|
This thread shows me I have a lot of opportunity for improvement. That, or I need to stop being stubborn and not use my FF camera for insect macro shots. This white spider has been hanging out on my echinacea for at least a week. It usually perches on the cone with its legs outstretched; I assume it waits for small pollinators to land and get caught in the webbing it strung through the cone structure?  DSC02066 by Kelly_Davis, on Flickr The spider poses nicely when I'm by myself, but gets spooked by my camera. Here it is, hiding.  DSC02073 by Kelly_Davis, on Flickr While I was waiting for the spider to come out and play, a bumblebee stopped by.  DSC02077 by Kelly_Davis, on Flickr
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 07:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 22:04 |
|
|
Crab spiders (Thomisidae) don't use webs to hunt; they prefer the manly art of camouflaged ambush. A swift venom injection and even big game like that bumblebee would turn into internal soup.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
Ooh, very nice shot. I'm going to try for something like this with my NEX-6 - hopefully, the smaller size will do less to spook it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
Bob Socko posted:
These have really nice natural looking lighting, what was your setup like? I went for a nice walk today, and saw some... oh my.   Oh My by Icybacon, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 05:32
|
|
|
New thread title should be something about bugs loving.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 05:50
|
|
|
Alpenglow posted:These have really nice natural looking lighting, what was your setup like?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 07:21
|
|
|
I've realized that cold, cloudy and rainy days are actually better for bug hunting than warm and sunny days. Although there are more critters running and flying around on warm days they are much more active and hardly stand still. IMG_7304 by ruut103, on Flickr When I bought macro lens I was really worried about working distance, that 5, 10 or even 15 cm seemed like a really small number. By now I've also realized that if something is going to let you close at all, most of the time you can get as close as you want.  IMG_7563 by ruut103, on Flickr Butterflies are just jerks though.  IMG_7628 by ruut103, on Flickr  IMG_7484 by ruut103, on Flickr Well ok, last one is not really 1:1 but still closeup 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
The crab spider was more cooperative today. This was at 1:1.2 and about the best I can do without rails and/or extension tubes. I tried cropping it, but due to the angle and surrounding flower parts, it just looked odd. I'm surprised at the level of detail the full-sized shot captures - individual hairs and what I'll just assume is blood dripping from its mouthparts. DSC02112 by Kelly_Davis, on Flickr drat thing kept flexing its jaws as I shot it, as though it was imagining killing me in my sleep. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 06:22
|
|
|
The up side to the overcast weather we've been having here is that insects and amphibians tend to sit still while you shove a camera in their face. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 06:58
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:The up side to the overcast weather we've been having here is that insects and amphibians tend to sit still while you shove a camera in their face. These are both purty. What did you use?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 13:05
|
|
|
Taken with a little Olympus TG-1, I'm really happy with the macro settings for diving seeing as it's a nice easy camera to carry. It even has a little LCD for 'Super-Macro' mode.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
Here is an ugly little fucker I saw when I was walking around shooting this morning: banana spider by Ryan-Tamm, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
ShotgunWillie posted:These are both purty. What did you use? Thanks. Those were taken with a Tokina 90mm f/2.5 macro on a Nikon D90, handheld. I've been absolutely thrilled with the lens, but I'm really pushing the ISO limits on the D90 when shooting in the undergrowth. Some more insect shots:   
Moon Potato fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Aug 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 16:29
|
|
|
Fuzzy   IMG_7854 by ruut103, on Flickr  IMG_8514 by ruut103, on Flickr Not so fuzzy but still  IMG_8114 by ruut103, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
Crane Fly
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
Carolina mantis 
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
Still learning the post-processing...process when it comes to film. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 08:37
|
|
|
Midnight critterquesting. This was the biggest wolf (grass?) spider I've seen in a while. Body was over an inch long I'd say.  P8180717.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr This guy was getting all sorts of food, since there were a bunch of bugs getting attracted by my light.  P8180638.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr And this guy was just trying to sleep (about 5 inches below the web of the guy in the pic above).  P8180662.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr I am feeling a strong urge to sell my 60mm macro when it shows back up and just going back to using my 35/3.5 on tubes or getting a tamron 90mm instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 08:18
|
|
|
I have a Canon T2i and am wanting to take studio, stacked shots of dead insect subjects, for the purposes of documentation and identification of beetles that will range from .1 mm to 30-40 mm. Shots of the whole body, then close ups of different aspects down to .1 mm would be ideal. I'd like to be able to approximate the resolution and quality of the photographs in this post: http://chrisraper.org.uk/blog/?p=5493 The guy on the blog says he's using a reversed Nikkor EL 50mm f2.8 on "cheap bellows", a Yongnou YN560 flash, a styrofoam cup, black paper "hood", and a manual focus rail. My question is, is this the cheapest I can get away with? The Nikkor enlarging lens and Yongnou flash seem reasonable when I look them up individually, but I don't know what reversing adapter, bellows, rail, hotfoot to flash attachment, and remote shutter release I would want to get. I'd like to keep it as cheap as possible, of course, but don't want to gently caress myself by buying something that doesn't fit, or end up with really lovely shots because of some technical aspect of a component that I didn't think of or wasn't aware of. Is this sort of set up flexible enough to take shots of .1 mm parts of beetle's mouths and then, with minimal equipment switch-out, take shots of 40 mm whole beetles? Is it wishful thinking that I can get this sort of range with a bellows and reversed enlarging ring set up? Would I have to end up buying a microscope objective and adapter for the really tight shots?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
