|
 Mosquito by Marc, on Flickr
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 03:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:18 |
|
|
 What magnification did you hit? Dayum. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 06:08
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 16:57
|
|
|
DocCynical posted:
Was at around 4:1, enough to fill the frame up 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 23:59
|
|
|
Anyone using E-mount? After 14 years with the venerable Minolta A-mount, I've just ordered an A7, which means I'll be stuck at 1:3 magnification and way too broke to get a proper macro lens for the foreseeable future. I understand these cameras have very short registers which could, maybe, mean old and cheap yet good glass? Also, I'll be able to see the picture on the LCD, in real-time, before actually taking it? What the hell
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2020 23:10
|
|
|
seravid posted:Anyone using E-mount? After 14 years with the venerable Minolta A-mount, I've just ordered an A7, which means I'll be stuck at 1:3 magnification and way too broke to get a proper macro lens for the foreseeable future. I understand these cameras have very short registers which could, maybe, mean old and cheap yet good glass? I use a second-hand Canon 180 mm macro on an A7R3 (after using the CV 65 mm macro and the Sony 90 mm macro), and I have zero regrets. With the extenders, you can reach 1.4x or 2x. Of course you can also adapt the MP-E 65 mm and get to 5x if you are willing to trade off working distance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 00:08
|
|
|
A longer lens does sound good as I'd like to expand to butterflies and dragonflies, but my main thing is spiders and other small critters, between 2:1 to 4:1, so I'd rather stay in the 100mm or less range for starters. Good to know there is so much to choose from, though. I seem to remember people talking about 2:1 "native" lenses here in this thread, I'll have to check those out too. Things sure have changed a lot since I last took a serious look at photo gear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 10:23
|
|
|
With mirrorless you also can more easily use the cheaper manual aperture lenses as the EVF will up the gain to match your real post flash exposure with the lens stopped down. I use the Laowa 100mm which does infinity to 2x (it essentially has a variable extension tube built in) still on DSLR though I have the Canon version with electronic aperture control. jarlywarly fucked around with this message at 12:51 on Nov 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 12:39
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:With mirrorless you also can more easily use the cheaper manual aperture lenses as the EVF will up the gain to match your real post flash exposure with the lens stopped down. Definitely looking forward to the improvements in quality of life afforded by the EVF. Laowa, that's the brand, yeah. I'll keep an eye out for that 100mm, it seems like a great fit for me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 17:41
|
|
|
 Green Veined White by Aves Lux, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2020 22:25
|
|
|
Pretty. Can't get anything like that now, it's all cold and gross and all the bugs are gone. This is the last photo I got before it got cold, I was pleased with how this one turned out.  Weevil on the wall by Kevin Long, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 02:34
|
|
|
Fingers McLongDong posted:Pretty. Can't get anything like that now, it's all cold and gross and all the bugs are gone. That's a great shot, nice low angle and the green bokeh blob frames the subject well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 09:51
|
|
|
I took these a while ago, click for 2 more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 14:06
|
|
|
I'm trying to ID the critters I've shot over the years; nothing exotic, just want to put names to some very familiar faces. Do you guys have any resources for that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 14:29
|
|
|
seravid posted:I'm trying to ID the critters I've shot over the years; nothing exotic, just want to put names to some very familiar faces. Do you guys have any resources for that? I do this with all the bugs I take shots of, usually with some amount of googling involved. If you know the area you took the picture in + at least the type of critter in a general sense, it's not too hard to find a site with listings. Narrowing it down by area always seems like the easiest first step. A lot of the identification sites I've found tend to be community-submitted answers but I've never seen one that is a good site for all types of bug. Also a lot of local/state wildlife agencies will post up identifiers, if you can find one for your area. A university here in NC posted a really nice flowchart thing for spiders in the area that's been helpful, so maybe you can find something like that. heck just post the pictures here along with the region, all the bugs are gone and the thread isn't very active now anyway
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 14:58
|
|
|
