|
The DCR-250 is a powerful close-up, maybe too powerful... have you looked at extension tubes? The usual three tubes set is ideal if you just want to mess around and see how you like macro. They'll give you flexibility to choose how much magnification you want and they'll work with all your lenses, the 50/1.8 being the standard choice to start. With +/- 50mm of tubes you'll reach 1:1. For content, here's a hungry/angry bee : 
|
#
?
May 29, 2010 22:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 12:32 |
|
|
Thanks for your thoughts - I just started looking into extension tubes a bit. I think that may be a better option, but cost is an issue. Does anyone know if the Zeikos AF tubes are any good? With my limited knowledge I don't see much of any difference between that and the Kenko set except for ~$90. It looks like they both have electrical contacts though the complete lack of reviews on the Zeikos set is not the most reassuring. Not being able to meter or change my aperture would be a rather large drawback. Or, I guess these are about the same price as the Zeikos but have metal on them. jsmith114 fucked around with this message at 23:44 on May 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2010 23:34
|
|
|
Just wanted to let everyone know that Captain Invictus posted this year's Critterquest thread. Lots of macro and close-up pics of wildlife there. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3309515
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2010 02:16
|
|
|
Finally got a good chance to take some photos with my Canon 100L Strawberry Plant (a little out of focus, but I still like it)  Some white flowers I found along the river 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 02:55
|
|
|
The off brand extension tubes arrived yesterday and I must say they are a lot of fun. I am a complete nub to macro shooting but it is a rather refreshing challenge. I was a bit worried after reading some of the reviews of the Meike tubes, but they seem to work quite well. They lock onto the camera and all of my lenses as they should and the electrical contacts function properly. My only complaint is that the release lever feels a bit 'cheap', but when you consider the price they seem like a good buy. Thanks again for all of the info in this thread. For added content here is a shot of my cat's paw taken by a complete novice to macro shooting. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2010 17:20
|
|
|
Ok so I really need an off shoe flash cord because like 99% of my photos are coming out as super blurry out-of-focus crap even at huge ISO settings. Anyways here's a few pictures from last weekend that didn't completely suck.    There's not much to do about the out-of focus left wing in the last one but I'd be grateful for tips on how to remove the green crap in the upper right corner.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 21:35
|
|
|
Can some one give me a quick schooling in macro? I inherited a great deal of old Olympus OM kit for macro work. I have an adaptor so I can mount most of it on my GF1. Now I don't have to waste tons of film figuring this stuff out! My problem is that I am not really sure what to do with what I have. The lenses I have are: 50mm f/3.5 Macro 100mm f/2.8 28mm f/3.5 50mm f/1.8 Also included is a copy stand, as well as a crap ton of filters. There is also a wonderful 90 degree viewfinder, but that won't do me any good. The most interesting pieces are very slim rings with male/male threads. You can screw two lenes together face to face:  This seems to get me very close to the action! I have no idea what the effects of using different length lenses in this setup will have. Is there a site that will help me figure that out? I don't even know the base magnification ratio of the macro lens I have. Also, because of the crop size of the GF1, that 50mm macro is like a 100mm macro, correct?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 20:56
|
|
Associate Christ
|
When inverting lenses, the longer the "normal" lens and the shorter the inverted focal, the more magnification you get. So, the 100/2.8 coupled with the (inverted) 28mm should give you max magnification. You do have a dedicated macro lens, though, so assuming the working distance isn't a negative number (you're going to be awfully close), you could replace the 100/2.8 with the 50/3.5 to get a ridiculous magnification for someone just starting out. To get an idea of the magnification you currently have, you can get a ruler and see how many millimeters you can horizontally frame. The GF1's sensor is 18mm long, so if you can frame 18mm on the ruler, you're at true macro magnification, also known as 1:1. If you can frame 9mm, you're at 2:1. If it's 36mm you're at 1:2, etc. etc. Anyway, I recommend you start by using only the 50/3.5. It's probably a 1:2 lens, so not quite true macro, but good enough to start. When you get the hang of it, you can start making crazy combos.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 21:26
|
|
|
 I managed to get an awesome shot of a random flower out the back porch of the vacation spot this weekend. Hilarious how the background just doesn't show up with really low aperture settings.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2010 20:00
|
|
|
A few more now that I got my off shoe cable (still need a diffuser and something to attach the flash to) A glow-worm  Some kind of bug, idk  A nifty little butterfly  A snail hanging upside down from a wooden ladder  Anyway so I feel like I'm becoming a crazy bug guy but I guess that's ok???
