Sony vs Panasonic. 2 shots

Two ugly flies.

Ya know, if it wasn't for the EXIF and I didn't know when these were taken, I would never guess what took what.

The technique has not changed, the equipment really has not changed, a few more megapixels which in my case make no difference at all and a new name on the camera. Both have distortions, both have CA, DOF has not really changed, exposure has not really changed.

Ahhh, the fly changed........unless it got very old )

So one is a Sony shot, the other is from a Panasonic.

One was taken with an added Canon 100mm and one was with an added Nikkor 60mm. Ooooppppsss, thats Canon and Nikon in the same sentence, sorry ;-))

A real mixed bag huh. Does it really matter when the technique is the same. Could you really tell if it wasn't for the EXIF.

Anyway, I better hide before I'm banned )

Danny.





...........................

http://macrophotos.com
...........................
Worry about the image that comes out of the box, rather than the box itself.

Both are full frame? Any post processing to either?

I definitely like the top pic. Much less distortion toward the edges. Better contrast (dynamic range) and color fidelity (in this case gamut). It is a bit sharper also.

There's something funky going on along the edge of the rock in the lower right (in the bottom pic). Corrected PF? (If there was post processing done).

The bottom pic difinitely gives you higher magnification though, but at what cost?

Thanks for the comparison Danny, I do a lot of macro too and was wondering how the different setups and techniques work (with different cameras/lenses).

But I'm dying to know, which is which??? You'll have to post an answer by the end of the thread.
R2

nzmacro said:

Anyway, I better hide before I'm banned )

Danny.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about that. This is exactly the type of thread that many of us would like to see (albeit without the sarcasm ). Always good to hear from you. R2

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.

http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

OK...no camera talk here...all I want to know is did you use a particular closeup lens on one or both cameras? Or did you use the internal closeup feature in both to get these amazing closeups?

I am keenly interested in knowing the answer. Thanks for sharing this, Danny.
Bob

Very Nice Pic... Both of them.

One thing I noticed though is that body of the bug is not equally sharp (See lower right corner) but the colours are amazing (aka I can't take such good pics somehow).

Question for all. How close you have to be to take such a close pic? And it will be more useful for me if you could tell me in terms of a P200 and its 3x optical lens(38mm-114mm) (Now am I making u guys laugh? I am a beginner).

I have a macro lens but don't know If I can get very close to the bugs without them flying off.

So many macros shots I see have blown/clipped highlight dots all over them. I still appreciate the photos, because it's just so cool, but I love it when I don't see those dots. I don't want to make those dots, either. So, until I can afford one of those fancy macro lights what do you recommend?

Have you seen this LightSphereII gadget? I saw a macro shot the other day (wish I could find it again) that used this and I didn't see the dots. You think it would be a worthwhile tool?

I was even thinking it wouldn't be all that hard to make something like this. My dad built me a vacuum table for my papermaking, a long time ago. It's got quite a bit of suction going on, but how much would it take to mold plastic? lol... I'm laughing now, because the LightSphere isn't all that expensive, but it did get me thinking.

Nancy
P.S. I like ugly flies

--
nemo66...the best sniper in town!

R2D2 said:

Both are full frame? Any post processing to either?

I definitely like the top pic. Much less distortion toward the
edges. Better contrast (dynamic range) and color fidelity (in this
case gamut). It is a bit sharper also.

There's something funky going on along the edge of the rock in the
lower right (in the bottom pic). Corrected PF? (If there was post
processing done).

The bottom pic difinitely gives you higher magnification though,
but at what cost?

Thanks for the comparison Danny, I do a lot of macro too and was
wondering how the different setups and techniques work (with
different cameras/lenses).

But I'm dying to know, which is which??? You'll have to post an
answer by the end of the thread.
R2

Click to expand...

Exactly correct from another macroholic ). There was CA. Normally I process everything in Photoimpact, sharpening, levels, etc. Then finally run it through the noise filter in PI. That seems to see CA/PF and coloured lines as noise, how I have no idea but it does ). It tends to clean those areas up a fair bit. Clever really. I don't crop outside the camera, so all my shots are always full frame. I also clonned over some parts there as well, the Sony shot I'm not sure on.

The top shot is the Sony CD-1000 with the Canon 100mm (my favourite lens)

The bottom shot was trying a 60mm Nikkor on the FZ10. The problem there is the curvature of the elements. The smaller lenses have far more curvature in them and they do tend to distort more at the edges. Thats why 90% of the time, I use the 100mm. The FZ10 can get a much larger ratio for sure. The eye of a robber fly will fill the frame, even with the 100mm on front. Hang on I'll give you an example......