seravid posted:I'm trying to ID the critters I've shot over the years; nothing exotic, just want to put names to some very familiar faces. Do you guys have any resources for that? https://www.inaturalist.org/ for general purpose, also https://bugguide.net/ for arthropods. Inaturalist uses image recognition for instant gratification but also has a large userbase, many of who will help with ID. The automatic ID can be iffy and biased towards what it has seen before. So make sure to constrain it as far as you can. Humans are generally better, though slower. Time and location of what you took a picture of are significant. Bugguide has curators who occasionally will look at your pictures and maybe coarsely ID them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 15:05
|
|
|
I don't know how I've never run across that inaturalist site, that's pretty cool. I've definitely run into bugguide.net a few times, and it's pretty helpful despite looking like it's never been updated since 2000.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 15:25
|
|
|
re iNaturalist The auto id is okay but it can struggle on true macro photography as it won't have seen such a close up/angle before. Also the most photogenic angles are often not the best for ID. If you do want to submit it's worth taking a few record shots from multiple angles after you got your artistic shot. Some insects can only be id'd to a species by looking at really specific areas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 16:21
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:re iNaturalist I've had an entomologist complain about internet ID because some species can only be distinguished by dissecting their genitals, then some yahoo on the internet argues with them that their specific ID is right. I think the best part of bugguide is you can submit photos for ID and it gets farmed out to volunteers who have some expertise and they will give you an ID.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 20:21
|
|
|
Thanks, everyone. Bugguide is US and Canada only, so that's not gonna work out for me, but I'll definitely give iNaturalist a try.Fingers McLongDong posted:heck just post the pictures here along with the region, all the bugs are gone and the thread isn't very active now anyway That's a very nice offer, but I'm going through all my macros and, while I only intend to ID my favorite shots, I wouldn't want to spam the thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 20:57
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:I've had an entomologist complain about internet ID because some species can only be distinguished by dissecting their genitals, then some yahoo on the internet argues with them that their specific ID is right. Haha funny you should mention that https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/29022673 "This is a female - cannot be confirmed to species without dissection of ovipositor."
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 21:08
|
|
|
also a photo everyone Spider by Aves Lux, on Flickr jarlywarly fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Dec 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2020 21:09
|
|
|
Well this ID business has quickly become overwhelming. Got three so far  Here, have a Araneus diadematus and its shameful web: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 01:41
|
|
|
seravid posted:Well this ID business has quickly become overwhelming. Got three so far 2/10 Would not get entangled there again. Cool spider pic though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 12:46
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:I've had an entomologist complain about internet ID because some species can only be distinguished by dissecting their genitals, then some yahoo on the internet argues with them that their specific ID is right. This is a constant problem with fish ID too, people don't get how complicated "what kind of fish is this" is when they have a lovely picture and no other information. Even ignoring the really bad ones that only get distinguished by things like gut coil pattern, many pictures just don't have all the information you need to get to species level for every subject. Anyway, I recently purchased my first camera (a6000) that doesn't also make phone calls, and very quickly thereafter picked up some inexpensive extension tubes. Is there any other common, relatively inexpensive equipment folks would recommend for a total beginner to macro? Tempting as it is to go all-in on dedicated lenses, I'm trying to go slow on large purchases.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 00:01
|
|
|
thocan posted:Anyway, I recently purchased my first camera (a6000) that doesn't also make phone calls, and very quickly thereafter picked up some inexpensive extension tubes. Is there any other common, relatively inexpensive equipment folks would recommend for a total beginner to macro? Tempting as it is to go all-in on dedicated lenses, I'm trying to go slow on large purchases. If you have an old manual lens (with aperture control) lying around, a reverse ring is the cheapest way to go. Otherwise, a close-up lens like the Raynox DCR-250 will do, though image quality will be poor if you attach it to a standard kit lens. Extension tubes alone should be fine for a while anyway since you're just beginning. Don't go too high magnification too soon. In time, you'll figure out what's missing: a flash or maybe a tripod if you prefer static subjects. Probably some padding for your knees, too. thocan posted:gut coil pattern Wondering what kind of music this band plays