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 13:26
|
|
|
The green bug is a lacewing, and the butterfly is a skipper. You should post those in the critterquest thread! http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3309515
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 13:40
|
|
|
axolotl farmer posted:The green bug is a lacewing, and the butterfly is a skipper. Thanks! I guess I will.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 13:49
|
|
|
I have some extension tubes and filters but I did this one by lining up lenses. Thought it turned out alright.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2010 01:30
|
|
|
My off camera cord is acting strange. Recent:   
Studebaker Hawk fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Jul 18, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 18:42
|
|
|
This thread is tempting me to buy some tubes to attatch to my 50mm 1.8, but I really don't know much about them. What results do the different lengths of tube give? What would you suggest to a beginner who wants to snap the occasional picture of some insects?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 19:07
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:This thread is tempting me to buy some tubes to attatch to my 50mm 1.8, but I really don't know much about them. What results do the different lengths of tube give? What would you suggest to a beginner who wants to snap the occasional picture of some insects? Go with a Kenko set... you get three different lengths that you can use individually or together for less money than a single 1st-party extension tube. Since the tubes contain no glass elements, you will see no difference in image quality or anything like that. The more recent Kenko sets work with EF and EF-S lenses (assuming you're on Canon - they make Nikon sets too) and maintain autofocus (up to a point... the longer the tubes you use, the less likely autofocus is to work).
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 00:53
|
|
|
Gambl0r posted:Go with a Kenko set... you get three different lengths that you can use individually or together for less money than a single 1st-party extension tube. Since the tubes contain no glass elements, you will see no difference in image quality or anything like that. The more recent Kenko sets work with EF and EF-S lenses (assuming you're on Canon - they make Nikon sets too) and maintain autofocus (up to a point... the longer the tubes you use, the less likely autofocus is to work). I went into my local camera store and I ordered a cheap reversing ring and I'm gonna see how much use I get out of it before going with the tubes. I have a feeling I'm going to end up them regardless though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 02:10
|
|
|
Great shots, guys. I'm trying to get some documentation of the feeding behavior of a ground beetle. These guys are maybe a centimeter long at the most, and I need a clear shot. People tell me that older, cheaper digitals can take care of this pretty well, but there is of course a really wide variety of models that fall under old, cheap, and digital. Any suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 06:15
|
|
|
My first attempt at a focus stack (cross-post from SAD) I still have some blur artifacts around the forelegs that I haven't been able to get rid of, but for a first attempt, I'm happy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 16:24
|
|
|
thefreshmaker posted:My first attempt at a focus stack (cross-post from SAD) It's the dragonfly version of chill dog!
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 14:43
|
|
|
Pretty cool video of high magnification macro stuff, really makes me want to do more macro work... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqRn3at0H60
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2010 07:56
|
|
|
What would happen if you put extension tubes on a 100mm f/2.8 macro? Would the camera implode? Or would you simply get greater magnification? I'm asking because I have a macro lens and it seems like some of these really awesome photos get so much more magnification that I'm used to seeing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2010 04:45
|
|
|
Hop Pocket posted:What would happen if you put extension tubes on a 100mm f/2.8 macro? Would the camera implode? Or would you simply get greater magnification? I've done it a few times. It is really hard to use. The DoF is razor thin even stopped down and it's really really hard to keep your focus without a tripod. It does feel a bit like a microscope though. I didn't have any examples to show you so I took some. Because I don't have anything better to do at midnight on a Sunday.   Here is the lens without extension tubes. This is uncropped at the lens's minimum focus distance.  This is with the extension tubes, also at the minimum focus distance uncropped. Please forgive the inconsistent lighting between the photos. I was holding the flash and couldn't get it to match exactly. I also had to put the flash almost against the table for this shot which made it look really red. Keep in mind that I used a Kenko extension tube set, so this is third party air. EDIT: I should probably mention that this is on a full frame. Wooten fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Aug 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2010 05:39
|
|
|
One advantage extension tubes on a macro lens have over the basic macro lens is the increase in focal length allows you to get the same magnification from further away. Can be handy for skittish bugs. You lose the ability to focus to infinity focus though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2010 06:10
|
|
|
Some really nice pictures in here. I don't think my camera can even have any lenses attached to it so sorry for the bad quality. This thread makes me wanna get a good one because I take shitloads of pictures when travelling thus making it a very justified investment  .jpg) .JPG) .JPG) .JPG) .JPG) .JPG)
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2010 19:31
|
|
|
Wooten posted:I've done it a few times. It is really hard to use. The DoF is razor thin even stopped down and it's really really hard to keep your focus without a tripod. It does feel a bit like a microscope though. I didn't have any examples to show you so I took some. Because I don't have anything better to do at midnight on a Sunday. Just what I wanted to know. Thanks Wooten for going to the effort!
