|
Jook posted:Yeah.. I'm already looking to destroy some tupperware and use up even more duct tape. Building diffusers is fun, I must have tried at least 8 different designs looking for that perfect light (still haven't found it). I used a tupperware diffuser a while back, had good results with it (lined with aluminum foil and, of course, plenty of duct tape).  Dof way too thin, I know, but I was going for maximum resolution (larger aperture = less diffraction) and I'd say it was worth it: 
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2011 04:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
The 70-200 + one or two tubes is a popular combo for larger flying subjects (e.g. damselflies). For smaller ones, BetterLekNextTime is right, the 50 is your best bet.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2011 18:18
|
|
|
Tambaloneus posted:I have the 100mm 2.8 non IS non L version of that lens and I don't think I've ever gotten a photo anywhere near as kickass as those. I need to practice more I think. Maybe a tripod will help. And, well, being less retarded about what settings I use. Don't worry about the glass and focus on the light: how you create it and how you control it. One of these was taken with a 20 year old Minolta 50/1.7, the other with a high-end Zeiss 135/1.8. Guess which is which! 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2011 00:08
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:Does anyone have any recommendations for focus stacking software for macro work? I don't have (and won't buy) Photoshop. Helicon Focus looks neat, and it's only $30, but I don't know what else is out there. I tried CombineZM and Zerene Stacker. I shoot by hand so they didn't produce any usable results, but they got (surprisingly) close. I imagine they'd be great for tripod work.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2011 03:43
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:Hmmm. I'm hoping to shoot by hand as well for insects. I'm a total macro novice, so I'm guessing it's not easy to get a tripod with a macro rail set up to glide in on an insect. I'll definitely try a demo before I buy any software to see if it works for handheld shots. If you're starting out, I'd say forget stacking, at least when chasing bugs outdoors. At high magnifications getting one shot in focus isn't particularly easy, so imagine getting multiple shots - with minimal delay and sway - while moving ever so slightly in one direction to capture different areas of the subject. My advice: mess around in broad daylight at magnifications up to 1:1. That'll give you perfect conditions to practice good hand-holding discipline, learn about your subjects' moving patterns and reactions to your approach, curse at the compromise between sharpness and depth of field (aka diffraction), etc.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2011 05:05
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:I have a Sigma APO 70-300mm Macro lens. Where can I read more about what happens when I move the button from normal to macro mode? I can't find the manual and everywhere I look all I get are reviews and advertisements. The switch should reduce the minimum working distance. In other words, at longer focal lengths you'll be able to get closer to your subjects. A quick search says 150cm in normal mode, 95cm in "macro" mode. Don't know if those are working distances (end of the lens to subject) or 'sensor-to-subject' distances, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2012 04:55
|
|
|
rear end is my canvas posted:http://www.geekologie.com/2012/03/what-in-the-insane-posed-ant-photography.php Ants on the foreground are perfectly in focus, ants on the back are out of focus and yet the trees way, way far away are only slightly blurred... That's one hell of a DoF.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2012 23:03
|
|
Time to bust out my dumbest purchase ever, my x10 up close lens for my 50mm.