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 01:53
|
|
|
seravid posted:
That's what I've been trying to do so far. Just trying to mess around until I realize some limitation I'm running in to. I'm just so new to cameras that I don't even really know what's out there to solve the problems, I feel like. I am really enjoying the extension tubes so far. I don't have any old lenses, but I'll look into the reverse ring if I want to try something different. Both a tripod and a small flash are on my short list of purchases. Tripod first, probably. I definitely have a bit of a problem with shakey hands, and I'm sure I'll get some of that under control with practice. And I have no idea, but I'm guessing it's sludge-adjacent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 03:22
|
|
|
thocan posted:That's what I've been trying to do so far. Just trying to mess around until I realize some limitation I'm running in to. I'm just so new to cameras that I don't even really know what's out there to solve the problems, I feel like. I am really enjoying the extension tubes so far. I don't have any old lenses, but I'll look into the reverse ring if I want to try something different. In my opinion a flash is the 3rd and most important pillar of macro photography of live active subjects. Tripods are okay for stacking static subjects. But the flash solves 2 problems, the light for shooting at small apertures and fast exposure time to freeze shaky hands. Don't bother with a small one get a cheap powerful Godox or Yongnuo the more powerful the flash the better, diffuse it with some packing foam or a milk carton or whether you have around. jarlywarly fucked around with this message at 08:57 on Dec 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 08:54
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:In my opinion a flash is the 3rd and most important pillar of macro photography of live active subjects. Tripods are okay for stacking static subjects. But the flash solves 2 problems, the light for shooting at small apertures and fast exposure time to freeze shaky hands. Don't bother with a small one get a cheap powerful Godox or Yongnuo the more powerful the flash the better, diffuse it with some packing foam or a milk carton or whether you have around. Just posting to agree with this. Adding a flash will improve your shots more than a fancy lens. If you have ANY kind of macro lens (reversed lens, extension tubes, whatever), then next up I would say you should add a flash and diffuser before you buy another lens. I still remember my first photo of a click beetle from 10 years ago when I shot it with a flash, and it was SO MUCH CLEARER than any macro photo I'd taken before.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 14:02
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:Just posting to agree with this. Adding a flash will improve your shots more than a fancy lens. If you have ANY kind of macro lens (reversed lens, extension tubes, whatever), then next up I would say you should add a flash and diffuser before you buy another lens. I still remember my first photo of a click beetle from 10 years ago when I shot it with a flash, and it was SO MUCH CLEARER than any macro photo I'd taken before. I got a decent in-focus rate in daylight without flash. With flash, I get >90% in-focus rate at night!!! Example: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 16:38
|
|
|
Thanks for the suggestions, I hadn't considered the flash letting me get away with higher shutter speed. My camera has a built in flash, but I assume I want something more powerful and with a little more control and adjustable positioning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 17:55
|
|
|
thocan posted:Thanks for the suggestions, I hadn't considered the flash letting me get away with higher shutter speed. My camera has a built in flash, but I assume I want something more powerful and with a little more control and adjustable positioning. Well you don't get a higher shutter speed, you get a faster exposure with the shutter synced at 1/200-250s. It's based on the basic fact that speedlites when they reduce power don't make the bulb shine less bright, they reduce the time it shines for. Ideally you want the flash mounted closer to and pointing at the subject because you want as little light drop off as possible. the idea is you'll be at f/11 (f/22 equiv at 1x) so no day light gets in so all the exposure comes from a flash firing at 1/8000 or faster. So the bigger/stronger/closer to the subject the flash the better cos it will provide enough light at faster speeds, and the faster that flash fires the sharper things get. Of course direct flash is harsh and gives big speculars highlights so you need a diffuser but most gear is designed for people bouncing the flash off a wall which you can't do for insects so generally you are designing your own diffusion rig and that's where most of the high end macro stuff is made, getting that balance between even diffused but fast flash ie not costing yourself too many stops with your diffusion layers. Flash duration is the basic term for what you want i.e. here's the numbers for the flash I use but because my flash is mounted on the lens it is closer to the subject and thus I can use lower powers because the inverse square law of light fall off is a bastard. Flash Output Firing Duration (Approx., sec.) 1/1 (Full) 1/1300 1/2 1/1900 1/4 1/3700 1/8 1/8700 1/16 1/13000 1/32 1/23000 1/64 1/34000 1/128 1/42000 1/256 1/58000 1/512 1/67000 https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/support/details/cameras/flashes/macro-twin-lite-mt-26ex-rt And cos a picture is worth a thousand words here's some of my rigs   jarlywarly fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Dec 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
