seravid posted:Nice details overall, but you should diffuse the twin to kill the hotspots and make the light more even I've got the standard sto-fen ones on there, though they don't seem to make a ton of difference. That was also the first time I had taken some macro shots in a while and for some reason forgot about FEC. Couple more:
|
# ? May 7, 2010 13:50 |
|
SpunkyRedKnight posted:
That's a ladybug larva.
|
# ? May 7, 2010 13:54 |
|
RustedChrome posted:That's the actual texture/reflection of the coin in direct sunlight. I think the sky, window and some bright red curtains reflecting off of all the tiny scratches on the surface are giving that look. That is downright psychedelic! Is there any good macro option for Pentax? I have a Tamron 70-300mm but I'd like something past 1:2.
|
# ? May 7, 2010 17:11 |
|
Raikiri posted:What's going on here, is it leaning towards the camera? Great background, though. a foolish pianist posted:An actual jumping spider on a drainpipe: You got some spooky light there, but it seems you missed the focus on the eyes. SpunkyRedKnight posted:I'm not usually a fan of black backgrounds, but I like this one. Moist von Lipwig posted:Is there any good macro option for Pentax? I have a Tamron 70-300mm but I'd like something past 1:2. Besides the usual Tamron and Sigma lenses, you also have the Pentax 100/2.8 Macro. Don't know how easy/hard it is to find, though, Pentax stuff isn't my specialty. You can also play with inverted lenses, extension tubes, close-ups, etc... to get 1:1 or more.
|
# ? May 7, 2010 17:44 |
|
seravid posted:What's going on here, is it leaning towards the camera? Great background, though. Very slightly, yeah. They tend to wave side to side a little. That's a full frame @ 1:1, so the DoF was tiny.
|
# ? May 7, 2010 17:53 |
|
Xpost from fEE thread: My wife is currently obsessed with Macro images she sees on the web. Im wondering what a good entry level but semi future proof combo for a D300 we should look into getting her. As for budget, we really don't have one, so toss out cheap or expensive options. She wants to shoot mainly flowers, food, odd shapes and designs, and patterns.
|
# ? May 11, 2010 17:56 |
|
Musket posted:Xpost from fEE thread: The things you've named aren't macro shots. Not being pedantic, it's a significant difference. If she wants to shoot small things (bugs, tiny pistils on flowers, that sort of thing) it's a different lens choice perhaps than if she wants to shoot smallish things like full flowers, food, etc... A good, clear, but not macro prime lens will be better for what you described, like a good 50mm f/1.4 (Nikon or Sigma). For actual macro, Nikon makes a 50mm and a 105mm. The longer focal length gives you more working distance, that is, distance from the tip of your lens to the object in focus. I don't know about their quality. Tamron has a really nice, 90mm Macro lens that would be cheaper than the Nikon 105. edit: If she gets a good 50mm f/1.4, then decides she wants closer to "true" macro, she can buy extension tubes for that.
|
# ? May 11, 2010 18:06 |
|
Sig 30, Tamron 90 macro. And a couple of flashes.
|
# ? May 11, 2010 18:29 |
|
I am going to say have a look at the nikon 60mm, this is a macro lens but I find it much better suited for "close up" photography due to the short working distance. The quality is very good and is not too expensive, I have the older 60mm AF-D and use it on a D300 and I am happy with it, not sure what the new 60mm AF-S one is like but I assume it is just as good if not better.
|
# ? May 11, 2010 19:47 |
|
Dead baby bird claw Mite
|
# ? May 12, 2010 01:48 |
|
Studebaker Hawk posted:Dead baby bird claw For content :
|
# ? May 12, 2010 01:59 |
|
Studebaker, the mite on the flower pistil is INSANELY close what's your setup like? I'm sure you get this question a billion times but I'm lazy
|
# ? May 12, 2010 02:19 |
|
Stew Man Chew posted:Studebaker, the mite on the flower pistil is INSANELY close what's your setup like? I'm sure you get this question a billion times but I'm lazy I just came into possession of an MP-E65! Cheapo chinese bracket/ball head with a 430EX, opteka collapsable diffuser. Really fun lens, difficult to use but I am learning
|
# ? May 12, 2010 15:19 |
|
Studebaker Hawk posted:I just came into possession of an MP-E65! Cheapo chinese bracket/ball head with a 430EX, opteka collapsable diffuser. ohhhh you bastard (jealous as hell) I keep trying to get out and find some bugs in the neighborhood, but the weekends I'm not traveling, it's storming here. Wind doesn't play well with millimeter depths of field
|
# ? May 12, 2010 15:30 |
|
More Info Phidippus audax, my favorite species. I found two of them today, this one, and another that was jet black all over but had red abdomen markings.
|
# ? May 16, 2010 03:22 |
|
Some from my garden: More Info More Info More Info More Info
|
# ? May 21, 2010 01:17 |
|
This thread really needs more action.
|
# ? May 22, 2010 23:17 |
|
Haha, nice action! bow-chicka-wow. I'm jealous of everyone who has an MPE65. I don't have a great lighting setup though so I don't think I could put it to good use if I did have one! This PREYING MANTITS fucked around with this message at 03:55 on May 24, 2010 |
# ? May 23, 2010 02:41 |
|
I'm going to call this macro since I stuck the 24-70 @ 70mm and focused it to as close as it would go (it says macro in the focusing window!!), and used live view to get as close to this dude as the lens would focus (I should note I was on my hands and knees holding the camera, lens, and flash straight out with one hand, about 3 inches over my pond. for a toad. I should have stopped down some more, but this was f/3.2 at 1/125th and ISO800. I was burst-firing while slowly moving the camera closer/farther away to get the right focus since my hand was so unstable.
