|
toggle posted:Would a setup with a Sigma 70-300 (for cheap) and a reverse 50mm give me decent magnification? What would that give me? 2:1? Probably more than 2:1 at 300mm, based on this highly scientific test, which might also give you an idea of the sort of quality to expect. It probably won't be as good as a dedicated macro lens, but you should be able to get some serviceable results - plus most macros won't get you past 1:1 without adding bits anyway. It would also be more convenient to use than, say, an enlarger lens on a bellows, because the camera will handle stopping down the aperture when you fire the shutter.
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 11:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:08 |
|
|
spongepuppy posted:Have a go with the extension tubes / without DCR250 and with DCR250 / without extension tubes. It could be the combination of the two that is the issue. I've personally never had any luck with unreversed lenses on large extensions - in general it's better to reverse the lens before putting it on extension to switch the subject/image distance relationship. Try stopping down less, because at f8 you're likely to be visibly diffraction limited.  I stopped it down to f/13 for this one, and it turned out better. Also, mounting the Raynox with the adapter seems to help a bit too. Still not as sharp as I would like. With the 30 mm macro (see second shot) I was able to get it super crisp at 100% (only 1:1 though). I did a test without the raynox and it didn't fare much better, but I did do it half-assed so I might have just hosed it up.  E: did another test at f/5 and it turned out much better. Guess I just have to use more steps. Might have to pick up a unislide soon (http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Used-Velemex...01b7822c&_uhb=1). 
Un chien andalou fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Jan 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
Un chien andalou posted:E: did another test at f/5 and it turned out much better. Guess I just have to use more steps. Might have to pick up a unislide soon (http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Used-Velemex...01b7822c&_uhb=1). That looks like what you'd expect to get from a good setup at ~4x. F/13 is really getting into pinhole-lens diffraction territory at 4x - your effective aperture would be about f/64. These depth of field tables should be helpful if you need to work out optimal settings for your gear.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 10:12
|
|
|
Naive photography newbie here looking into getting into macro stuff. I've been doing a fair amount of close-up shooting with my little compact Lumix LX-7, which has its plus points - fast lens that goes right up to f/1.4, and it'll focus right up close at its minimum focal length. The trouble is, often I have to get so close to the subject that the lens obscures the light, and although it's not a bad camera I'm not getting the resolution or sharpness I really want in my close-up shots. That, and I'd like to be able to take true macros. At least so far it's given me an idea of where I want to go next. So I figure it's time to take the plunge and get something that'll take me as far as my (so far relatively limited) skills will get me. I'm eying up the Nikon range, particularly the D7100 or D610. I don't know whether to go for the FX or DX format; I've heard that there's not actually that much difference in IQ and the DX crop factor might even help me for macro. At the same time, I'm wary about losing out in detail and lighting, and obviously there's a much wider range of FX lenses, which would be a bit wasted if I got a DX body. I can just about afford to go for the D610 with a decent lens, but if I can save money and get good quality that's obviously ideal. I just don't want to plump for DX and be disappointed in the results, and I'd rather not be stuck with DX lenses I can't upgrade to full-frame with if such a time comes. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Jimlad fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Jan 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
So I have a Canon T2i, and bought a few things to get started with macro. List of purchases here, with another adapter for attaching the bellows to the camera's EOS mount. I didn't realize that the front end of the bellows would also have the Pentax K-mount (dunno why I didn't think of that), so I'm wanting to check with you guys before purchasing this adapter. This shows my lack of knowledge of cameras in general, but I wanted to make sure that that adapter is going to accept a male M42 screw into what would be the front of a Pentax body.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
Tricerapowerbottom posted:So I have a Canon T2i, and bought a few things to get started with macro. List of purchases here, with another adapter for attaching the bellows to the camera's EOS mount. Looks like it should do the job just fine. On an another note, I'd be interested to know how well that macro rail works. I've also heard good things about that flash. I just wish I could find it for that price in Canada (  Amazon).