|
rear end is my canvas posted:I am guessing he is stacking and compositing the good poses from shot to shot. The last one pushes it but rocks anyway. Stacking implies multiple shots with one single composition. Here, the foregrounds are disconnected from the backgrounds, like one is simply pasted on top of the other. I don't have a problem with heavily manipulated images, as long as it's honest.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2012 23:46
|
|
|
Nuts and Gum posted:You guys weren't kidding, macro is hard. Yeah, but very rewarding too. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2012 04:44
|
|
|
Rot posted:OK folks, I need some help here. Try the Critterquest thread, they're a very knowledgeable bunch.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2012 00:39
|
|
|
Rovasti posted:Some ice formations I came across when I was ice fishing Nice! The gradient of cool colors works really well. Have anything with higher magnification? seravid fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Apr 18, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2012 23:11
|
|
|
Pitnicker posted:Hey all, Regarding your choice of system, since you want simple and portable I think Canon with their MP-E is hard to beat. No need to mess around with tubes or close-up lenses, but keep in mind it won't focus at infinity (or anything less than 1:1). Regarding the lighting system, twin flashes is definitely the way to go if tupperware/coke can/aluminum foil isn't an option. You should still diffuse them, though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2012 23:17
|
|
|
As a Minolta (now Sony) shooter I'm kind of looking in from the outside vis-à-vis brand wars, but every system should give you the right tools (with the occasional trade-off) for macro. And there's always Tamron and Sigma. That said, I'm confused. You were looking at twin flashes but now you say you'll be shooting butterflies? How high will you go regarding magnification? Because if you want to capture the whole body, a twin flash isn't your best bet.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
Pitnicker posted:If it's got six legs and an exoskeleton, I shoot it If the sun is going to be your main source of light we're talking 1:1 or less, right? At higher magnifications natural light won't do you any good, it's pretty much all flash. You're right when you say twin flashes are well regarded, but that's up close where they pack a punch and you have full control in how you light the scene, e.g. one flash close to the left, one up high for fill-in. At longer working distances - which are preferable with easily frightened subjects like butterflies and lizards - they won't be as effective (especially with diffusers) and unless you have them mounted on long clumsy arms that get stuck everywhere, all the light will be coming roughly from the front, in which case a well-diffused cobra will be both cheaper and more efficient.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2012 06:39
|
|
I also make exceptions for spiders and lizards. I really prefer shooting in natural light, so I'm mostly looking for a versatile flash system to supplement normal sunlight. The Nikon system I was looking at is similar to the Canon MT-24EX Macro Twin Lite Flash, only wireless. Why wouldn't a dual flash be ideal? From what I've read, I thought this dual flash form factor was very well received among macro photographers? What sort of flash would you recommend?
|
Pitnicker posted:stuff Ring flash: never used one and from what I've read/seen I don't think I'd buy one. Light all around means no shadows which results in flat images. Sure, you can disable parts of it but then what's the point if you're always only using half the ring? It's a very compact way to light a subject, I'll give it that. 100mm and 2:1 is actually great for a twin flash. You'll be close enough to make the most of it. A cabled and well-diffused cobra also works nicely. Check Danoss' rig a page back (near the bottom), that's the general setup for cobra-based macro shooting. I'm using something similar with decent results:   Granted, it's not the most practical solution but my diffuser comes on and off easily so I can use the flash for other stuff if needed. A twin flash on the other hand... Pitnicker posted:Thanks for all your help. There are a lot of great macro photographers in this thread! You're welcome. I was hoping more people would chime in to offer different perspectives, but I guess you're stuck with me.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2012 03:13
|
|
|
THRILLED 2B HERE posted:Some utterly fantastic shots in this thread!. Check if your local shops have a Minolta 100/2.8 laying around, it's an amazing piece of glass. There are three versions: original (also called 'old'), RS (restyled) and D (digital). Aim for the D but you'll do great with the RS too (I had one). Personally I'd avoid the old version (unless it's a killer deal), the focus ring is too narrow for my taste. 100mm does require some skill and steady hands but it gives you a narrower background and a larger working distance (16cm with the Minolta!). If you want to play it safe, look for a 50mm. Great for flowers but you might frighten some critters as you close in. The Minolta 50/2.8 is super sharp and also comes in three flavors. Careful with Minolta lenses, though, as some sellers seriously overprice them. Sometimes it's actually cheaper to buy the Sony ones. Optically they're the same, it's just a rebrand. Those are my top choices but if none of them work out, check back and we'll talk Tamron and Sigma. seravid fucked around with this message at 18:23 on May 21, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 21, 2012 18:07
