Reading mode: Light Dark

FZ1000 with Raynox 250 for photos of the eye?

Go to last post
Vegetable Police said:
Thanks so much for giving it another try Paolo! Much better result. I'm surprised there is not much more detail than what I got with the Canon sx700. I just used auto focus as well. I'll have to try an fz1000 in the store myself with manual focus and see if I can get a decent shot before I actually buy one.
Thanks for posting that though! Anytime you are bored and feel like doing that, I'd always be interested in seeing the result. There are very expensive cameras just for taking pictures of the eye, but I would much rather buy a camera that can do other things as well. We'll see, I might have to wait for something new to be released ;)

--
Eat your fruits and vegetables!
Click to expand...
I think you can get pretty good results from the FZ1000 for this sort of situation , this is just a quick snap ,



eye
eye
 
That looks great actually! Thanks for sharing! Was that just using the camera's regular flash? Plenty of detail in there. Seems maybe the Raynox 250 is unnecessary.
 
Vegetable Police said:
That looks great actually! Thanks for sharing! Was that just using the camera's regular flash? Plenty of detail in there. Seems maybe the Raynox 250 is unnecessary.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the info. Ya that was a pretty impressive result. Everything I was seeing up to that point was kind of discouraging me from getting the fz1000, but you may have just saved the day ;)
 
Just wondering - does the size of the pupil matter for your needs? For example, bright lighting or use of flash will contract the pupils while natural light may leave the somewhat dilated.
 
Vegetable Police said:
Thanks for the info. Ya that was a pretty impressive result. Everything I was seeing up to that point was kind of discouraging me from getting the fz1000, but you may have just saved the day ;)
Click to expand...
 
I'm looking for detail mainly in the coloured part of the iris. So when the pupil contracts in bright lights, it actually reveals more information so that's a good thing.
 
Yea the real eye might attract some questions lol. I actually tried an fz1000 at the store a week ago, but I was in a rush so I just took one shot, no flash, just autofocus and it didn't come out very well. I don't remember what "mode" it was in either. I really need to spend a few minutes and do it right, because I thought the shot showed potential if there would have been proper lighting.

I think you're right with the ring light being a good idea. The reflection would probably show up inside the pupil and leave the entire coloured part of the iris free from any flash reflections.
 
Here are a couple using the FZ200 with Canon 250D - both at f/8 to maximize DOF, for comparison:

600mm EFL + Canon 250
600mm EFL + Canon 250

452mm EFL + Canon 250D
452mm EFL + Canon 250D

Achieving focus while shooting solo isn't easy! This one's a little off as it was shot without flash and uses an LED flashlight instead:

400mm EFL + Canon 250D
400mm EFL + Canon 250D

It's at 400mm EFL, so should give you an idea how it might frame using the FZ1000 + Raynox 250. This is 4:3 aspect ratio - I think the FZ1000 native sensor is aspect ratio is 3:2.

--
Bruce
You learn something new every time you press the shutter
 
Last edited:
I think raynox is waste of money in this case, the first Jims eye shot on this page (great try BTW) was made at wide end where FZ1000 doesnt have the biggest magnification and its still more than usable. Jim better and easier is shooting at 45mm or around 65-70mm (all FF), at 45mm the best magnification at all and still great (and better than on 25mm) magnif. at around 65mm... just try it you will be surprised compared wide end at macro...

edit: macro incamera option influences minimal focusable length (magnification) for all focal lengths upto around 100-120mm (FF), after that its useless...
 
Last edited:
Nice shots! Plenty of detail in there. That's basically all I need. I'm so jealous! lol. The only camera I have is a little Sony wx350 and it can't do the eye pictures at all, it's really sad. I need to get something new to track my health progress.

Thanks for showing me the FZ200! I wonder how much better the FZ1000 would be?
 
