|
I've found that if your tripod has locking legs of the right type, you can convert it into a monopod (albeit a heavy one) by only extending one leg at a time. But I entirely agree that you need to move to get macro shots -- besides the obvious issue of moving subjects, I find that 90% of the time I end up moving the camera, rather than the lens, to stay in focus. It's somehow easier to find that critical point if you're moving the whole camera around.
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2010 02:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 06:25 |
|
|
Alctel posted:<html> You can't post HTML here. However, out of the goodness of my heart I have converted your code.    and super closeups with the 100mm and a reversal ring and a home made lightbox   (great photos btw)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2010 19:10
|
|
|
sanka posted:First, Sigma 105mm macro on my Canon XTi. Out of curiosity, do you kill or knock out the spiders before you try to photograph them? It sure looks like the same pose in each case, and I can't imagine you getting a live insect to reliably stay still enough.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2010 05:35
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Just got this contraption in the mail yesterday: What is the name of such a contraption? It looks useful.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2010 18:10
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 06:25 |
|
|
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
|
|
