|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 01:23 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
RustedChrome posted: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. It's just the reflection of the sun. It's a known phenomenon (though I'm forgetting its name), also very prone to happen with chitinous subjects such as flies.  You can see it there, on the body. I'm tempted to say it's just iridescence, not sure though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2010 23:04
|
|
|
Nice details overall, but you should diffuse the twin to kill the hotspots and make the light more even
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2010 20:32
|
|
|
Raikiri posted:What's going on here, is it leaning towards the camera? Great background, though. a foolish pianist posted:An actual jumping spider on a drainpipe: You got some spooky light there, but it seems you missed the focus on the eyes. SpunkyRedKnight posted:I'm not usually a fan of black backgrounds, but I like this one. Moist von Lipwig posted:Is there any good macro option for Pentax? I have a Tamron 70-300mm but I'd like something past 1:2. Besides the usual Tamron and Sigma lenses, you also have the Pentax 100/2.8 Macro. Don't know how easy/hard it is to find, though, Pentax stuff isn't my specialty. You can also play with inverted lenses, extension tubes, close-ups, etc... to get 1:1 or more.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2010 17:44
|
|
|
Studebaker Hawk posted:Dead baby bird claw For content : 
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2010 01:59
|
|
|
This thread really needs more action.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2010 23:17
|
|
|
The MP-E is pretty overrated. It's the most practical solution for high magnification, sure, but it suffers from diffraction just as much as the other lenses out there, so it's not like it's a magical thing powered by the love of unicorns. That said, if I was a Canon user I'd still have one, but I'm not and I managed 4:1 just fine with a regular 100mm macro lens, extension tubes and a quality close-up filter. It's not as convenient, but it cost me half the MP-E's price for comparable image quality... plus, a regular macro lens can (auto)focus at infinity (though they're usually not great there). @ diarrhea for girls : no need to buy a twin flash to achieve great lighting. A single cobra can do the trick... It's all in the diffuser. @ dakana : that's not macro but yeah, you should have stopped more.C'mon, let's get the ball rolling. Here's a 9 picture (handheld) focus stack : 
seravid fucked around with this message at 04:34 on May 23, 2010 |
|
#
¿
May 23, 2010 03:14
|
|
|
dakana posted:By my calculation, it's ~1:3. Yeah, that's the quick and dirty way to see your current magnification. The usual method doesn't include counting pixels, though, just aligning the ruler with the frame and see how many millimeters fit, then it's just a matter of comparing it to the sensor's length. More than the sensor, you're below 1:1. Less, you're above it. Slo-Tek posted:Now that is very interesting, though the in-focus/out-of-focus stripes down the leaf are a little odd. You're right. After a couple of hours working on a picture, you stop noticing this kind of stuff... I just fixed it, thanks. To make it up, here's the "making of" : 
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2010 04:37
|
|
|
Two or three shots aren't difficult to manage and are usually enough to get a decent stack. In this case, though, the weather was really cold so this little guy proved very cooperative, enough for me to use a wider aperture (to get better sharpness) and balance the resulting loss of dof with more shots. Got 25 pictures, but only needed 9 to cover the whole subject. Regarding bursts, my poor old flash is so heavily diffused that, in certain situations (like this one with the bee), it only allows me 0,1fps
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2010 05:22
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
That guy is my hero but I can't help but hate him. Everytime I'm actually happy with the quality of my pics, someone somewhere posts a link to his work and  Enough whining, here's a shot taken this summer: 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2010 00:33
|
|
|
How about editing the first post with basic info (and perhaps a FAQ), along with a title change, something like "yes, kenko tubes are a good buy" ?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2010 20:38
|
|
|
Anti_Social posted:super macro How "super" do you want to go? How much magnification and what kind of subjects? Haggins posted:The lizard is great but I think this one could use a 90º (clockwise) rotation. Here's a couple of shots taken this summer but treated only a few days ago. I feel going through my catalog some months later gives me a different perspective and I often find good shots that I disregarded the first time around.  
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2010 04:04
|
|
|
Rontalvos posted:I figure you're paying for air and I have no problem manual focusing, why bother spending money to have electrical communication retained? Aperture control seems like a good reason.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2010 22:30
|
|
|
Sadi posted:I was just thinking about this the other day. Why not just get an FD mount or other film mount lens with manual aperture control and an EF mount adapter. The whole rig could cost you less than $100. If you already have film lenses lying around, sure. Otherwise, I'm not sure it'd be worth it considering the cost of a 'modern' 50/1.8 which, unlike the manual lenses, is user-friendly and versatile. Don't get me wrong, I like using old glass and some lenses are just as good (or even better) as what we have now, but most people would probably be annoyed by the lack of AF and electronic aperture control when shooting non-macro stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2010 17:58
|
|
|
How can you hate this little guy?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2010 03:29
|
|
|
CrabowlMastermind posted:
Now you just need to capture the head instead of the rear end Just kidding, it's a nice pic and certainly not easy to get. How's the balance with that combo? I thought about selling my a700 and going to the NEX-5 for shooting macro (and everything else), focusing with the LCD could make things easier at high magnifications... Abnegatus posted:I want to find a way to increase the magnification of my 100mm 2.8L; should I go with the dcr150/250 or Kenko tubes? Can I use both at once? Is that even a feasible idea? Seems like this question gets asked every couple of pages. Tubes won't reduce your working distance as much as filters but you'll need to take the lens off every time you want/don't want to use them. Filters only take a few seconds to attach. Regarding image quality, since filters have optical elements they can produce distortions and aberrations, but as long as you don't go for the cheap stuff you don't need to worry too much about it. In theory tubes don't affect image quality but of course they do. Macro lenses are usually optimized for 1:1, anything above (or below) and you'll start losing quality. Does it matter? Probably not, diffraction remains the nº1 IQ killer and that's what you need to worry about. With your 100mm, tubes + close-up will work fine. Here's how it looks (using a Minolta 100/2.8) : 1:1 (just the lens)  2:1 (68mm of tubes)  4:1 (68mm of tubes + Raynox DCR-250) 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2011 01:13
|
|
|
Abnegatus posted:Well, those pictures sold me on the combo. TC's have the major advantage of not affecting the working distance. Careful with IQ loss, though. CrabowlMastermind posted:NEX stuff
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2011 17:18
|
|
|
Well, first of all, try to be on the same level as your subject, helicopter shots aren't great for the audience to make a "connection" with the critter. Jumpers have great big eyes too, so use that to your advantage. Technically, you got too much red and too little contrast. The environment isn't very colorful either, but not much you can do about that. Show us a couple more pics
seravid fucked around with this message at 06:48 on Feb 21, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2011 06:37
|
|
|
A5H posted:Guys what's the best way for me to shoot macro on the cheap. Keep in mind that 200mm is pretty long and long focal length + high magnification = constant earthquake when you look through the viewfinder. Why don't you try the tubes with the 50, can't go cheaper than that. You won't be able to shoot dragonflies with it but it's a good place to start.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2011 17:05
|
|
|
A5H posted:I'm on a crop body so are you sure? (7D) Stew Man Chew posted:I've been having this problem a lot, would a nice monopod (ideally quick-adjusting) help me out if bugs are my primary subject? I'm just trying to figure out additional ways to add stability while I'm framing a shot. I figure tripods are too slow and cumbersome specially if I'm kinda following a bug around waiting for him to post up for a photo op. GWBBQ posted:Of those choices, I'd use the DCR-250 with the nifty 50 because the smaller front element means you won't get any vignetting on a crop body (sample.) You most likely still won't want to autofocus but it's a great combo for cheap macro.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2011 21:20
|
|
|
Catico posted:Any and all advice is appreciated! Also, how small is small? 1:1 might not be enough. In that case, buy some extension tubes too. seravid fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Mar 13, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2011 19:10
|
|
|
Catico posted:Forgive my total lack of knowledge, but what are cobras?  They're cheaper than other flashes usually associated with macro, like twin and ring flashes. You don't need those with the kind of photography you're planning to do so you'll save some cash by buying cobras. While they'll take longer to setup, you'll have more creative control over your lighting. I recommended a DSLR with liveview specifically to aid in focusing. When shooting macro, as subx already mentioned, the autofocus is at best unreliable and at worst actually working against you. It's not like your artifacts are running around either, so it's just a question of practice until you're comfortable with manual focusing. Studebaker Hawk posted:The tokina 100/sigma 105/tamron 90 are all sub $400 and are pretty good, though slower AF than the canon 100 which you can find used for $450-500. I would also highly recommend the sigma 150mm which I have (and am still lazily trying to sell) Why would you use a 150mm lens for indoor macro shots? The narrow field of view is pretty much irrelevant and the longer working distance could actually be counter-productive.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2011 21:23
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Taken with my iPod, I put a drop of water on the lens with my finger tip and took pictures of a quarter. Sinz posted:I'm a student on a budget. Looking to get a macro lens perhaps used under 400 or so. Is there anyway to get a good sigma or nikon macro lens?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2011 13:22
|
|
|
Danoss posted:You just use a standard 580/430EX with an off-shoe flash cord and mount it to a flash bracket like this. You can buy a mini soft-box diffuser to mount on the flash or you can make a coke can diffuser. I use something similar and can vouch for it. 
