What set up is best for Macros.

JimH · Aug 18, 2007

Jan Bohme said:
JimH said:

So anyhow, one thing you'll notice immediately when coming to DSLRs
are the much shallower DOF. Of course, you can try to combat this by
using an even smaller aperture - but if you go to a tiny aperture,
then you end up with softness in the shots due to diffraction
effects. So for these 1.6X bodies, you're really limited to about
f/13 or so before diffraction begins to be a problem. Not that you
can't shoot at f/16, but the sharpest parts of the image will not be
so sharp anymore - even though the DOF will be deeper.

Click to expand...

Jim, kalimistuk has been shooting his/her Panny at f11. Means that
he/she can go at down to f32 before diffraction becomes any worse
than what he/she's used to.

That's right. But if he really wants to get the sharpest images, he should probably be staying below f/14 on the 1.6X bodies and at or below about f/4 on the panny.

Jan Bohme said:
Jan Bohme said:

You've already been getting great close macros by using your FZ50 and
the Raynox accessory lenses. To do similar work with the DSLR, you'll
need a good "standard" macro lens and you may also need to do some
additional things to get higher magnifications. Reverse-mounting
lenses with adapter rings, using extension tubes, close-up filters,
and such are all used to get higher magnifications. But the Canon
MP-E 65mm lens is a really handy way to get magnifications between 1X
and 5X.

Click to expand...

However, if you want to use that one with bugs, they have to be very
still. So still, in fact, that most people I know who use this on
bugs shoot bugs that have been killed previously, with ether or
somesuch - only they're not always all that up front with it.

I find that it's more a matter of finding bugs that are busy doing something. Bees or wasps on flowers or on their nests seem to totally ignore me even when I'm right up close. Ants just couldn't care less, really. You have to touch them with something to get them to alter their routine

I think butterfiles might be about the hardest to approach. Flies will stay put if they're eating.

Solfugids are rocket fast and constantly run. But if they've caught something and are eating it, then they are all but oblivious to anything else around them. I just look for opportunities where the bugs are busy or content.

Spiders don't seem to move from their positions in webs unless you touch the web.

I also recently figured out a sneaky technique that works on many bugs. If you blow on them, they'll hold on for dear life against the "wind". And then they'll stay still for little while so you can shoot them

That's how I got this guy to hold still for this shot which was taken at 2.5X with the MP-E:

Jan Bohme said:
Jan Bohme said:

The ring lite and twin light flashes are very nice and make things
convenient too. Of the two, I'd recommend the twin-lite (MT-24 EX)
for it's extra flexibility and versatility.

Click to expand...

I'd do the same if cost isn't an issue. As it usually is, I'd also
recommend Sigma's ring flash EM-140 DG. It can do all that Canon's
ring flash can, and then some, for about 60% of the price - or just
over a third of the cost of the MT-24. If you can stand the,
admittedly, horribly plasticky build, it's a great value for money.

I like that idea. And I really have had good luck with an external flash on an off-camera-shoe-cord. It's so easy to build home-made diffusers and reflectors for macro (because everything can be very small) that playing with various flash techniques ends up being a big part of the fun for macro shooting.

--
Jim H.

kalimistuk · Aug 18, 2007

Thanks very much, Those pics are Exellent.

IV been getting this with the raynox set up. its that people keep saying i will get much better results with a DSLR so I was just asking about them. Thanks for all this help, I really appreciate it.

this was with both Raynox 150 and 250 attached.

JimH said:
The MP-E65 has working distances as follows:

1X - 4.0 Inches
2X - 2.5 "
3X - 2.0 "
4X - 1.7 "
5x - 1.6 "

Yet it's a favorite lens for insect macro shooting.

The key is to catch the bugs when they're preoccupied with other
things. Here are a few taken with the MP-E:
Jim H.

--
thx mark. (kalimistuk)

my pics at,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalimistuk/
my Highspeed pics at,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalimistuk/sets/72157594566402216/
my Macro pics at,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalimistuk/sets/72157594487257853/

Jan Bohme · Aug 18, 2007

JimH said:
Getting close to bugs is sometimes a problem and other times not. It
depends on the bug and what they're doing at the time.

I suppose. However, in my neck of the woods (middle Sweden) most bugs - at least most that I'm intersted in shooting - take a fright and flee when a huge ugly camera lens comes within eight inches from them, even if they are busy feeding or copulating...