.1mm to 40mm is a crazy, crazy range. How much of the frame do you want to fill when shooting those .1mm parts?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
That sounds like about the cheapest setup to me as well. You can probably get away with other lenses if you really wanted, but all the supporting stuff is going to make life much, much easier for you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
This cicada literally flew into my lap yesterday evening, so I rewarded him by tossing him in the freezer for a few minutes and got a few quick photos out of him. After 15 minutes of shooting, he woke back up and started screaming bloody murder. DSC_5798.jpg by meramsey, on Flickr  DSC_5787.jpg by meramsey, on Flickr I really need to get a cheap/decent macro rail so I can try some focus stacking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
Tricerapowerbottom posted:The guy on the blog says he's using a reversed Nikkor EL 50mm f2.8 on "cheap bellows", a Yongnou YN560 flash, a styrofoam cup, black paper "hood", and a manual focus rail. My question is, is this the cheapest I can get away with? The Nikkor enlarging lens and Yongnou flash seem reasonable when I look them up individually, but I don't know what reversing adapter, bellows, rail, hotfoot to flash attachment, and remote shutter release I would want to get. I'd like to keep it as cheap as possible, of course, but don't want to gently caress myself by buying something that doesn't fit, or end up with really lovely shots because of some technical aspect of a component that I didn't think of or wasn't aware of. This is a pretty flexible setup, but you'll probably need to look into something better than a cheap bellows for stacking at the upper end of your magnification range. Even with a motorized rail, probably be best magnification you can really hope for is about 20x, so an object-size frame size of about 1.2 x 0.8mm. I haven't had any luck at that size, though, because the scale of even small movements is huge, and diffraction destroys detail at those scales unless you use some fairly good microscope objectives. I use a Nikon PB-6 bellows with various enlarger lenses and microscope objectives on a stackshot motorized rail (http://www.cognisys-inc.com/stackshot/stackshot.php) with a couple of YN-560's. I can't overstate how much of a boon the stackshot rail is for this sort of work. You can find PB-6's in good condition for ~$300 on ebay, and it's an investment you won't regret. You can use the bellows movements for low-magnification (0.5x - 1.5x) stacking if you have good technique (I don't). Some Pentax M42 bellows would probably suit as well (with suitable mount adaptors), and they seem to share many design elements with the PB-6. More recently, I have been using $6 M42 extension tubes instead, because they are less bulky and super solid. I have 4 sets, for greatest flexibility. I have wasted money on those cheap bellows units, and they are uselessly flimsy - stability will be something you NEED at high magnification. For lenses I use:
These give me a wide magnification range, although at greater than 2x you are probably going to get better results from a regular macro lens. Also, don't waste you money on generic Chinese microscope objectives - they are all rubbish, and you can get old LOMO objectives for the same price. The boffins at http://photomacrography.net/forum have a wealth of information on setups (for every budget), lens choice and lighting technique. Take a look - you will probably have all of your questions answered in short order if you have a click around for an hour or so. A number of the forum regulars are award-winning micrographers, and they're always eager to help by answering [well-composed] questions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
 Snail by Simon Thelwell Coming from a reversed lens it doesn't feel close enough, already looking into extension tubes or bellows. Luckily it's M42 and there seems to be plenty knocking around. SimonomiS fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Aug 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
Too busy to care about someone sneaking up on them: IMG_1998 by ruut103, on Flickr  IMG_2045 by ruut103, on Flickr  IMG_2047 by ruut103, on Flickr Last 2 should be about 2X.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:10
|
|
|
I'm looking for some advice if possible. I recently got a Canon Powershot s100. I took some photos of bugs, and that was pretty fun. Some examples:   Obviously they're not as Awesome Macro as many in the thread, but now I want to buy something that will get me closer to that. I'm not a photography guy and never owned a DSLR camera so tell me if this sounds daft, but would a cheap-ish used Canon off ebay, like a 550D or 50D combined with either the (again, used) Sigma 105 mm f/2.8 or the Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 AF Di 1:1 Macro lens be worth getting? Or is there a better option? At the moment I wouldn't be planning on photographing anything else, really.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 12:51
|
|
|
Not A Vet Yet posted:I'm not a photography guy and never owned a DSLR camera so tell me if this sounds daft, but would a cheap-ish used Canon off ebay, like a 550D or 50D combined with either the (again, used) Sigma 105 mm f/2.8 or the Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 AF Di 1:1 Macro lens be worth getting? Or is there a better option? Later on, when 1:1 doesn't seem to be enough any more, you can add a set of tubes. And flash, doesn't need to be something fancy. Then you start looking at MP-E 65mm and macro twin flash and hmm, maybe the price on those isn't that bad after all... Also, you can do it cheaper (and more DIY) by using reversed lens. Dedicated macro lens is more convenient though. Here's bee through Canon 100mm + some tubes:  IMG_2171 by ruut103, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
