This one seems a bit dirty or muddy?...not as clean as I like?...but being able to pull these details, I know exactly how to get some knockout shots when I go back down there...
So that explains it.
I don't know if you can even catch them in the early morning, when they are still slow (supposedly), but generally longer lenses do help. Even if they are not macro. I just don't like those distracting backgrounds, really.
I don't think it is even a personal preference, but whatever.
Good for you
.From that distance / scaling they do look rather detailed, I must admit. I guess 16mpx helps well, and I take it the lens will focus much closer than that also. Have you tried it on butterflies or other insects? Maybe on some other thread.
It is truly impressive. The newer cameras are amazing, aren't they!? And if you are more patient than this, especially,
Full frame cameras are generally better for other things, not just closeups. But yes, some are rather expensive as well. Although less so here in EU (then in the States). Nikon 105 would be kind of short on FF, Sigma 150 is a better start.
That's the new Spot AF and Focus Peaking features on the E-P5 and soon to be E-M1...thanks!
Not bad for a $1500 setup....should get better I didn't have any light again...may get the ole ring flash out and try it a few times...that's what it looks like your fellow FF was using a ring or Macro Flash...
Not at all. I an genuinely impressed.
At ISO200 1/60 is quite a normal light in the grass. You could double the ISO just as well, and shoot at the same aperture. The f/4 is where it is the sharpest for you anyway.
If you are into macro photography, yes.
I don't think so. He is not a macro photographer, don't think he was even aiming at it. I think his post was about what 36mpx can do, rather than "look what I've got". (That's why they are expensive
). But like I said, closeup-macro photography is not the only area where full frame cameras do well. And there is hardly any punishment for shooting such images at ISO800-1600 either.not all dragonflies return to the same spot; this is mostly true for the smaller true dragonfly families (I'm not so familiar with the english names, so I will leave it at that) and less so for damselflies and the larger dragonflies.
There are disadvantages to FF as well; for subjects like (sitting) butterflies and dragonflies, many photographers use high end compacts instead of a DSLR. One has to balance light levels, DOF for subject detail and background blur, shutter speed, possibility of tripod/IS use, lenses that are available etc. Sometimes a quality compact simply gives nicer results, or almost the same quality results with much less effort.
It is a rather generic statement, but not entirely incorrect as I see it.
There is always balance for the same light once you have the camera on location; use the same shutter, bump the ISO, stop down the lens ... whatever you do with it. Larger systems are heavier, true, but they will also put more pixels into the frame, which can not be a bad thing either. And like I said, FF setups are not for closeups only.
Yes, of course, like with anything else. Sometimes an f/5.6 lens can be as good as the f/2.8 lens, and anything in between.
It depends on how this compromise works for you. Pretty much all that matters. For some it is a compromise, for the others it is not.
I used D200/D300 for dragonflies in the past (when they flew around), did not even need a macro lens for it.
When I get some better light, we'll really see what the E-P5 and 60mm can do...NO way I could have done this without Focus Peaking and Spot AF (first year for either with Oly Cam's)
Yes, I shot it a year or so ago, but it's so cumbersome I laid it to rest...
Oh yeah, easy to see on the subjects and his other shots, or extremely bright sunlight...I don't think so. He is not a macro photographer, don't think he was even aiming at it. I think his post was about what 36mpx can do, rather than "look what I've got". (That's why they are expensive
G3 100-300 Canon 500D Close Up Ring Flash...on second thought I'll pass...
Just assisting other folks with the general habits of dragonflies and damsel flies...may not be an expert but I have shot a few of them, like thousands... ;-)
So you say more light on the sensor is always better?
No disagreement about all that. What is important is to know your equipment and what you want to achieve. There are always personal factors involved e.g. budget, how much equipment you want to carry, how much time you have to get the shot / wait for perfect conditions etc.
Yes, you can use almost anything for that too, I have seen a few lucky shots taken with compacts or superzooms. But for high quality images of flying dragonflies (not just 'hovering' like some can do) an FF DSLR with bright tele prime is often the best choice.
Correct, I was giving them a starting point by sitting and watching habits of the Dragonflies...most folks give up before they start, a friend of mine gave me the pointer and I used it to advantage...
I am wondering if I am experiencing viewfinder lag with my GX1 (Panny 100-300mm with (10+16mm) tubes shooting in Shutter priority.