JimH said:
People tend to make too much out of "working distance" in my opinion.
And using a longer focal length macro lens makes things very
difficult to hand hold. It's a tradeoff just like everything else.

Well, yes. But at least when I'm shooting macro, I'm down there flat on the ground most of the time, so usually I can rest myr elbows on the ground, sometimes even the left hand cradling the lens. And if I can't, the knee is quite an efficient monopod that's always there. So it's at least a little better than standard handholding conditions.

JimH said:
If the bugs are very skittish, then you'll need to work with a long
focal length but this means that hand-holding may be impossible which
in turn means you'll need to use a tripod which for me often means
you'll miss a lot of opportunities.

I agree wholeheartely that a tripod is pretty near useless for shooting bugs.

JimH said:
And for situations where the bugs are really skittish, I prefer a
telephoto lens with image stabilization with a close-up lens on the
end of it.

This works for you? Interesting. Received wisdom, that I've not really bothered to challenge, seems to be that then you get so thin DOF by thís that IS is almost useless, because it can't stop the shake that's really important here, the forward/backward shake which will take you out of the DOF. Maybe I should test this out. What telephoto lens would you be using for this?

I sometimes use my 100-400mm L zoom with a Kenko Pro 1.4x teleconverter for butterflies, but I've never tried to stick a close-up lens in front of it. I don't know of any with a 77mm thread gauge, for starters. I suppose that I could use extenders though...

JimH said:
Yet [the MP-E65 is] a favorite lens for insect macro shooting.

I suppose it's the sine qua non for ticks...

JimH said:
The key is to catch the bugs when they're preoccupied with other
things. Here are a few taken with the MP-E:

OK, it seems to work fair enough for you. Remains to be seen whether it depends entirely on that you're better at macro than me, or if your bugs also are dumber than mine...

kalimistuk · Aug 18, 2007

this is what iv been getting with the raynox 250 and the last two was with both the Raynox 150 and 250 attached, all are still alive. Thank you so much for all this info and help, I do realy apreciate it, I will look into the ring flashes 1st, and see how I get on.

this was with both Raynox 150 and 250 attached.

JimH said:
JimH said:

However, if you want to use that one with bugs, they have to be very
still. So still, in fact, that most people I know who use this on
bugs shoot bugs that have been killed previously, with ether or
somesuch - only they're not always all that up front with it.

Click to expand...

I find that it's more a matter of finding bugs that are busy doing
something. Bees or wasps on flowers or on their nests seem to
totally ignore me even when I'm right up close. Ants just couldn't
care less, really. You have to touch them with something to get them
to alter their routine

I think butterfiles might be about the hardest to approach. Flies
will stay put if they're eating.

Solfugids are rocket fast and constantly run. But if they've caught
something and are eating it, then they are all but oblivious to
anything else around them. I just look for opportunities where the
bugs are busy or content.

Spiders don't seem to move from their positions in webs unless you
touch the web.

I also recently figured out a sneaky technique that works on many
bugs. If you blow on them, they'll hold on for dear life against the
"wind". And then they'll stay still for little while so you can
shoot them

That's how I got this guy to hold still for this shot which was taken
at 2.5X with the MP-E:

LOL, but a cool idea. I will try that. love the detail and color.

JimH said:

JimH said:
Jim H.

--
thx mark. (kalimistuk)

my pics at,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalimistuk/
my Highspeed pics at,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalimistuk/sets/72157594566402216/
my Macro pics at,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalimistuk/sets/72157594487257853/

kalimistuk · Aug 18, 2007

Jan Bohme said:
JimH said:

Getting close to bugs is sometimes a problem and other times not. It
depends on the bug and what they're doing at the time.

Click to expand...

True

Jan Bohme said:
I suppose. However, in my neck of the woods (middle Sweden) most bugs

at least most that I'm intersted in shooting - take a fright and

flee when a huge ugly camera lens comes within eight inches from
them, even if they are busy feeding or copulating...

I have managed to get within 1 inch of a fly and bee, but it was late in the day and they seemed restless, they wasnt botherd that i was there at all.

Jan Bohme said:
This works for you? Interesting. Received wisdom, that I've not
really bothered to challenge, seems to be that then you get so thin
DOF by thís that IS is almost useless, because it can't stop the
shake that's really important here, the forward/backward shake which
will take you out of the DOF. Maybe I should test this out. What
telephoto lens would you be using for this?