|
|
|
THRILLED 2B HERE posted:Thanks a lot for the replies, i've been having a nosey around online and it seems the 100m lenses are all too expensive for me to justify them, however the 90mm lenses like the Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 and also the 50mm lenses are within my price range, although I cant find any Minolta that arent vastly inflated. Would the Tamron/Sigma/Sony 90mm/50mm ones be sufficant, or is there a particular brand I want to avoid? As I said, you can't go wrong with either Sony or Minolta, but price might be a issue. The Tamron 90/2.8 is probably the most popular macro lens in the ~100mm range, so in case you're not bothered by the 11cm working distance (deal-breaker for me, but maybe not for you) go right ahead, it's a great lens. The Sigma 105/2.8 is good too, but a tad inferior (optically) to the Tamron, IIRC. You probably wouldn't notice the difference in real life, though.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
The second one looks great but it could use a little work in post.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
Keep in mind the Tamron has the shortest working distance of the usual 90/100mm macro lenses, while the Minolta/Sony has one of the longest (maybe the longest?). Very useful when shooting live subjects at high magnification.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 06:01
|
|
|
mAlfunkti0n posted:What is the cheapest way to do macro? I see the reverse ring, etc... Currently I have a 50mm 1.8 and Tamron 17-50 2.8, and a 70-200L on the way. Any of these lenses good when reversed? The reversed 50 is a classic for cheap macro. The 70-200 with some tubes or a close-up lens should work very nicely for larger subjects like dragonflies and butterflies.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
e: ^^^^^^ 'sup  Fly butt haters ITT  
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
ah forget it posted:That's great, I totally didn't notice the spider at first! Crab spiders know their camouflage  mAlfunkti0n posted:Fly butts. That spider vs fly one is fantastic ... showdown, and you can bet who is going to lose.  
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
What kind of flash are you going to use? A cobra on top of a NEX sounds pretty awkward.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
Well, doesn't that defeat the purpose of owning a NEX? What about the official flash? Nice and small (and expensive), at modest magnifications - say 1:1 or less - and with a half-decent diffuser it should work well enough. e: Abugadu posted:My friend recently opened his website where he does macro photo/video of nudibranchs and other tiny marine life from the Philippines and Guam, worth a look I promise This is very cool, thanks for sharing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2013 03:12
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:
Critters are great at keeping themselves clean. You know, when they're alive   (excuse the terrible light; these pics are oooooooold)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:Officer I never seen that lady before in my life. I was nowhere near the place where she got whacked! Bad move lying to the coppers (that fly's a dude  )
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:Officer I swears I thought he was a lady, and was over a day old! I'm no etymologist myself, it's just easy to tell with some flies. Male:  Female:  Don't know exactly how many species follow this pattern (I know fruit flies don't, they both have eyes far apart).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
Crab spiders (Thomisidae) don't use webs to hunt; they prefer the manly art of camouflaged ambush. A swift venom injection and even big game like that bumblebee would turn into internal soup.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
.1mm to 40mm is a crazy, crazy range. How much of the frame do you want to fill when shooting those .1mm parts?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
the_lion posted:Go with a 3 set of extension rings with no auto focus/electrical contacts. It will be cheaper probably. Yeah, you don't wanna do that. Not A Vet Yet is just starting up, a low-end DSLR like the 550D and a manual set of tubes would just be cruel. For a frustration-free (kind of) newbie experience a big and bright viewfinder is a must; cameras like the 550D are out and so are tubes that require you to manually set the aperture. Also desirable: not getting too close to the subject; while you still don't have a firm grasp on the critters' behavior you better stay away from them. That means a dedicated macro lens around 100mm. Longer would be nice but you'd have severe camera shake to deal with. The Tamron 90/2.8 is the most popular choice among +/- 100m lenses, but it has a pretty short working distance. Still better than close-up lenses or tubes, though. I'm not talking about best quality or best magnification or best bang for the buck here, I'm talking about making the first steps into macro as painless as possible, which I think is more important; doesn't matter if you bought all your gear for 15 bucks or if your microscope duct-taped to a camera can go up to 20:1 if you don't actually enjoy going out and shooting critters. Now, if you're on a tight budget but still want to give this a shot then sure, go with an inverted 50 with some tubes and a close-up on top, it should be good for character building if nothing else. Otherwise, get the nicer toys.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
