|
I'm going to call this macro since I stuck the 24-70 @ 70mm and focused it to as close as it would go (it says macro in the focusing window!!), and used live view to get as close to this dude as the lens would focus (I should note I was on my hands and knees holding the camera, lens, and flash straight out with one hand, about 3 inches over my pond. for a toad. I should have stopped down some more, but this was f/3.2 at 1/125th and ISO800. I was burst-firing while slowly moving the camera closer/farther away to get the right focus since my hand was so unstable. 
|
#
¿
May 23, 2010 02:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 05:11 |
|
|
seravid posted:@ dakana : that's not macro By my calculation, it's ~1:3. Speaking of my calculation, I've googled around a LOT to try and find an easy way to calculate the macro reproduction ratio of a lens, but haven't found a good one, so I tried to do it myself based on what I understand the ratio to represent. Is this accurate? First, I took a picture of a ruler running horizontally across the frame at the minimum focus distance of the lens at 70mm. Then, I measured how many pixels across 1 inch on the ruler was. I got 1063 pixels; the whole frame is 3888 pixels, so that means that 1 inch covers 27.34% of the sensor. According to Canon, the sensor in the 1D Mark III is 28.1mm wide, and 27.34% of 28.1mm is 7.68mm. Which comes out to 1:3.02. The margin of error would come from 1. The sensor width not mapping directly to the image width (that is, of the "box" that is the sensor, the image may come from "inside" this box, meaning that the actual image's pixels do not "run" to the edge of the sensor) 2. The ruler's face not being exactly perpendicular to the sensor and the edge not being parallel with the sensor.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2010 03:57
|
|
but yeah, you should have stopped more.
|
I bought a set of $12 extension tubes off Amazon. I put them on my 70-200, stopping it down to f/16 using the depth of field preview trick. Then I just zoomed on in to 200mm and manual focused to the mfd and focused on some stuff by moving in and out. I really would like some sort of flash bracket or something, because holding the camera in one hand and the flash in the other is a huge pain in the rear end and makes it stupidly difficult to capture stuff. Maybe I just need to practice more. Also, maybe a ghetto diffuser would be nice on my flash. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2012 18:59
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:Which tubes did you get? I'm thinking about getting the same for my 70-200. I bought these: http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Canon-EOS-Extension-Close-up/dp/B003Y60DZO/ Honestly, they're perfectly fine for $12. It's all aluminum. The mount isn't terrible, but it isn't the most confidence-inspiring thing in the world. Just make sure your lens is nice and securely mounted, and then keep checking / supporting it for safety to make sure everything stays together nicely. What you have to understand, though, with these tubes is that since there is no electrical connection, you will be looking through a stopped-down lens. To see what that's like, stop down to f/16 or something high like that and hold down your dof preview button while looking through the viewfinder. Unless you're shooting in good light, you won't really be able to frame and focus. I also realized that at with the full ~50mm extension tube attached, I can just shoot with the flash mounted on the hotshoe with pretty decent results. The light isn't the greatest, but it's a hell of a lot easier to shoot with since I can use two hands. I really want to shoot in some bright sunlight so I can focus and frame better... maybe get some fill light from it too.   