Vegetable Police said:
Nice shots! Plenty of detail in there. That's basically all I need. I'm so jealous! lol. The only camera I have is a little Sony wx350 and it can't do the eye pictures at all, it's really sad. I need to get something new to track my health progress.
Click to expand...
I should have added that with the 250D mounted, my focal distance was probably less than 12 inches.
Vegetable Police said:
Thanks for showing me the FZ200! I wonder how much better the FZ1000 would be?
Click to expand...
The FZ1000 has a 4X larger sensor plus higher megapixel count than the FZ200, but that larger sensor means that its DOF will be shallower than the FZ200 - which could impact your needs.

However, the bare lens FZ1000 photo Jim posted earlier looks pretty good as well. If you're set on the FZ1000 [if anything], I'd suggest getting it and seeing how well it meets your needs unaided. You can always add a close-up lens later if necessary - perhaps just the 500 rather than the 250. The FZ200 can be had for half the price as well, and its longer lens may also meet your needs unaided or could be augmented later.
 
One from me, not the best but a quickie... ;) with proper light, better apperture setting (around f4-5,6) and tripod you will be satisfied even without any macro lens. You will get good macro LED flash in the price of raynox...IMHO

RAW conversion at 45mm (FF)
RAW conversion at 45mm (FF)
 
Last edited:
Thanks for sharing! The fz1000 is producing some great results so far. I'm gonna wait for a sale and hopefully pick one up soon! Thanks for showing me that I probably don't need the Raynox 250.

I'll have to learn the best settings on the camera for this kind of shot, and figure out ways to reduce the reflections off the eye. Great shot though, plenty of detail!
 
The best settings for the best macro: RAW, burst shot, manual focus, 45mm (FF), f5.6 and good light ofcourse...

Raynox 250 is IMHO useless, ultrathin DoF at 400mm is not usefull in such an application. Even raynox 150 with "only" +4,8D has very very small DoF and its difficult to focus even at f7.1 (Ive seen coin shot at f7.1 and wasnt sharp on hole surface). One solution is to zoom out from 400mm and sacrifice some of magnification. Is it worth of money? I dont think so...FZ1000 is still great in macro mode at 45mm and 65-70mm...
 
Last edited:
Thanks, I'll write that down. Any other settings anyone can suggest for best macro would be great!
 
Has anybody got a photo of what a cataract looks like?
 
Last edited:
lol, you're welcome. You have "experienced" eyes that have seen many a thing ;) And still blue, that is great. A lot of people with blue eyes, start developing brown and green from toxicity. Yours are still deep blue, so that's great news my friend ;)

There are only two colours of eyes, brown and blue. Some people get so toxic, their original blue eyes actually turn green then brown but they are not true brown. That's why I'm so interested in getting a high quality camera that can see these details and colours accurately. I'm actually trying to figure out if the green in my eye is an illusion from my camera or if the LED lights are playing tricks on me. If that is true green in my eyes, I should really have blue eyes and would then have a lot of fruits and veggies to eat to get them back! ;)
 
Vegetable Police said:
lol, you're welcome. You have "experienced" eyes that have seen many a thing ;) And still blue, that is great. A lot of people with blue eyes, start developing brown and green from toxicity. Yours are still deep blue, so that's great news my friend ;)
Click to expand...
Well i have never smoked , I am one of the few teetotal men in Scotland { we have our annual party in a phone box :-) }, but what really keeps me happy is getting out in the fresh air as much as possible. I have a gammy knee I injured when young playing rugby and I have had a few surgeries on it over the years the recuperation time is like being in prison { not that I have been to prison , well not yet anyway :-) }
Vegetable Police said:
There are only two colours of eyes, brown and blue. Some people get so toxic, their original blue eyes actually turn green then brown but they are not true brown. That's why I'm so interested in getting a high quality camera that can see these details and colours accurately. I'm actually trying to figure out if the green in my eye is an illusion from my camera or if the LED lights are playing tricks on me. If that is true green in my eyes, I should really have blue eyes and would then have a lot of fruits and veggies to eat to get them back! ;)
Click to expand...
I have read the two eye colors thing before , though I am not sure I accept it :-) I think I also read that they think all blue eyed people have a common ancestor.
Vegetable Police said:
Eat your fruits and vegetables!
Click to expand...
I do , I do , honest Mum :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top