|
sanka posted:I've used the 200mm Nikon f/4 macro at work. It's very nice, and the working distance is around a half mile. That said it's very, very heavy. I don't mind hiking around with my 105mm on a monopod, but with that 200mm it would really suck. Sigma 150 is just at the tipping point of too heavy for me. I de-grip my camera in order to hike around with it. Also working distance ++
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 02:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 11:36 |
|
|
Bought a macro lens for my 7D a few months ago and finally got around to actually using it a few days ago. Here´s a few of my first tries at macro photography (yeah, obligatory newbie flower shots  ):  
Arvid fucked around with this message at 11:27 on Apr 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2010 11:24
|
|
|
Arvid posted:Bought a macro lens for my 7D a few months ago and finally got around to actually using it a few days ago. Here´s a few of my first tries at macro photography (yeah, obligatory newbie flower shots This is absolutely gorgeous — I'm particularly digging the depth of field. What was the aperture at?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 01:45
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:This is absolutely gorgeous — I'm particularly digging the depth of field. What was the aperture at? Thank you, I was pretty happy myself with this shot, required no cropping and very little work in post (mostly just some sharpening). It was shot at f/11.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 04:59
|
|
|
Arvid posted:bloody awesome shots What lighting did you use for these?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 09:08
|
|
|
ricepaddydaddy posted:What lighting did you use for these? I used a single 580EX II with a dome diffuser, for the leaf shot I held it directly behind the leaf. For all the shots I held the flash with my hand while shooting with a tripod, I absolutely love the wireless flash capability of the 7D.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 16:18
|
|
|
Arvid posted:I used a single 580EX II with a dome diffuser, for the leaf shot I held it directly behind the leaf. For all the shots I held the flash with my hand while shooting with a tripod, I absolutely love the wireless flash capability of the 7D. I haven't got any lighting stuff yet, but how does the wireless flash work on the 7d? Does the onboard flash just trigger the remote flash like a slave?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 16:39
|
|
|
Good to see a macro thread here, saw some good shots. I'll join in the fun... here's a random selection of recently taken pictures: 2:1  4:1  4:1  1:1 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 17:36
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:I haven't got any lighting stuff yet, but how does the wireless flash work on the 7d? Does the onboard flash just trigger the remote flash like a slave? Yes, the onboard flash is used to trigger the remote flash. You have the option of setting up several groups if you have more than one flash and can adjust the ratio between them. Also pleasantly surprised at what angles the remote triggering works. seravid posted:Good to see a macro thread here, saw some good shots. I'll join in the fun... here's a random selection of recently taken pictures: I really like the second and third shot. What gear do you have for getting larger than 1:1 magnification ?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 18:21
|
|
|
seravid posted:2:1 Great looking crab spider! They're awesome to photograph because they'll hold a pose for quite awhile while you snap away.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 18:24
|
|
|
Hey DFG, are you or ursa_minor going to make another Critterquest thread soon?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 21:56
|
|
|
Arvid posted:I really like the second and third shot. What gear do you have for getting larger than 1:1 magnification ? diarrhea for girls posted:Great looking crab spider! They're awesome to photograph because they'll hold a pose for quite awhile while you snap away.  Still, jumpers are my favorite subjects, how can spiders be so drat cute?   
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 22:29
|
|
|
axolotl farmer posted:Hey DFG, are you or ursa_minor going to make another Critterquest thread soon? Hey AF! We're definitely due for one aren't we? I'm a bit swamped with work at the moment so I haven't had the free time lately to do much of anything. If my schedule eases up a bit soon I'll look into making one if no one else has by then. Hah, great jumpers seravid! They're my favorite too. I've only seen one of them so far this year and that was while it was scattering down a crack in my deck. If it's anything like last year there will be tons of them around the property by June. Couple from last year:  
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2010 02:23
|
|
|
Jumpers are definitely my favorite subjects too. My house siding is always crawling with Zebra Jumpers and Sitticus fasciger jumpers. Every once in awhile I find my favorite species, Phidippus Audax. Zebra Jumping Spider (Salticus scenicus):  More Info Female Jumping Spider (Sitticus fasciger):  More Info Bold Jumping Spider (Phidippus audax):  More Info
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2010 02:40
|
|
|
You guys have some pretty exotic species  Nice one with the pedipalp covering the eyes. And jesus, the fangs on that Phidippus look pretty dangerous...It's getting warm here in Portugal and I already have half a dozen jumpers roaming the windows everyday. This season looks promising. Here, have some more:    We're gonna fill this thread with arachnids, Salticidae buddies unite!