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2012 20:24
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:drat tubes are hard to use, the depth of field is SO SMALL. Well that's pretty -- how are you lighting these?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2012 00:49
|
|
|
Got my new 50 1.8 today (old one took a dive) and threw it on the extension tubes. Tomorrow I'll try it reversed as well. That should be pretty fun. I opted for natural light in these, partially because the sun was going down so quickly and I didn't have a lot of time to shoot.  macro-2 by nick.kneer, on Flickr  macro-3 by nick.kneer, on Flickr They're softer than I'd like; I needed a faster shutter speed or to use flash again, really.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:
I'm not sure exactly what this is or where it is, but I like it. It's creepy. BioTech posted:I found the same guy earlier this weekend. Tiglath III posted:A new visitor today, first time I've seen on of these in the garden, very welcome it was too. I dig the colors on these guys. Very nice. I was heading out and saw a grasshopper hanging out on the front porch right in the sunlight, so I had to go back and grab my camera.    CLOSER AHHH 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 06:35
|
|
|
Damienz posted:Caught these morning dew drops on a spider web about two weeks ago. Don't have a flash yet so had to raise the ISO quite a bit. It's probably good you didn't have a flash -- that light gradient looks amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2012 05:47
|
|
|
Tell me about macro focusing rails. Is it an exercise in frustration to buy a cheapish eBay one? If not, which one(s) should I be looking at? I use a 1D, sometimes with a 70-200, so I'd have a decent amount of weight on it. I have a good tripod and ball head already.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
GobiasIndustries posted:First day testing out my extension tubes: pro-tip: put your lens on the camera normally, stop down to whatever aperture you want, then take the lens off while holding down the depth of field preview button. Voila!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2013 03:46
|
|
|
StarkingBarfish posted:Question: The D5100 doesn't have a DoF preview button. Is there any way to pull a similar trick with it? Hmm... Does the lens stop down when you go into live view at a small aperture? Other than that I'm not sure how else you'd go about it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
 aragog by nick.kneer, on Flickr ...hey there.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
hi SpiderFriend by nick.kneer, on FlickrHI  SpiderCloseup by nick.kneer, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
Tricerapowerbottom posted:Are the differences between my Megachile example shown here simply a matter of learning how to use my flash and working on learning how to light the subject better, getting better equipment in general, taking more time with my post processing, or a combination of all three? Definitely the largest difference is in the lighting. The MT24EX is a macro ring flash, which means it's on the lens' axis. They've got more substantial bouncing of light going on, which helps reduce contrast and shadowing. Your light is coming primarily from above, and while it's a nice size, simply due to its positioning it ends up putting too much light on the top of the bee and not enough on the bottom. This is what creates a large amount of contrast between the top and the bottom, and you're left to either sacrifice the highlights, sacrifice the darks, or compromise. You could try getting some more desk lamps and getting lights on-axis to the bee, or 2 at 45 degree angles in front of the bee, etc. That's your biggest difference, for sure. Also in your workflow you're not taking advantage of RAW in any way by resizing and saving as JPG before editing. The point of RAW is that it contains more information for adjusting exposure, contrast, white balance, saturation, color, etc; saving it as JPG discards all of that information. I'd suggest editing one of the RAWs to how you'd like it, then syncing the edit settings to all of the other RAWs in the stack, and then resizing and saving as JPGs before the stack.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
mclifford82 posted:I've recently taken to taking photos of the various strains of medical marijuana that I procure in Washington. Right now I'm using a Canon 5D Mark III with 100mm 2.8L Macro paired to a YN560 external flash via radio triggers. I'm also focus stacking (which I love). I'd do extension tubes, since they don't degrade the image as much as a close focus filter, which is really just a magnifier. You can get spendy and buy ones that'll give you AF and AE, or you can be cheap and buy off-brand ones that don't have any electronics, so it'll be manual focus and manual aperture (set the aperture with the lens on the camera, hold down the DoF preview button, and remove the lens from the camera.)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
The Olympus Tough TG-1 has a pretty drat good macro mode when you consider it's a waterproof p&s. eP8310015 by nick.kneer, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
There's some fantastic macro photography in National Geographic's story about insect brain-altering parasites. Article: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2014/11/mindsuckers/zimmer-text Photo gallery: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2014/11/mindsuckers/varma-photography 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Got some breakfast, walked out of the restaurant, and found this dude. Phone cameras astound me these days. IMG_20180930_121415 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2018 15:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 05:11 |
|
|
jarlywarly posted:a sea cucumber's rear end in a top hat with a crab living inside it.. mods, thread title please
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2019 00:09
|
|