|
seravid posted: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 That's really nice - and I don't think his are that much more amazing than yours. It looks like he does some sort of +Vibrance +contrast/blacks post that makes the critter look more detailed.
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2010 01:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 05:55 |
|
|
Testing out my new macro lens (Tamron 95mm f/2.8). Pink shadows by subx2000, on Flickr  Rolling the dice by subx2000, on Flickr  The three rings by subx2000, on Flickr  Mmm Jerky by subx2000, on Flickr Any advice/critiques? The biggest problem I have currently, I think, is a crappy tripod. It's not very stable, and you can tell that there was very slight vibrations going on in the original sized images. I also realize the rings being cut off at the bottom of the photo sucks, it was the best one I had though. The jerky was just for fun, I was about to eat that piece of jerky and decided to take a picture. subx fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Oct 12, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2010 02:28
|
|
|
I love this thread and it always makes me want to go out and shoot some macros, but... gently caress, its too cold to be using a tripod and taking time to setup a cool picture. I even have nice winter clothing that keeps me warm, but I still hate it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2011 20:07
|
|
|
Catico posted:I'd love an auto-focusing macro lens, if I can get the funding for it. Does anybody make one that costs less than an entire camera body? (My one experience with a Rebel and a manual-focus macro lens was pretty disastrous. Granted, I was working quickly, without practice, and in a dark, 110F cabin in the jungle, but that made me really really appreciate auto-focus.) Just make sure you know that autofocus is pretty hit or miss with macro shooting. More often than not you'll end up with the wrong thing in focus as you are trying to get the camera to recognize that you are focusing on a REALLY small spot of a flower/bug/whatever. It doesn't always pick the right thing to focus. Also if it's a dark room, you can write off autofocus anyways, it needs at least semi-decent light to work. Or you can get a camera/flash with focus assist (a normal intensity light that is just there for that purpose alone, helping autofocus be able to acquire a target). A dedicated macro lens is going to run you at least $400. Like Studebaker Hawk said there are some that are sub-400, but they aren't far off that mark. If you only plan on shooting stationary objects, and you can get the camera close without too much problem, extension tubes on a cheap 50mm would work fine. Also, since there's no optical elements in extension tubes, so you don't have to spend a lot of money on fancy ones (the only difference might be stability if you are trying to support a large/heavy lens like a 70-200 or bigger). To go with Nikon (since you asked in the other thread for a Nikon shooter) you could go with: A D70 for $250 50mm lens Extension Tubes That's only like $450 and would be alright, but it gives you a lot of room to get a longer lens or a better camera (a D90 would put you pretty close to $1000 I think). It depends on the resolution you want, and how close you can get to things, as to where you could spend more. subx fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Mar 14, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2011 21:06
|
|
|
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? I have a Sigma 90mm 2.8 macro that I really like that was under $400 - but like the above said we need more info for any more detailed suggestions.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2011 13:27
|
|