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
spongepuppy posted:That looks like what you'd expect to get from a good setup at ~4x. F/13 is really getting into pinhole-lens diffraction territory at 4x - your effective aperture would be about f/64. Thanks for the link. Seems like a really useful resource. I found that I got way better results by turning down the ring light though. I did a quick stack at 4x and f/10 with the ring light turned down and it turned out better than 2x and f/5 with the light on max. Seems like too much light is causing more diffraction somehow. Also the white background I was using in the tests yesterday made it even worse. Guess I have to work on my lighting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
4:1 at f/14 Jimlad posted:Naive photography newbie here looking into getting into macro stuff. If you can afford full-frame I'd say go for it; the FF can act like a crop camera if need be but the reverse isn't true. Keep in mind you'll need the camera and lens but also a decent flash and multiple accessories... that's a lot of stuff, a lot of weight and a lot of money. If you know someone with this kind of setup, maybe try it for a couple of days to make sure this is something you really want to pursue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
seravid posted:If you can afford full-frame I'd say go for it; the FF can act like a crop camera if need be but the reverse isn't true. Thanks for the advice. I just learned that my Dad has a bunch of old (but top quality, so he says) Nikkormat lenses from the 70's, which I assume are all F-mount but I'll need to check. If that's the case, I've just saved myself a whole ton of money! Apparently there's all sorts of exotic kit including a 300mm, a reversing ring and extension tubes, so I'll be going over next weekend to dig up this treasure trove from the attic. Payday comes next week as well, so I think I'll wait it out for just a week to see how I feel and what the lenses are like. Right now I'm thinking I might as well shell out for the D610, but it looks like the D800 is available on SLRHut for "only" £300 more which seems like a no-brainer to me? I figure for other equipment (camera mounts, flash etc.) I can get away to begin with using highly suspect ghetto setups, so I'm willing to give that a go until I know what I really need. As mentioned, you're absolutely right that I'll need to find a loaner or rent a body to be sure of what I'm after. Not sure of where I can get one, I'll have to ask around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Jimlad posted:Thanks for the advice. I just learned that my Dad has a bunch of old (but top quality, so he says) Nikkormat lenses from the 70's, which I assume are all F-mount but I'll need to check. If that's the case, I've just saved myself a whole ton of money! Apparently there's all sorts of exotic kit including a 300mm, a reversing ring and extension tubes, so I'll be going over next weekend to dig up this treasure trove from the attic. Payday comes next week as well, so I think I'll wait it out for just a week to see how I feel and what the lenses are like. It'd be good to make sure that the lenses are AI and not non-AI - non-AI lenses can't physically be mounted on Nikon DSLRs. My first DSLR was actually a Canon so I'd be able to use the lenses from my mom's old Nikkormat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
Speaking of AI lenses, I picked these two up recently: That's an AI (not even AI-S) lens. At first I was a little concerned about how hard it might be to use on my D7000 (even after reading everywhere online that AI and up should be fine), but it's pretty easy. Mounts like any other lens, then you just go to the non-CPU lens section in the menu and type in the focal length and the largest aperture. It's manual focus and manual aperture control, but the little focus indicators in the viewfinder make focusing about as easy as with a split-prism focusing screen, so it's been okay. It's also got a nifty built-in lens hood that just slides out. It only goes to 1:2, but since I'm not planning on getting super zoomed in shots of bugs or flowers, I think it should be mostly fine. Worst case, I pick up an old PN-11 extension tube on eBay to make it 1:1. It was also a good excuse to pick up the flash on the left, which I've had fun experimenting with even for general photography purposes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
I'd like to get in on macro as well (Nikon D7000) and could do with some lens advice. The name "Sigma 105mm" was tossed around a lot. Is that still the standard macro novice choice? I've already got the Nikon 16-85mm so I feel like buying a fixed length ~100mm lens would be wasted money, no? On the other hand, there are macro lenses like the Sigma 70-300mm or the Tamron 80-200mm which offer a higher zoom at much lower cost and that's kinda suspicious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 13:48
|
|
|
Entenzahn posted:I'd like to get in on macro as well (Nikon D7000) and could do with some lens advice. The name "Sigma 105mm" was tossed around a lot. Is that still the standard macro novice choice? I've already got the Nikon 16-85mm so I feel like buying a fixed length ~100mm lens would be wasted money, no? On the other hand, there are macro lenses like the Sigma 70-300mm or the Tamron 80-200mm which offer a higher zoom at much lower cost and that's kinda suspicious. Macro label on cheap zooms is just marketing gimmick. Save your money and put it towards real macro prime lens. Something that has magnification listed as 1:1 or 1X. Pretty much any macro prime will give you excellent results with both small and large subjects. Tamron 90mm is another often recommended lens I think. If that gets you interested then you can later add flash and extension tubes to your setup. Longer lenses will generally give you more working distance (how close to your subject you have to stick your lens). Not a big concern really. I'd probably prefer lens that has internal focus – lens doesn't change length when you focus it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