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2010 03:32
|
|
|
That first one is incredible. I can't wait for things to warm up here, but that's some time yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2010 03:57
|
|
|
Jumpers  
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2010 04:03
|
|
|
seravid posted:And jesus, the fangs on that Phidippus look pretty dangerous... Phidippus sp. are definitely my favorites. They are very aware, but if you can catch them and remain still, they become very curious. They don't bite, well haven't bit me anyway. They'll crawl all over your hands and arms investigating and looking at you. Same thing goes for Zebra Jumpers. I used to find a bunch of Phidippus Audax when I lived in San Antonio, they lived exclusively on Prickly Pear Cacti, and hunted anything that came near the flowers. They reached truly gigantic sizes too, relatively. Most sources say they don't get much more than 3/4" in body length, but I've seen several specimens at 1" or more body length. This guy was around that 1 inch mark. I didn't use a macro lense, but I had on a polarizing filter, so when I got close, he saw his reflection and put on a nice little fighting display:  More Info
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2010 04:25
|
|
|
MrFrosty posted:Jumpers Holy poo poo, is that webbing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2010 18:21
|
|
|
Has anyone here used the Tamron 90mm 2.8? I'd like to get a decent, cheap-ish macro for knocking around tide pools this summer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2010 18:29
|
|
|
sanka posted:Phidippus sp. are awesome Great shot, MrFrosty. Very clean, good lighting. I'm not usually fond of profiles, but the thread of silk (I hope it's that) changes that, very nice. a foolish pianist posted:Has anyone here used the Tamron 90mm 2.8? I'd like to get a decent, cheap-ish macro for knocking around tide pools this summer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2010 21:20
|
|
|
I have such an honest-to-god fear of spiders (no other bugs) that I cannot imagine getting anywhere near close enough to one for a picture. Other bugs are fine, but it just seems that spiders are such good subjects for macro that I'm missing out on a huge segment. I envy people with the balls to photograph such terrifying looking creatures.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2010 21:23
|
|
|
C'mon, spiders can be cute and friendly... Look, it just wants to give you a hug:  and this one too :  Have you no heart? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2010 21:36
|
|
|
That's a nice flower you've got, O thou spider. Oh, hug time?  These were taken with an 18-55 kit lens and a +4 closeup filter. I took close to 50 shots to get just two this nice. I really envy you guys with nice lenses. EDIT: Broke tables, uploaded smaller versions. Further EDIT: This dude here looked pretty cool, and he just hung out while I shot him: 
a foolish pianist fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Apr 24, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2010 22:47
|
|
|
Careful with the shutter speed, a foolish pianist. I can see some motion blur on that crane fly. Also, I suggest you avoid using the 18-55 wide open, specially with a cheap close-up. To get the best of it, you should be around f/8. That'll give you more sharpness and more dof. Problem is, unless it's a nice and sunny day, you're going to run out of light, which brings me to my next point: using a flash. You wouldn't depend so much on natural light and you'd be able to maintain fast shutter speeds. Put a decent diffuser on it (make one, it can be pretty fun if you like DIY) and you're golden. If you don't have a flash, the built-in can work too, with something like this : http://www.flickr.com/photos/37343448@N07/3457097986/ By the way, those are Thomisidae (crab spiders), not Salticidae (jumpers) 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 01:26
|
|
|
^^^ I used to rock something like that when I first started shooting macro, but the constant looks and questions I would get started to bother me. Can't deny it actually works though. scottch posted:Holy poo poo, is that webbing? seravid posted:Great shot, MrFrosty. Very clean, good lighting. I'm not usually fond of profiles, but the thread of silk (I hope it's that) changes that, very nice. seravid posted:Didn't know they recognized reflexions (which makes sense considering their excellent vision), I HAVE to try that! a foolish pianist posted:Has anyone here used the Tamron 90mm 2.8? I'd like to get a decent, cheap-ish macro for knocking around tide pools this summer. For one, the lens doesn't have an internal focusing mechanism, meaning that at 1:1 magnification the lens barrel extends to almost double the length. With your eye behind the viewfinder it is sometimes difficult to get a sense of just how close the end of the barrel is to the subject. Also I don't really like the way you have to slide the focusing ring back and forth to change between AF and MF instead of just flicking a switch, but this is just a matter of personal preference. Still, it is just as sharp as the high-end Nikon/Canon macros at a fraction of the price. A real steal IMO.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 05:15
|
|
|
Agreed, I use the 90 mm Tamron at work on Nikon bodies. I've always found it very capable and a bargain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 05:20
|
|
|
So I went to the desert botanical gardens. For some reason I brought my 50mm macro instead of the 100mm, and that was frustrating as hell. I was within 3 feet of this guy, and the image you see here is still maybe a 30% crop of the full frame -- 21 megapixels is awesome but sometimes you just want to actually get closer. I love looking at the scales on these guys...and yes, that orange color you see in a few places is accurate. So pretty.  How do you deal with extreme-contrast light like this? Noonday sun in Phoenix is about as high-contrast and directional as it gets, and this is about as much as I could reduce the contrast while still keeping detail. [e] see? This shot would have been awesome, except that the sun blew out the right (his left) side of his face, and chromatically aberrated the poo poo out of the scales.  