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2010 20:09
|
|
|
I love macros. But I wish I had a better lens.   
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2010 00:52
|
|
|
Hop Pocket posted:What would happen if you put extension tubes on a 100mm f/2.8 macro? Would the camera implode? Or would you simply get greater magnification? The fun really starts when you add a close-up lens to the tubes + 100 macro combo. Nice and cheap solution to reach 4:1.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2010 00:38
|
|
|
.JPG) That's one symmetrical bug
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2010 02:07
|
|
|
seravid posted:The fun really starts when you add a close-up lens to the tubes + 100 macro combo. Nice and cheap solution to reach 4:1. I have a Sigma 150mm macro lens and I'd like to get some serious magnification, but none of the Raynoxes fit on my filter (72mm). Anyone have recommendations? I'm googling but having a poo poo time of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 00:13
|
|
|
Stew Man Chew posted:I have a Sigma 150mm macro lens and I'd like to get some serious magnification, but none of the Raynoxes fit on my filter (72mm). Anyone have recommendations? I'm googling but having a poo poo time of it. I used a Marumi Achromat with my Zeiss 135/1.8 (77mm filter) and 68mm of tubes with more than acceptable results :  The Canon 500D is also a great choice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 01:00
|
|
|
I will give that a try then thanks! Also extension tubes. Also I need a good tripod. The gear list just goes onnnnn and onnnnn
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 01:04
|
|
|
It's horribly cliche, but this is a self portrait I did by holding my gripped 7D and looking at the mirror in the back of the body till I could see my eye. 7D and the 100 2.8 USM. Not a great picture, and I have a mad ugly eye, but I'm happy I managed to hand hold self portrait my own eye! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 01:07
|
|
|
dunkman posted:It's horribly cliche, but this is a self portrait I did by holding my gripped 7D and looking at the mirror in the back of the body till I could see my eye. Hah, I did the same thing when I got the 100/2.8.  I'm really thinking about getting some of the extension tubes. I want to see atoms.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 22:32
|
|
|
Thanks again for the suggestion to pick up some extension tubes. They have been a ton of fun. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 23:17
|
|
|
I'm a 400D user but someone has lent me a Nikon D2x with a sigma macro lens. I thought while I've got it I might give macro a go. Its certainly very different to anything I've done before, reflections are really interesting, you really can see what's going on in a room in reflected colours on shiny items, fascinating! Here are two I've done, I'm not really sure the protocol on spectral highlights so the thumbpot may look very amateur to the more experienced of you :S I'm really trying to make the shots look interesting and will def be experimenting more!  DSC_6583 by chris.butchart, on Flickr  DSC_6659 copy by chris.butchart, on Flickr  DSC_6336 by chris.butchart, on Flickr m4mbo fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Aug 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2010 16:14
|
|
|
Imaginary Friend posted:I'm interested in macro and getting a reversing ring. I have a canon rebel xs with the kit lens (18-55mm EF-S), and I'm a bit unclear what to buy. Sorry if this is a newb question I'm still a bit new to SLRs, my last camera was a point and shoot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2010 07:48
|
|
|
I've got a 105mm micro-nikkor which is just loving tits. If I wanted to increase my macro powers, a teleconverter is what I need, not an extension tube, correct? Second, has anyone used the Sigma ring flash (or a similar alternative)? Sometimes having a flash mounted on the hot shoe puts it waaaaaay too high up to light the area I need, so something that mounts around the lens would be great, but the price they're asking is pretty high for something I'm not sure would work well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2010 14:17
|
|
|
You can get a flash bracket and a TTL cable to light macro stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2010 14:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 12:32 |
|
|
 Refraction by damnlamb, on Flickr  Dandelion by damnlamb, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2010 18:22
|
|