Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Macro Macro Macro!
 
  • Post
  • Reply
torgeaux
Dec 31, 2004
I serve...
 Stay in crop factor, guys. The one real area I see a significant difference in is macro photography since I went full frame. Love all these shots.

* # ¿ Mar 3, 2010 14:29
  • Quote
Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 07:31
  • Quote
torgeaux
Dec 31, 2004
I serve...

InternetJunky posted:

I'm sorry for the noobish question -- even if I take macro shots on a tripod I need to set the picture to go off in timed mode because I find I end up shaking the camera far too much when I press the button to take the picture. Is there something that exists like a remote that I can use with my camera (Canon Rebel XS) to snap the picture instead?

That off camera flash cord looks like a great idea.

Yes. http://www.amazon.com/Remote-Release-Canon-XSi-Pentax/dp/B001G9Y98I/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=hpc&qid=1267638151&sr=8-2

* # ¿ Mar 3, 2010 18:43
  • Quote
torgeaux
Dec 31, 2004
I serve...

Musket posted:

Xpost from fEE thread:

My wife is currently obsessed with Macro images she sees on the web. Im wondering what a good entry level but semi future proof combo for a D300 we should look into getting her.

As for budget, we really don't have one, so toss out cheap or expensive options.

She wants to shoot mainly flowers, food, odd shapes and designs, and patterns.

The things you've named aren't macro shots. Not being pedantic, it's a significant difference. If she wants to shoot small things (bugs, tiny pistils on flowers, that sort of thing) it's a different lens choice perhaps than if she wants to shoot smallish things like full flowers, food, etc...

A good, clear, but not macro prime lens will be better for what you described, like a good 50mm f/1.4 (Nikon or Sigma).

For actual macro, Nikon makes a 50mm and a 105mm. The longer focal length gives you more working distance, that is, distance from the tip of your lens to the object in focus. I don't know about their quality.

Tamron has a really nice, 90mm Macro lens that would be cheaper than the Nikon 105.


edit: If she gets a good 50mm f/1.4, then decides she wants closer to "true" macro, she can buy extension tubes for that.

* # ¿ May 11, 2010 18:06
  • Quote
torgeaux
Dec 31, 2004
I serve...

A5H posted:

Guys what's the best way for me to shoot macro on the cheap.
The lenses I currently have are the nifty 50, 8-16 sigma, 17-50 tamron and 70-200 F4L. I have some crappy cheap extension tubes but no AF.
I was thinking of grabbing the Raynox DCR-250 thing and using it with my 70-200L? Is it worth like £35? Will the images be pretty good?

Buy a reversing ring and use the 50mm reversed. Should be around $10, but still no AF.

Of course, you can't autofocus macro anyway. To shoot it at 1:1, you're going to be either moving the subject in and out or the camera/lens in and out. So, don't worry too much about AF.

torgeaux fucked around with this message at 13:48 on Mar 13, 2011

* # ¿ Mar 13, 2011 13:46
  • Quote
torgeaux
Dec 31, 2004
I serve...
 Testing my 70-200 f/2.8L with max extension tubes. Sheeeit, it's got some thin depth of field.


Macro Test 70-200 by torgeaux, on Flickr

* # ¿ Sep 24, 2011 19:18
  • Quote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Macro Macro Macro!