On the eye there, it gets noisy but its the only way to get that ratio in the camera. Our mate Mark, used to crop all the time with the G series and maybe thats something I should look at, rather than zooming right in. I also use the added lens aperture now and again for more DOF (yes it does work) and that can also add noise and distortions. So it becomes a catch 22 sometimes )

Anyway, all the best R2, I enjoy your shots as well )

Danny.

...........................

http://macrophotos.com
...........................
Worry about the image that comes out of the box, rather than the box itself.

--
...........................

http://macrophotos.com
...........................
Worry about the image that comes out of the box, rather than the box itself.

I just don't see how it could get better than this. Heh.... talk about your moire pattern, eh? How in the world did you get that fly to sit still long enough for you to get the shot?

About that 100mm lens-- do you have to reverse mount it or do you have some kind of stepping ring to connect it to your camera?



OT: you might want to check out the current CSLR Challenge-- they're doing patterns from nature. You'd blow 'em away in the Exhibition gallery.

Nancy

I generally use just a small tissue over the flash units Nancy. Some are external flash units...........and large ). The inbuilt flash units do a fairly good job though.

I've seen shots of the flash dome somewhere, awhile ago. Not sure where though, but they were selling them.

Vacuum forming huh ). I deal with a guy that does this. I also use a large vacuum bed for timber veneer work and made mine. So I know what you are thinking ). You should be able to do it with a small oven and white acrylic for sure. Well worth a shot IMHO.

All the best Nancy and thanks )

Danny.
--
...........................

http://macrophotos.com
...........................
Worry about the image that comes out of the box, rather than the box itself.

Ritesh_KS said:

Very Nice Pic... Both of them.

One thing I noticed though is that body of the bug is not equally
sharp (See lower right corner) but the colours are amazing (aka I
can't take such good pics somehow).

Question for all. How close you have to be to take such a close
pic? And it will be more useful for me if you could tell me in
terms of a P200 and its 3x optical lens(38mm-114mm) (Now am I
making u guys laugh? I am a beginner).

I have a macro lens but don't know If I can get very close to the
bugs without them flying off.

Click to expand...

No one is laughing at all or they better not. We all started somewhere. I'm not sure on the P200, but a closeup filter or better still, a Nikon 5T or a 6T will do most of what you will ever need. The Nikon's are corrected for CA and we don't get the purple fringing as much.

You will get more lens to subject distance by using an added closeup filter. Don't use the macro mode though. With an added lens, the entire zoom range can be used. Thats where the macro mode will lock you, into getting much closer than you need with added lenses. So switch that off )

All the best and good luck )

Danny.
--
...........................

http://macrophotos.com
...........................
Worry about the image that comes out of the box, rather than the box itself.

odigi said:

I just don't see how it could get better than this. Heh.... talk
about your moire pattern, eh? How in the world did you get that fly
to sit still long enough for you to get the shot?

About that 100mm lens-- do you have to reverse mount it or do you
have some kind of stepping ring to connect it to your camera?

Click to expand...

odigi said:

OT: you might want to check out the current CSLR Challenge--
they're doing patterns from nature. You'd blow 'em away in the
Exhibition gallery.

Nancy

Click to expand...

Hmm, might look at that one Nancy )

Its better if they are reversed Nancy. I use it both ways. I've made up a rear lens cap with the centre cut out and then the lens is mounted to that. On the other end I've fixed a filter ring to mount onto the camera lens.

The other question is easy ). You sneak up on them......very slowly ). If you give them something to eat, watermelon, apple etc, they don't really mind )

All the best Nancy.

Danny.

--
...........................

http://macrophotos.com
...........................
Worry about the image that comes out of the box, rather than the box itself.

No lie? Well, it seems you've got that technique down pat. I'll have to practice.

So I'd need a small oven too. I'm of a generation where we all had these long-handled hair brushes that we carried around in our back pockets. Then it became cool to make the handles curl by dunking them in boiling water for a bit, then rolling them on the floor. Vacuum-forming acrylic shouldn't be so difficult to work with, but maybe just using the tissue on my Sunpak 383 will work for the long haul.

Thanks Danny,

Nancy

nzmacro said:

odigi said:

OT: you might want to check out the current CSLR Challenge--
they're doing patterns from nature. You'd blow 'em away in the
Exhibition gallery.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

nzmacro said:

Hmm, might look at that one Nancy )

Click to expand...