orange lime fucked around with this message at 11:33 on Apr 25, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 11:26
|
|
|
orange lime posted:
Maybe a polarizing filter would help? His expression in the second pic is pretty funny and 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 12:39
|
|
|
orange lime posted:How do you deal with extreme-contrast light like this? Avoid such situations or try to cast a shadow on the subject with your body (or something at hand). Other than that, there's not much to do. A polarizer could work occasionally, but when doing macro you rarely have the luxury of time to set everything up. You could try using a shutter speed fast enough to avoid any blown highlights and use some fill-in flash to get some detail in the shadows. Problem is, you're probably going to get a black background which, most of the time, isn't that great.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 15:34
|
|
|
seravid posted:Careful with the shutter speed, a foolish pianist. I can see some motion blur on that crane fly. Thanks for the tips. That extender/diffuser is awesome, and I'll put one together next week. I tried to use the built-in flash on the photos above, but the subjects were always in the shadow of the lens, so natural light was all I had. Thanks for the correction. I found my error when I was digging around whatsthatbug.com for my crane fly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 15:55
|
|
|
If you need a good diffuser that doesn't take up much space and aren't self-conscious about looking ridiculous inflating it, get one of these. http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-Inflatable-Universal-Diffuser-External/dp/B001GRU1AA/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1272209308&sr=1-5
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 16:30
|
|
|
orange lime posted:So I went to the desert botanical gardens. For some reason I brought my 50mm macro instead of the 100mm, and that was frustrating as hell. I was within 3 feet of this guy, and the image you see here is still maybe a 30% crop of the full frame -- 21 megapixels is awesome but sometimes you just want to actually get closer. I rented the 100mm macro and even it seemed too short on a 5D2 to to get much in the way of wild creatures. To fill the frame you had to get in too close, and they'd wind up running/flying away. I went to a botanical garden and all I got was one particularly ballsy fly. I haven't used it yet, but I think the 180mm macro is probably the way to go on a full frame camera.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 20:39
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I rented the 100mm macro and even it seemed too short on a 5D2 to to get much in the way of wild creatures. To fill the frame you had to get in too close, and they'd wind up running/flying away. I went to a botanical garden and all I got was one particularly ballsy fly. I haven't used it yet, but I think the 180mm macro is probably the way to go on a full frame camera. How well do you think a 200mm with about 50mm of extension tubes would work? I have a set of bellows as well, but the 200 is a big heavy lens and I'm not totally sure that I would trust the bellows to support it stably/properly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 20:57
|
|
|
I just got the Canon 100mm 2.8 USM Macro, and have an opportunity to get the Raynox DCR-150 for pretty cheap. Do these work well together?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2010 01:57
|
|
|
So what do Nikon users get to use for extreme macro (beyond 1:1) It seems like all the awesome lenses the big wigs use are all Canon lenses. Reversing just isn't doing it for me anymore, I want dedicated macro lenses!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2010 04:26
|
|
|
orange lime posted:How do you deal with extreme-contrast light like this? Noonday sun in Phoenix is about as high-contrast and directional as it gets, and this is about as much as I could reduce the contrast while still keeping detail. A faster shutter speed to kill the overexposed areas, coupled with a fill flash to bring up the shadows. Even then it probably won't be ideal. You've got to somehow take control of that light if you're stuck shooting midday in Phoenix.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2010 23:28
|
|
|
murphle posted:A faster shutter speed to kill the overexposed areas, coupled with a fill flash to bring up the shadows. Even then it probably won't be ideal. You've got to somehow take control of that light if you're stuck shooting midday in Phoenix. Or use a Neutral Density filter, if you have a good quality one that won't kill your IQ. After seeing what other people were doing with it, I got a Raynox 250 adapter to use with my Voigtlander manual lenses on my Olypmus EP-1. It's a pretty compact setup for macro. I just got it a few hours ago and tried it out handheld. I look forward to taking it out with a tripod and focusing rails.   
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 22:04
|
|
|
RustedChrome posted:Is that noise, or some kind of multicolored oxidization on the metal? It looks too random to be oxidization but I've never seen noise that intense on something that bright before.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 11:36 |
|
|
orange lime posted:Is that noise, or some kind of multicolored oxidization on the metal? It looks too random to be oxidization but I've never seen noise that intense on something that bright before. 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.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 22:51
|
|