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2011 16:31
|
|
|
FLX posted:Great pictures in this thread! Between the talk of extension tubes, reverse mounting, the dcr-250 and magnifying and macro lenses, I'm a bit confused though. If I'd want to shoot tiny insects like ladybugs, what would I use with a Canon 550D, what would the best working distance be and how does picture quality change between the above mentioned systems? You forgot to tell what lenses you have. Without that it's pretty hard to recommend anything. Still, for ladybugs more important than the lens/accessories is the lighting you'll be using. Their shell will reflect everything you throw throw at them so if you don't want your flash creating hot spots (those ugly white smudges you usually see in ladybugs' pics), you better work on/buy a drat good diffuser. Brainwrong posted:I'd be interested in this too. I just use the kit lens for my standard macro photos and would love to know what "cheap" alternatives there are to splashing out on a proper macro lens 50mm with extension tubes, that's the cheapest you can get. Not much working distance but with the short focal length at least it'll be reasonably stable when looking through the finder. edit: I guess you can go even cheaper using the kit lens with an inversion ring or a close-up lens, but I still recommend the 50 with tubes. seravid fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Jun 30, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2011 21:48
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:FLX posted:Aaaand thanks once again, for suggesting extension tubes as a cheap macro setup. I ordered a set from Amazon which arrived just now and they work great with the kit 18-55mm lens. The working distance is lens-scratchingly short, but for the price it's totally alright. What happens to the working distance when using longer focal lengths? In general: longer focal = longer working distance. But as you go longer on the focal length (and magnification), the vibrations caused by your It gets fun when you're working with pretty high magnifications:  This little dude was about 2mm long (and definitely using the wrong kind of camo). If you move just a little to either side your whole subject completely vanishes from your viewfinder (good luck finding him again!).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2011 14:51
|
|
|
FLX posted:Man, I expected way more critters to live in our attic. Only found this guy chilling in his dirty web. Get out there! The cool, high-fiving critters don't live in attics  
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2011 16:51
|
|
|
Is it reptile day? Alright. 2 pics panorama/stack at 2:1 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2011 15:24
|
|
|
We talked about lighting a couple of pages ago. Regarding ring flashes: if you don't want flat images, don't use them. Well, I guess you can adjust the power of the individual lights or even shut one or two down, but if you have money to spend why go for the inferior option? Get a twin flash.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2011 00:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 01:23 |
|
|
Jook posted:nothing decent, sorry.. after thinking about it a bit I believe it worked so well with that jumping spider because it was inside a closet (multiple walls/close ceiling) so there was a lot of bounce. It's still great material for diffusing though and I plan to try to work it into my new lovely setup which is now using a paper towel on a cut up pringles can - bracket/diffuser inspired by this. Light is a little hard, try putting your diffuser closer to your subjects or, alternatively, getting a larger diffuser (both have their pros and cons). fake edit: oh right, you're going for a new design, hadn't noticed.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2011 21:58
|
|