I will nth listening to advice about flash/lighting, these same folks were immensely helpful with their advice when I started doing macro. Understanding how light works in macro photos massively improved my photographs. It's less convenient and a diffuser rig is generally better but you can also start with an off-shoe mount for your flash with a box diffuser on it and hold it in your off hand. The cords to do so are cheap and doing that taught me a lot about lighting angles up close. All my photos in this thread were done that way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 18:35
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:Cut for length. Thank you, this was really useful info, and gives me a good idea of the kind of things I need to be reading and thinking about while I mess around. I've only had a camera for about a month, and I realized pretty quickly macro was something I was interested in, but I really have no idea what I'm doing. Its been fun so far though, and scrolling through this thread has me very excited for getting out in the spring when everything isn't frozen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 19:25
|
|
|
thocan posted:Thanks for the suggestions, I hadn't considered the flash letting me get away with higher shutter speed. My camera has a built in flash, but I assume I want something more powerful and with a little more control and adjustable positioning. Everything Jarly said is correct, but there's a fundamental bit that you may not understand based on your comment about shutter speed. It's a little nuanced, so bear with me: You can expose your photo with light from the scene, and/or light from your flash. The easiest approach for a beginner, and to get the sharpest images easily, is to expose only using the light from the flash. So, for example, set ISO 100, 1/200s, f/16. With no flash, this will result in a black image. Using a flash, those same settings get you a well exposed image. Your camera shutter is open for a short window, say 1/100 of a second. However, your flash is so much faster that it's firing for a tiny sliver of that time. Most of the time that your shutter is open, your flash is off. The important implication here is that you can change to a faster or slower shutter speed, and the image will look the same because the flash is still the same duration, and only on for the same amount of time. There is a smaller period where the shutter is open, but all of your light is coming from the flash anyway. In this scenario, your effective exposure speed is what Jarly explained above. You freeze the hell out of motion when your flash is only on for 1/10000s. So, when you are shooting with flash, changing shutter speed doesn't affect the light from the flash, and doesn't change your image exposure. However, changing aperture does, for reasons that should make sense if you think about it. A side avenue for you to explore is "max sync speed" which is the fact that all cameras have a shutter speed above which the shutter is never fully open. It turns into a traveling slit, so there is no instant of time when the sensor is fully exposed. Therefore there is no moment in time where the super-fast flash can fire where it will illuminate the entire sensor. I.e., flash doesn't work right above your sync speed, which is typically 1/160-1/200s. Your camera won't let you fire a first part flash above that shutter speed, but now you know why.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 20:48
|
|
|
That was a very helpful explanation, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 22:29
|
|
|
I also use a double diffused twin head flash, shown here with one side taken off Mosquito yesterday @ 5:1  Striped Mosquito by Marc, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 02:16
|
|
|
Raikyn posted:I also use a double diffused twin head flash, shown here with one side taken off Are those diffuser heads custom or can you buy them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 10:36
|
|
|
They were just bought. Some guy out of the UK was making them. I had normal stofen type directly on the heads, then these bigger ones over the top of those. Think this might be the guy https://www.macrodiffuser.com/shop looks like he has his own store now
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2020 10:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:18 |
|
|
Raikyn posted:They were just bought. Some guy out of the UK was making them. Thanks for the link, does the plastic diffuser cap come off easily? I'd want to use the mount to attach my own diffusion material. jarlywarly fucked around with this message at 11:43 on Dec 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2020 11:39
|
|