I have the Sigma 105mm that you mentioned. Great lens for macro, okay for other stuff if you don't use auto focus (it's a little slow). There's also a Raynox filter you could use on a long lens-quality is not as good as a dedicated lens+tubes though. Bought one, barely used it. A few people in the thread have used them I think. One thing to keep in mind: no matter what lens you get, you will be manually focusing. Go with a 3 set of extension rings with no auto focus/electrical contacts. It will be cheaper probably. Focus is something you'll learn, millimetres matter so occasionally you need to move forward or back slightly. You could get a cheap focus rail to help with this but your insects are probably of the moving variety so it'd slow you down unless you practised a bit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 13:37
|
|
|
the_lion posted:Go with a 3 set of extension rings with no auto focus/electrical contacts. It will be cheaper probably. Yeah, you don't wanna do that. Not A Vet Yet is just starting up, a low-end DSLR like the 550D and a manual set of tubes would just be cruel. For a frustration-free (kind of) newbie experience a big and bright viewfinder is a must; cameras like the 550D are out and so are tubes that require you to manually set the aperture. Also desirable: not getting too close to the subject; while you still don't have a firm grasp on the critters' behavior you better stay away from them. That means a dedicated macro lens around 100mm. Longer would be nice but you'd have severe camera shake to deal with. The Tamron 90/2.8 is the most popular choice among +/- 100m lenses, but it has a pretty short working distance. Still better than close-up lenses or tubes, though. I'm not talking about best quality or best magnification or best bang for the buck here, I'm talking about making the first steps into macro as painless as possible, which I think is more important; doesn't matter if you bought all your gear for 15 bucks or if your microscope duct-taped to a camera can go up to 20:1 if you don't actually enjoy going out and shooting critters. Now, if you're on a tight budget but still want to give this a shot then sure, go with an inverted 50 with some tubes and a close-up on top, it should be good for character building if nothing else. Otherwise, get the nicer toys.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
Thank you all for taking the time to write the advice! In not very long I hope to be putting up some awesome macro photos.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
the_lion posted:There's also a Raynox filter you could use on a long lens-quality is not as good as a dedicated lens+tubes though. Bought one, barely used it. A few people in the thread have used them I think. Yeah I use one of these a lot, to the point a large majority of all my macro is with one. The DCR-250 in particular. I usually pair it with an old Nikkor 55mm micro lens on a 2x TC. This is my latest shot with it:  I've had pretty good luck with it though honestly it shines the most on point and shoot sensors since they're so small it's easier to get great DOF. I used to use it on a 55-250 lens but found it works best on longer primes. You have to get pretty close to things with it too, which can be kind of intimidating depending on the subject. I've had a wasp sting the glass element a few times, though thankfully not me (yet)..
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 07:25
|
|
|
Spring is here   Spring!! by Raikyn, on Flickr  Butterfly by Raikyn, on Flickr Raikyn fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Sep 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
Fall is here  IMG_9365 by bighoits, on Flickr  IMG_9418 by bighoits, on Flickr wanghammer fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Sep 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
I really like the colors on that ladybug, kind of looks like a fall wreath. We just moved next to a forest! All sorts of moths are showing up just out of reach in the evenings, and there are tons of jumping spiders and interesting fungus right now.  
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 07:17
|
|
|
Alpenglow posted:We just moved next to a forest! All sorts of moths are showing up just out of reach in the evenings, Just turn off all the lights except one down low and they will happily come to you. My problem is when I am out at night I have normally been drinking which doesn't help me take good pictures.  Polyphemus Moth by atticus_1354, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
Whats up, Bigass Polyphemus Moth bro 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
Anyone have any experience with the Tamron 60mm f/2? Sub $300 on KEH and was thinking of it as a good intro to macro lenses, potentially being able to double as a portrait lens. Am I far off on that? Had a lot of fun with extension tubes on my 50 1.8, but figured that would be even better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
Never used it, but it looks good. Internal focus is nice and the 10cm working distance is very surprising considering its focal length. For general use, the lack of focus limiter could be annoying, especially since the AF isn't ultrasonic. If that doesn't bother you, I'd say go for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
Bob Mundon posted:Anyone have any experience with the Tamron 60mm f/2? Sub $300 on KEH and was thinking of it as a good intro to macro lenses, potentially being able to double as a portrait lens. Am I far off on that? I have it, and optically it's great, with a working distance only slightly shorter than the 90mm. BUT the AF is terribly slow (on my Nikon), so bear that in mind for non-macro stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 10:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 22:04 |
|
|
Other than Macro it would strictly be a portrait lens, so even going manual focus all the time isn't really a concern. If you were to combine it with extension tubes, what kind of stuff could you do?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 14:21
|
|