Never used it, but it looks good. Internal focus is nice and the 10cm working distance is very surprising considering its focal length. For general use, the lack of focus limiter could be annoying, especially since the AF isn't ultrasonic. If that doesn't bother you, I'd say go for it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
Un chien andalou posted:Been looking at this lens for a while: There are three versions of the Minolta 100/2.8; due to its age, I wouldn't recommend the first one (unless you can get a great deal), but the one you're looking at is the second - called RS (ReStyled) - and it's a fantastic lens. The third version and the Sony are pretty much identical. Anyway, the RS is great and at 275$ it's a no-brainer (assuming it's in decent condition). It's very sharp, it's solidly built and you get one of the longest - if not the longest - working distance at this focal length. Compared to the Sony, optically, you only lose on the coating; definitely not worth 3x the price. The RS does have a tiny focus ring but at high magnifications you're moving the entire thing to focus, so it's not a big deal. If you're "serious" about macro, buy it. Buy it right now.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Un chien andalou posted:Thank you. I have been wanting it for a while, and already have extension tubes and a dcr-250, it will be nice to use it all together! Nice. You'll be getting around 4:1 magnification. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Assuming everything's in good condition, a full set of tubes + 100 Macro + Raynox 250 works perfectly fine. I used exactly that (no ring flash, though) for the fly's picture a few posts up.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
4:1 at f/14 Jimlad posted:Naive photography newbie here looking into getting into macro stuff. If you can afford full-frame I'd say go for it; the FF can act like a crop camera if need be but the reverse isn't true. Keep in mind you'll need the camera and lens but also a decent flash and multiple accessories... that's a lot of stuff, a lot of weight and a lot of money. If you know someone with this kind of setup, maybe try it for a couple of days to make sure this is something you really want to pursue.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
Manual aperture is a big deal beyond 1:1. Having the lens stepped-down the whole time will make for a very dim experience.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Manual apertures (like a preset aperture) is a very different thing from manually controller the aperture. Old nikon lenses should stay wide open until you shoot. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Yeah, that's really neat. Shame mine are currently hibernating, I wanna try it. Re. light: the first one is great (bokeh is pretty distracting :nitpickingasshole:) but the other two are grey and lifeless. High ISO is cool and all, but you really pay the price for it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
Getting both eyes sharp was a question of focus here, not depth of field. Notice the head and part of the body are sharp; back the camera away a little and both eyes would have been within the DoF. f/32 is crazy, though. The original image at 100% must look like soup.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
SpunkyRedKnight posted:Got bored and started shooting stuff I have sitting around. Neat. Would you mind specifying what sort of stuff you shot? Jadz posted:I took about a billion pictures of this red ant before I got one where the depth of field was in just the right spot Should have taken a couple more because this one isn't in the right spot either  General advice: up the shutter speed to avoid motion blur and step down the aperture to increase DoF. Use (diffused) flash liberally if you don't think there's enough light (trick question - there's never enough light). Lack of sharpness could also be due to kit lenses; try to get your hands on a normal or short telephoto prime, see how it goes. Tubes aren't the be all end all of macro, just another piece of gear to help you do the job if you can't or don't want to use a dedicated macro lens (or if you're using one and want more magnification). Your lens can't go past its minimal focus distance because the focal point would move behind the film plane. Pop a tube between the lens and the camera and now there's plenty more room to go. By getting closer to the subject, it'll fill more of the frame (increased magnification), which means plenty more detail; you'll pay for it with reduced depth of field (more mag = less DoF) and potentially massive loss of light. The gear can also become unbalanced and awkward to handle. edit: also, you'll lose infinity focus with tubes. Forcing a lens to focus closer than it's supposed to does affect image quality, but I'm not sure how much. For most cases I figure it's negligible, especially since diffraction (very bad stuff that happens as you stop down the aperture) is a much bigger concern at high magnifications. seravid fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Mar 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2014 04:22
|
|