When I was shopping for a dedicated macro I shortlisted to the Tamron 90, Sigma 105 and Tokina 100. In the end my conclusion was that the order of quality was Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, with the slight problems that 1) the Sigma quality was more variable, and 2) Sigma had just changed their construction (this was about 2 years ago) and so the new Sigmas were slightly poorer than the Tokina, rather than risk buying a user Sigma and hoping for a good copy, I went with the Tokina. Haven't regretted it so far.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
Oh, I didn't realize the magnification ratios would vary like that. My 16-85mm only has 1:4.6 while the dedicated 90/100/105mm macro lenses have 1:1. Makes sense when you consider the shorter focus distance. I don't know if I can get good pictures of insects when I have to get as close as 12cm, so I may also get extension tubes and/or the DCR-250 and see where that takes me. Quite a sum I'm building up and I don't even have a flash yet.  I'll probably decide between the Tamron 90mm and Tokina 100mm. The Nikon 105mm Macro costs 300€ more than either of those, is there a reason for that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Consider the Tamrom 60mm f/2, if you're on APS-C. It's spectacularly sharp, and has a working distance that's about the same as the old tamron 90mm @ 1:1 (I own both). Pretty much any dedicated macro will be very sharp, so the Nikon 105mm isn't likely to be 300€ sharper than, say, the Tamron 90mm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 10:02
|
|
|
Entenzahn posted:Oh, I didn't realize the magnification ratios would vary like that. My 16-85mm only has 1:4.6 while the dedicated 90/100/105mm macro lenses have 1:1. Makes sense when you consider the shorter focus distance. You mentioned the D7000 earlier, which I'm also shooting. Nikon's entire system has basically just been retrofits since about the 1960s--anything labeled AI, AI-S, or AF-whatever will mount and even autofocus (if applicable) just fine on the D7000. As such, you can find some good old lenses for cheap if you look around. I just picked up the Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/4 AI (pre-AI-S, so that puts it around the late '70s or so) for $150 on eBay, and it's probably sharper than any of my modern lenses. The only real differences from a modern lens in terms of operation are that aperture is manually controlled on the lens (not a big deal for macro), it's manual focus only (again, DOF is thin enough with macro that you'd want to manually focus anyway), and it doesn't have any vibration reduction (nice for handheld, but should be turned off on a tripod--which you'll probably be using a lot for macro). One potential drawback of the lens is that it only goes to 1:2 unless you also buy the PN-11 extension tube for it, but so far 1:2 has been more than enough for me. You can think about what kind of macro stuff you want to shoot and do some basic estimation to figure out if you really need 1:1. 404notfound fucked around with this message at 10:24 on Feb 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 10:21
|
|
|
Manual aperture is a big deal beyond 1:1. Having the lens stepped-down the whole time will make for a very dim experience.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
seravid posted:Manual aperture is a big deal beyond 1:1. Having the lens stepped-down the whole time will make for a very dim experience. Manual apertures (like a preset aperture) is a very different thing from manually controller the aperture. Old nikon lenses should stay wide open until you shoot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Manual apertures (like a preset aperture) is a very different thing from manually controller the aperture. Old nikon lenses should stay wide open until you shoot. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Oops, yeah, suppose I could've mentioned that point as well. The lens stays at f/4 until you take a picture or press the DOF preview button. But yeah, if you're concerned primarily about the image quality rather than conveniences like autofocus, old lenses are definitely a viable way to go, and it's one place where Nikon has Canon beat--Canon scrapped their old mounts and started over with EOS in the late '80s.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
404notfound posted:Canon scrapped their old mounts and started over with EOS in the late '80s. It's probably getting close to time for them to switch to a new mount again since it's been like 20 years since they did last. R->EX->FL->FD->EF->?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Manual apertures (like a preset aperture) is a very different thing from manually controller the aperture. Could you elaborate on that? I don't get it, wouldn't they both mean you have a wheel on the lens with aperture stops that you could set how you like?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:It's probably getting close to time for them to switch to a new mount again since it's been like 20 years since they did last. EF->FU
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Tricerapowerbottom posted:Could you elaborate on that? I don't get it, wouldn't they both mean you have a wheel on the lens with aperture stops that you could set how you like? A preset aperture generally has 2 rings, one where you set the aperture, and one where you actually move the blades. So you turn one ring to choose what you want to shoot at (say, f/22), but you can leave the aperture wide open while you compose, and then you can quickly twist the other ring and the aperture will close down to whatever you set. It was a thing before you had aperture interfacing with the camera body. http://www.instructables.com/id/M42-Lens-Aperture-Control-on-Modern-DSLRs/step1/Preset-Aperture-Control/ You also have the case with adapted lenses where you might have an aperture->body link on the lens, but because you're adapting there's no linkage on the camera. In that case the lens will generally step down to whatever you set on the lens all the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