|
# ? May 23, 2010 02:48 |
|
The MP-E is pretty overrated. It's the most practical solution for high magnification, sure, but it suffers from diffraction just as much as the other lenses out there, so it's not like it's a magical thing powered by the love of unicorns. That said, if I was a Canon user I'd still have one, but I'm not and I managed 4:1 just fine with a regular 100mm macro lens, extension tubes and a quality close-up filter. It's not as convenient, but it cost me half the MP-E's price for comparable image quality... plus, a regular macro lens can (auto)focus at infinity (though they're usually not great there). @ diarrhea for girls : no need to buy a twin flash to achieve great lighting. A single cobra can do the trick... It's all in the diffuser. @ dakana : that's not macro but yeah, you should have stopped more. C'mon, let's get the ball rolling. Here's a 9 picture (handheld) focus stack : seravid fucked around with this message at 04:34 on May 23, 2010 |
# ? May 23, 2010 03:14 |
|
seravid posted:@ dakana : that's not macro but yeah, you should have stopped more. By my calculation, it's ~1:3. Speaking of my calculation, I've googled around a LOT to try and find an easy way to calculate the macro reproduction ratio of a lens, but haven't found a good one, so I tried to do it myself based on what I understand the ratio to represent. Is this accurate? First, I took a picture of a ruler running horizontally across the frame at the minimum focus distance of the lens at 70mm. Then, I measured how many pixels across 1 inch on the ruler was. I got 1063 pixels; the whole frame is 3888 pixels, so that means that 1 inch covers 27.34% of the sensor. According to Canon, the sensor in the 1D Mark III is 28.1mm wide, and 27.34% of 28.1mm is 7.68mm. Which comes out to 1:3.02. The margin of error would come from 1. The sensor width not mapping directly to the image width (that is, of the "box" that is the sensor, the image may come from "inside" this box, meaning that the actual image's pixels do not "run" to the edge of the sensor) 2. The ruler's face not being exactly perpendicular to the sensor and the edge not being parallel with the sensor.
|
# ? May 23, 2010 03:57 |
|
seravid posted:C'mon, let's get the ball rolling. Here's a 9 picture (handheld) focus stack : Now that is very interesting, though the in-focus/out-of-focus stripes down the leaf are a little odd.
|
# ? May 23, 2010 04:26 |
|
dakana posted:By my calculation, it's ~1:3. Yeah, that's the quick and dirty way to see your current magnification. The usual method doesn't include counting pixels, though, just aligning the ruler with the frame and see how many millimeters fit, then it's just a matter of comparing it to the sensor's length. More than the sensor, you're below 1:1. Less, you're above it. Slo-Tek posted:Now that is very interesting, though the in-focus/out-of-focus stripes down the leaf are a little odd. You're right. After a couple of hours working on a picture, you stop noticing this kind of stuff... I just fixed it, thanks. To make it up, here's the "making of" :
|
# ? May 23, 2010 04:37 |
|
seravid posted:To make it up, here's the "making of" : This is awesome! Thanks for showing that. Your results are spectacular. I'm really impressed that it was handheld. Did you just shoot a burst while moving slightly closer? I've tried to do that a couple of times but generally the subject will move and ruin it.
|
# ? May 23, 2010 04:51 |
|
Two or three shots aren't difficult to manage and are usually enough to get a decent stack. In this case, though, the weather was really cold so this little guy proved very cooperative, enough for me to use a wider aperture (to get better sharpness) and balance the resulting loss of dof with more shots. Got 25 pictures, but only needed 9 to cover the whole subject. Regarding bursts, my poor old flash is so heavily diffused that, in certain situations (like this one with the bee), it only allows me 0,1fps
|
# ? May 23, 2010 05:22 |
|
diarrhea for girls posted:Haha, nice action! bow-chicka-wow. That carpenter bee is a bot fly of some kind... please Google it if you've not heard of them
|
# ? May 24, 2010 01:28 |
|
Raikiri posted:That carpenter bee is a bot fly of some kind... please Google it if you've not heard of them Oh dear god. Haha. I have indeed heard of them but I never knew they looked like that. Now I'm kind of glad it died sometime overnight! Those are creepy things, haha. Thanks for the proper id.
|
# ? May 24, 2010 03:49 |
|
I got a macro lens just in time for Hawaii. I didn't get to use it too much, but I got a few neat pictures out of it.
|
# ? May 25, 2010 19:43 |
|
I got a set of extension tube for the Micro 4/3 format and tried them out today. Olympus EP-1 + M.U.K. Extension Tubes + Leica M adapter + Voigtlander Nokton 40mm f/1.4 lens. Chive flower at f/1.4: (ridiculously thin dof but I like the colors) The same a f/11:
|
# ? May 26, 2010 02:02 |
|
Any idea what kind of magnification you're getting with that setup? I think I would kill for that kind of DOF at f/11.
|
# ? May 26, 2010 06:42 |
|
MrFrosty posted:Any idea what kind of magnification you're getting with that setup? I think I would kill for that kind of DOF at f/11. I'll have to test it out on a ruler I guess. The tubes had no paperwork so I have no idea what it's doing. FYI, that flower head is about the size of a US nickel.
|
# ? May 26, 2010 06:48 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 02:46 |
|
I am thinking of picking up the dcr-250 to play around a bit as I have little to no experience with macro shooting. At the moment I have a 50/1.8, 28/2.8 and a 28-135. How would the dcr-250 work on the 28? Would it be worth getting a step down ring so that I can put it on the zoom? As I am just interested in getting my feet wet would I be better off with the 150 then the 250? edit - this is all on a 1.6x crop sensor camera jsmith114 fucked around with this message at 20:34 on May 29, 2010 |
# ? May 29, 2010 20:22 |