You really should ;-)

nzmacro said:

Its better if they are reversed Nancy. I use it both ways. I've
made up a rear lens cap with the centre cut out and then the lens
is mounted to that. On the other end I've fixed a filter ring to
mount onto the camera lens.

Click to expand...

We've talked about this before (reversing lenses) and I should quit talking and just give it a go. The results are stunning.

nzmacro said:

The other question is easy ). You sneak up on them......very
slowly ). If you give them something to eat, watermelon, apple
etc, they don't really mind )

Click to expand...

You made me smile at this, but it's actually a really good tip. It's rarely mentioned and I never think of doing it.

Thanks again,

Nancy

Ritesh_KS said:

Question for all. How close you have to be to take such a close
pic? And it will be more useful for me if you could tell me in
terms of a P200 and its 3x optical lens(38mm-114mm) (Now am I
making u guys laugh? I am a beginner).

Click to expand...

I haven't read too much about macro with the P200 (although like all Sonys, I'm sure it's very capable). Perhaps start a new thread, and hopefully someone else has worked with it.

Try out your close up lens to see what your lens to subject distance will be (it should be at least several inches). Enough to let you sneak up on some unsuspecting multi-legged victims (or practice on some unsuspecting inanimate objects for a while till you get the hang of focusing and handling). Your depth of field is going to be very very shallow (even at the smallest apertures), so you'll have to be very selective about what you want in sharp focus (usually the eyes).

I'd recommend maximum zoom (if you have the close up lens attached), manual focus at the closest focus point (focus by moving the camera closer and further away from the subject), small apertures (the higher f numbers), high shutter speeds, and LOTS and LOTS of light!

Steady the camera with a tripod or anything else at hand. Give flash a try. Shoot lots and lots of pics. And like Danny says, the feeding bugs will usually be oblivious to you.

Have fun,
R2

ps. My former 1.3MP Sony P30 (which my folks now have) took astounding macros, so don't worry about your camera's lineage!

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.

http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

I use the 383 too. I made a couple of mini softboxes for it (which I use on-camera and off). Just some foamcore, appropriate diffuser material, packaging tape to keep it together, some velcro and assorted hardware.

http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/image/40852132

http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/image/40630559

They soften the light nicely, and increase the size of the light source (working to keep the harsh highlights under control). Although insects' chitinous exoskeletons (I've always wanted to use that term) usually have some extremely reflective surfaces (like cars). Kinda tricky in any light.
R2

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.

http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

Gads, I never made the connection. I remember the name from lurking somewhere else (the macro forum, likely), but had no idea. Cool ;-)

I've actually seen your softbox designs, but forgot all about that. I have the LumiQuest thing (ProMax), but have always thought that the softbox size would've been a better option for some things.

I like your design a lot. I bookmarked it this time in an actual lighting folder, so I'll be sure to check it out again when I get down'n dirty serious about macros.

Heh... don't blame you for wanting to use "insects' chitinous exoskeletons" in a sentence. You don't get an opportunity like that very often. They are very shiny. VERY shiny. That's why I always understood about the clipped dots and ooohed and ahhhed all over the place anyway. Dots are something that would be neat to be able to control. You guys have figured it out for sure. I imagine loads of practice helps too.

Thanks ;-)

Nancy

Maple Leaf said:

OK...no camera talk here...all I want to know is did you use a
particular closeup lens on one or both cameras? Or did you use the
internal closeup feature in both to get these amazing closeups?

I am keenly interested in knowing the answer. Thanks for sharing
this, Danny.
Bob

Click to expand...

Different time zones mate )

I use 35mm Slr lenses added to the front of the Sony CD-1000 and the Panasonic FZ10. The first shot is with a Canon 100mm slr lens on the Sony CD-1000. The second shot is a Nikon 60mm added to the front of the Panasonic.

To be honest with you Bob, a Nikon 6T or a Canon 250D is more than most people ever need for macro. I'm all in favour of the Nikon 6T myself because of the cost compared to the Canon 250D.

All the best Bob and thanks for being a cool head here on STF )

Danny.

--
...........................

http://macrophotos.com
...........................
Worry about the image that comes out of the box, rather than the box itself.

Thanks Danny,

I have a Macro lens (the cheap one I bought on ebay). Lets see how it works. I like the idea of being able to use the zoom (otherwise I don't know how close one can get to the birds). I did get close to this one (5 incles from it).



I can set the Exposure Value in my camera. Do you suggest using a higher Exposure Value ?

Regards,
Ritesh

Thanks R2D2,

Here is what I got with the Macro mode of P200 and did some sharpening in PS. Do you suggest using the higher/lower Exposure Value (I have a setting in my camera to do that)?