This is how i take the pics, I slowly rock the camera back and forth till all looks sharp then press that shutter.

Jan Bohme said:
OK, it seems to work fair enough for you. Remains to be seen whether
it depends entirely on that you're better at macro than me, or if
your bugs also are dumber than mine...

LOL, proberbly that we have dumb bugs hehe.

--
thx mark. (kalimistuk)

my pics at,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalimistuk/
my Highspeed pics at,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalimistuk/sets/72157594566402216/
my Macro pics at,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalimistuk/sets/72157594487257853/

BungHole · Aug 18, 2007

I had the FZ20 and underestimated its versitility and strengths. I dropped mine and lens broke, so I went on to DSLR land with a 20D. Everything you read about low light, etc is true, but of course at a cost. The 20D is excellent for skin tones, and noise. With good glass it will produce better photographs than the FZ series of course. The thing is you will need 2 to 5 lenses or more. For each specific type of shooting, I am sure you know this, but when I looked at prices for macro lenses and then looked at the results, I decided I would rather just get some extension tubes for emergency use on the Canon, and then get a FZ50 with Raynox for normal macro use. The only macro that interested me was the MP65 or using a reversing ring, and after checking prices I figured why not get the FZ50 and have a nice second camera for macro that can do everything else. The wife can use it as her vacation camera also.

Now if you are really into macro and thats your thing, then I would say get the 30D or 400D and MP65 with proper flash ring and also check out reversing the lens, there is a guy in the 400D rebel forum that does unbelievable work with reversing ring (from Norway I think), as for me I like macro alot but no more or less than other types of shooting so it seems a bit expensive to buy the specialized lens. The extension tubes are ok, I will still check out the reversing rings, but I dont think any of these options will be as convenient as the FZ cams are. Well good luck with it, I enjoyed your macro work, very good pics.
--
http://www.kloid.com/nick/news.php

Jan Bohme · Aug 18, 2007

JimH said:
I find that it's more a matter of finding bugs that are busy doing
something. Bees or wasps on flowers or on their nests seem to
totally ignore me even when I'm right up close. Ants just couldn't
care less, really. You have to touch them with something to get them
to alter their routine

You'r quite right that ant's won't be bothered with a camera. OTOH they move about almost incessantly, anyway...

JimH said:
I think butterfiles might be about the hardest to approach.

As I wrote in another post, I usually shoot larger (for up here, anyway) butterfiles like the Red Admiral with the 100-400 L zoom with an 1.4x teleconverter stuck on it. (Taped, so it still autofocuses.) The, I can get an image of decent size from some six feet which usually doesn't bother them.

JimH said:
Flies
will stay put if they're eating.

JimH said:
Spiders don't seem to move from their positions in webs unless you
touch the web.

No, that's right. Web spiders are a safe proposition also up here. For them, the challenge is rather to find one that poses photogenically. They have rather different main priorities with how they place themselves on their net...

JimH said:
I also recently figured out a sneaky technique that works on many
bugs. If you blow on them, they'll hold on for dear life against the
"wind". And then they'll stay still for little while so you can
shoot them

Great trick! Now that you say it, I vaguely remember that I've read about this somewhere a long time ago, and promptly forgotten all about it. I'll have to test it. Won't work if they're perched on a grass straw though...

JimH said:
I like that idea. And I really have had good luck with an external
flash on an off-camera-shoe-cord. It's so easy to build home-made
diffusers and reflectors for macro (because everything can be very
small) that playing with various flash techniques ends up being a big
part of the fun for macro shooting.

Right. Only a ring flash limits the drama of the lighting a bit - although one can always have the left side like ight times as strong as the right one, to get some kind of directionality.

kalimistuk · Aug 18, 2007

very kind and helpfull comments and sugestions, Thanks to All of you for your help. much appreciated.
--
thx mark. (kalimistuk)

my pics at,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalimistuk/
my Highspeed pics at,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalimistuk/sets/72157594566402216/
my Macro pics at,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalimistuk/sets/72157594487257853/

Search

What set up is best for Macros.

JimH

Forum Pro

kalimistuk

Veteran Member

Jan Bohme

Forum Enthusiast

kalimistuk

Veteran Member

kalimistuk

Veteran Member

BungHole

Leading Member

Jan Bohme

Forum Enthusiast

kalimistuk

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts