|
General Apathy posted:I'm just starting with macro and photography in general so I would appreciate some advice.
Dia de Pikachutos fucked around with this message at 09:35 on Apr 14, 2013 |
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 06:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 17:42 |
|
|
Thanks for the advice, I've just started playing with diffusing the light and the such and it makes a drastic difference to the quality of the photos. I might have to look into something like a stackshot, at the moment I'm using the printbed of my 3D printer to incrementally move things in and out of focus. This works fairly well, though I might have to go into the firmware of the printer and increase its movement resolution. I think one of my major problems is I'm using a cheap microscope objective, most likely a chinese one, would it be a better idea to avoid microscope objectives and go for something like an enlarger lens?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 08:33
|
|
|
General Apathy posted:I think one of my major problems is I'm using a cheap microscope objective, most likely a chinese one, would it be a better idea to avoid microscope objectives and go for something like an enlarger lens? To achieve 10x magnification with an enlarger lens, you'll need bellows or a pretty spectacular set of extension tubes. Or a relatively exotic enlarger lens, like a Schneider 28mm Componon S, which is way above my pay grade. On one hand, you would have a lot more flexibility in your magnification / DOF / working distance options with bellows and enlarger lens. On the other, at 10x you're well into diffraction territory with a f2.8 enlarger lens wide open. So in many respects it depends on what magnification ratios you're working in, and how much flexibility you want. If you're using an infinity corrected objective with tube lens, then the the Nikon CFI BE 4x and 10x lenses are both high quality, well-tested options. I have recently acquired the 10x, and it is easily the best lens I have used to date. It costs $99 at opticsplanet.com. It only has a working distance of 6.7mm, which can be limiting, though. Both of these lenses can also be pushed to lower magnification ratios - I use the 10x at 6.75x (by connecting it to a 135mm lens instead of a 200mm). e: How are you coupling the microscope objective to your camera? Can you post up any info about the objective? Depending on your setup you might be under-utilizing the objective you already have. Infinity-corrected objectives need a converging lens between the objective and the imaging plane, whereas finite objectives generally need ~160-180mm of empty extension instead. You can do it the other way around, but at the expense of optical performance. Dia de Pikachutos fucked around with this message at 09:34 on Apr 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 09:30
|
|
|
spongepuppy posted:
I don't know too much about the objective, it was a cheap one from ebay, the only things written on it are ACHRO 4/0.1, 160/0.17. It's coupled to the camera with a RMS/Nikon adapter and an extension tube, taking it out to being 160mm from the sensor plane.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 10:07
|
|
|
If you've got lots of extension tubes, you could use reversed enlarging lenses quite happily for lower magnification work. Have a look around for old LOMO microscope objectives. I had good results from the 9x, which is a stubby little thing with a good inch of working distance. They were supposedly for use with compensating eyepieces, but you can correct a lot of the lateral CA in post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 10:20
|
|
|
Awesome, I'll keep an eye out for one. Thanks, very much appreciate the help.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 10:44
|
|
|
I think I'm going to upgrade my macro setup a bit with the purchase of a Canon MT-24EX Macro Twin Lite Flash and the MP-E 65mm. I'm interesting in hearing experiences from anyone who has the macro flash -- it sounds like I should probably get some diffusers along with it at the very least. In terms of the 65mm, if I want to get more than 5x can I use extension tubes?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 15:54
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:In terms of the 65mm, if I want to get more than 5x can I use extension tubes? Yeah, but the effective aperture becomes even lower. It’s a bitch and a half to compose and focus. I use gooseneck halogen lamps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:In terms of the 65mm, if I want to get more than 5x can I use extension tubes? As Platystemon says, your effective aperture will become a limiting factor in resolving detail. Assuming you're shooting at 5x wide open, your effective aperture would be f16. Increasing magnification with extension tubes would increase your effective maximum aperture progressively: 5x = f/16.8 6x = f/19.6 7x = f/22.4 8x = f/25.2 9x = f/28 10x = f/30.8 etc. How much of that additional magnification would yield additional detail would need some testing. You can calculate (roughly) the effective f-number with the formula: Effective f-number = f-number x (magnification + 1)
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2013 06:57
|
|
|
Snowflake from this year.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 08:02
|
|
|
Cotton Glove.  P4150694.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
I don't want to make you guys  but it needs to be posted  http://petapixel.com/2013/04/18/photos-of-insects-in-flight-captured-with-a-custom-laser-beam-camera-rig/
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 08:10
|
|
|
NoneMoreNegative posted:I don't want to make you guys That's almost like cheating!
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
NoneMoreNegative posted:I don't want to make you guys http://www.cognisys-inc.com/products/insect_rig.php?osCsid=4b3fb95f475ab349be7ddd41f747d886 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
NoneMoreNegative posted:I don't want to make you guys Actually, it made me  a bit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 11:39
|
|
|
I failed pretty hard at doing proper research when I was shopping. Bought a reversing ring for my 50mm only to realize when it arrived that it's for attaching two lenses together so it's useless (52-52). Looking into it again, I'm thinking I should be getting extension tubes? Does anyone have a recommendation on what size I should get for a 50mm? I'll probably try using it with my 70-200 lens so I'm assuming I shouldn't be getting a crazy long one. This is for a Nikon body and I'm cheap.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
Ashex posted:I failed pretty hard at doing proper research when I was shopping. Bought a reversing ring for my 50mm only to realize when it arrived that it's for attaching two lenses together so it's useless (52-52). http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Filt...+reversing+ring is the reversing ring you'd want. As far as tubes go, any set you buy will generally come in 3 pieces, you can either use them all or just use part for how much extension you need. If you need automatic aperture look for the kenko tubes, they work a lot better than the other options. Which is why they cost a lot. So hopefully it's a manual lens!
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 04:28
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Filt...+reversing+ring is the reversing ring you'd want. That's the one I thought I ordered! Placed the order, sucks that it'll get here Saturday as I'm going to the Hoh Rainforest that day  To be a little more on topic, here's a bee I shot last fall: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 04:44
|
|
|
I couldn't help myself...quote:Order Summary:
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 05:38
|
|
|
I know these photos aren't the best, but I saw my first ever jumping spider today and was really excited.     I know the compression crushed some of the blacks, but it'll do for a forum post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 08:56
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:I couldn't help myself... Look into makin some sort of difusser. It'll make your pictures muc, much better. Danish, those are extremely good. Great job.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
Danoss posted:I know these photos aren't the best, but I saw my first ever jumping spider today and was really excited. These are great! Content:  Cockatoo flight feather by spongepuppy, on Flickr I made up a handy PS action for removing light falloff that I used on this image - it is here if you want to give it a go. Dia de Pikachutos fucked around with this message at 00:16 on May 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
 Dung Fly by Bryan's Photo Pages, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
 Rhinotia hemistictus by spongepuppy, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 14:55
|
|
|
I got bellows for my medium format macro setup I put a standard 52mm Nikon lens cap in the photo to give scale. Here's some photos from it:    It's pretty heavy and my tripod head isn't strong enough so sags a bit after I frame the photo so it was pretty tedious getting everything set up and I'm still not 100% satisfied (clipped petal on the color pink flower). I kind of hate the head anyway, so I'm going to be looking into new ones. It's very hard to focus with the lens and bellows extended all the way (about 2.5x magnification I believe, the lens is a 1:1 110mm macro lens and the bellows extends out to 153mm) because the depth of field is so thin and the viewfinder gets kind of dim. I'd also like to get a 45 degree finder for my camera, but some of the more niche accessories like that are hard to find for the Bronica.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
Nice setup! I'm using the same thing for my Hassy as well, the bellows is great for doing MF macro but it's irritating because sometimes I forget to factor in bellows exposure compensation I didn't actually have a problem with the focusing because the magnifier eyepieces on the Hassy viewfinders are pretty good and bright. But it does get really dark when I get near the 2:1 ratio.I'd recommend the Markins Q3 tripod head I'm using, it's very stable and holds the setup well enough without creep. I think it's around US$200 or so?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 03:05
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:Nice setup! Nice, I'll check out that head. My macro lens only opens up to f/4.5 so that doesn't help the dim view finder, but I also have an 80/2.8 which gets more light in there for focusing and I can still get out to nearly 2x magnification. Do you find the hood useful with macro work? Does it get in the way? I keep thinking I'll move to a Hasselblad at some point and then I buy another something for the Bronica 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 03:56
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:Nice, I'll check out that head. Not much difference from mine either, mine only opens up to f/4. I also have the 80/2.8 but it requires me to get way too close to the subject when doing 1:1 magnifications so I just stick to the 120/4. The hood usually doesn't get in the way of shooting, only at largest magnification does the hood come very close to touching. So I just keep it on for protection and keep out stray light. This is probably the smallest thing I shot with it, the flower is about the size of your fingernail.  GBTB 01-09 by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
I haven't been shooting much macro in a while... other than my fishtank, which I'll save for some other post. I was out shooting a few flowers last weekend:   I have a Canon 100mm L macro which has failed once on me, about two years ago. When it happened, I was shooting straight down, with AF and IS turned on... it made a grinding sound while focusing and then AF stopped working on the lens. This was within the one year warranty period, so I sent it back to Canon and they 'fixed it' for free. They wrote in the service notes 'Do not disconnect lens from body while focusing', which I had not done. This annoyed me, but at least it was 'fixed'. Yesterday I was shooting the same way: straight down (as seen in the 2nd shot above) with IS and AF turned on, and the grinding started happening again. I've had this happen one other time in the past two years, and both times I just stopped focusing before any permanent damage occurred. Has anyone experienced this with the 100L or other lens?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
I'm too poor for a real macro lens and I'm just starting out in photography. I was wondering, should I get a 35mm or a 50mm for reverse mounting on a cropped sensor camera? I'm hoping 35mm is better in this case because I'm only getting one or the other and 50mm is a bit too narrow.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
Highblood posted:I'm too poor for a real macro lens and I'm just starting out in photography. I was wondering, should I get a 35mm or a 50mm for reverse mounting on a cropped sensor camera? I'm hoping 35mm is better in this case because I'm only getting one or the other and 50mm is a bit too narrow. Either one should work fine. What camera are you planning on reverse mounting on, and are there any specific lenses you're looking at reverse mounting?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
Canon 60D is what I'll be using. For the lens, unless there's something better in the same price range I'm thinking of getting the Canon 35mm f/2
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 04:14
|
|
|
Reverse mounting works better when you have a lens that has an aperture ring. With an EF lens like that one you'll need to do stuff like removing the lens while the DoF preview button is pressed, and I dunno how safe/reliable that is. Or if a 60D even has a DoF button. Why not just pick up an old 35mm or 50mm lens to reverse mount? You could get a cheap lens just to reverse mount for 20-30 bucks no problem if you spend some time looking. I prefer 35mm reversed on my 2x crop om-d, but when I had a nikon I mostly used a reversed 50mm.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 04:28
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Reverse mounting works better when you have a lens that has an aperture ring. With an EF lens like that one you'll need to do stuff like removing the lens while the DoF preview button is pressed, and I dunno how safe/reliable that is. Or if a 60D even has a DoF button. 60D has a DOF button and it works alright, but the button is in an awkward spot to have to hold and disconnect the lens. I agree with Mr Despair, just get a cheap lens with an aperture ring. Gonna save a lot of hassle.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 16:39
|
|
|
Any recommendations for a cheap 35mm with an aperture ring?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 00:18
|
|
|
Highblood posted:Any recommendations for a cheap 35mm with an aperture ring? Takumar 35/3.5 is great, you can find the non multicoated version for around 50 or 60 on ebay or keh, and it's insanely sharp. fake edit: here's a bgn grade 35/3.5 with the super multicoating for 62 on keh, someone should buy this. http://www.keh.com/camera/Pentax-Screwmount-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-PS060108001640?r=FE It's not the fastest or the cheapest, but it might be the sharpest.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
  In hindsight shaking trees and getting myself covered in pollen wasn't the best idea.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Takumar 35/3.5 is great, you can find the non multicoated version for around 50 or 60 on ebay or keh, and it's insanely sharp. So to reverse mount this I need a 49mm reverse ring right? Might buy it soon
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
Highblood posted:So to reverse mount this I need a 49mm reverse ring right? Might buy it soon Yup, something like http://www.amazon.com/Macro-Reverse...everse+ring+eos will let you screw the lens right in. A 52mm or other size can work too, if you get a set of step up/step down rings to go along with it (52mm is just a more common size).
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 17:42 |
|
|
Only flies here at the moment, still cold outside. Fly by Bryan's Photo Pages, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2013 21:32
|
|