A nice (but coincidental) characteristic of many old preset telephoto lenses is their tendency to have their entrance pupil (where the image of the aperture appears to be) quite close to the front of the lens. That makes them ideal for use as tube lenses for infinity corrected microscope objectives, because the tendency of many newer lenses (esp. zooms) to vignette in that application is because their entrance pupil tends to be a lot further back. I'm not sure if that was an ergonomic consideration for preset lens designers - but all of the preset lenses I've owned had the aperture ring at the front of the barrel, with the preset ring behind it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 09:31
|
|
|
I've been trying to get better light to my macro shots. Untitled by Eeek5127, on Flickr  Untitled by Eeek5127, on Flickr  Untitled by Eeek5127, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Beautiful stuff, Jim, but drat that turtle one is something else
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 05:41
|
|
TO UNDERAGE GYMNASTS
|
Yeah, that's really neat. Shame mine are currently hibernating, I wanna try it. Re. light: the first one is great (bokeh is pretty distracting :nitpickingasshole:) but the other two are grey and lifeless. High ISO is cool and all, but you really pay the price for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
Thanks! That turtle is a baby- he's about the size of a US 50 cent piece. His head is a little more than half an inch. I knew I wanted his face is as much focus as I could, so I had to go f/6.3. Even at that, his nose is out of focus. He was in the middle of a touch tank, so a tripod was out. I probably could have slowed the shutter speed down a bit but ISO was the best way for me to go. I wanted to stick my mt-24ex flash in his face, but I was too lazy to get it from the car.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 12:14
|
|
|
Wow, didn't expect tiny turtle to be that tiny.  I went to the aquarium today! It turns out a rainy weekday with maybe 20 retirees in the whole place is much better than a summer weekend.  Anemone by Icybacon, on Flickr  Filter Feeder by Icybacon, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
Raikiri posted:Double post, but hey it's been a few days. Holy poo poo, these are great! Content (asprin):    
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
Common pill bug spongepuppy, how are you preparing the food coloring and now the asprin? I'm imagining you are dissolving it and letting the solution dry on a glass plate or something to form crystals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:Common pill bug This is fantastic, and your stuff is consistently amazing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
Anti_Social posted:This is fantastic, and your stuff is consistently amazing. I agree - quality specimen prep on the pillbug. For crystals: Dissolve chemical in solvent (isopropanol for aspirin), drop onto slide, add coverslips and wait. Big coverslip work better I find.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
Potato sprout at around 2x: potato sprout by Einstein's ghost, on Flickr Little particles of bee pollen at around 3x:  bee pollen by Einstein's ghost, on Flickr Construction paper at around 2x:  colors by Einstein's ghost, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
spongepuppy posted:Content (asprin): Awesome. What magnification and lighting are you using for these? My third stack, using an El-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8 set at 4, on Chinese bellows and Zerene Stacker, probably a blow fly in the genus Lucilia:  I'm really happy with how this equipment is working out. I've basically accomplished my goals at this point, making the sort of documentation that could be used in taxonomic papers. Tricerapowerbottom fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Feb 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Question about Canon Liveview, maybe more appropriate for the Canon thread but I'm sure someone here has run into the same thing: I'm using EOS Utility to preview and compose my shots, and noticed that while I nominally have control over the aperture in the software, it doesn't seem to do anything (as I'm using a reversed enlarging lens at the end of non chipped bellows, of course). Exposure time and ISO do affect the preview, however. Turning on the depth-of-field preview seems to be giving me a simulated exposure of what the shot is going to look like, but all of my shots are usually one or two stops overexposed... Should I just up check magnification versus aperture clarity in the DOF preview, and then adjust the shutter speed afterwards, or am I missing something here? Here's a Gonia, I love their funny little wedgey heads. I'm going to have to resize during initial post process, when I went in and tried to retouch the full size TIFFs in Zerene my computer acted like it needed a fainting couch. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
You can't change the aperture while the shutter is open. Live view should do some DoF calculating and update the live view to what the shot will look like, but this only deals with DoF and doesn't show the exposure difference by changing the aperture. That said, when actually taking the shot the aperture changes should be reflected in the final image.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:08 |
|
|
I'll experiment when I get home, then. I wouldn't have thought that changing the aperture in Utility would affect the photograph, preview or not, as the lens is a reversed El-Nikkor at the end of some bellows.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 20:42
|
|